Omg, I love you for saying this Malcolm!! I've always felt this way. They're trying to fix the world's problems and justify the expense that way, but forget that one easy way of "fixing" world problems is to give people access to education!
Unlimited appetite.😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢 Malcolm, I’m always searching for a fresh and positive way to describe my birth culture. Im an expat in Japan for 30 years. But beneath the thin veneer of Japanese affectation, I’m basically a small town, white southerner, who was to a great degree taught, trained, but unsuccessfully, to aspire for the highest relative educational attainment . I’m currently in favor of describing my culture as probing the boundaries of fulfillment of appetite. If my grandkid were to even apply to a near, or fake Ivy League school, I would be pleased as punch. But my heart would be in the Jersey school scribe. To have the chance to turn down one for the other, that would be satisfying.
You’re really doing the argument of talent versus tinker. Or mutuality versus hierarchy. I just got provisional patent on an entire revolution in the microbiological world but I don’t have a fancy college where I got my degree. So I won’t waste my time trying to raise money I will simply bootstrap as I have always done.
Malcolm makes me proud, and is an amazing role model. Thank you for your contribution to generations younger than you, showing us how we can use our own well of knowledge to not be silent and complacent, but helpful to the generation after us. I appreciate you sir.
Like he did at the debate trying to call Matt Taibbi a racist because he couldn't make a single argument for why he should be trusted. This man is washed out, and is a partisan hack. He has contributed to destroying a generation with his mindless dribble and his views and likes reflect that. Going back to reading substack I just had to point out you are so wrong it deserves refuting.
It makes one wonder where all these billionaires come from: were they self made, starting from scratch, building up little by little to get to the top (it does not sound likely, hearing their justifications), or do they come from established wealth (which seems more probable, and yet there must be many from modest starts)? Is it naive to imagine those who came from modest means would want to donate to those universities that nurtured them, not the ones they did not dare apply to or which refused them? This podcast seems to show that everyone, whatever their background, wants to be able to say: "I gave to Harvard" or something similar. The almost billionaire prime minister (well, it may be that his wife has the money) of the UK talked about the great welcome his family got, or his parents, I think he said in an interview, when presumably they could have been turned away ("being poor" is the sub text). But now he wants to prevent those coming after him from being allowed the privileges his family got: "give me an opportunity and lock everybody else out who comes after me". Wow! Favouring a hundred students instead of thousands seems to be the same. And I find it terribly depressing, also when it seems to me (I know: what do I know!), the probability of bright or very bright students coming from the poor end of education is far far higher from the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of students, then it is of the tens of thousands of students from a background of not worrying about where the money for the replacement shoes will come from. (I listened to the podcast "Carlos doesn't remember", yesterday). It turns out I was lucky, and even at the time I knew it when I was sent fifty years ago to an elite boarding school in Switzerland, that now costs more than entry into Harvard, or Eton in the UK. There are a couple of brilliant videos on UA-cam on Charles Steinmetz the "wizard of Schenectady" (and made by "Kathy who loves physics and history") who worked for what eventually would become General Electric. Steinmetz, who arrived from Germany in the US in 1889 as a political refugee, felt that: "the US had given him everything, but one criticism he could make is that he would far more enjoy his advantages if he knew that everybody could enjoy the same." I could not have said it better, if I had expressed it myself. (Watch her videos; they are inspiring. Steinmetz was an incredible scientist!)
The reason philanthropists give money away is simple. The money would go to taxes which they have no faith the government would spend wisely. By donating it, they can specify how it is to be spent. Granted, some may do it for attention, some out of guilt, some anonymously but the bottom line is they all believe they can use the money better than the government ever could.
Hank Rowan was one of the last true gentlemen this world has ever known. I met him once, and not only was he impeccably dressed, he was impressively accomplished.
Gladwell is smart enough and experienced enough and well-connected enough that being surprised by any of this comes off as incredibly disingenuous. Cmon man, you know *exactly* what’s up.
Dear Mr. Shovemedia, creators like Mr. Gladwell do not write, film or broadcast for people who already know the subject nor to show off on his platform. Do you wish to deny his right to inform others about crucial issues of the day? If you do not appreciate his style and uses of forms of rhetoric then perhaps you would rise to the challenge of rewriting in your own style if you feel that would be more persuasive.
Dear Mary, I thought his audience was intelligent enough that my comment would stand on its own. Thanks for demonstrating how wrong that assumption was.
Dear Mr. Shovemedia, permit me to make this short, although no promises. I am a fan of Mr. Gladwell's as I would be of anyone so hardworking and talented who can use language with his high degree of skill both as a wordsmith and storyteller. I will make the assumption that having chosen your handle you see yourself in the role of media critic. Good. You seem perfect, if snarky, for the job. But good, rather excellent, critics generally offer more than snarkiness. They, too, offer an opinion from a credible point-of-view on the subject at hand, which you have not. Hence my observations. Golly, but the world is a dark and evil place. This is the reason we are lucky to have someone, such as Mr. Gladwell, to listen to and maybe provide you or me or some other audience member out there the chance to say or do something at just the opportune time to make some difference out here in the darkness for deserving students. Just a thought. Enough of this. Going to try to be somehow productive now. Good night, Kind Sir.
I liked this one too... listening to it the analogy with Mr Trump popped into my head. He says all this good things, like he is rooting for the little guy ,but when he is in the back room with his millioner friends all the legislation is in favor of the big guys, so was Mr Standford. He said that all this money is for the little guy, to open a wider door for the talented little guy but its not.... how do we fall in this trap over and over?
Or society could value art as much as it values corporations and we wouldn't live in the cultural black hole we live. It can't be artists responsibility alone
@@RenegadeContext why would you say “or” as if those statements are mutually exclusive, and I’m wrong? It would be great if people valued the arts more highly. To be fair, your solution is a larger and way more complex issue (combatting the societal issue of a population’s penchant to be philistines) whereas mine just asks millionaires and billionaires who have been made inordinately rich being artists to give some back to help promote that which made them inordinately rich. So mine’s simpler by far, and not unreasonable, and not mutually exclusive to other decent ideas. But yo, when you figure out how to make people see the world through your eyes and act accordingly, you let me know. I suggest you start by dropping the needlessly confrontational, arrogant attitude.
@@SkiRedMtn you think artists become billionaires? A very small and elite number of actors maybe but that's not the norm. Most artists that go through colleges will be lucky to make a living from their art. The reason I said it's a social issue rather than an artist's issue is because I am one and I know the struggle. Most artists will give up because making a living is so hard. Tell me where all these billionaire and millionaire artists are?
@@RenegadeContext okay, Beyoncé, JayZ, Taylor Swift, Céline Dion, Madonna, Jimmy Buffet, Puffy Combs, Paul McCartney, Rihanna, and that’s just RECORDING artists over 750 mil. Never mind actors, and I only listed pop artists. Not song writers, score writers, or classical or jazz musicians. OVER 3/4 billion only, that list. There are well enough RICH ASS screen and recording artists to make a dent in arts education in North America, believe you me. At one point Elizabeth Moss, who is hardly a global blockbuster star, made over a $million PER EPISODE for the Handmaid’s Tale. What planet are you on? I never fucking said it was downright common. Most screen actors make less than $26,000 per annum. Don’t put words in my mouth. Half of my family are professional musicians; I know the score. They also teach, or supplement their income except for one who has scraped a decent living only performing and writing. You don’t have special knowledge, and nothing you’ve stated has poked a single hole in any of my comments. I’ve never seen your art, but I’m sure you deserve more appreciation than you receive, and that the variance between your acumen and that of someone making a good living is minor, or nonexistent. That’s a raw deal to be sure. But that doesn’t reduce the amount of millionaire artists who could give more back so that struggling folks in the same industry could maybe get some better opportunities. But you didn’t address why what I said would be mutually exclusive to what you said, initially, and instead you decided to double down on being wrong. As well as being antagonistic. Plus I 100% agreed with you that the arts are societally undervalued. Jesus. Just not sure what your endgame is here. Or your problem.
And why should they? People like you always think the guy above you needs to have earnings restricted and taxes increased. You never consider there is always a guy below you who thinks the same thing. Neither of you considers that the guys above you, either through industry or philanthropy, are responsible for bringing you up to your present level. They are not responsible for holding you back. They are not stuffing their mattresses with their money, they are growing the economy, creating jobs, raising the standard of living, improving education.
Thinking philanthropists funnel their giving to elite academic institutions for altruistic motives is as naive as thinking people attend elite academc institutions for the education. #Connections
Mixed motives are common. Malcolm has the endearing quality of expecting the best of everyone, he respects people. It's not naivete, it's acceptance of human complexity. If you listen to more of this series you will get that. This value is in short shrift today, nobody wants to give the benefit of the doubt to someone they disagree with. This is destructive.
if I was king of the world ... I think i would go deeper into the sports analogy.... I would have all the big-guy schools attach to less privileged schools like "farm teams" and minor leagues. their endowments would help those lower on the chain. And when students who develop to be exceptional in some area become recognized, the could help them move into better programs and redistribute the talent and opportunities. i know wishful thinking... but king of the world thoughts be like that.
Malcolm, Malcolm. You're asking elites to have non-elitist thinking. Quite a stretch, don't you think. Even I think of the world in often self-serving ways. And, although I have white, male privilege, I'm not siting on top of a mountain of it. A good question to ask folks like that is: "Would the US had done as well in WWII, if the New Deal had not preceeded it?"
The Munk debate was bad, but are we supposed to now ignore Gladwell completely? Perhaps you'd like to mention a hero of yours, and let's see how spotless their entire public record is. Do you have the courage to check?
The timing of these ads are horrible. Totally ruins the focus and train of thought when listening. Please make them fewer. I know it pays, but it sucks to have so many.
Leadership? Isn’t that what President Trump is all about leadership.. this Stanford interview makes me want to vote for Trump. . Unlimited appprtite. Why not vote for entertainment as well as leadership 😢
Great Episode....but Malcolm people can give their money where they want to. The guy who donated $150 Million to students to "make sure" they had access to Harvard is more than likely telling the truth regardless of the endowment. (If I want to give money to Harvard for whatever reason and regardless of the endowment that should be applauded.). Also your criticism about the Stanford President "complaining" about the Mark Zuckerberg "bottom-up" donation style is equal to your "complaining" of the Standford President's "Top-Down" style... Finally, Stanford's President never said that the California System would misuse the money, he was speaking of a hypothetical as you were when you brought up the article... What I "feel" you did in this particular episode is say .. Let me do this episode but my mind is made up. (i.e. previous Twitter Meltdown). You and the Stanford President met and neither one of you probably were open to the idea of changing your minds.... Very Interesting Topic... Keep up the good work... Please also list the donations you've made to some of the underserved journalism schools in America... Thanks!
While there is a point for funding non-elite universities, post G12 education is not like a single soccer team (at most it is like a group of teams in different sports), and a soccer team's success does *not*, except in leagues in which the abilities of the players are extremely close to each other, pivot on the ability of the worst player. Totally wrong analogy.
Omg, I love you for saying this Malcolm!! I've always felt this way. They're trying to fix the world's problems and justify the expense that way, but forget that one easy way of "fixing" world problems is to give people access to education!
The weak link strong link idea is the best idea i have heard in a while.Thanks Malcolm.
You are amazing at communicating ideas so clearly. Just got this randomly on my feed and loved it. Makes so much sense. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing this story. It was extremely eye opening 🙏
Too much truth Malcom, most folks can't handle the truth
Unlimited appetite.😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢 Malcolm, I’m always searching for a fresh and positive way to describe my birth culture. Im an expat in Japan for 30 years. But beneath the thin veneer of Japanese affectation, I’m basically a small town, white southerner, who was to a great degree taught, trained, but unsuccessfully, to aspire for the highest relative educational attainment . I’m currently in favor of describing my culture as probing the boundaries of fulfillment of appetite. If my grandkid were to even apply to a near, or fake Ivy League school, I would be pleased as punch. But my heart would be in the Jersey school scribe. To have the chance to turn down one for the other, that would be satisfying.
Excellent episode. Very thoughtful. Thx you
You’re really doing the argument of talent versus tinker. Or mutuality versus hierarchy. I just got provisional patent on an entire revolution in the microbiological world but I don’t have a fancy college where I got my degree. So I won’t waste my time trying to raise money I will simply bootstrap as I have always done.
So instructive in dealing with the town and county I am living in . must rethink how I interact with them.
Malcolm makes me proud, and is an amazing role model. Thank you for your contribution to generations younger than you, showing us how we can use our own well of knowledge to not be silent and complacent, but helpful to the generation after us. I appreciate you sir.
Like he did at the debate trying to call Matt Taibbi a racist because he couldn't make a single argument for why he should be trusted. This man is washed out, and is a partisan hack. He has contributed to destroying a generation with his mindless dribble and his views and likes reflect that.
Going back to reading substack I just had to point out you are so wrong it deserves refuting.
00ppp😊p
00ppp😊p
Pp😊
So much to digest and consider
As a graduate of SJSU, a California State University (CSU), hearing Malcolm Gladwell praising UC schools....ouch.
It makes one wonder where all these billionaires come from: were they self made, starting from scratch, building up little by little to get to the top (it does not sound likely, hearing their justifications), or do they come from established wealth (which seems more probable, and yet there must be many from modest starts)?
Is it naive to imagine those who came from modest means would want to donate to those universities that nurtured them, not the ones they did not dare apply to or which refused them? This podcast seems to show that everyone, whatever their background, wants to be able to say: "I gave to Harvard" or something similar.
The almost billionaire prime minister (well, it may be that his wife has the money) of the UK talked about the great welcome his family got, or his parents, I think he said in an interview, when presumably they could have been turned away ("being poor" is the sub text). But now he wants to prevent those coming after him from being allowed the privileges his family got: "give me an opportunity and lock everybody else out who comes after me". Wow!
Favouring a hundred students instead of thousands seems to be the same.
And I find it terribly depressing, also when it seems to me (I know: what do I know!), the probability of bright or very bright students coming from the poor end of education is far far higher from the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of students, then it is of the tens of thousands of students from a background of not worrying about where the money for the replacement shoes will come from.
(I listened to the podcast "Carlos doesn't remember", yesterday).
It turns out I was lucky, and even at the time I knew it when I was sent fifty years ago to an elite boarding school in Switzerland, that now costs more than entry into Harvard, or Eton in the UK.
There are a couple of brilliant videos on UA-cam on Charles Steinmetz the "wizard of Schenectady" (and made by "Kathy who loves physics and history") who worked for what eventually would become General Electric. Steinmetz, who arrived from Germany in the US in 1889 as a political refugee, felt that: "the US had given him everything, but one criticism he could make is that he would far more enjoy his advantages if he knew that everybody could enjoy the same."
I could not have said it better, if I had expressed it myself.
(Watch her videos; they are inspiring. Steinmetz was an incredible scientist!)
(Nota Bene: I meant to write when the parents of Mr Rishi Sunak, who is the current UK prime minister, first arrived in the UK and were allowed in...)
Thank you.
The reason philanthropists give money away is simple. The money would go to taxes which they have no faith the government would spend wisely. By donating it, they can specify how it is to be spent. Granted, some may do it for attention, some out of guilt, some anonymously but the bottom line is they all believe they can use the money better than the government ever could.
Interesting. Cheers.
Hank Rowan was one of the last true gentlemen this world has ever known. I met him once, and not only was he impeccably dressed, he was impressively accomplished.
Gladwell is smart enough and experienced enough and well-connected enough that being surprised by any of this comes off as incredibly disingenuous. Cmon man, you know *exactly* what’s up.
Dear Mr. Shovemedia, creators like Mr. Gladwell do not write, film or broadcast for people who already know the subject nor to show off on his platform. Do you wish to deny his right to inform others about crucial issues of the day? If you do not appreciate his style and uses of forms of rhetoric then perhaps you would rise to the challenge of rewriting in your own style if you feel that would be more persuasive.
Dear Mary, I thought his audience was intelligent enough that my comment would stand on its own. Thanks for demonstrating how wrong that assumption was.
Dear Mr. Shovemedia, permit me to make this short, although no promises. I am a fan of Mr. Gladwell's as I would be of anyone so hardworking and talented who can use language with his high degree of skill both as a wordsmith and storyteller. I will make the assumption that having chosen your handle you see yourself in the role of media critic. Good. You seem perfect, if snarky, for the job. But good, rather excellent, critics generally offer more than snarkiness. They, too, offer an opinion from a credible point-of-view on the subject at hand, which you have not. Hence my observations. Golly, but the world is a dark and evil place. This is the reason we are lucky to have someone, such as Mr. Gladwell, to listen to and maybe provide you or me or some other audience member out there the chance to say or do something at just the opportune time to make some difference out here in the darkness for deserving students. Just a thought. Enough of this. Going to try to be somehow productive now. Good night, Kind Sir.
I liked this one too... listening to it the analogy with Mr Trump popped into my head. He says all this good things, like he is rooting for the little guy ,but when he is in the back room with his millioner friends all the legislation is in favor of the big guys, so was Mr Standford. He said that all this money is for the little guy, to open a wider door for the talented little guy but its not.... how do we fall in this trap over and over?
Because you listen to arrogant elitists like Gladwell.
Successful recording and screen artists should give as much to Arts schools and we might not be in the cultural black hole we currently inhabit
Or society could value art as much as it values corporations and we wouldn't live in the cultural black hole we live. It can't be artists responsibility alone
@@RenegadeContext why would you say “or” as if those statements are mutually exclusive, and I’m wrong?
It would be great if people valued the arts more highly. To be fair, your solution is a larger and way more complex issue (combatting the societal issue of a population’s penchant to be philistines) whereas mine just asks millionaires and billionaires who have been made inordinately rich being artists to give some back to help promote that which made them inordinately rich.
So mine’s simpler by far, and not unreasonable, and not mutually exclusive to other decent ideas.
But yo, when you figure out how to make people see the world through your eyes and act accordingly, you let me know. I suggest you start by dropping the needlessly confrontational, arrogant attitude.
@@SkiRedMtn you think artists become billionaires? A very small and elite number of actors maybe but that's not the norm. Most artists that go through colleges will be lucky to make a living from their art. The reason I said it's a social issue rather than an artist's issue is because I am one and I know the struggle. Most artists will give up because making a living is so hard. Tell me where all these billionaire and millionaire artists are?
@@RenegadeContext okay, Beyoncé, JayZ, Taylor Swift, Céline Dion, Madonna, Jimmy Buffet, Puffy Combs, Paul McCartney, Rihanna, and that’s just RECORDING artists over 750 mil. Never mind actors, and I only listed pop artists. Not song writers, score writers, or classical or jazz musicians.
OVER 3/4 billion only, that list. There are well enough RICH ASS screen and recording artists to make a dent in arts education in North America, believe you me. At one point Elizabeth Moss, who is hardly a global blockbuster star, made over a $million PER EPISODE for the Handmaid’s Tale. What planet are you on?
I never fucking said it was downright common. Most screen actors make less than $26,000 per annum. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Half of my family are professional musicians; I know the score. They also teach, or supplement their income except for one who has scraped a decent living only performing and writing. You don’t have special knowledge, and nothing you’ve stated has poked a single hole in any of my comments.
I’ve never seen your art, but I’m sure you deserve more appreciation than you receive, and that the variance between your acumen and that of someone making a good living is minor, or nonexistent. That’s a raw deal to be sure. But that doesn’t reduce the amount of millionaire artists who could give more back so that struggling folks in the same industry could maybe get some better opportunities.
But you didn’t address why what I said would be mutually exclusive to what you said, initially, and instead you decided to double down on being wrong. As well as being antagonistic. Plus I 100% agreed with you that the arts are societally undervalued. Jesus.
Just not sure what your endgame is here. Or your problem.
@@SkiRedMtn you have anger issues dude, calm down.
"How much is enough?" isn't a question that capitalism ever thinks it needs to answer...
And why should they? People like you always think the guy above you needs to have earnings restricted and taxes increased. You never consider there is always a guy below you who thinks the same thing. Neither of you considers that the guys above you, either through industry or philanthropy, are responsible for bringing you up to your present level. They are not responsible for holding you back. They are not stuffing their mattresses with their money, they are growing the economy, creating jobs, raising the standard of living, improving education.
Thinking philanthropists funnel their giving to elite academic institutions for altruistic motives is as naive as thinking people attend elite academc institutions for the education. #Connections
Mixed motives are common. Malcolm has the endearing quality of expecting the best of everyone, he respects people. It's not naivete, it's acceptance of human complexity. If you listen to more of this series you will get that. This value is in short shrift today, nobody wants to give the benefit of the doubt to someone they disagree with. This is destructive.
@@wendylafolle - I speak as someone who once was so naive as to attend an elite college for the education alone.
if I was king of the world ... I think i would go deeper into the sports analogy.... I would have all the big-guy schools attach to less privileged schools like "farm teams" and minor leagues. their endowments would help those lower on the chain. And when students who develop to be exceptional in some area become recognized, the could help them move into better programs and redistribute the talent and opportunities.
i know wishful thinking... but king of the world thoughts be like that.
Or, crazy thought, just make billionaires actually pay taxes. Something reasonable, say 90% after the first hundred million.
... great idea , luv that ,
education needs to spread out , trickle down , work together , thx ......
I wonder how good Stanford can be of they can't follow this simple logic and act on it. They just seem locked in cycle of greed
Another way to imagine $100 million in 1990, with it you could have bought between 1000 and 2000 single family homes in the US, depending on the city.
I think you misplaced a zero or two. But I appreciate The intent.
@@quadnine Thank you. I recalculated.
Tax deductions.... did you mention tax deductions?
Malcolm, Malcolm. You're asking elites to have non-elitist thinking. Quite a stretch, don't you think.
Even I think of the world in often self-serving ways. And, although I have white, male privilege, I'm not siting on top of a mountain of it.
A good question to ask folks like that is:
"Would the US had done as well in WWII, if the New Deal had not preceeded it?"
The Munk debate on MSM. Nuff said.
The Munk debate was bad, but are we supposed to now ignore Gladwell completely? Perhaps you'd like to mention a hero of yours, and let's see how spotless their entire public record is. Do you have the courage to check?
"England had more geniuses like James Watt"
Yeah, James Watt was Scottish.
The timing of these ads are horrible. Totally ruins the focus and train of thought when listening. Please make them fewer. I know it pays, but it sucks to have so many.
pay for UA-cam Premium instead of demanding ad-free content without contributing anything
It’s not a zero sum game.
too funny that billionaires can't do MATH MATH....it doesn't ADD up you don't need calculus her
Leadership? Isn’t that what President Trump is all about leadership.. this Stanford interview makes me want to vote for Trump. . Unlimited appprtite. Why not vote for entertainment as well as leadership 😢
Great Episode....but
Malcolm people can give their money where they want to. The guy who donated $150 Million to students to "make sure" they had access to Harvard is more than likely telling the truth regardless of the endowment. (If I want to give money to Harvard for whatever reason and regardless of the endowment that should be applauded.).
Also your criticism about the Stanford President "complaining" about the Mark Zuckerberg "bottom-up" donation style is equal to your "complaining" of the Standford President's "Top-Down" style...
Finally, Stanford's President never said that the California System would misuse the money, he was speaking of a hypothetical as you were when you brought up the article...
What I "feel" you did in this particular episode is say .. Let me do this episode but my mind is made up. (i.e. previous Twitter Meltdown). You and the Stanford President met and neither one of you probably were open to the idea of changing your minds....
Very Interesting Topic...
Keep up the good work...
Please also list the donations you've made to some of the underserved journalism schools in America...
Thanks!
While there is a point for funding non-elite universities, post G12 education is not like a single soccer team (at most it is like a group of teams in different sports), and a soccer team's success does *not*, except in leagues in which the abilities of the players are extremely close to each other, pivot on the ability of the worst player. Totally wrong analogy.
Malcom is a cruelly contemptible varmint and a monstrous heart-sickening plot-less melodrama of uneventful life
do you know why very many people would find your comment weird? have you noted how many movers-and-doers talk w/ gladwell?