stevemur

College reputation seems almost impossible to change, but Vanderbilt has done it. In 2005, Vanderbilt admitted 34% of applicants, and its middle 50% SAT range was 1280–1460. Today, it admits under 5%, with a middle 50% SAT range of 1510–1560. They are opening a San Francisco campus for 1000 full-time students next year, and Jensen Huang just donated $75M to the campus They moved from being compared mainly with the likes of Emory and Georgetown to competing directly for students with Northwestern and Duke. Very smart how they did it, definitely some lessons that apply broadly: • They recruited aggressively at Northeastern prep schools and top high schools nationwide... the chancellor would visit the schools that sent the most students to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown and Penn (ALWAYS GET ON THE PLANE!) • Built relationships with influential college counselors, so Vanderbilt would appear on the same recommended lists as the Ivies and Duke • Specifically decided to attract Jews (the chancellor decided that Jewish students would strengthen the university’s intellectual life) by building out more Jewish life (Hillel center, kosher dining, Jewish studies program)... and it also helped shed the image of a traditional, insular Southern school dominated by white Christian fraternities • Used generous need-based aid and merit scholarships to win students from more prestigious schools • Sold a distinctive product: elite academics, SEC sports, a strong social scene and a real campus experience • Turned Nashville from a perceived drawback into a major recruiting advantage as the city became more attractive Other universities that I think have done a good job in recent decades are Northeastern and USC. Before that NYU and Duke.

Jason Calacanis: “In California they don't let you build anything. I come to Texas, I buy a ranch, and I asked the guy, ‘Hey, can I put a solar farm in here?’ He’s like, ‘Son, it’s your ranch. You can do that.’

Now, Jake Tapper says: "This is not good for Democrats' argument that there's no such thing as undocumented immigrants voting." Jake was previously busy helping further the narrative that non-citizen voting wasn't a serious issue. (See quoted clip)

Regarding the noncitizens voting controversy: - The only honest answer is, we don’t know how extensive it is. We can estimate an order of magnitude perhaps, but that’s only a guess. Several states are deliberately withholding the evidence required to know more precisely. - We do know there are significant vulnerabilities in several states, such as the witness attestation vulnerability and the motor-voter-enrollment systems. - We shouldn’t assume that all votes cast in the name of a noncitizen were actually done by that actual named individual. It’s highly plausible that those with much stronger incentives — ie, activists and fraudsters — register addresses for ballots to be sent, and illegally cast these ballots. Seems they have far more to gain. It is of course against the law. Don’t do it. It is bound to be a mixture. Note that NJ hasn’t disclosed how many of those votes were cast by mail, for instance. - We should view it like cybersecurity and counterfeit monetary security. Simply saying it’s secure isn’t good enough. EVERY KNOWN VULNERABILITY needs to be taken seriously and to the extent practical, shut down.