BigDeal - #37 Higher Education Is Broken... This is How We Fix It | Ryan Streeter

Episode Date: November 19, 2024

🚀 Main Street Over Wall Street is where the real deals get done. Join top investors, founders, and operators for three days of powerful connection, sharp strategy, and big opportunities — live in Austin, Nov 2–4. https://contrarianthinking.biz/msows-bigdeal Record your first video with Riverside - https://creators.riverside.fm/Codie - and use code CODIE for 15% off an individual plan. In this weeks episode Codie interviews Ryan Streeter, director of the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas. They discuss the role of think tanks in shaping policy, the importance of war games in decision-making, and the current state of higher education. Streeter shares insights on the creation of the Civitas Institute, aimed at reclaiming the principles of a free society within academia, and the growing interest in multidisciplinary education that counters the political monoculture prevalent in many universities today. The conversation delves into the pressing issues surrounding student loan debt, the need for reform in university funding, and the commercialization of university research. It discusses the value of a university education, the role of MBAs, and the importance of building ethical organizations. The dialogue also emphasizes the need for students and parents to navigate college choices carefully in today's complex educational landscape. In this conversation, the speaker discusses various themes surrounding voter motivations, economic concerns, the reliability of polls, education policy, and the prevailing optimism among working-class Americans. The dialogue highlights the disconnect between elite narratives and the sentiments of ordinary citizens, particularly regarding public safety, economic issues, and the impact of media narratives on perceptions of the American dream. The speaker also emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating survey data and understanding the broader context of political discussions. Here are the studies Ryan and Codie mentioned: https://thedispatch.com/article/why-progressives-are-making-a-mess/ https://thedispatch.com/article/how-affluent-conservatives-fuel-the/ https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/ Want help scaling your business to $1M in monthly revenue? ⁠Click here⁠ to connect with my consulting team. Chapters Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Ryan Streeter and His Background 03:12 Understanding Think Tanks and Their Influence 06:11 The Role of War Games in Policy Making 08:52 Navigating Political Chaos and Administration Dynamics 12:09 The Creation of the Civitas Institute 14:57 Reforming Higher Education: The School of Civic Leadership 17:47 The Shift in University Applications and Student Interests 21:12 Addressing Political Monoculture in Academia 24:02 The Future of Higher Education and Institutional Accountability 33:59 The Crisis of Student Loan Debt 36:50 Reforming University Funding Models 41:35 Commercialization of University Research 44:55 The Value of a University Education 48:10 The Role of MBAs in Career Advancement 51:55 Building Ethical and Trustworthy Organizations 56:12 Navigating College Choices in Today's Landscape 01:08:03 Voter Motivations and Key Issues 01:11:47 The Impact of Economic Concerns 01:13:43 Understanding Polls and Surveys 01:18:01 Education Policy and Federal Oversight 01:22:23 Optimism Amidst Challenges 01:27:28 Navigating Information Overload MORE FROM BIGDEAL: 🎥 ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ 📸 ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ 📽️ ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ MORE FROM CODIE SANCHEZ: 🎥 ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ 📸 ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ 📽️ ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ OTHER THINGS WE DO: 🫂 ⁠⁠Our community⁠⁠ 📰 ⁠⁠Free newsletter⁠⁠ 🏦 ⁠⁠Biz buying course⁠⁠ 🏠 ⁠⁠Resibrands⁠⁠ 💰 ⁠⁠CT Capital⁠⁠ 🏙️ ⁠⁠Main St Hold Co⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, it's Cody Sanchez, and this is the Big Deal podcast. For those who don't just want to be rich, but free and do what it actually takes to get there. Okay, today we're talking to someone who is truly taking on the traditional education institution, trying to bring back some sanity to it, my friend and someone I look up to highly Ryan Streeter. He's going to be fascinating for you guys. Let me tell you why. He's the director of the Civitas Institute at UT, University of Texas, where they are bringing free-thinking markets, civil service, back to art college campuses, even talking about the Constitution. But not only does he have some of the best hair at Mann can have, you guys can see for yourself on YouTube,

he was in the inner circle of power in Washington, D.C. He worked for a president. He worked for a governor. He worked for a mayor. He was actually talking about a time at which he was in the White House during one of the hurricanes what happened. He was also a Wilson-Skologist. and director of domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the most preeminent biggest think tanks in the world.

And he is a multi-time author. You also might have seen him in some of the fanciest spots of journalism from the Wall Street Post, from the Washington Post to the Wall Street Journal, etc. But the part I'm most excited about today for you guys is we are in the middle of craziness when it comes to politics today. And we have an insider who's actually seen both sides. created a study institute, understands polling and politicians better than almost anyone I know, and it's going to give us the inside scoop into what the fuck is going on in the world,

what is going on on our educational campuses, how do we actually take back our universities and institutions today? And I think you're going to like what he has to say. Let's get into it with Ryan. What is a think tank and what influence do they even have on Washington? and what was your purview of seeing in through that lens to the center of power? Yeah, and that's generally been my lens into that world as I've always been more of a policy person first and a political person second. I mean, when you work in a think tank, especially in Washington, D.C., you have to deal with politics because the people whose attention you're trying to get are politicians or their staff. You know, really it's political leaders and the media are kind of your two main audiences. And so a think tank is like a catch-all term for a certain type of organization, but they really exist along a continuum.

And they're usually a combination of research, a general set of principles that the people who work there tend to agree on. And then a goal of taking that research and their commentary and the writing or their podcasts and to influence the public debate. So to change the way the policymakers are thinking about tax policy, education policy, what to think about Israel right now. How do we resource the effort in Ukraine or not and all those things? And some think tanks are a little bit more political in the sense that they're really trying to influence how politicians in this particular cycle think. Some of them have sort of house views where all the scholars kind of have to sing off the same song sheet in their work. And then some of them, like the American Enterprise Institute, where I was, you know, the scholars, it's a little bit more like a university where the scholars are, they have independence. You know, they don't get told what to write or what to say.

But they work at AEI for a reason. They believe in the principles of a free society. They're wary of regulatory intrusion into the commercial market space. So people would say, well, they're free market people. But they are. But they're across a continuum as well in terms of, you know, some will favor a particular type of regulation while others oppose it. And sometimes, you know, AEI scholars have disagreed in public.

And I've always liked that about the place. But you see think tanks to the right, to the right, to the. the left, who are a little bit more politically driven in terms of their mission. But they all kind of get called think tanks because they generally bring people that have some kind of academic training or some kind of expertise within policy. And their goal is to influence the way that policymakers and the media think about those things. Well, I don't think I realize before I started and getting involved with any of the stuff, that there's that joke in Washington, D.C., that all the policy is written by 20-year-old staffers. Yeah, right. And far from the truth.

You're funny. What's interesting, I think, is, you know, as a person outside of the spectrum, you forget that half of the policies are like these 17,000-page, you know, overwhelming pieces of paper to people who may only be in office for, like, one or two terms, really don't understand the political apparatus, don't know how to make real change. And so they might come to a place like AI or reference your research to say, like, please pull me 15, you know, different ideas on how to make a city more profitable and better to live in. But they're not pulling it from like the Wall Street Journal often.

They're pulling it from academic papers just like a scientist or a doctor might do the same thing before they prescribe something for a patient, right? Is that kind of how that way? Yeah, I mean, there comes a point where if you are just, for example, writing the text for the 2017 tax reform bill, there were some crazy ideas in that original version. And you're not going to actually figure out what to think, reading really smart writers at the Wall Street Journal or whatever because their job is to cover it rather than to do the analysis. And so at times like that, Hill staffers, some of whom are in their 20s and then the more senior ones, hopefully are older than that and have some expertise. Now, you have some longstanding members of committees on the Hill who really are policy experts and everybody kind of looks to them. But then they'll look to a think tank like AEI or some of the others and ask the scholars who have expertise, say, in these aspects of tax policy to come in and brief them on what their own analysis. their own modeling, their own regressions,

like what they see if we include this one particular provision. And so, you know, all think tanks in Washington have a lot of public events, you know, that you can live stream them, you can come and hear scholars talk. But I always felt like the most important work that we did was the stuff that wasn't on camera. It was the stuff that was behind those closed doors

and meetings where people were debating whether or not this particular provision would have this kind of effect on the economy. And that's where you have the most influence. And during the COVID relief bills that, you know, when we were all kind of trying to fare our war, what was going on with the pandemic and exactly what the right federal response should be. Again, a lot of bad ideas out there.

And they needed to sift through exactly what the right kind of stimulus or not should be for the economy. And our scholars were involved in those discussions and I think had an outsized influence on the results, whether you like them or not. I mean, you know, that's when think tanks can really shine at times like that. Where you're, there are people who realize this is a really big deal. Put politics aside right now. We're trying to figure out what the right policy is. And then you need some experts to come in and do that work. And universities, where I am now, and I love the university world.

And we're building something similar at the University of Texas. A lot of people that are a 10-year professors in a department, they don't have experience converting their research into kind of policy briefs or whatever. And that's what things can do for them, is to take their research and make it digestible for people that are trying to figure out the consequences of some decision. I love creating content, obviously. We post like 50 pieces of content across all my platforms, tweak. But if you've ever created content, you know the uphill battle it can be to ideate,

write, produce, and film a video. And then you have to edit it all. So one of my favorite tools to use for this is Riverside. You've probably heard about it before. It's really revolutionized the podcast space by allowing creators all over the world to record 4K video, regardless of the internet speed. But they've just released an update that any creator is going to love. So along with recording high quality video and audio, they've added in editing software so you can edit any video content directly in Riverside. If your team is a little more bougie like mine and wants to record the video themselves,

you can upload your own content to Riverside so you can use all of their amazing AI tools. It can transcribe your video and add in customizable captions. It can analyze that transcript to cut out the dead space in the video. And my favorite part, they have this AI editor feature that will pull short form clips from my content so we can squeeze all the juice out of what we create. Time is money, and Riverside has given me and my team back loads of time, aka money.

So I love them. And because I love you, I got you guys a deal. Try Riverside for yourself with the link in this episode's description. You can sign up for free using the link and discount code Cody at checkout for a discount on any paid plan. By the way, the first 1,000 people who click on this link and use the coupon code will get an exclusive 30% off with code Cody. Let's get back to the episode. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I remember one of the more interesting things we ever did was we sat down at AEI and you guys put us through a war game with China and Taiwan. And before that, I didn't realize that that's what

happened when we sometimes explain things to policymakers where even that might be what happens inside of the Pentagon. Can you explain what a war game is? Yeah, it's a way of creating a, in this case, a geopolitical sort of scenario and giving people the opportunity to understand that if you make one particular decision, you know, they invade, they don't. Our response is this kind of air power, or this kind of naval response, that means we're moving resources from some other part of the world, for instance, right? And so you actually start to realize what's involved in these decisions. It's always tradeoffs, right? And so when you're engaged in kind of a large-scale military effort, it means there's other capabilities that you don't have elsewhere in the world. And so a war game,

it kind of puts people in that scenario and makes you understand from a cost perspective, from a personnel perspective, what sorts of decisions that might seem easy if you're just watching a cable news show all of a sudden becomes super complex. And we've used it in other scenarios, too. I mean, I worked in the George W. Bush White House for a few years, and I was there during Hurricane Katrina. And, you know, we realized that there were certain wargame scenarios that had been played out before that had relevance to that time.

You know, when you have a half a million people displaced from an urban area, this was not too many years after 9-11 where we thought that something like a dirty bomb could happen. Like, what would happen if a radioactive bomb went off in a city? and now all of a sudden, half a million people couldn't live there anymore. How would you, what would you, first of all, there's the site, but then there's the dispersion of people. And we were faced with a situation because of what happened in New Orleans that you basically did have a half a million people no longer living there that went to Houston or they went up to Tennessee. They scattered about and there wasn't a really great preset federal response for how to actually get resources to people so that they could, you know, stay in hotels or pay their rent or get the resources that they need because of this horrific event. and you can use that type of war game precedent to actually make decisions.

So it's helpful in terms of guiding policy, but it's actually really interesting to participate in, as you saw. Wait, so how does that work? So basically you're an advisor to the president at that time in the White House, and you guys are trying to figure out what to do with Katrina. Do you go to like a file? And you're like, here's all the like historical war games. I would wish option.

Yeah, that's what I was hoping for. You know, I found that that war game, there wasn't an exact working that really prepared the federal government for that. I had kind of hoped that the dirty bomb scenario would, like, create some off the shelf stuff. Got us a little bit of the way there. But that was a situation of making policy kind of on the fly with imperfect information. And this is the time when you do also rely on, you rely on policy experts around the country. I mean, you know, we were calling people who had written papers about this type of scenario. who'd studied like what kinds of federal resources could be used most nimbly. And we had to make some decisions in a really short period of time. And President Bush wanted to have a really large response to this issue. And he had a plan of being out like in New Orleans within 10 days. We had to have a bunch of big policy proposals. So we made a lot of decisions really quickly. Some of them were mistakes, you know, in terms of the right kind of federal response. But that's different than when you're preparing for a state of the union address, maybe six months ahead of time where you've got a lot of time to plan. So you're always looking.

for outside expertise. You never, no administration has all that expertise within the White House or within the Office of Management and Budget. It just doesn't exist within one administration. And so you're always looking for people outside who know more about this issue than you do, involving them in the policy process. And so that's where think tanks come in. It's where people that have a purchase at a university who are really good come in. And you, you find in those jobs that you really need those people. I was there during the run-up to the financial crisis, too. There's a housing crisis that preceded the financial crisis. And that was the same thing where, You know, really, really smart, well-known, published economists had very different views about the

reality of that situation. And it was really, really hard to know what to do because some of the smartest people in the world whose advice you were relying on just saw this in sometimes 180-degree different ways from each other. But you still need to talk to those people and you still need to make smart decisions. And if a White House is running well, it takes expertise actually very seriously. Okay. When I sell my business, I want the best tax and investment advice. I want to help my kids and I want to give back to the community. Ooh, then it's the vacation of a lifetime. I wonder if my head of office has a forever setting. An IG Private Wealth Advisor creates the clarity you need with plans that harmonize your business, your family, and your dreams. Get financial advice that

puts you at the center. Find your advisor at IG Private Wealth.com. When a country's productivity cycle is broken, people feel it in their paychecks, their communities, their futures. What does this mean for individuals, communities, and businesses across the country? Join business leaders, policymakers, and influencers for CG's national series on the Canadian Standard of Living, Productivity, and Innovation. Learn what's driving Canada's productivity decline and discover actionable solutions to reverse it. Yeah, it's such a good point. I mean, my friend Tim Kennedy, do you know him? I don't. You should have him to Svetas.

But he, anyway, he's an active member of the military, but he was one of the people that went in for Pineapple Express, remember, and then he brought a group of people into, with Sabre allies, to go get people out of North Carolina. And he was talking about what it looked like, you know, on the ground there. But it's really interesting to think that, you know, if you're in business, you might go to Harvard Business Review and look at the historical case studies and say, we have something going on here, like which other company has it ever been through,

and you might pull some of those ideas to think, like, could we solve it? I had never thought about, huh, does the White House have, like, components that are like that? Yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, it's really, it's interesting. I mean, you find you get thrown into these jobs and everything's moving so fast, and you have all the things that you're supposed to do that day, and then by 10 a.m., there's four more things that you hadn't planned on when you got up that morning to deal with. And so people's ability to focus for a long period of time on really important things is actually really limited.

I mean, time is an amazingly scarce resource. And so having worked in that environment has given me a lot of sympathy for administrations that have come after us. Because when something big is happening in the world, and there's a lot of media criticism for what seems to be like double messaging coming out of the White House or the administration doesn't seem to have its act together. I'm like, it's probably because they don't yet. Like they actually have had a couple advisors go out in front of cameras saying different things from each other. And maybe the president didn't even know they were out there saying that because they're trying to formulate a response. I mean, it sometimes just happens in sort of a chaotic way because of everything, everything that's going on. So a smartly run administration kind of repairs for that.

And you try to kind of pick your experts in advance people that you know that you can trust to get a good catalog of people around the country on a variety of issues. And hope your policy councils are all doing that. We used to have, like every summer, we would have the heads of think tanks from around Washington and also even outside. just handpick some of their own scholars and bring them in for like a 90-minute briefing. And we'd have the president's economic advisors, domestic policy, home unsecurity, national security. They would sit in a room and just let them kind of tell us about what they saw as kind of big issues in the world. And, you know, they would become sort of a resource after that for our staff because you just can't, you can't staff that up internally very well. No.

I remember hearing something crazy that I don't remember if it's true or not. is it true that the Pentagon has run like I don't know how many war games about China versus the U.S. And we don't win in any of them? I just know that. Yeah, I don't know that. I hope that's not true. I didn't sound very good. Yeah, there's got to be a scenario within which we win, but I don't know.

Yeah, I remember McKenzie, one of the scholars was talking about that we didn't win any when they did it with, Senate and Congress. So like more games were run between the two groups and they didn't win any. But I was hoping, I mean, you would think the Pentagon wouldn't let that out either. I imagine they're not going to be like, the thing is, we're preemptively losing. Yeah. That's probably a lot of good idea. Yeah, that's right. Or maybe that's what they want people to think. Maybe that's three-d-che-so. This is why I took the business. Okay. There was one other thing I wanted to talk about. You literally just got on a plane back from D.C. And you were there

all week. What's the vibe like there right now? Is everybody freaking out? It wasn't as crazy as I thought it would be. Yeah, I mean, this trip was planned for a while. And so I kind of expected to be there and they'd still be counting votes. You know, I didn't expect that, like everybody, didn't really expect this to be resolved the evening of. It just depends on who you talk to. There's a lot of panic among Democrats. There's kind of a strange amount of optimism among people on the political right.

I think probably when I say surprising, I think it's more people that have been Trump skeptics, Trump wary, and even anti-Trump. I think there's a number of them now that's like, well, we've seen the show before with him. And there's also some real opportunity for maybe some disruption and reform in areas where we need that. And he's got his issues that he's really hyper-focused on. But that means there's opportunity within an administration elsewhere to get all kinds of other things done. They're broadly aligned with what he cares about. So it's kind of an interesting, it was an interesting time. I mean, I think everyone's just kind of sitting there just nervously waiting to see what happens.

And, you know, you go from one day where, like, Marco Rubio's name is floated for Secretary of State. Everyone's like, well, that's a good decision or whatever. And then the next day, he puts forward Matt Gates, as Attorney General, and everyone's like, what in the world is going on here? So it's like, here we go again, you know, sort of chaos and disruption. So there's kind of just nervous expectation. and some people are kind of nervously optimistic and others are nervously really, really worried right now. So like everything else over the last few months, all we can say is who really knows what it's going to look like there come January. It's hard to say.

And with John Thune becoming the Senate Majority Leader, that creates maybe a little bit of a break on the sort of MAGA elements in the Senate because that was a hotly contested race too. Is Trump going to be able to get all of his people rubber stamped? Is he going to run into opposition within his own party? And I think given that vote, that's possible. So that'll create some dealing even within the GOP when it comes to appointments and decisions that are being made kind of early out of the gates. Yeah. What about, I mean, well, first of all, I have been watching Twitter like it's prime time. I mean, I can't ever remember watching every cabinet position and say, like, who's it going to be?

What's going to happen next? I think it's an American phenomenon that is reminiscent probably of, like, the apprentice. I mean, it is incredible. I think that's what, that's why they, that's what they want you to do, right? Yeah. I actually got off to, I got off Twitter before became X. I mean, I burned out, I burned out on it. Yeah, I was, I got, well, I got to the point where I realized I don't even like the people I like anymore. My, my friends on Twitter, I've long loved and followed. I'm like, I don't even really like them anymore. So I'm just going to, you know, I want to keep liking them. So I'm going to stop watching them on Twitter. And I hung it up. And to be

honest with you, I've not missed it. I mean, I go there because people will make announcements there or a A lot of times in my world is a really interesting study that gets released, you know, and someone tweets it out. So I find myself going over there for content, but I just, I can't do it anymore because I used to do that. I mean, election nights on Twitter used to be really fun, you know, because just listening to everybody's hot takes now. No. Zero watching X. Well, no. No. No. Just watch three turns and stayed off of people's, you know, hot takes and, you know, all that stuff. Yeah, decided to sit, sit it out. I felt a lot happy and better. That's very mature of you. No, I don't know as mature.

It was just some self-awareness about what makes me a better and worse person. Well, I want to talk about what you're doing today because one of the reasons I want to have you in here is because we talk about it a lot. But, you know, the university system seems to have a lot of problems today. And, you know, from us watching student protesters pro Hamas at NYU to watching what happens with, you know, different racial divides at school, to wondering if students and teachers are really learning these days, from an outside perspective, the university system kind of appears broken or at least

under attack in some way. And you decided to start the Civitas Institute at University of Texas. Why? And what do you think you guys are going to be able to do different from inside one of the world's largest university, it's University of Texas. Yeah, the Sibbitas Institute is a great new creation. It's created to essentially be part of a much larger effort to kind of reclaim a place within this large tier one great esteemed public research university to kind of recover the basic principles of the American founding of a free society, of the kind of commercial and economic life that supports and the lifeblood of that society

to teach it in a historically accurate and proper way and to do research that kind of advances these ideas and helps us understand what a free society should be looking like in the future and what a growing and dynamic economy should look like in the future and where we can make reforms possible.

So Civitas, the best way to think of it is kind of a university-based think tank committed to those principles. So I've come from a think tank in Washington to build this organization into a similar type of thing at a university, which gives you access to all the research power of an institution like this,

and really great faculty and experts from around the country to be a part of it. We are joined at the hip with this other, a really important new effort called the School of Civic Leadership and now technically housed within that school, since institutes and centers typically have to be housed within a degree grant in college. And this is a really exciting effort.

The school is about a year old. It was created, by the Regents about a year and a half ago, and so it goes through a process of getting stood up where a dean gets appointed. That's Justin Dyer, a great political scientist, who's the inaugural dean of the school. And we've been hiring faculty into the school.

And so we have gone through our first round of faculty hiring this year. Those people have shown up this fall. We're going through another round now. And by about the third year, we'll have about 20 full-time faculty teaching in the school. And the school is very much committed to constitutional studies, Western civilization, economics.

It has elements of what people who are familiar with the British PPE model of education. It's kind of, yeah, it's philosophy, politics, and economics. It's like, I think, every prime minister going back to who knows what, did that at Oxford. It's a great way of getting a well-grounded

education in these topics. We don't call the degree that. We have a minor that's called that. The degree is called Civic's Honors, and it combines these great elements of what we would think of is a really strong classical liberal arts education. And so we have the school that will have its inaugural freshman class next fall.

And then we have the Institute, which I run, which is standing up a whole bunch of different research programs and events on these issues of economic dynamism, political liberty, constitutional studies, and a bunch of policy papers on energy policy, education policy, a number of different types of things like that. So why is this important? And why is it different? Yeah. Because a lot of schools have economic departments.

They have history departments. So at face level, people could be like, this exists already. Already. What is any different about it? So what's different about it in the school of civic leadership is the multidisciplinary aspect of it? So the best way to think of, I think, the new school of civic leadership at UT is think of it as kind of an elite, small liberal arts college on this large public university campus. So where students are studying these things together. Part of the problem in higher education today is just the fragmentation of studies.

And so you can study American history without really ever studying the Constitution or without ever taking economics at a lot of universities. And this is a way for students, if they get enrolled in this school, they apply to come to UT and study in this school. This is their major. They're going to get this multidisciplinary degree. And I think that it's going to, I think we'll attract a lot of students that want to go to law school or that want to get their MBA. I think we'll get a lot of students that want to go on and do graduate studies in in policy or they want to teach.

I think it'll attract that sort of a student. And we're out putting out the word to get people to apply. And I think we have a lot of students coming from areas where they're just interested in the history of American institutions and they're interested in the way that the economy is and the way it should work. And they want to study all those things together. There has been, I mean, I just think there has been this drift in higher education over the last generation to just monocultures where there has.

has been this move of sort of political leftist ideology, which has become entrenched within universities. And I say this is a historical and empirical matter. There have been a couple of books written about this or people have done lots of surveys. And it's just a matter of fact that the political leanings of faculty have really moved to the left since the 1960s in this country. And it's happened kind of decade by decade by decade to the point where people do get screened out of certain colleges and schools and departments because of their political ideology. And I won't say where, but I've actually watched it happen. I've sat in a faculty meeting once before where a decision was made that we should actually look at where people's

political leanings were in their writings or whatever, or making decisions about hiring them or admitting students in. It's a real thing. And if you come from a perspective of more free market economics and political liberty, which kind of aligns you with the political right or you've worked for a Republican like I have, you just sense it where on university campus or people just say things to your face, where they just assume they know what you're. You just assume they know what what do you think about issues? You're kind of a, you're easy to put in a box for them. And so I think it's important to course correct. And I think that's what's been happening, not just here with this effort, but in other places around the country where it's, it's not a,

it's not about creating something that's partisan. And that's definitely not what we're doing. We don't screen any of our faculty or students based on, on political views. It's just that we're building a kind of educational environment that's probably just attractive to people that probably lean a little bit right in their worldview, whether they're registered as a Republican, public under not, it isn't the best indicator of that. It has to do with how they view the Constitution, how they view the question of political liberty and especially the questions of human agency. If you believe that people have responsibility to build and make the life that they want and they should live in a society that allows them to do that and they should be able to

exercise their free choices there, you're going to probably be attracted to an effort like what we have. So this is happening here at UT. The University of Florida has the Hamilton Center. the University of North Carolina has just started a new school of civic thought in leadership. Ohio State University has followed suit. This is starting to happen in a number of flagship state universities for very similar reasons because there's just this growing awareness that we kind of need to recover a classical liberal arts education that helps prepare people for life in the institutions that run our country. So we can criticize those institutions and that's what universities have become good at doing.

We can try to undermine them. We can try to reinvent them. whatever. But the reality is we need people to be working in Congress. We need people in the media. We need people in businesses that have a civic function or have some role to play civically to actually understand the institutions that they're going to be working in. Their history, their origins, why they matter, how they function well and how they don't. And that's what I don't think our universities have been doing the best job of preparing people for. So this is a shot at doing it right. Yeah. And you guys are attracting a ton of talent in the form of academics and professors

who are kind of pissed. They're like, I'm tired of getting told what to think, where to think, how to think. The point is to find the truth, not to have group think. And so I've been really impressed at the roster that's coming over to you guys. Yeah, it's been great.

I mean, there is an awareness of some of these dysfunction that I've been talking about among a lot of faculty around the country. And what we've learned, I was pretty bullish about this. When I left AIA to come down here, I was really bullish about our prospects to grow, to get good talent, to create something big and great, and to make an institution

at the Syphithe Institute to make it like an AEI or like a Hoover institution at Stanford, something of that scale and scope. That's our ambition, and I think we're on the way to doing that. And so I was bullish from the start. But even with my bullishness, I've been surprised at how attracted this has been to people. We've had people reaching out to us in an unsolicited way. We've been doing a lot of recruiting. We've also had people just reaching out to us saying, you know what, I'm kind of tired of where I am. I'm tired of the group think. I'm tired of looking over my shoulder to see if people are going to try to cancel. me or shout me down, I want to be at a place where I can pursue my work out in the open and

in the true spirit of free inquiry. And that looks like what you guys are building. So it's almost serving to have like a magnetic effect. And as awful and as horrific as the events of October 7th last year were, what it kind of unleashed on university campuses in the aftermath has also just accelerated that sense of urgency. There are some people I think that were going home complaining about the campus culture where they worked maybe to their partner or their spouse where they started saying that stuff out loud too. So I think there's just been something in that environment from last fall going through the spring protest here where we've had people say, you know, what your building looks like a true university environment. That's what I thought I was doing when

I went to graduate school. And I don't want to be a part of something like that. So the environment has pushed people our way too. And then, you know, if you've been reading these articles about, you know, declining applications to Ivy League schools and people going to to the SEC schools are applying there. That's true. I mean, we are seeing that at UT. And someone told me last week that our applications are up 98% year over year at UT. I mean, it's just it's amazing how many people want to come and be a part of what we're doing. Not just to our school, but I mean, to the university writ large. And I think I got that number right. But the anecdotes that you see or the reporting that you might have seen in the New York

Times or Wall Street Journal about people who you would think would be applying to the Ivy's now applying to SEC. We're definitely seeing that. is a true thing. That's fascinating. Ninety-eight percent increase in applications at University of Texas, and we're seeing the Ivy League, so Harvard and Stanford and some of the historical best places you could go where every parent wishes their child would go, actually determining that they want to go a different path. Yeah, I mean, has that ever happened before? Would this be the first? I mean, I'm not aware of a historical precedent quite like this. You know, and the thing is, for those of us who've been in high road for a while, you know, a lot of the things that people have gotten frustrated about over the

last five, seven years, critical race theory, seeing society as a set of structural inequalities or imbalances and all that's kind of around that. I mean, this is, this is, this was not just invented in the last five years or so. I mean, when I was a graduate student in the late 1990s, we did we had critical race theory back then, too. We had what we called the political correctness movement, you know, but as a teaching fellow, as a graduate student, I had to go through trainings where we learned what words we couldn't, couldn't say and all that stuff. I think what's happened is, is that that enterprise, it's gone through several iterations. And this time, it's just, it's become more pervasive.

And it's made its way into corporate HR offices, and it's made its way in the K-12 education. It's become much more widespread in places where it hadn't been before, back in the days like when I was in graduate school. So there's just a lot more people aware of its effects. And they see the origins of it in the university world, in the world of higher education. And so they want, you know, now people want to say,

send their kids to places where that's least likely to happen. And I think on large, diverse public university campuses, it's least less likely to happen there. And there's more checks and balances in a large public research institution. You are at university. You have trustees appointed by governors. You have state legislatures that provide oversight and funding. You have a student body from all across that state and beyond and just many more departments. And so the way in which the monoculture sort of might capture an elite private college, or even I think some Ivy League universities very broadly, it's just less likely to happen here because you have these checks and balances. So people are figuring that out, and that's what they want. And just anecdotally,

I run into this all the time. I mean, I was talking not long ago with a well-known economist who lives in Washington, D.C., sends her son to one of the elite schools in D.C. I'll leave it nameless, but people who know Washington, D.C. would definitely know it. It's one of those schools wherever parent thinks their kids are going to be president someday or going to be senators or whatever. And they all, they all go to the ivies or they go to the elites. And she was telling me about how her son and his seven friends are all applying to SEC schools, you know, and that, you know, that she and her husband are freaking out a little bit about it because they, you know, they're spending all this money in this private prep school to send them to the elites. And now they found that their

kids want to go where they can have like a real university experience. And they're pretty confident. They'll get pretty good jobs on the back end of it anyway. So something's happened. in a pretty big way right now, which is going to force some kind of accountability on, I think, some elite institutions that they haven't really felt the pressure to react to before, but I think it's actually going to change their behavior some. This episode is brought to you by Nespresso. Hear that? That's your next obsession. Every coffee, a new world. Every sip, a new taste.

This is the new Nespresso. One touch, endless possibilities. Iced, flavored, long, short, because some days call for that espresso kick. And sometimes a smooth, silky latte just wins. It's exceptional but effortless. Like actually effortless. Simply press, brew and explore. Nispresso. What else?

Keep exploring at nespresso.com. Don't miss the devil wears prada too in theaters. Merrill Street, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci are back. In light of the recent scandal, I'm here to restore your credibility. I did not hire you, and all I need to do is bide my time until you fail. On May 1st, icons. I'm going to make something of this job. Be the bridges I burn, light my way.

Forever. I just love my job. Get tickets now. The Devil Wears Prada 2. In theaters May 1st, directed by David Frankel. One of my favorite CEOs used to say to me when I first came to the business that he'd eventually rub the NBA off me. And that always kind of made me chuckle.

But now I understand a bit what he's talking about. Because I think often, especially in some of these higher-level institutions, I went to Georgetown, but you're sort of taught things in a way where like, this is the way. to do it. This is the proper course to do X and Y and Z, which is hysterical once you're in business, hearing somebody who's never been in business tell you the correct way to do something. It's really cute. And so I think I probably had that characteristic quite a bit. I want to talk a little bit about money and universities today. So student loan debt, all-time highs, you know, almost $2 trillion. Over a hundred of our taxpayer funded somewhere in other universities with endowments

over a billion. Do you think the way we fund universities today is good for societies and kids? Or do we need reform on that? Yeah, we need reform. I mean, anytime you have a kind of a third-party payer system, whether it's in health care or education, you get all kinds of distortions, right? And so even the way that we've done student loans over the years has just made it easier for universities to run up the costs. I actually think that, you know, one of the really big problems, is that growing pie slice. If you look at the university budget as a pie chart, that growing pie slice that has to do with just all kinds of programs that really don't have to do with classrooms, right, and hiring a lot of personnel to run all kinds of student-facing

sorts of things that really aren't a part of the degree programs. And I think that's a problem. And I think that's had a really upward push on the cost of education at schools. And so that, you know, When people are borrowing and then paying off over a long period of time, that's not really the university's problem. And so if they can continue to increase tuition every year, that's what they've been doing. And now we're at this point where it's a real problem. I think in some ways, you know, there are policy changes that one can propose and people have. In some ways, it's kind of like these dynamics, these marketplace dynamics will probably

have more to do with cost control than anything right now. when people start to realize that the value of that $55,000, $60,000 a year private college degree is actually not worth very much. And if employers are hiring the graduate from that public university as opposed to the elite school because they're worried that they're going to get a culture warrior from the elite school, that's going to create some discipline as well. And I'm not just speculating there. I mean, this seems to be what's happening right now. We're seeing this certainly happening anecdotally. It's been reported more than once that there's a number of, you know, large, employers out there. Like, I really just, I don't want some of the students from these places where the

campus protest has been going on. Just don't want to hire them. And that bodes well for the graduates of large state schools. And so I think some of that will, will condition the way university administrators think about costs. I think smaller private schools that have gotten very expensive, their business models are just turning upside down right now. And so they have to keep from going out of business at some point. So I think those dynamics are real. But no, there's definitely things we should be doing more of. I mean, the income share agreement model that's been rolled out in a few different places, I think that has a lot of promise. I think it should be more widespread. Yeah, and so it's basically a different, instead of a student loan, like you would typically get

from one of the big lenders, you're basically, some universities have done this through a fund where you're basically paying back a portion of your income to a group of investors or to basically a foundation that a university runs over time. And so instead of paying the set amount, you're paying a percentage of your income. So if you're a school teacher, you're paying one rate. If you're at Goldman Sachs, you're paying a different rate. And it's a way of kind of just making it easier on the graduate over time to pay back the cost of their education. And theoretically, to incentivize the school to actually increase the ROI from college. Because they want people who have higher incomes, that's a good point.

They theoretically make more money off it, right? It's a good point. I don't know if there's second or third order effects. I don't understand there. There probably are. Then maybe people want deferred payment. Maybe they want more equity. Maybe you'd gain that system too.

But I think that's interesting. Yeah. And I think the, I mean, there have been really good efforts by some university presidents that just kind of beg to be copied by others in terms of cost control. Yeah. So Mitch Daniels at Purdue kept tuition at the same rate. His entire decade, he was there. never raised tuition once. And I'm from Indiana originally, and so I have friends who have kids of Purdue.

I mean, that's like a household hero name there. And I know also NoMetch, and he's an absolutely amazing person and demonstrated that you can actually get costs under control. And if you add up everything that's done, you kind of get that net result. Nothing of it's sexy. You know, you're just going around and you're selling off the fleet of university vehicles that they don't need anymore, and you're refiguring out the way that they do food in the dorms is one thing after another that he was able to do to make it possible to not grave solution. Yeah, right, while increasing their ranking. So rankings increased, costs went down and then flatlined for a decade.

Yeah, and really one of the national leaders now in commercializing innovation, you know, I mean, Purdue as an engineering hot house was like, I mean, they have a research foundation that were professors have been commercializing research on the scale of a Stanford or Carnegie Mellon. What does that mean? commercializing research. We were it get profitable? Yeah, where an engineer or someone who's on the faculty of a university invent something or comes up with a new molecule that can be turned into a particular drug by a company or a medical device or something like that. And they work with people in the private sector at companies or investors to kind of come up

with a new product line. And that professor and the university's research foundation get some of those returns. And so Stanford's always been kind of the textbook case of this. And other universities, especially those with good engineering departments, have followed suit. But Purdue's done a great job there, too. And they've done all of this while the cost of going there has remained steady. And how does that work? The engineer keeps a percentage of it and the school does?

It's the best. Yeah, they all have different ways. Yeah. And I don't think very many universities do this super well. They could all improve in terms of the incentives that they create for faculty to commercialize. I did a deep job on this about 10 years ago, and so my knowledge is a little bit dated, but you have a lot of various versions around the country

of the same kind of bad practices, where some universities are very heavy-handed, and so there's not as much of an incentive for their scholars to work there. And so some people, you know, including at Purdue, tried to kind of get ahead there. And I think at UT would do a good job of this as well. There's a great opportunity, actually,

across the country for large research-based universities, to kind of reconfigure the way that they do their commercialization agreements, their IP agreements with their scholars to get more intellectual property. And all of it's required to take an idea in a lab and turn it into a product that can be good for the world and also profitable for the people that were involved in it. Could universities become profit centers eventually, not based on, Oops. Could universities become profit centers eventually, not based on government taxpayer funding and endowments, but based on that theoretically and tuition? I don't know. I mean, you would really have to ramp up the commercialization side because universities is as big. Yeah. And these are big, huge operations that do cost a lot of money. And so when it comes to the finance of that and the model, I'm not really sure. But I think if you were going to commercialize the value, you almost have to have to have a union.

designed for that purpose that then also taught courses. I think it'd be pretty hard to take a large research university and make its revenue model based entirely on commercialization, but there are probably people here in Austin who might think of a way to do that. That's true. Well, you know, the other thing that it like just really ticks me off and blows my mind in two different ways is that, you know, there's a little graph that I have here that we can put up for you guys to see on YouTube. But, you know, the cost of university is going up 4x, anywhere from 4x to 160 percent. I saw over a 40-year period. But the problem there is that the wages have really stagnated for people that have come out of it.

So that's like, you know, we have a growing gap between how much money you make from going to university versus the relative cost. But then we also are caught in a catch-22 because the median earnings for bachelor's degree holders is like 35 to 40 percent higher than those who don't have it. So it's like you've got to go to college to make more, but it's more expensive than it ever is relative to how much you make. And so how do we fix that? Or do you think that the point of college is not to make us make more money? You know, it's a great question. There's a couple questions in there. And I think to step back and look at the broader issue, and this goes back to your original question, too,

just the cost of a university degree right now is way more than it probably should be for the value in a lot of places. There's actually a study that just came out this past week that shows actually enlarged state universities over the last year. costs have not risen as much. In some cases, they've gone down in net terms. There's a certain methodology that they used to do that. So I think a place like University of Texas, a place like Purdue that we're talking about, I think the value is still really there

in the end for the family in terms of what comes out of their pockets or what comes out of their bank account and for the value that they get, I think the real problem are these really, really expensive, smaller private colleges. The elites, it still remains to be seen because they are still the elites. But I think the bigger story is that

when you're in your early 20s, and I have two kids who are. You have the cost of school. And if you're carrying that debt, you know, fortunately, my kids were fortunate enough not to have to be shouldering that debt, but a lot of their friends are. The cost of housing is, I think that's the big one. I mean, I really do think that the cost of housing is a huge one.

Our health care system is also such that we pay a lot more personally than we would if we live in some other countries. And that doesn't mean you need a universalized system. I mean, you've got other competitive healthcare economies that just work better than ours does. And, you know, these things are all kind of barriers, not just to being able to afford a good home and have a middle-class lifestyle. They're really barriers for people being able to become entrepreneurs early in their life, and this is your area of expertise, but to really be able to launch themselves much sooner. We really don't want to become like a European country where you have to live with your parents until you're in your 30s or whatever before you can afford to venture out. And we're making, we have been making decisions over time that have kind of put us on a path to that in, in some ways.

And so a university education should prepare you for the world that you're entering in ways that I think a lot of universities just haven't. There's, and there's really, I think, a growing body and really interesting and compelling body of research that shows that really the most valuable thing about going to university is actually a lot of the stuff that happens maybe in a class, but it's not the point of that class. you are giving presentations, you're having to manage your schedule, you're having to write papers, and you're having to present, and you're having to work in teams. And the, what are sometimes called non-cognitive skills or social skills or the kinds of things that you actually perfect in that environment are the things that actually contribute to your earning power over time. So you might get a job out of college because of your degree. You might be an engineering student or something and get a job because of the kind of engineering degree you got. But 10 years from now where you are is going to be

based on all these other things. It's not going to be because of that degree. That degree is going to get to your first job, maybe your second, but probably not even that as much. It's these other things that you have learned how to do that really make you capable in the workplace. Conscientiousness of the big five personality traits is conscientiousness is probably, it's one of the top two or three predictors of lifetime earnings. And that's the ability to think ahead, to be organized, to be a good listener, to be ambitious. And you combine all those things together and you get this trait. called conscientiousness. And people who are high on that do really well. And that's what we should be thinking about when we're thinking about the best curriculum for students. So like in the School of

Civic Leadership that we're standing up at the University of Texas, part of the goal of a multidisciplinary degree like this is to give students a really good grounding in American institutions, but to also create the instruction in a way where they're doing a lot of these sorts of things that I'm talking about. So they come out equipped for leadership within civic life in America, regardless of whether they're in business or they go into to go to law school or or what or what they do. That's that's where the real value is right now. And I think that's again, the market's kind of sorting some of this out. When you, when you feel like what you've got are a bunch of graduates from a school that have been indoctrinated in a certain worldview and they're

going to come and be like culture warriors in your company and create chaos, people don't want that. People want students that have had an experience that have trained all these other sorts of things. So that's that's where the real value in a university education is in addition to the actual topical major that you have. And I think the most innovative higher education administrators in the country are the ones who are figuring that out right now. What about MBAs? Do you think those are worth it? I don't know. You tell me. Well, I don't know. I mean, I can only work from my personal experience, which is that it's a really nice credential to have. You know, people even to this day will

say Cody Sanchez worked at Goldman Sachs in Georgetown, even though I wouldn't say those were at all my most formulative moments. Could I quantify the value of those two things as opposed to starting businesses very high? Probably not. But I don't know if there's research or thoughts surrounding it, but there is the pervasive belief on the internet. I think if we go broad-based internet, MBAs are a scam. You should never do them. They don't actually make you money. MBA is a really only good if you don't know what you're doing and if you want to figure out where to go next or you want to climb a corporate ladder, get an MBA. But if you want to do a business, go do business. And I don't, I'm not sure what I think about that yet. I mean,

I think it's, it's one of those questions that probably has kind of both and kind of an answer to it. Because I think some of the critiques are going to have to do with the nature of just curricula itself, like what you're actually learning. And does that really prepare you for the marketplace? And the common critique I hear back is not really, like a lot of time for what you're learning in the classroom and then what you experience in the world are very different. But thought of as professional schools where part of the experience of going there is the way that they are interrelated with the marketplace and with employers. They do serve as sort of funnels or training schools in many ways for really good jobs after that. And then that also conditions

the way the faculty teach the courses, right? So, I mean, law schools are this way. A good MBA program are this way where like during the course of it, you're not just taking classes. You're actually doing summer internships at organizations that you hope to get hired by in the future. And that integration of curriculum with the marketplace does seem to serve a valuable function, at least in some sectors and in certain areas. So, you know, the large, I mean, we've got a very good business school at UT. It's got, you know, the number one accounting program in the country. I mean, I think employers really value that. Yeah, she's great. Our current president, Jay Hartzell, was the dean of the school and did a phenomenal job.

So I think it's had a good run of good leadership. And I think it's, you know, it's done well in the rankings as a reflection of how its graduates have actually landed and performed in the marketplace and the way that is preparing people for that. So it's kind of a, I think there's so many different MBA programs around the country. It's hard to provide just one one answer there. But I do think that integration with the employer marketplace is a really important thing. And some places really do that well. And when you come down from like the top five or top 10 or the top 15 NBA schools,

all the rest of them, I think all the more, that really is going to be the determinants to whether or not it's worth going there in the first place. That's a great point. Yeah, one of the things I liked is when you and Jay and Justin, you know, so all the heads of UT and then Civitas and the school of civic leadership were together at that last little get together, that was one of the first things you were talking about is that we're actively right now, before the program's even been created, looking for, come companies that want to work with these kids. And to me, like, it's great to hear theory from academics,

but that practical application or what you call integration is probably the real key. Yeah. I think a lot of times people use this euphemism of the most important part about going to school is your network. And they think that means the other students or the faculty. But I don't actually think that's right. It's, oh, do I get to meet, you know, senior leaders at Deloitte, and thus I get to go work at Deloitte later because they had a program for. for easier access to entry to these large corporations, which are sometimes these large corporations are like paid MBAs, you know, because they put $100,000. I mean, I back Deloitte puts $100,000 into new hires in their specialty programs per year

because they have massive training to do consulting, let's say. So I think that's really cool that you guys are doing that. Yeah, with the new school of civic leadership at UT, the students will have internships all the way through, and that's an important part of it. And I, is that like a great? So they have to? Like, is it like, okay. Yeah, it'll be a part of it.

It was mandated for me. Yeah, it'll be a part of the experience. And so they get this really well-rounded education and they'll have internships throughout the time. And I, for all, for a lot of the reasons we were talking about earlier in our conversation, I think there's a lot of employers that will just be primed to hire them. For those that don't go to graduate school, I actually think they will. Yeah, that's right. Well, yeah.

Yeah. Because I think, you know, a lot of people like, we want these sorts of graduates. So, you know, we, I don't necessarily. I need someone with just the narrow degree topic. I need someone that can actually function in a complex and interesting environment. And that's what I think our graduates will be. And I think a lot of corporations want ethics and morals in a different way. Like Tanner and I just brought on a new hire.

His name is Levi. He's amazing so far. Don't listen to this Levi because you've got to keep it up. But he brings a Bible and then sets it on his desk every day. And, you know, he asked if he could come in early because he has a large address. So he's like, I'd like to be here at like 6.30 in the morning because I have a little bit longer of a drive. and finding people that are like ethically or morally aligned with not my beliefs. Like they don't have to believe the same thing that I do, but they have to want to try to be,

you know, a good person that believes in free thinking and contrasting opinions. And if they are, they'll work well here. And if not, they won't. So I don't want to get them anyway. Absolutely. It's hard to quantify and it's hard to study. But to the extent that we can study the way that trust develops when we're doing studying social capital like closely knit well-functioning organizations or communities and how trust

is developed and earned. I mean, in high trust areas, you have higher productivity rates. You have, in geographic reasons where you have more social capital measured even just by civic and voluntary participation, you have higher levels of regional GDP. When people live and work in high trust environments, they can get more done in a shorter period of time because there's less sand in the gears, there's less friction, there's less problems to sort through. And if, and if you've run an organization or I've been fortunate or cursed, however you look at it, to start organizations or store organizations within

organizations and grow and build things, you just know this. I mean, you just know that having people of integrity, people that are honest, people that are hardworking, that are motivated by kind of a good moral framework and work well with others, you can just get so much more done. And you can actually all be going down the track, the same track together, instead of having to deal with all of the friction and dysfunction that comes, sometimes from the one squeaky wheel, too. You know, so, you know, anyone who's run something, you probably made this mistake. I know, or maybe no one else has, but I have where you're like, you know, that person has some characteristics that made me nervous, but they're really, really good at this one thing that I need done. And you're like, you know, we'll figure out how to deal with that other stuff. And it's like, yeah, you know what, you will deal with that other stuff.

And it'll take up a lot of your time and it'll upset other. colleagues and you'll end up loading other people up with work because you don't trust this person anymore. And you know, and so it's just, it's a real headache. And so I think this groundedness in a core set of principles that enable you to be the conscientious person that I was talking about earlier is really what anyone running a company or an organization wants. And so we should take that seriously when we're educating our children. And then when we're designing higher education environments for them at university or community college or whatever the post-secondary world is that they're that they're in. It's absolutely essential.

When I've gone around the country and looked at effective like vocational training, you know, so for people that don't go to a four-year university, we have these really good programs. It's usually not by a policy design. It's almost in spite of federal and state workforce policy, which I think is an area that's ripe for a form that no one has ever quite figured out. you'll see that a lot of times it's employer partnerships with a community college or a vocational school of some kind where part of the curriculum is this stuff. You know, like saying earlier, students benefit in a four-year degree program because they're just forced to do presentations and work together and plan and all those kinds of things. When you're like a commuter at a community college, that's less a part of your experience.

But the effective programs are often those where you have partnerships with employers where that kind of leadership training, planning, solving, presenting, working in teams, those kinds of things are built into the experience so that they can actually have graduates of those programs that have those same sets of skills. So there are different ways to kind of inculcate, encourage, integrity, honesty, the right kind of ambition in people. And I think they should be really central to anyone designing curriculum. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be central to what you're doing.

It's a good point. How do you, so say you're a parent and you're trying to figure out where to send your kid to college or you're a student or you're a young, young person yourself and you're trying to figure out what actually matters, what do you do? How do you screen these institutions? Well, I think you should send them to the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas. But yeah, yeah, definitely send them there, send them our way. The, I think the issues related to all the culture wars on higher on college campuses, a lot of that could now be seen. I mean, some of these schools have been out there, you know, back when they were all on

the right side of history, you know, planting their flag on this or that cause over the last five years or so. They're now paying a price for that. And you don't unwind that stuff overnight. So I would be very wary about sending my kid right now to an Ivy League school that's been all in there. And just talking with faculty at those places and people that have recently come from them, it's just kind of reinforces.

It's like, I would just be worried. And I have plenty of friends. I'm in that age where I've got people, you know, and my peers have kids in college. And it's amazing over the last few years, the number of complaints that I hear from people who sent their kids to what should have been not that long ago, a really great outstanding elite institution, mostly in the Northeast. So I think you want to look at how much these colleges actually spend on the non-classroom-facing side of the ledger.

I think that's a big one, like I was saying earlier. You want to look at the constitution of the faculty. in the departments where they're going to go? Are they, do they really have ideological diversity there? Do they have people across different disciplines? And can your child get an education where it's very, it's well-rounded, where they're not just in a certain narrow track, or they can just kind of choose electives,

kind of just patch together something that's kind of meaningless over time. There's not just one thing to look at. There's a bunch. That's so much harder than back in the day. We used to take like the USA Today, USA Today, Rain canes or whatever, see which one was best and like trying to figure out there and there. I think it basically as crazy as I went.

Yeah. No, I think you want to be a little bit more careful now and look at and look at whether the university has embraced a statement of principles about, there's a Chicago statement of principles of academic freedom. A number of universities have done that as well and I think you should take a look at that. It doesn't mean that even if they sign the statement

that every department in every way is doing that. At least there's a commitment there. And I think those are pretty important indicators right now. So if your kid right now got into like Princeton, Harvard, and Ivy League school, would you say, hey, let's think about this? Probably. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, you know, it's just probably because I have friends who have had their kids there where they've had a bad experience. Not everyone. I mean, others have had a great experience. A lot of it does depend on the department. I've been the specific school or college that you're in, but I would be wary of it right now. Both of my now adult kids graduated from the University of St. Anders in Scotland. We used to live in the UK.

They wanted to go back to the UK for college. And, you know, that's this great elite institution. It's over 600 years old. It stands on this amazing set of traditions. But they haven't, and this is typical of a lot of universities in the UK, they haven't grown that slice of the pie that I was talking about. I mean, they really focus on instruction. They focus, you know, it's students, it's professors, and you have a bunch of student associations. But the academic format, the seminar-based learning, it's the same as it's been for a long time.

Students know why they're there to learn. And they had an amazing experience, you know. And does the student body have, you know, as a collective, do you have all the views there of all kinds of issues that you would find on any university campus? Of course. But they're not really, they haven't been weaponized in the same way that they have in the, in, a lot of American universities. And we have to ask why has it been so easy, it seems like, recently, to actually weaponize ideologies on university campuses

when it's actually not happening in the same way in other countries. And we realize we have kind of a very, I think it's a very distinctive American problem. And when you have the president of France telling us not to import all these crazy ideas, the country they gave us Jacques Derrida and- and- And the-Li-Cou-Clairo and- Help us.

That gave us that saying, please stop sending all your crazy ideas back our way, I thought that was actually kind of telling and actually a little funny. Yeah, that gets my favorite. I love a good conspiracy theory. So that's so many to count there. You know, I remember I was sitting on an event. I don't remember if you were at this one or not, but it was with one of the Ivy League presidents versus another well-established university that was not Ivy League in the very counter opinions. And I remember being shocked because the president was basically saying, of the Ivy League school, was saying,

we don't have any ideological divide here. Actually, we're very measured. And there's no one side that has everything. And in fact, we don't even have that much of a higher percentage on one side than the other. And no, we really didn't vote for one candidate versus another. And I remember the audience all kind of looking out. And then we have these beautiful library of Alexandria at our fingertips, aka Google. So, you know, everybody's, and they're asking questions like, well, how about this 80% number here?

And how about this? But what was fascinating to me was the depth of either. the denial or the non-agreement or the belief that it wasn't an issue or the gas-sliding or whatever. From somebody who is very intelligent. Yeah. Now this is very common. And I, just because of the nature of my professional work and trajectory, I spent a

lot of time around kind of two communities that are, that have this attribute that you're talking about. One is just higher education, the other is the media, where you'll talk with very smart, well-meaning people. And they're not trying to dissemble on purpose. They really do think that they're in an institution where there's a healthy amount of ideological diversity. Because from their perspective, there is. But for the rest of America and for the rest of us who don't fit within the continuum of diversity they're talking about, there's all these people over here that just are not represented on your faculty or in your institution.

And you see this in newsrooms as well. just within the media. And if you spend a lot of time in Washington, D.C., as I've had to do in my career, and you go to a lot of dinners with people like this, there's just a lot of shared assumptions that you're in the fish bowl. You're swimming around.

You can't see the water that you're in. And we all think that we're not going to become like that. But it's actually very easy to become like that when you live and work with people that all share some basic assumptions. It also helps explain. like why, you know, I mean, even this last election, you know, and in the predictions that we, we saw and then the shock at the outcome was become the, because the people who are basically

covering and also reporting and creating the news have so many shared assumptions they just can't get themselves out of it to actually make other kinds of predictions or, or, or, or, and there's probably some reasons for that that are related to even what we've been talking about. I think I have, I have, I have, I have, I've, I'm just reporting on what they've told me, but just over the last generation, the way that so many journalists, especially for the top papers, come from a lot of the same colleges and universities. It's that same sort of thing and the same socioeconomic status. And you don't have, like in the old days, where you'd have, you know, just kind of street beat like reporters walking around without an

ideological agenda, just doing the investigative thing, covering the news, reporting on it, from middle class backgrounds, from working class backgrounds, from all over the country, that you've seen even within the media class, a kind of just, it's like they've coalesced around a certain shared set of assumptions that are very consistent with what they would have gotten from universities that they went to. So I hear this a lot in when I'm on university campuses,

I'll hear people say, like, why are you guys doing what you're doing? Like, we've got plenty of diversity in higher ed. I mean, you know, there's a lot of people that think differently from each other. And I just think that's just clearly not true. I mean, in any survey that we've seen, university faculty shows that's not true. And there have been similar surveys done of journalists as well. And we realize that they have political leanings that are much more similar than they are different. And that becomes a problem. It does, you understand why in the American

heartland there's such a distrust of expertise. And I say this as someone who lives within the world of expertise. And as I started out saying earlier, when we're talking about time with the wise, you need experts. And I, and I am a strong believer in the value of what we might call elite institutions in America, we need our universities and we need governmental organizations to help implement policy and all these kinds of things. But when there's arrogance, condescension, and a resistance to true free inquiry, then you've got a problem. And that's where just ordinary, everyday Americans can sniff that out. I have them in my extended family and my friends back home. And you don't have to look very far to find people who aren't a part.

of elite society who have a pretty good read on what's wrong with it. Yeah, you know, I think that's the most fun part about having a podcast and doing what we do with YouTube and going out. You know, the other day I was with a guy who runs a porta potty company. And so I'm like helping him clean out porta-potties in Houston, Texas, you know. And then we're with Spencer who runs garbage trucks just one day a week. And he's a software guy during the week. And so, like, you get all these different perspectives that, you know, quite honestly, in America,

we have a lot of diversions of socioeconomic that we don't touch that much. And so when I go and stand in the lobby of AEI and I'm sort of in awe of the beauty of this institution, well, guess who's not coming in there often? Spencer, who drives the truck outside of Dallas, Texas. And so, you know, I think part of this and what's happening in the U.S. is interesting

because I think it's showing a light on average Americans, which is like, you know, they want to have a couple weeks vacation. They want to be with their kids. They don't want you to tell them what to do about their kids. And this kind of transcends race, actually. You know, and I'm Latino, and I just always have a chuckle. When a white person who's ever been at the border tells me about what's going on at the border, when I used to be a journalist there, and I've crossed the border innumerable times.

And so I always kind of chuckle a little bit about how we are so set in our ways when we haven't seen them from another's perspective. Yeah, for sure. And that is, I think, I think, we're seeing play out kind of the national stage right now. There was a really great large national survey this last week. And I'm forgetting the organization that did it. We can bond it. Which is, yeah, I can send you the link.

Okay. We'll put it on the show notes. Yeah, put it in the show notes because it's a really, really great survey. The sample is like over 3,000, 3,500 people or so, and it's a meaningful sample where they looked at, you know, after the election, who people voted for, what category are they, where they swing voters and swing states and what issues motivated them. And for all swing voters, inflation was a huge thing. in just the sense that the Biden administration and Kamala Harris as a candidate, you know, wasn't paying attention to that. But when you look at the people who identified themselves as swing voters who eventually broke for Trump, the issue, the culture wars issue outranked the inflation issue

for them. And we know now that like the Trump campaign spent like $250 million on that one ad about transgender in prisons when Kamala Harris is talking about supporting transgender surgery in prisons and all that, they found that that moved undecided voters and they're testing one thing than anything, so they just ran that thing like crazy. Well, how about his one line or two, which was like he's, you can love him or hate him and most people are only on one and dirt the other of the spectrum,

but his line about, she's for they, them, I'm for you. I was like, the guy is made for TV. Yeah, no, and that turns out that for people in those swing states that were really important, those battleground states, Pennsylvania, you know, the ones we all were hearing about and watching for months, if, you know, I found it hard to believe there were still undecided voters in this country, you know, a month ago or so, but I guess there were. And these issues really, really mattered for people. So I think, I think the reckoning on, I think the, the COVID era, school closures, public health experts, dissembling for, before Americans and getting caught doing.

So I think these gender issues that have, again, it's the amount of time they've taken up. It's not so much that people have these strong views about the issues themselves. It's being told that this has to be the most important thing when inflation is high. And I think the and then the free speech on campus stuff has actually played a lot. So these now have emerged in surveys. These have emerged as issues. We now know that really motivated a lot of voters. And back when we were building the survey center,

on American Life at, you know, at, at AI, which my, my now former colleague Dan Cox is doing a great job of running, he's great pollster. We did all these big, large national surveys trying to drill down a few layers beyond just political attitudes to see what really motivated people. And we found, like other large surveys, like more in common is done and a few other organizations that, you know, from the, just the, the, the heated summer of 2020, the George Floyd pandemic summer, you know, when we had all this unrest in our cities and all the aftermath of that, when culture wars were really kind of taking off, two-thirds of Americans, you know, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, when you were asking them to rank order the things that are most important in their lives, it was jobs for their kids. It was public safety in their neighborhoods. It was really bread and butter issues. And culture war issues that seemed to be on the national stage in bright lights were really not showing up at all, except the public safety one because of the unrest in cities. We've saw even people in suburbs of cities that were experienced. a lot of violence were saying they felt really unsafe,

even though crime hadn't gone up on their streets because it was just around, you know, it was in the news so much. And so, I think, you know, just so many people in the elite class, especially on the elite left, just did not learn these lessons. And this, they should have seen this coming because, you know, a lot of people, including myself,

were writing about this, were like, look, I mean, even in the wake of the George Floyd murder, you have a lot of inner city residents saying the public safety is the most important thing. The last thing they want us to defund the police. You know, we've just, it's been kind of one thing after another where there's been this kind of arrogant disconnection from what ordinary people, even their own constituents in their own cities and neighborhoods were telling them that they, that they refused to believe we're all that important. And now they've paid a political price for it. And now Donald Trump's president going to be president again because of this. And I think, you know, a lot of the narrative has been on him capturing the popular vote. And that is incredible, given how Republicans haven't done that in a long time. But he's still got a lot fewer votes than Joe Biden. got way less than that. And so there's another, you know, his victory is an amazing kind of political comeback story, one of the most ever. But her slide from 2020, like her performance with key

demographics, doing so much worse than Joe Biden, I think is explained mostly by these, issues. And I think as we study this more, I think the inflation will clearly just feeling like, like we have an administration that's not doing enough about the cost of living was a big thing. We know that's true. But these other things, issues of elevated importance when most Americans, one of them ranked more like 9, 10, 11 on a survey, and you have this kind of progressively trying to get you to rank them, one, two, three. People were just exhausted by that and were for a long time, and now we can see that more clearly. Yeah.

This is a little bit off topic, but the, these, like I was looking at a survey the other day. The survey said, I'm going to mess up the exact number. It was I'll link it below. The survey says at the highlight of the article is women-owned businesses have a 35% higher ROI than male-owned businesses. I was like, that's fascinating, really? That would be stark difference. So then I clicked on it. And as I clicked on it, what the actual survey was was in one private equity fund, their portfolio at that time had 35% higher ROI from the female-owned companies than the male,

which, you know, was maybe a couple hundred companies, you know, highly specified in the CPG space, which is dominated by women predominantly, lots of beauty products. So, like, not exactly the same headline. You have specialized in studies and polls and how to conduct them for a long time. Do you have, like, a couple tips? For those of us who we see these headlines everywhere, we're seeing polls everywhere, they're fucking wrong all the time. They're, like, lying to us with numbers.

How do we quickly ascertain, like, hey, that's not a reason. piece of data to use or that's not a good study to be conducted. Are there a few like red flags we can look for? Yeah. Yeah, no, it's a good question because people are citing surveys all the time to make the point that they want to make. You know, the, and you've seen this in the political polling and probably heard people talk about it, just the margin of error, you know, thing. There's a whole debate about margins of error and all that too. But if, you know, if a sample size is small on a margin of errors like 5 to 6%, then 52 to 48 doesn't really mean anything in that regard, right? And so that's not a four-point advantage. It could be the other way. So that's the main one.

I tend to look for the size of the sample. Is it a lot of people that they're surveying? And is it a credible survey company that has successfully built sort of panel studies over time where they've predicted things pretty well? And so I think when you have these really small, samples, large margins of error, and it's not clear that this sample is representative of the population as a whole or the population we're trying to learn something about some subsector, then you should be wary of it. And if it's a complete outlier from other surveys, that might tell you something too. It's like, well, maybe they have found something that no one else found, or maybe that's just completely wrong. So that's another one. You know,

when we started building the survey center at AI, one of the things we wanted to do and did, early on was a big national survey on a whole bunch of issues, but included within the questions we asked, were like 20 questions from the UCLA Loneliness Index because we learned there was, everyone was talking about the crisis of loneliness in America. But when we were trying to figure out what surveys they were, like exactly how they were measuring that, we realized that we kept clicking back to this one, I won't name the organization that did like a survey with about 800 people. Most of, it was skewed old in terms of the average age of the participants. And everyone were drawing, everyone was drawing all these conclusions from this very small kind of crappy survey.

And so we, we could only find one other large national survey that had been done in like the last decade that could be considered representative and kind of credible. And I felt like the results were mixed. So we did a large national survey. And our results were fairly similar to that other large national survey. And so we found that the question of loneliness is very nuanced. It's, you know, you have to be careful when you're saying like all young people are suffering a crisis of loneliness because it's actually not true. There are certain types of young people that are very lonely. And it's like you want to tailor your response to that population and not start drawing conclusions from everything.

You know, well, that means all social media is bad. And, you know, there's that whole mean. Like if you're on Instagram and that means you're probably miserable. And so it's like, well, some people are. But there's a lot of people who are on social media a lot who aren't miserable. And so that tells you something. It's like, well, let's try to understand what it is about the people who are miserable so that we can fashion either a policy response or public health response or something that's accurate. And we were motivated to do that work precisely because of the problem that you said.

It was just accepted by everyone. We have a pandemic of loneliness in America. And then we're like, show me the evidence for that. It's like, well, you know, it's this one survey that's really bad that everyone kept citing. What's fascinating is that's kind of how it goes. It's like turtles all the way down. There was another survey where I was trying to find original data for. And it was something about entrepreneurship.

Like, oh, you know what it was? It was a statistic that I've used before that now I'm worried about. which is that the average entrepreneur of a company makes like $47,000 a year on average. And I thought, God, that's not that high for the risk that one takes to become an entrepreneur. If that is true, then your risk-reward basis is actually super off, and we should rethink this whole thing. And I cannot find for the life of me that study linked anywhere except to a very small study done by like a one-off company I've never heard of that did it in one year that was like 2019.

And so now we're trying to figure out, like, what actually is the average pay? And I think I came to you, too, with a lot of this stuff around small business. And you were like, the thing is, small business statistics are really hard to find. And even the SBA doesn't survey that well. And so, you know, what, yeah, you're not going to know about this because you're healthy and not on Twitter. But I did have this little giggle about, you know, who Nate Silver is, right? Sure. So he kind of famously did this tweet that said, you know, I ran 80,44 surveys, you know, polls for,

Kamala Harris first Trump, and in every single one, except X percent, there's really, really tiny, Kamala wins. And so after the election comes out, it was, you know, the memes were incredible. They were like, you should have ran 81,445. So it's just one after the other. But I think it goes to this point of like, who are you surveying? Are you surveying the same group of people 80,000 times with the same methodology? Because then you're probably not going to get anything else. Yeah, right.

You're in your own bubble. Okay. One thing I want to talk about to sort of. drop us out here is Trump has made a lot of comments this week on education. And one of the more intense ones was that he wants to end the Department of Education and send all the education back to the states. Let's show this clip really quick. It's like 30 seconds. He'll show it. What do you think about that? Can that really happen? This episode is brought to you by Tell Us Online Security. Oh, tax season is the worst.

You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got TELUS online security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season. Plan started just $12 a month. Learn more at tellus.com slash online security.

No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The price is right fortune pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. This has been proposed before. It's when the Tea Party election of 2010, when Republicans overwhelmingly took the House of Representatives, and this was during the first Obama term, it was kind of a reaction to Obamacare and, you know, all the kind of political divisors as grassroots movement. That was actually one of the things that they were calling for back then, too. And it's the view that the Federal Department of Education can allow you to nationalize education and wreak all kinds of havoc on America's schools.

the reality is that, you know, schools are still, public schools are still very much a function of state budgets, right? In most states, it's like it's the biggest part or next to maybe your Medicaid population, depending on which state you are. I mean, you know, what you spend on K-12 education is a huge part of your budget. The amount you get from the federal government is actually a very small percentage of the total. So if you did away with the Department of Education, would you undo the finance, of America's public schools around the country. And no, it's not like you would be defunding them in some way. So that's, you know, it's a way of basically trying to get, you know,

the federal government out of the business of monitoring or creating policies that have to be implemented in public schools. You know, I would put this one up there at number, I don't know, 15, 16, 17. What Donald Trump's not talking about are the, the huge drivers of our debt and deficit. He refuses to, our entitlements, these fiscally imbalanced programs that are oriented towards older Americans.

And as I get older, I care about issues facing older Americans. The reality is we did a pretty good job in the post-World War II era of protecting older Americans against indigent poverty in their old age. I mean, we've got a health care system for them. We have a retirement pension program basically for them. But they've been badly out of balance for a long time. And it is this huge burden that we've been putting on the shoulders of young Americans for a long time. And so these are actually at kind of a crisis point.

And it's been a decade since we had something that looked like the political will to deal with those. And we all have to give Paul Ryan the former speaker credit for that because he staked his entire political career on, shining a light on this, and you had the Simpson Bulls Commission during the Obama years, which was actually I thought a very good federal commission where it looked like we were making some headway on these issues. And then things changed for a whole bunch of reasons, and we're back to kind of kicking the can down the road. And that's what we should probably be focused on. I really don't know that the quality of America's schools are going to change for better or worse a whole lot if the Department of Education exists or not. But I do know

that the future wages and opportunities for Americans, young people are going to be skewed in the wrong direction if we don't take care of some of these bigger issues. So we have a dynamism problem. I mean, it doesn't feel like that living in Austin, Texas. This is one of those dynamic parts of the country. But across the country, we should have more people making, building, and creating good things. And that's the best way to get higher paying jobs. It's the best way to get more job satisfaction for those who have jobs. It's the best way to create upward mobility prospects for more people, because people tend to job hop their way up. And when you have a dynamic training economy

with a lot of new things starting, that's kind of a recipe for success. And we are doing things from the cost of housing, which is mostly a local and sometimes state issue, to the cost of higher education, which we've talked about, to these future dead burdens, which have very real effects on the economy as a whole.

All of these disproportionately affect the future well-being of America's young people. So we've been taking care of older Americans for a long time. We need to start thinking about younger ones. And I don't think the Department of Education has a whole lot to do with that. So that's what I would really hope that this next administration would actually start talking about more and focusing on. And Trump has never shown any interest in these issues. In fact, it's the opposite.

I think he's wanted to promise older people that we're not going to touch Social Security. We're not going to touch Medicare. It's all going to be fine. Nobody really knows how long we can get away with this. I mean, we do know kind of like when the Social Security Trust Fund runs a better money. But like, like, when, you know, it's hard to know because we are in the United States, like, what is. means to be running the kinds of deficits that we are and the kind of debt we're amassing because we're a different country than every other country in the world.

And that gives us kind of a false sense of confidence about the future sometimes, I think. And I worry about that. So that's what I wish we would be talking about, rather than whether to shut down the Department of Education or kind of chip around the edges of certain budgetary issues, but to go right where the big problems are. It's interesting. We just had Scott Galloway on the podcast, and he's been really talking about that. about that a loss. Big issue of his, yeah. Yeah, which is interesting because he has in his Twitter

bio, or has historically, a product of big government. And so he, you know, and I have a ton of respect for Scott. I don't always agree with him on everything at all, but I like talking to people. I don't agree with all the time. And so he simultaneously seems to think that we need a bigger government while also thinking that we are robbing from the youth to give to the old, which is his sort of tagline now. Do you think that this administration, I mean, we have this department of Doge, right? And we have, you know, Elon and DeVec and all this enthusiasm coming in to the government and this idea about cutting efficiency or cutting inefficiency and adding in more efficacy. Do you think, like, can we tackle efficiency in government without tackling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Yeah, I mean, you can, you can,

you can tackle efficiency in government by just trying to undo unhelpful regulations that are drag on the economy or that are not necessary. And so you have the Social Security, you have the Medicare issue, which need to be dealt with legislatively. They can also be done just by the formula, the formula, these complex formulas for the way the programs are administered, but they really do need to be overhauled by law, I think. But you can do a lot to undo regulations that make it harder to build things. that make it harder to bring a product to market and all those kinds of things that Elon Musk is talking about.

Al Gore was supposed to be the reinventing government vice president back in the 90s. We've gone through, you know, throughout the past generation, a number of efforts and promises to actually streamline, simplify, deregulate the federal government. And it's hard to point to something that's been all that successful. So they are not going to be able to wave a wand. I think, you know, I'm a fan of picking your fights very carefully and saying which parts of the economy do we think are unnecessarily regulated or inhibiting innovation or blocking entrance from the marketplace or favoring incumbents and making it harder for the little guy.

There's plenty of areas, whether it's the EPA or whether it's labor or whether it's a whole range of different regulations which affect product commercialization, those such a things. I think you should pick those areas that you think are kind of most ripe for disruption from a regulatory reform advantage point and just go after them. These broad ones, which in the Trump administration tried to do this last time, there's talk of doing it again. Like for every new regulation, we take two off the books. Well, that sounds great, but you can implement one very costly regulation and then eliminate two that really aren't having that much of an effect on things.

And so that strikes me as kind of a blunt instrument and wouldn't be that effective in the long run in terms of if you really want impact measured as increased GDP, increased wages, increase innovation. You should pick your fights more carefully than that. So that's what I'm hopeful they'll do. And right now I think they have a general idea in terms of the specifics they're going to have to tell us what they're looking at. But I would encourage them to focus on five or six major areas that they want to free up, to liberate, basically, and go after those. Instead of some kind of just general formula that can be kind of gained, which is what I think the, you know, cut to regulations for everyone that can kind of be gained. Yeah. Yeah. I think that is often the problem is it sounds so much easier than it is. I mean, having spent three minutes talking to a few regulators multiple times, it's an awful, awful job. Oh, it's terrible. You know, I kind of had a chuckle from the people who are like, yeah, Elon Musk only gets a job for 18 months in the government. I'm like, yeah, that sounds nice.

as opposed to four years. You know, you think he wants to be doing that for four years? I surely wouldn't. No. So it's, yeah, interesting. Okay, I want to close out here with really just the last idea of you've been in policy related to education. You've been in policy related broadly to the federal government with cities, now with talking about civil service. Where do you think most people who are not involved with?

with politics at all. Where should they be going to get information to stay up to date and relevant and learn without getting inundated and overwhelmed with the amount of information out there? You guys have a new newsletter. We have a new newsletter. Yeah. And we are going to be launching our new online magazine in about a month called Civitas Outlook. We have a new, our website's being completely overhauled. We'll be ready in about three or four weeks. Well, what's the URL? Civitas.uTexis.edu. That rules off the tongue. You can tell you guys

are talking about it. You can tell it's a university. That at least showed us. That's the, yeah, that'll change. Right now, that's the university website. No one's that's kind of a placeholder. But you could just probably Google Civitas. If you give Google Civitas Institute University of Texas, you'll find it.

And we'll have Sybitaz Outlook. Richard Reins, the founding editor of Law and Liberty is our editor now. And he's lining up a great bunch of content. And so we'll be publishing a lot of articles about what's going on in the world in economic policy, political liberty, what's happening in the courts and why we should care. So that's going to be a big part of what we do. And I encourage people to sign up for our newsletter, which you can find on our site now. And you'll be able to start receiving those articles in about a month's time. And you can sound smart to all your friends. That's right. You can cite all the studies. Drop some high fluton sound and academic names. But do say Sybuthas Institute as much as you possibly can. If you have a large following, please include that in your tweets and push people our way. So I'm excited about what we're building there. And there's other places where you can get a wide range of good information.

Is there anybody always read everything that comes out from them related to the economy, business policy? Yeah, I mean, so I'm a huge fan of the economist, the magazine. So, I mean, I read the economists regularly just because I love their global perspective and I love what they do. And that is one of the ongoing critiques of American media. We've become much more insular. I mean, you would think now that we're a full generation into the Internet era, we'd all be more globally aware. It's really hard to find news about what's going on around the world.

I mean, even the top papers, they frontload everything now with what's going on in American politics or whatever. You've got to click on the World tab at the New York Times or whatever. Scroll down and figure out what's going on around the world. I still love watching the BBC from my UK days for that reason. I'll take you around the world and you learn about what's going. on and you have a hard time hearing about that. So the economist is great that way. I'm a big fan of our friends at the dispatch.

I think that they produce some really great newsletters about what's going on. And they're very clear. They come from a center-right point of view, but they dispassionally report the news. And they just do really good reporting. It's very comprehensive. And they have individual newsletters, which are helpful.

Scott Lin-Sachome was just here at UT giving a talk. He writes their weekly newsletter on trade issues and economic policy more generally, which I find very useful. full. They've got political analysis, which gives you a good peek inside what's going on in Washington. So they're a great, you know, fairly new five-year-old organization that I find is really worthwhile. And I mean, I just, I work my way around the op-ed pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post. I'm an Atlantic subscriber. I mean, I read kind of all these sorts of things. You just get a sense of what people are thinking.

Arthur's nice essays and the Atlantic are beautiful. They're right. Yeah. Not so much, you know, economics or business. Yeah, no, just about well-being and how to live your best life. He's, he's, he's been great that way. But no, I hope, I hope is the Civitas Institute starts standing up, we're going to be publishing a lot of papers on policy and stuff. I think it's, it's meant to convert academic research into accessible, digestible policy

briefs and then articles on Civitas Outlook that there are a thousand worlds long that you can read in, you know, under 10 minutes or, you know, 10 minutes or last. And we'll hopefully be, be informative for people. But I encourage everyone to read kind of broadly, you know, don't get stuck on that one, that one author, that one site. You need multiple perspectives. And I'm just, I'm always inherently suspicious of where a writer's trying to take me anyway. That's just my nature, you know. So I, I'm always trying to figure out what the pre-stop positions are, where they're leading me. Even ones that I know and like. It's like, I want to see kind of the counter view. And I'm sort of dispositionally wired that way, which I guess has made me kind of a decent generalist over the years on policy issues. But I would encourage more people to do that. I like to steal Tim Ferriss's question sometimes, which is, like, what is the book that you've gifted the most? So not like recency bias. What's the most recent book that you've read or loved? But like, what's a book you keep coming back to or you give to others? Hmm. That's a great question. It's so funny because it kind of depends who the other person is. I'll have a few. Allow you a few. I'll have a few. You'll have a few books. Yeah, no, no, I won't. I won't go crazy there. I, well, I answer it with just one. book. One book that I come back to over the years is G.K. Chesterson's orthodoxy. And it doesn't have anything to do with policy. It's his wide-ranging kind of defense and apologetic for his journey into

eventually Roman Catholicism. And I'm not Catholic. But it's this, it's one of the most quotable books. There's something on every page, these astute observations. But it's this, it's this great tour of the sort of the fairy tale quality of the world. And that, the advantage that you get from never losing the ability to see the world as a magical and beautiful place, you know, that he has a line in there that says, you know, it's like a two-year-old, you know, or a five-year-old would be excited if you said you opened the door and there's a dragon behind it. A two-year-old gets excited when you just told them you opened the door. You know, it's like, you know, that sort of childlike wonder with like things that are, to us now just pedestrian

and basic, there was a time when they were exciting. And it's just really, it's not a long book, but sometimes I tell people when I read it the first time, it was like, I read it twice because I'd read a page and I'd be like, what? Then I'd read the page again and flip it over. And Chester's thing gets quoted a lot. And you don't even have to follow his journey of faith to appreciate kind of the richness of his insights. But that one, I read that one early in my career when I've met people over time who seem sort of stuck or they, you know, or dealing with kind of the doldrums of life. I find it's just an encouraging read because it really kind of reminds you that we live in this wonderful world that's magical. There's a lot we just don't

understand. And that's, that's kind of the fun of it, you know. And that's, you know, I like listening to science podcast because I'm not a scientist and I love hearing people talk about, you know, certain breakdowns in Einstein four-dimensional space time right now because it's like we don't know what the, where we're going with this. And it's like, it should freak me out, but I kind think it's great that there's still so much about the universe that we don't know. And that was one, that's one, that's one book that I found to be a really good read in that regard. That's beautiful. I want to close out with, you know, the world maybe seems a little bit dark for a lot of people today.

There's a lot of people that are concerned about what's happening. You know, there's a lot of mistrust we've talked about. What have you seen lately that's made you incredibly optimistic about where we're going? Over the last five, six, seven years, I've found that if you dig down, like in a survey day, sorry to give you a wonky survey-based answer, but this is kind of where it's going to come from. Something that has confirmed my experience of people that I just know out there from my friends in the heartland where I'm from and across the country is that there's an amazing amount of optimism and resilience among working class Americans. especially black and Hispanic Americans about their future. People that if you just listen to media narratives are, especially for people who are obsessed with oppressor-oppressed dialectics,

they're in the oppressed category. And, you know, we were finding in our survey research that, like, working-class, black and Hispanics were more bullish on the American dream before the pandemic than working-class whites were. And that working-class whites were actually more optimistic about their future than everyone who was obsessing about the working-class in the Trump era were thinking about. And I found that, you know, I just found that in my life, right, when my

contractor and his crew comes over to do some work in my house, I mean, there's some of the greatest people that I've met, incredibly optimistic about their personal prospects, growing their business, being really proud of their work, raising their kids in a country, they're really proud to call home, especially when, like, they or their parents didn't, weren't born here. And that to me is kind of the real source of optimism is that the media narrative is controlled by people who think the country's going to hell on the handbasket on both sides now. The American Dream is dead. We're on the precipice. The apocalypse is about ready to start.

Mostly highly educated people with relatively high incomes are the ones saying that. And even though the working class, you know, like the, again, the Trump narrative is that the working class are economically alienated, frustrated. No, they're pissed off about inflation. You know, groceries cost a lot more than they. It costs more to just do everything. They're upset about that. They want to change. But when they think about their five-year prospects, when you ask these questions and surveys,

they generally are pretty optimistic about why they're going. They have a belief in the future. And that's good for their kids. It's good for the communities that they live in. And it helps when you just realize that that's actually what's going on around the country. You can kind of bring your blood pressure down a little bit. I love that. We'll put that survey in the show notes.

I think I know the one that you're talking about. it was showing like 60 to 90% optimism levels between like blacks, Hispanics, and working class Americans of all backgrounds, right? And then it was like 20 or 30% optimism by white middle past Americans, right? Something like that. But for a long time, it's been pretty consistent. If you were progressive and you have advanced degrees and a high income, you think America's terrible. Right. I mean, just in the survey.

Like you think the American medium is that. America's done this totally wrong track, best days behind us, that kind of thing. Progressive pessimism about America has been pretty well established. But that really is taken off on the right as well. And it did during the Trump years. And we did a survey right on the eve of the 2020 election after four years of winning, right, from 2016 to 2020 when Trump ended the president. And then we asked these right track, wrong track questions, but also do you believe America's best days are ahead of us or behind us?

You know, do you believe the American dream is achievable or not? And it was true among highly educated Trump voters. Like if you had a college degree and you earned over $100,000 a year and you're a Trump voter, you were much more likely to say America's finished than a working class Trump voter who was like, actually, I think my life's going to be better in five years. And working class, black and Hispanic Americans also much more positive about the American degree. We found that in that exact survey. And so it's kind of like the more highly educated and the higher your income is the more pessimistic you are. I'm not exactly sure what's driving that. I do think time spent reading the news.

You know, people with higher incomes in higher education do spend more minutes a day consuming news or on social media. And so when the narrative is negative, you're drinking that in all the time that has an effect on you. But that's actually worth remembering that, you know, the people that control the media narrative and the people that have the biggest following on social media or whatever, they're not necessarily reflecting the entire country. And some political campaigns have made really bad gambles on even policy ideas by spending

too much time listening to that crowd rather than what normal. Americans are actually trying to tell them. So I, you know, I think we should all just be aware of that. And if we fall into that demographic, kind of question our own assumptions sometime. If I, I'm freaking out or I'm feeling overly pessimistic, should I be, you know, maybe there's, maybe I'm kind of overreacting a little bit. And I tend to think there's been a lot of overreaction lately among the people that tend to control the narrative. It's so true. There was a, there was a really interesting conversation I was listening to the other day. And it was between, um, two entrepreneurs basically saying, you know, the other one asked, how's your business and your industry doing?

And he was like, well, this industry is really tough, man. I mean, it's like super tough over here. This industry is really, you know, I don't know. I wouldn't do it again in this one. And they were asking him. I was like, oh, really tough over here, whatever. And I would watch this phenomenon play out so many times that, you know, I asked one of the person, people that was asking that question because he has a podcast. So he had had tons of interview.

And I said, hey, when was the last time you talked to somebody who was a business owner in a particular sector, and you asked them, how hard is your sector to work in? How hard is this industry? And like, would you do a business in this industry again? How many of them say, oh, this industry is actually like super easy. Anybody should come in here and do this. And I would totally choose the same game again. And the answer is like zero.

So this isn't survey data. This is just Cody data. But like it is. And so I think a lot of times for young people when they listen to people like me or maybe you, and we go, listen, small business is hard. And, you know, yeah. I was in the franchise world. God, you want to start a friend. You shouldn't. But it's like the data actually said we made millions of

dollars. Was it hard to do it? Yes. Like, is it ever not hard to make millions? Probably not. Is my industry inherently more difficult than yours? I doubt it. It's just that I have a bias. And so now I talk you out of a thing that you might have been perfectly capable of doing too. So that makes a ton of sense for me. Yeah, it does. All right. Ryan's reader, not on Twitter, but at the Civitas Institute. That's right. Thanks for having for so let's recall it again.