u/kmondschein

I gave a response to this question (I mean American academia, or course) and I thought I'd expand it and post it here:

1. The function of social capital became seen as elitist decades ago. Yet, elite universities continue to be over-represented in the most powerful and influential positions and industries. This breeds resentment.
2. The expense versus the payoff no longer makes financial sense for many majors, and whether a degree in a once well-paying field (such as computer science) will continue to pay dividends in excess of student debt is a crapshoot.
3. The idea of spending 4-5 years out of the workforce is rightly seen as only people with relative privilege can do. Many can not afford to do so. If you have children, need to work or provide eldercare, or do not have stable housing or parental support, it is out of reach.
4. Degree creep: In part due to increasing automation, the bachelor’s is seen as merely a certificate HR requires for basic white-collar work; the master’s is the new bachelor’s.
5. Accredited schools' government-granted monopoly on granting this certification is seen as illegitimate and rent-seeking.
6. The system presents itself as a meritocracy, but this is deeply flawed. There is an elitist gradation of schools, with admission by large dependent on family background/wealth or extraordinary early promise. Yet, many people develop their potential later in life but will lack the admission to the networks of elite schools.
7. Adjunctification of the professorate and expansion of the administration. Schools likewise spend more on bells and whistles like gyms for athletes than dorms or instructors.
8. A few schools, albeit ones with major public awareness, are major league sports businesses with minor league education businesses.
9. The death of trust in expertise and critical thought on the part of the general public in favor of AI and Googling. Likewise, the replacement of basic and bench science with conspiracy theories and industry-driven, profit-focused research. Experts such as physicians, scientists, and attorneys are seen as part of a corrupt, rent-seeking system stacked against the non-expert. If you are in legal trouble, you need to spend a lot of money for an attorney; lack of access to healthcare leads people to trust Dr. Google and "wellness" experts more than doctors; scientists are seen as eggheads promoting the interests of corporate entities (example: vaccines).
10. Financial pressure due to a declining enrollment pool, leading to school closures and lowering of standards in non-elite (and even some prestigious) schools.
11. Universities are (whether rightly or wrongly) seen as irrationally progressive, with critical thought taking a back seat to left-wing shibboleths
12. Disinvestment from state governments in their universities, leading to various budget and operational crises.

Edit: fixed very non-AI grammar and typos.

I have three: a smart but also usually compliant Paint gelding, a sweet but dumb Appaloosa mare, and Billy The Stubborn Diabolical Genius Appendix QH from Hell who was abandoned on my farm by my former farrier, perhaps as punishment for sins I committed in a past life. Billy can open gates, snap halters, untie himself, dismantle non-reinforced fences, and possibly do light electrical work and plumbing. He also has the impulse control of a three-year-old child who has consumed three Pixie Sticks and also meth. Anyway, I usually lock one of the geldings in the paddock overnight so they don't play hard enough to cost me vet bills in the morning (i.e., Billy instigates a fight). Billy hates being locked up. He hates being alone, too, and also working, and also the barn cat, and also getting in the trailer, and also anything that does not involve sitting around and eating.

I usually get them in from the field by putting hay in the feeders for their midnight snack and all three will come up, since Billy is pretty herd-bound. Well, tonight, he did a new trick: he hid from me until the other gelding was safely locked up and I had tramped all over the field to find him (it's only 1.7 acres) and it was clear I was going back in (to get a flashlight and make sure he wasn't dead or somehow escaped even though I reinforced all the fences). Then, and only then, did he came up to kick my mare off her feeder, even though there was a completely open feeder with the same damn hay in it. To pull this trick off, he would have had to have actually been avoiding me while moving with more stealth than I thought a horse was capable of. I am talking Navy SEAL on a covert mission levels of stealth.

I'd sell Billy but I'm afraid I'd find him back in my field with a note saying "HERE'S YOUR DEMON HORSE BACK." Also he's a damn pretty mover...

I am disappoint: last time I was here in the V&A, the late 16th century rapier foil owned by Hutton was on display. Apparently it’s in storage, next available appointment is in the autumn, and I’m going back tomorrow.

As much as I’d like to lick handle the thing, is anyone in London or environs and could get me really good photos, measurements, etc.?

Me again. I saw the post from that sweet 17-year-old girl who's being bullied as "too fat" and I need to talk about a conversation I had today.

I was at a historical-fencing event today where we spent four hours in medieval armor. As it's well known that I'm a horse person in that small community, I got talking with someone who wants to get back into riding. He's a few inches shorter than me, but a barrel-shaped 230 pounds of muscle. He power-lifts and wrestles, and the fact he did a four-hour class in armor will tell you all you need to know about his fitness level. And he's had some riding experience. The barn literally down the street from him won't take anyone over 200 lbs. I, of course, advised him to find a Western barn.

I'm going to say this in small words because it needs to get out there: weight and body composition are very different things. There is no study out there that addresses the muscle vs. fat issue. However, I ask you: would you rather put an untrained novice 198-pound woman who is 5'2" on a 1100-pound horse, or a conditioned 230-pound, 5'9" man with some experience? I'm not saying we should put 300-lb tourists on tiny Paso Finos for trail rides because of body positivity (though I have known many fine horsepeople who carried, shall we say, more than a little extra adipose tissue), nor that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson should be riding... anything. I'm saying that we need to have realistic and flexible guidelines that take into account individuals, their body composition, and their ability to carry themselves.

Likewise, since I am occasionally asked to teach riding to other people and I'm a responsible person, I wanted to do Certified Horsemanship. Well, the only place offering a clinic near me has a 200-lb limit, and they wouldn't let me truck in my own horses.

What arbitrary weight limits do is discourage men, particularly men with athletic backgrounds, from getting into riding. These rules also increasingly feel like they were invented by women to bully other women. It is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Edit: The comments are very loud but this post has over 80% almost 85% upvotes, so I think we can see where public opinion lies...

>RULES  TO  BE  OBSERVED  IN  THE  ASSAULT, 
OR 
IN  A MATCH  OR  CONTEST  FOR  PRIZES. 

>1.  The  cuts  and  thrusts  must  not  be  given  too  heavily,  hard  hitting  does  not  constitute  good  play.

>2.  With  the  sabre,  singlestick,  or  great-stick,  no  cut  is  to  be  made  inside,  lower  than  the  waist,  unless  suitable  defensive  armour  is  worn. 

>3.  If  both  combatants  lunge  at  the  same  time  and  both  hit,  the  hit  shall  count  to  neither. 

>4.  If  both  hit  at  the  same  time,  only  one  being  on  the.  lunge,  the  hit  must  count  to  the  one  who  lunges. 

>5.  A pass  in  those  exercises  in  which  it  is  allowable  is  to  be  reckoned  as  a lunge. 

>6.  With  the  foil  the  only  hits  which  count  are  those  which  take  effect  on  the  “ place  d’armes,”  or  that  part  of  the  breast  on  which  it  is  agreed  that  they  shall  count. 

>7.  If,  therefore,  both  lunge,  and  both  strike  the  “place  d’armes,”  the  hit  counts  to  neither,  but  if  one  strikes  it  and  the  other  touches  some  other  part,  the hit  must  count  to  the  one  who  has  touched  the  “place d’armes.” 

>8.  If  two  hits  are  given  together,  the  one  being  on  the  lunge  (which  is  the  fair  direct  attack)  but  not  striking  the  “ place  d’armes,”  and  the  other  striking  the  “ place  d’armes,”  but  not  being  given  on  the  lunge, the  hit  must  count  to  neither. 

>9.  If  a combatant  shifts  his  body,  or  shields  himself  with  his  arm  or  hand  in  such  manner  as  to  protect  the  “place  d’armes”  from  being  touched,  and  receives  a  hit  on  the  part  so  presented,  such  hit  is  to  be  counted  a good  one. 

>10.  Should  a combatant  touch  by  a remise and  at  the  same  time  be  hit  by  the  riposte  of  his  opponent, the  riposte  is  to  count. 

>11.  With  the  fencing  sword*,  the  play  of  which  resembles an  actual  duel,  all  touches  which  would  cause a punctured  wound  count  as  hits  on  whatever  part  of  the  person  they  may 
strike  ; and  if  both  combatants  touch,  whether  on  the  lunge  or  not,  the  hit  counts  to  neither,  as  in  a fight  with  sharps  both  would  be  wounded. 

>12.  When  a hit  is  effected,  the  party  receiving  it  must  acknowledge  in  a suitable  manner ; should  he  not acknowledge,  but  strike  his  opponent  instead,  the  blow is a foul  one.

>13.  After  a hit  is  effected,  both  combatants  must retire  to  guard  out  of  distance.  Should  either  strike his  opponent  before  coming  to  guard,  such a blow  is  a foul  one. 

>14.  A combatant  giving  a foul  blow  shall  have  one point  for  each  such  foul  blow  deducted  from  his  score  ; and  if  the  offense  is  committed  more  than  twice,  he must  be  disqualified  from  taking  further  part  in  the contest. 

>15.  If  a combatant  is  disabled,  or  his  play  in  any way  impeded  by  the  injury  caused  by  a foul  blow,  the party  who  has  given  it  must  be  disqualified  at  once,  as it  is  obviously  wrong  that  he  should  be  allowed  to continue  playing  under  an  advantage  caused  by  his own  brutality, 

>16.  If  one  should  disarm  his  opponent,  or  if  the opponent  should  lose  his  weapon  by  accident,  it  is  considered courteous  to  pick  it  up  and  return  it  to  him. 

>17.  If  a combatant  lose  his  weapon  during  a rally or  “ phrase  d’armes,”  and  receive  a hit  without  any pause  or  interval  of  time,  such  hit  is  a fair  one ; if, however,  a pause  should  occur  after  the  loss  of  the weapon,  a hit  then  made  is  a foul  one. 

>18.  A combatant,  dropping  his  weapon  for  the purpose  of  avoiding  being  hit,  should  have  a point deducted  from  his  score  for  each  such  action,  and  should  this  occur  more  than  twice  in  the  same  contest, he  should  be  disqualified  for  unfair  play. 

>19.  The  left  hand,  and  in  the  case  of  left-handed  players  the  right  hand,  must  not  be  used  for  parrying,  opposing,  or  seizing  the  enemy’s  weapon. 

>20.  A hit  made  with  the  sword  held  in  both  hands  is  not  a good  one, 

>Judges. 

>To  decide  the  issue  of  a match  there  should  be  two  judges  and  a referee,  who  must  all  be  swordsmen of  known  competency ; each  judge  should  stand  in  such  a position  as  to  be  able  to  watch  one  of  the  combatants, and  as  soon  as  that  combatant  receives  a hit of  any  kind,  he  must  stop  the  bout  in  order  to  decide  its  validity ; aad  if  there  should  be  any  difference  of  opinion  regarding  it,  the  decision  of  the  referee  must  be  final. 

The  presence  of  the  judges  does  not  absolve  the combatants  from  honourably  acknowledging  a fair  hit  when  it  has  taken  effect.

  the  case  of  a match  or  a contest  for  a prize, a copy  of  the  rules  should  be  supplied  to  each  competitor as  well  as  to  the  referee  and  the  judges. 

Copies  of  the  rules  should  be  hung  up  in  conspicuous places  in  the  “ salle  d’armes,”  as  is  the  case in  a billiard-room.

*épée —KM