The new changes haven't been tested at all from what I've read. They're dropping vocabulary tests, for example, which are astonishingly predictive. From the media coverage it doesn't look like the College Board are as interested in scholastic aptitude as plaudits for Doing the Right Thing™.
Larry took over as CEO. This isn't intended as a judgment of his management, but when the company goes from being run by the triumvirate of Larry/Sergey/Eric to just Larry, the culture will necessarily change, and I think you've seen echoes of that both in their external actions and in things ex-Googlers say.
As for the wage suppression agreement - I'm not exactly happy with that, but when I read the Apple/Google e-mails uncovered by discovery, I see a stunning example of realpolitik. Make nice with the 800-lb gorilla until you're ready to compete with him, which Google did with Android. While I'm not exactly thrilled that this came at my expense, I think a world where mobile developers have a viable alternative to going through Apple's App Store is significantly less evil than one in which Apple is the sole determinant of who can launch.
The "core values" are for the drones, specifically to keep them in line and not cause any issues. The board members can keep doing what the $%%$ they want as the only values they have are economic, the generation of profit for the company.
Just remember that corporationa are not "ethical" so having "core values" is an oxymoron. The only thing a corporation exists for is profit, so "core values" is the clown face painted on a psychopath. A corporation will lie, rape and destroy to make a profit.
Human beings have values. Human beings can be ethical. But most corporate leaders leave their humanity at the door when running a corporation. It is just business.
"Core values" are a delusion for the masses, a stupid form of mind control to keep the losers in thrall .
Many more people realize that than you realize, but I think you're misunderstanding the Gervais Principle link. "Losers" in the Gervais model are completely aware that their company is getting a much better economic deal than they are. They just don't think that's a big deal, because, after all, human beings have values but corporations are basically amoral. So a corporation is just a tool for a Gervais Loser to feed, clothe, and shelter himself; he directs his emotional energy toward his personal relationships.
Core values are useful for attracting and keeping the Clueless in the Gervais model. But in doing so, they make the company more than just a purely amoral economic engine. In order to sustain the delusions of the Clueless, the Sociopaths at the top need to pay at least lip service to preserving their illusions, else they leave in a huff and start acting like a wrecking ball, as a certain other prominent HN poster who likes to throw around Gervais Principle links has done. That lip service is pretty much the entire social purpose of the corporation.
One often-unstated corollary of the Gervais Principle is that the whole idea of "money" and "profit" is a social construction developed by Clueless and Losers to rein in the will-to-power Sociopaths. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte went on killing sprees to satisfy their need for power. Steve Jobs and Richard Branson go on building sprees. That's entirely because the Clueless and Losers have created a society where the only way to the top is to take a bunch of people with you.
The UK prime minister doea not have this level of bullshit surrounding him. Nor does the French president or the German chancellor. I'm pretty sure the Japanese and Canadian prime ministers don't. The Russians do.
I submit a further argument for the superiority of parliamentary over presidential systems. Less worship of politicians.
I hate to burst you bubble, and I am glad that you believe that Rutgers is a part of the Ivy League, but I assure you it isn't. Rutgers admits nearly 61% of applicants in, and based on a cursory google search, UMich accepts about 37% and UC Berkeley accepts 18%.
Rutgers is The State University of NJ. It is a very old institution (8th oldest), and that may be where the confusion comes from, since all the other Ivy's came from that time period.
The wealth produced by capitalism that allows rising standards of living is a historical aberration. For nearly all of human history Malthusianism was correct and most people lived on the brink of starvation.
Feudalism was no different from any other pre-industrial social structure, a parasitic rentier class taxed the peasantry to support their lifestyles. This was true from the god kings of Sumer, Mycenae and Mexico, the cultured, civilized, literate empires of China and Rome and the warlord kingdoms of Europe and India.
Most of human history was a boot stomping on a human face and if we're not very lucky this Dteamtime will end too.
SRS is one of those things that make thinking about education depressing because it makes it obvious that merely being a massive improvement over the status quo isn't enough to get widespread adoption.
It is absolutely wonderful. I recommend downloading a shared deck and using it to get into the habit, then building your own. There are better and worse ways of using it but it's been a real help to me in learning Chinese.
there many many professional and hobbyist clubs where you can meet like mind individuals that won't require you to spend the 10+ years in debt
How many of them have entrance standards as stringent as the Ivy League? The hardest part isn't what you do while you're there, it's getting in. And how else are parents going to pay for their children to spend so much time around the best class of plausible mates they can find for their children?
serious question - what is the value of stringent entrance requirements so far has it applies to your personal network?
is it so that you don't have to spend resources maintaining a network with those that don't meet them?
for what its worth, any professional and hobbyist club with close proximity to a prestigous school will probably put you in contact with a number of people in that school
you don't have to go to Harvard, MIT, Stanford wherever, to meet/ socialize with students from that school
you probably have to be doing something of interest, to make yourself an attractive socialization member from the other side of that equation, but that probably true (though obviously to a lesser extent) even if your a student of one of those schools
So there was a four year unnecessary mistake degree/degree as consumption not investment, right? One can get an Ll.B. in three years in the UK. Does mandatory postgrad actually mean mandatory or is it just a way of throwing out all other applicants?
Yes, but I'm not in England, and first degrees are 4 years here (for an Hons).
Getting a first degree and then an LLB is the more traditional route to qualifying as a solicitor and indeed the government department where she trained had it as a requirement - they only looked at trainees that had two first degrees.
Mind you, in reality the first degree was a mistake at the time but when she did learn how the legal system actually works (not written down anywhere, of course) having two degrees was regarded as a very good thing and more "respectable" than doing it as a first degree (can't think of a better term). It used to be pretty common - and was frankly a class thing.
Are you in Scotland? Solicitors haven't been unambiguously upper class until fairly recently, being a barrister has always been respectable but as far as the upper reaches of society were concerned a solicitor was a kind of clerk.
The two first degrees requirement is nauseatingly classist, almost as disgusting a waste of life as the US system of legal or medical education.
USAID is an arm of the US intelligence community. Every US embassy has a CIA Chief of Station. That most USAID employees and cobtractors are sincere and not officially or knowingly spies does not mean that they can really be trusted. They're agents of a foreign power and they're in your country to further its hegemony.
Remember how they found bin Laden? If they'll use a vaccination programme as a front to spy they're not going to take the "independence" or "mission" of USAID seriously.