The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - No Mercy / No Malice: Rot

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

As read by George Hahn. https://www.profgalloway.com/rot/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Constant Contact. If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you, Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by their expert live customer support. It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.

Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca Support for PropG comes from NerdWallet. Starting your slash learn more to over 400 credit cards. Head over to nerdwallet.com forward slash learn more to find smarter credit cards, savings accounts, mortgage rates, and more. NerdWallet. Finance smarter. NerdWallet Compare Incorporated.

NMLS 1617539. I'm Scott Galloway, and this is No Mercy, No Malice. American universities are supposed to define what's great about America, opportunity and upward mobility. But for 40 years, our elite universities have been rotting from the inside and are once again becoming finishing schools for the elite and the freakishly remarkable. The path back? Growth. Rot, as read by George Hahn. Eight of the country's elite colleges settled a lawsuit last week,

agreeing to pay $118 million for colluding to match financial aid offers. Price fixing. The schools deny any wrongdoing, but writing checks for $118 million does not signal innocence. The complaint lays out a strong case. In fact, nobody disputes the collusion. It was done in the light of day through an organization called the 568 Presidents Group. To collude lawfully, the colleges were required to practice need-blind admissions, and they didn't. These schools are forking over close to the city budget of Irvine, California, to avoid discovering what a jury of their peers might decide when presented with the facts. The lawsuit is emblematic of the rot that's infected higher ed over the past several decades.

Rot whose stench wafted into our living rooms when America witnessed the cloddish response to campus unrest following the October 7 Hamas attack. Rot, evident in the metastasizing cancer of administrative bloat at elite schools, which has dwarfed investments in actual education. Rot, that has hamstrung the financial future of a generation of college graduates by burdening them with absurd debt. All because university leadership asks one question when they look out a window and see themselves. How can I increase my compensation while reducing my accountability? A. Create artificial scarcity so we can raise prices faster than inflation to fund our bloat.

The good news? This can be fixed. A decent high watermark for American higher education is 1983, the year Columbia became the last Ivy League school to admit women to its undergraduate program. Applications jumped 56%, and the school's sex-blind admission policy resulted in a freshman class that was 45% female. By the early 1980s, 6% of Ivy League undergrads were black. Gay student organizations were recognized on campuses, and financial aid was bringing elite diplomas within reach of the broader populace.

America's top colleges morphed from finishing schools for the wealthy into a lubricant for upward mobility. Put another way, American universities began to define what was great about America. I matriculated as a freshman at UCLA the same year, 1983, and benefited from a 76% admissions rate and $1,350 annual tuition. It's been downhill since. What's changed? The education hasn't. If my 18-year-old self were to walk into a UCLA classroom today, he'd perceive only surface differences. The ROI has declined. An elite school degree can still quadruple your expected income, but your purchasing power has declined as tuition has exploded. Progress in representation has been unequal.

Asian students and women are overrepresented compared to the population at large, but black students remain underrepresented. Their enrollment actually declined at many schools in the late 1980s and 90s. In addition, the battle over getting the right mix remains a misdirect. As we've written before, affirmative action affirms its mission by advancing kids based on income, not race. Letting in a rich Indian student who played lacrosse at is not furthering diversity. Harvard's freshman class is 51% non-white. However, 67% come from the upper fifth of families by income, the same portion as in 1983. We're simply reshuffling the elites. In today's America,

you're better off being born wealthy and non-white or gay than poor. This represents progress, but we need to update our thinking about who needs a hand up. The stasis comes at a massive cost. College is more expensive than ever, and relative to the number of qualified students, less accessible. The tsunami of capital generated by increasing tuition has not gone toward the mission. Instead, it's funded an army of high-paid administrators and academic programs and centers with no measurable outcomes.

These arrogant attempts at social engineering are immune from scrutiny. You are clearly a racist or don't get it if you question the return on DEI, ethics, leadership, ESG, or campus Rolexification, such as lazy rivers and climbing walls. The top tier of higher education is steadily regressing, again, to become the domain of the ultra-wealthy, salted with some freakishly remarkable kids to wallpaper over its transition from a lubricant to a coronation. Some of the increase in administrative spending is warranted.

Expanding access to kids from different backgrounds requires more resources. However, it does not explain the 10-to-1 ratio of MIT employees to faculty who actually teach. Between 1976 and 2018, the number of other professionals employed at colleges increased 452 percent, while full-time faculty grew just 92 percent. Senior administrators in diversity and inclusion positions make double or triple what teaching faculty make. Michigan pays its vice provost for equity and inclusion $431,000 a year, equivalent to $938,107 in New York City. And UVA pays its DEI VP $340,000, which is $753,783 in New York City.

My experience serving on the boards of organizations ranging from the New York Times Company to the Berkeley Haas School of Business is that having a DEI position, much less a department, means you are already one of the most diverse and inclusive places on earth. DEI on a university campus is a fire station in the ocean. Expensive and redundant. This administrative growth is parasitic, and the parasites know it. A poll of administrative staff found that 38% responded false to the statement, quote, my work makes the world a better place, unquote.

Another found that bureaucrats at universities were much less likely to believe their job benefited society than faculty members. They're right. Administration begets more administration. It's the nature of the disease. How do we reverse this reversal? There are two forces to contend with. The metastasizing bureaucracy, which sees every problem as an excuse to hire more bureaucrats, and incentives. University presidents are pitted against middle

class households as they receive psychic and economic compensation for creating artificial scarcity, the low admission rates that result in faux prestige and pricing power. This turns springtime, in households all over America, into a season of despair. The rejection of tens of thousands of good kids fuels university leadership, alumni ego, and student debt. As the lawsuit reveals,

rich kids and international students who pay full freight get preference. In sum, the kids who would benefit most from college are denied it. The emotionally charged, divisive fight over who gets in is a head fake. It's not about who, but how many. Outside of the top 10% of universities, there is no need for DEI

because most schools have more supply than demand. As I've argued before, we need a grand bargain. The federal government should offer the largest 500 public universities, approximately the top third, an average of $1 billion per school, adjusted by size, over 10 years. The Biden administration allocated just about that sum, $500 billion, for student debt relief before the Supreme Court blocked it. Despite the White House's good intentions, I do not believe you can ask the two-thirds of Americans who didn't go to college to bail out the third who did. In addition, loan bailouts are primitive chemotherapy They shrink the tumor, but make the cancer worse As they also bail out universities who have less pressure to address the underlying disease

Cost In exchange for this $1 billion over a decade Schools must Reduce tuition by 2% a year, expand enrollments 6% a year via investments in technology and infrastructure, and increase vocational and certificate programs to 20% of degrees granted. The net result in 10 years would be a doubling of freshman seats and a halving of cost, inflation adjusted. The investment would offer greater access and a step change in opportunity for kids who do not have the money, skill, or desire to pursue a traditional

four-year degree. Nearly 50 percent of Germans receive some sort of vocational certification. In the U.S., it's 5%. Pro tip, forgive yourself and your kid and reject the shame if your son or daughter does not get a four-year liberal arts degree. Note, spare me the bullshit about an erosion in brand equity if our best universities broaden admission standards. As I said, when I attended UCLA, it had a 76% admissions rate, and the brand was outstanding. Scarcity is a concern for a luxury brand, not a school.

Rejectionist nimbyism is only continuing the transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the incumbent old and rich. If we can scale our most valuable firms 30% per year, then we can expand enrollments at our great public universities 6% per year. The system is ready. Increasing the amount of remote learning and utilizing campuses during non-peak periods, summers, nights, weekends, could double capacity. We can continue to produce poets and philosophers, but also nurses, plumbers, and cybersecurity technicians. A reckoning is inevitable. Demographics are destiny, and destiny is coming for higher ed. The declining birth rates in the aughts mean there will be fewer undergrads starting in 2025, and the appeal of college to this dwindling cohort is fading. The most bloated industry in America is about to face a perfect storm.

There are fewer customers, and the ones remaining are losing interest in the product. The problem won't affect elite institutions, as they receive 10 to 20 times more applications than they have freshman seats. Harvard, sitting on a $52 billion endowment while limiting freshman seats to 1,500, defines what it is to be a for-profit firm. Any university that doesn't increase the size of its freshman class faster than population growth should lose its tax-free status

on the return from its endowment. At some of these colleges, the endowments have surpassed the GDP of a Central American nation. We, faculty and administrators, are public servants, not fucking Birkin bags. Why do we have a nation?

Why fund a government and institutions? At the core, I believe, is the desire for our children to have access to a better life than we had Isn't that the whole shooting match? And we're failing Despite historic prosperity over the past several decades we've registered less progress. We have produced the most anxious, depressed generation of young adults in our history.

They must navigate algorithms and platforms that assault their self-esteem, only to then face the rejection and debt higher ed levies on them. America's optimism in this instance is our weakness. We all believe our kid is the remarkable one. Well, I can prove that 99% of our kids are not in the top 1%. No institution or admissions director can predict greatness in a 17-year-old, nor should they. Our mission should be to offer as many decent and good 17-year-olds as we can a shot at greatness. I will be accused of catastrophizing. And admittedly, despite all the challenges, most of our kids will be fine. Most. Life is so rich.