World Happiness Report: What The Experts Aren’t Telling You

The Illusion of Happiness

The World Happiness Report: A Flawed Measure of Success

Francis Fukuyama on the Fragility of Authoritarian Regimes

The Paradox of Dictatorships: Concentrated Power and Instability

Francis Fukuyama on the Fragility of Authoritarian Regimes

Anne Applebaum wrote about this shortly after the collapse. And I think she was essentially right; these authoritarian regimes are much more fragile than they appear to be through all the months and years that they continue with apparent stability. And the reason is that they’re basically illegitimate, that they rule simply by force. In Assad’s case, there was an Alawite minority in the country that the Assad family was part of. The rest of the society did not like them—hated them, actually—but they controlled the security apparatus and were able to hang on for 40 or more years. But the moment cracks began to appear within the Alawite community, I think that was the beginning of the end. It was just revealed that Assad managed to secret $250 million out of the country over the past couple of years, sending it to Moscow for his family’s private use. And so this was a regime that was corrupt to the core. It wasn’t distributing benefits even to that Alawite minority. And so, when the external supporters, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran were weakened, it was gone. And I think something very similar could happen in Venezuela, in Russia itself, in Nicaragua, and many other dictatorships that are similarly despised by their own people.

This is obviously a core paradox of dictatorships: because the power in them is so concentrated, it looks like it would be very difficult or impossible for them to collapse. And yet we’ve historically seen that dictatorships are not a very stable regime form, that they often go through upheavals and changes, some of which, many of which just lead to a different faction winning the upper hand and a different dictator installing themselves, as we saw in Egypt, where General El-Sisi ended up re-establishing something that looks quite a lot like Mubarak’s regime.

The Problem of Grade Inflation

Grade inflation at American universities is out of control. The statistics speak for themselves. In 1950, the average GPA at Harvard was estimated at 2.6 out of 4. By 2003, it had risen to 3.4. Today, it stands at 3.8. The more elite the college, the more lenient the standards. At Yale, for example, 80% of grades awarded in 2023 were As or A minuses. But the problem is also prevalent at less selective colleges. Across all four-year colleges in the United States, the most commonly awarded grade is now an A. Some professors and departments, especially in STEM disciplines, have managed to uphold more stringent criteria. A few advanced courses attract such a self-selecting cohort of students that virtually all of them deserve recognition for genuinely excellent work. But for the most part, the grading scheme at many institutions has effectively become useless. An A has stopped being a mark of special academic achievement. If everyone outside hardcore engineering, math or pre-med courses can easily get an A, the whole system becomes vacuous. It fails to make distinctions between different levels of achievement or to motivate students to work hard on their academic pursuits. All the while, it allows students to pretend—to themselves as well as to others—that they are performing exceptionally well.

Worse, the system as currently constituted creates bad incentives. To name but one example, it actively punishes those who take risks by enrolling in truly challenging courses. All of this contributes to the strikingly poor record American colleges have at actually educating their students. As Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa have shown in their book Academically Adrift, the time the average full-time college student spends studying halved in the five decades after 1960, falling to about a dozen hours a week. A clear majority of college students “showed no significant progress on tests of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing,” with about half failing to make any improvements at all in their first two years of higher education.

In one of the oldest jokes about the Soviet Union, a worker says “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” To an uncomfortable degree, American universities now work in a similar fashion: Students pretend to do their work, and academics pretend to grade them. It’s high time for a radical reboot of a broken system.

The World Happiness Report Is a Sham – Persuasion | Yascha Mounk

Rampant Grade Inflation in American Universities

The new school year is about to start! To mark the occasion, Yascha Mounk shares his reflections on rampant grade inflation at American universities—and the surprising step we should take to tackle the problem. And for those of you who want to keep yourself—or your loved ones—sane in the coming academic year, Mounk’s including a special offer: Take out a subscription for yourself, or for your daughter / nephew / family friend who is heading back to college, and get 25% off!

Grade inflation at American universities is out of control. The statistics speak for themselves. In 1950, the average GPA at Harvard was estimated at 2.6 out of 4. By 2003, it had risen to 3.4. Today, it stands at 3.8. The more elite the college, the more lenient the standards. At Yale, for example, 80% of grades awarded in 2023 were As or A minuses. But the problem is also prevalent at less selective colleges. Across all four-year colleges in the United States, the most commonly awarded grade is now an A. Some professors and departments, especially in STEM disciplines, have managed to uphold more stringent criteria. A few advanced courses attract such a self-selecting cohort of students that virtually all of them deserve recognition for genuinely excellent work. But for the most part, the grading scheme at many institutions has effectively become useless. An A has stopped being a mark of special academic achievement. If everyone outside hardcore engineering, math or pre-med courses can easily get an A, the whole system becomes vacuous. It fails to make distinctions between different levels of achievement or to motivate students to work hard on their academic pursuits. All the while, it allows students to pretend—to themselves as well as to others—that they are performing exceptionally well. Worse, the system as currently constituted creates bad incentives. To name but one example, it actively punishes those who take risks by enrolling in truly challenging courses. All of this contributes to the strikingly poor record American colleges have at actually educating their students. As Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa have shown in their book Academically Adrift, the time the average full-time college student spends studying halved in the five decades after 1960, falling to about a dozen hours a week. A clear majority of college students “showed no significant progress on tests of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing,” with about half failing to make any improvements at all in their first two years of higher education. In one of the oldest jokes about the Soviet Union, a worker says “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” To an uncomfortable degree, American universities now work in a similar fashion: Students pretend to do their work, and academics pretend to grade them. It’s high time for a radical reboot of a broken system.

The Consequences of a Broken System: Lack of Motivation and Poor Education

Grade inflation has deep roots. Tuition fees are higher than ever. And so universities have come to see students as prized customers whose demands—from lavish dorms and gyms to teachers who don’t unduly interfere with their extracurricular commitments and busy social lives—better be heeded. Meanwhile, tenure-track jobs are getting harder and harder to find. And so the young academics who make it through the system tend to be laser-focused on the metric that matters most to their careers: publishing in academic journals. Throughout my PhD program, the advice to us graduate students, implicit or sometimes explicit, was not to “waste” too much time on teaching. In the years since, multiple friends who got good academic jobs have been told the same by senior members of their departments who will one day decide whether to grant them tenure. When professors are too busy worrying about their own research to care about delivering truly excellent instruction, the result is a system that fails its students. Students are left with no motivation to study harder, no real incentive to aim higher, and no serious opportunity to learn. They are in essence being cheated out of the most valuable thing they could take away from their university experience: a robust education. The consequences are clear. A study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that college students in 2015 scored lower in college-level English and math than their peers did in 1992. The lack of rigor and accountability in grading practices is part of the problem. When students are not challenged, they do not develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that are essential for success in the modern workforce. This is a significant concern, as the job market increasingly demands higher-order skills that cannot be obtained through rote memorization and superficial understanding. The current system of grade inflation is not only demotivating students but also setting them up for failure in the long run. It is a systemic issue that requires urgent attention and reform.

A Radical Reboot: The Need for a New Approach to Grading

To address the issue of grade inflation, a radical reboot of the grading system is necessary. One approach that has shown promise is the implementation of a more straightforward and transparent grading system. For instance, some universities have introduced a grading scale that clearly defines what constitutes an A, B, C, D, or F. This approach provides students with a clear understanding of their performance and the standards they need to meet to achieve higher grades. Another effective strategy is the use of rubrics and detailed feedback. Rubrics provide students with specific criteria for assessment, making it easier for them to understand what is expected of them. Detailed feedback helps students identify areas where they need to improve and provides guidance on how to do so. This approach not only helps students to improve their academic performance but also fosters a culture of continuous learning and development. Furthermore, the use of peer reviews and collaborative learning can enhance the educational experience. Peer reviews allow students to learn from each other, develop critical thinking skills, and gain a different perspective on their own work. Collaborative learning encourages teamwork and communication skills, which are essential in the workplace. By implementing these strategies, universities can create a more rigorous and meaningful educational experience for their students. This approach not only addresses the issue of grade inflation but also prepares students for the challenges they will face in the future.

State of American Politics

Ed Luce on the Prospects of Trumpism and the Republican Party

Ed Luce is the US national editor and columnist at the Financial Times. He is also a member of Unionjournalism’s board of advisors. In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Ed Luce discuss the prospects for Trump (and Trumpism) in the near future; why America no longer feels like a “can-do” nation; and whether America can defend its values in the world while avoiding escalation with China. The views expressed are those of the speakers, not those of Unionjournalism. The transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Mounk: I’ve been looking forward to our conversation, but I have been slightly depressed about one thing and I want you to lift me out of my depression (or aggravate it, I suppose, as you choose). During the Trump years, there was a lot of fear about what might happen. But there was also hope that if we beat this guy decisively in 2020 we’ll turn a corner. But over two years into the Biden administration, the Republican Party is continuing to get more extreme. Trumpism is spreading through the party. Even his rivals are sort of pretending to be the smarter Trump, or a more effective Trump, or Trump-lite. And it doesn’t look like the Democratic Party is seizing the strategic opening to actually become the dominant political party. Will we ever get out of this kind of existential mode of combat?

Luce: This sense that it’s always the next election, and that’s when we’ll finally end the fever, as Obama once described the Tea Party (which now seem like very tame sort of house pets compared to where we are today), is probably a little bit of wishful thinking. A lot of my friends on the more liberal side of the spectrum have an expectation that if the nominee is Trump, then that’s the best thing for Biden, because Biden will be beaten by a younger person. But I have to say, although they’re probably correct, I feel extremely strong déjà vu from similar conversations in 2015, where people were saying, “Now, if only Hillary could actually get Trump as her opponent, then all will be fine!” And of course, we know what happened. I feel there’s a little bit of that complacency visible today. I start with the premise in today’s America, that elections, presidential elections are 50-50 events. Now, maybe they’re 53-47 for a moderate sort of mainstream incumbent like Biden. But they’re still too close to feel remotely comfortable. I guess your question is how long that tail end risk will go on, whether a second Trump defeat (and a third, in terms of the popular vote) would end this cycle in American politics. And I very much doubt it. We’re not going to go back to the party of Jeb Bush. The question is whether there are going to be more electable versions of Trump, which is why I think that the person to fear here would be Glenn Youngkin, who has all the same views—maybe pragmatically, maybe he doesn’t deep down. But who really cares? It’s what people articulate in public that we measure. Glenn Youngkin has all the same views, but he gives the appearance of being a suburban dad. He’s reassuring. That’s more the future of the Republican Party post-Trump if Trump loses.

The Rise of Extremism and the Decline of Institutional Trust

America is at a crossroads. The rise of extremism within the Republican Party and the decline of institutional trust pose significant challenges to the stability of the country. The Republican Party has increasingly embraced far-right ideologies, leading to a polarization that threatens the very fabric of American democracy. The party’s embrace of Trumpism has resulted in a shift towards authoritarian tendencies, with many Republican candidates and leaders echoing Trump’s rhetoric and policies. This trend is not only alarming but also divisive, as it creates a climate of mistrust and suspicion among the populace. The decline of institutional trust is another pressing issue. Institutions that were once pillars of American society, such as the government, media, and even the scientific community, are now viewed with skepticism and distrust by many. This erosion of trust has been fueled by misinformation and conspiracy theories, which have gained traction in the digital age. The result is a fragmented society where consensus is difficult to achieve, and progress is stymied by constant conflict. To address these challenges, it is essential to promote dialogue and understanding across political divides. This involves fostering a culture of respect and tolerance, where differing views are acknowledged and debated constructively. It also requires a concerted effort to combat misinformation and promote accurate information. By rebuilding trust in institutions and fostering a more inclusive political environment, America can overcome the current challenges and move towards a more united and prosperous future.

The Dangers of Complacency: Why Elections Remain Unpredictable

The danger of complacency cannot be overstated. Many people, especially on the liberal side, assume that if Trump is the nominee, it will be a straightforward path to victory for the Democratic candidate. However, history has shown that elections in America are never guaranteed. The 2016 election was a stark reminder of this unpredictability, as many pundits and experts predicted a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton. The same complacency was evident in 2020, with some believing that Trump’s presidency would be a one-term anomaly. Yet, the election was closer than expected, and the outcome was decided by a narrow margin in key swing states. This unpredictability is a hallmark of American politics, where a variety of factors, including voter turnout, campaign strategies, and external events, can sway the results. The Republican Party’s embrace of Trumpism has added another layer of unpredictability. While some candidates may distance themselves from Trump’s more inflammatory rhetoric, they often still align with his policies and ideals. This makes it difficult to predict how the party will evolve and what its future nominees will represent. Moreover, the rise of new figures like Glenn Youngkin, who present a more palatable image while holding similar views, complicates the political landscape. They could appeal to a broader voter base, making elections even more unpredictable. In this environment, complacency is dangerous. It is essential to remain vigilant and engaged, understanding that every election is a critical moment in shaping the future of the country. By actively participating in the political process and staying informed, voters can help steer the nation towards a more equitable and inclusive future.

For those of you who want to keep yourself—or your loved ones—sane in the coming academic year, Mounk’s including a special offer: Take out a subscription for yourself, or for your daughter / nephew / family friend who is heading back to college, and get 25% off!