Podcasts about Jackson School

Whew. This week is what Trump flooding the zone really looks like. He's throwing political flash-bang after political flash-bang.  And everyone feels unbalanced and like they have whiplash. While his opponents are overwhelmed, disorganized, leaderless and demoralized. While he continues to gather more and more levers of power. And gain even more momentum.  This is political shock and awe. And it's working.  Because the Democrats are nowhere to be found. They're old and lost and powerless to stop Trump and his hoard from doing whatever they want. Powerless to stop themselves from appointing radical election deniers like new VA Secretary Doug Collins to cabinet positions. That's right. 22 Democrat senators voted along with the Republicans to put Collins in charge of the VA.  They won't save you. They can't even save themselves. But don't despair fully. Because we're gonna help you rise above the flood and look upstream to what's next. Especially around the FBI—which is now under political attack from Trump, Musk and the extreme right.  And Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) is our guest. A true American badass, she is an Assistant Dean and Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School is back. She served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents, and performing undercover work.  She's the perfect guest to break it all down to get you caught up and up to speed on all things Trump, national security and FBI. She gives her straight and often sobering assessment of the situation ahead and how and when it will unfold. While also taking you through what's actually involved in an FBI background, how many agents worked on the Jan 6 investigation and how the FBI has its hands full this weekend with the Super Bowl. It's a lot. But we'll cut through it fast and fiercely.  Every episode of Independent Americans with Paul Rieckhoff breaks down the most important news stories–and offers light to contrast the heat of other politics and news shows. It's content for the 49% of Americans that proudly call themselves independent. Always with a unique focus on national security, foreign affairs and military and veterans issues. Independent content for independent Americans. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans is your trusted place for independent news, politics, inspiration and hope. The podcast that helps you stay ahead of the curve–and stay vigilant.  Past appearances: Episode 267 and Episode 225. Be sure to check out the show now on our YouTube page here. -Watch the full conversation here. -Join the movement. Sign up to get our regular breakdowns of the independent news you need to know.  -Hook into our exclusive Patreon community of Independent Americans. Get extra content, connect with guests, meet other Independent Americans, attend events, get merch discounts, and support this show that speaks truth to power.  -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us. And get a cool, new IA hoodie sweatshirt just in time for the start of the cold season.  Ways to listen: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0F1lzdRbTB0XYen8kyEqXe Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/independent-americans-with-paul-rieckhoff/id1457899667 Amazon Podcasts: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/49a684c3-68e1-4a85-8d93-d95027a8ec64/independent-americans-with-paul-rieckhoff TuneIn Radio: https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Independent-Americans-p1214607/ Ways to watch: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@independentamericans Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/IndependentAmericansUS/ Social channels: X/Twitter: https://x.com/indy_americans BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/indyamericans.bsky.social Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndependentAmericansUS/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The recent retreat from globalization has been triggered by a perception that increased competition from global trade is not fair and leads to increased inequality within countries. Is this phenomenon a small hiccup in the overall wave of globalization, or are we at the beginning of a new era of deglobalization? Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Group Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg tells us that the answer depends on the policy choices we make, and in The Unequal Effects of Globalization (MIT Press, 2023), she calls for exploring alternative policy approaches including place-based policies, while sustaining international cooperation. At this critical moment of shifting attitudes toward globalization, The Unequal Effects of Globalization enters the debate while also taking a step back. Goldberg investigates globalization's many dimensions, disruptions, and complex interactions, from the late twentieth century's wave of trade liberalizations to the rise of China, the decline of manufacturing in advanced economies, and the recent effects of trade on global poverty, inequality, labor markets, and firm dynamics. From there, Goldberg explores the significance of the recent backlash against and potential retreat from globalization and considers the key policy implications of these trends and emerging dynamics. As comprehensive as it is well-balanced, The Unequal Effects of Globalization is an essential read on trade and cooperation between nations that will appeal as much to academics and policymakers as it will to general readers who are interested in learning more about this timely subject. Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg is the Elihu Professor of Economics and Global Affairs and an Affiliate of the Economic Growth Center at Yale University. She holds a joint appointment at the Yale Department of Economics and the Jackson School of Global Affairs. From 2018 to 2020, she was the Chief Economist of the World Bank Group. Goldberg was President of the Econometric Society in 2021 and has previously served as Vice-President of the American Economic Association. From 2011-2017 she was Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic Review. She is member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, recipient of Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Sloan Research Fellowships, and recipient of the Bodossaki Prize in Social Sciences. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in London, UK, fellow of the CESifo research network in Germany, and member of the board of directors of the Bureau of Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

AI takes a huge amount of energy to run and could make it harder to fight climate change. On the other hand, AI could help make our energy systems more sustainable, efficient and safer. Three experts talk all things AI and energy with a live audience. The talk was part of a daylong symposium titled “Policy Leadership in the Age of AI”, hosted by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin.Meet the panelists:Michael Pyrcz is a professor in UT's Cockrell School of Engineering and the Jackson School of Geosciences, who researches and teaches about ways to apply data analytics and machine learning to improve the exploration and safe production of minerals, groundwater and conventional energy, a.k.a. oil and gas. He also shares educational content on YouTube and elsewhere under the alias GeoStatsGuy.Varun Rai is a professor in UT's LBJ School, who studies the spread of clean energy technologies and how real-world factors – from economics to politics to regulation to social behaviors – drive the adoption of these technologies.Rob James is an attorney at the law firm Pillsbury, who leads a number of energy and infrastructure projects for the firm in Texas and California. Those projects have included AI data centers and zero-emission power generation and storage.Dig DeeperThe A.I. Power Grab, NYTimes (Oct. 2024)A bottle of water per email: the hidden environmental costs of using AI chatbots, Washington Post (Sep. 2024)Four ways AI is making the power grid faster and more resilient, MIT Technology Review (Nov. 2023)Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI, Washington Post (Sep. 2024)Extreme Weather Is Taxing Utilities More Often. Can A.I. Help?, New York Times (Sep. 2024)Fixing AI's energy crisis, Nature (focused on reducing computer hardware's power consumption - Oct. 2024)A.I. Needs Copper. It Just Helped to Find Millions of Tons of It., New York Times (July 2024)AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand, Goldman Sachs (May 2024)Photos from Policy Leadership in the Age of AI Symposium (Oct. 2024)Episode CreditsOur co-hosts are Marc Airhart, science writer and podcaster in the College of Natural Sciences and Casey Boyle, associate professor of rhetoric and director of UT's Digital Writing & Research Lab.Executive producers are Christine Sinatra and Dan Oppenheimer. Sound design and audio editing by Robert Scaramuccia. Theme music is by Aiolos Rue. Interviews are recorded at the Liberal Arts ITS recording studio.The cover photo for this episode is by Thomas Meredith, courtesy of LBJ School of Public Affairs. About AI for the Rest of UsAI for the Rest of Us is a joint production of The University of Texas at Austin's College of Natural Sciences and College of Liberal Arts. This podcast is part of the University's Year of AI initiative. The opinions expressed in this podcast represent the views of the hosts and guests, and not of The University of Texas at Austin. You can listen via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, RSS, or anywhere you get your podcasts. You can also listen on the web at aifortherest.net. Have questions or comments? Contact: mairhart[AT]austin.utexas.edu

Shoshana Stewart is the President of Turquoise Mountain, an NGO founded in 2006 in Afghanistan by His Majesty King Charles, to preserve cultural heritage and support artisans where their traditions are under threat. Shoshana joined Turquoise Mountain in Afghanistan in 2006 where she lived for five years, and has led the project create over 25,000 jobs, bring over $17 million of crafts to market, build the Institute for Afghan Arts and Architecture, restored over 150 historic buildings in the Old City of Kabul, and provided primary healthcare for almost 200,000 people. She has also expanded the project to work with artisans in Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan (including Syrian refugees), and Palestinian artisans.Shoshana has an MBA from the London Business School, a Master's Degree in Education, and a Bachelor's Degree in Astrophysics. Before moving to Afghanistan, she taught science to eighth grade students. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.Shoshana explains the world of cultural preservation and how artisans are supported across various regions in today's conversation with Anne. Her journey, which unexpectedly began in astrophysics, led her to a profound career in cultural heritage restoration in Afghanistan. Turquoise Mountain started with the original goal of revitalizing Kabul's architectural legacy, as Shoshana says, and now supports artisan communities in various regions of the world. Shoshana emphasizes to Anne the organization's expansive work from Afghanistan to other regions like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Myanmar.Further going into Turquoise Mountain's initiatives, Shoshana discusses the restoration of historic sites, as well as the establishment of schools and clinics for some returned refugees, as a way to support the community they had restored. She shares compelling stories of resilience and creativity, showcasing how these efforts have helped foster global collaborations. Designers like ethical jeweller Pippa Small play a pivotal role in this story, bringing Afghan jewelry to international markets and highlighting the powerful impact of blending tradition with modern market strategies. Through these partnerships, Shoshana educates Anne on how Turquoise Mountain not only preserves cultural heritage, but also creates sustainable livelihoods for artisans.Shoshana tells Anne about her decision to pursue an MBA to address market challenges, which showcases her commitment to finding innovative solutions for artisan communities. The discussion reflects on the significant challenges posed by recent global events, including political upheavals and the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the resilience of the communities supported by Turquoise Mountain. The organisation's ability to maintain connections and support artisans through these turbulent times is a testament to its enduring impact.As the conversation unfolds further, Shoshana highlights the transformative power of cultural heritage in fostering connections between artisans and clients, and changing perceptions about regions often associated with conflict. Anne then touches on broader themes of mindfulness and intentional living, as Shoshana reflects on the practices that ground her amidst the ongoing challenges of her work. These insights offer a deeper understanding of how the arts can sustain communities, grow meaningful connections, and support mindful living.This interview provides a rich illustration of stories and insights from Shoshana's work with Turquoise Mountain. It paints a vivid picture of how cultural preservation and can create a positive global impact, demonstrating the importance of heritage and craftsmanship in building resilient communities.A compelling conversation with a true advocate of the global arts community.Selected links from episode:Out of the Clouds website: https://outoftheclouds.com/Out of the Clouds on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/_outofthecloudsThe Mettā View website: https://avm.consulting/metta-viewAnne on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/annvi/Anne on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@annviAnne on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anne-v-muhlethaler/Shoshana Stewart on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shoshana-stewartTurquoise Mountain website: https://www.turquoisemountain.org/Turquoise Mountain on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/turquoisemountain/Shoshana's talk at TEDx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo2qgHUDbRoShoshana's talk at London Business School: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ty1PzJa_YgWilliams CollegeJay Pasachoff Teach for America   Yale's Jackson School for Global AffairsRory Stewart Minaret of JamThe Connaught Hotel The Prince's LodgeThe King's LodgePippa SmallGuy OliverPippa Small's Afghan-made collectionPippa Small's Olive Bethlehem collection Aliph Foundation, the Alliance for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict the British Council's Cultural Protection Fundthe American Embassy's  Ambassador's Fundthe Goethe InstitutePeloton AppHannah CorbinTaylor Swift's Shake It OffPhilip Pullman's His Dark Materials This episode is brought to you by AVM Consulting Struggling to connect with your audience? Feeling disconnected from your brand's purpose? Is motivating your team becoming a daunting task?AVM Consulting offers a unique blend of coaching, consulting, and storytelling services designed to help your brand connect authentically, align with your values, and inspire your team to achieve greatness.With a track record of success in working with fashion and luxury partners worldwide, AVM Consulting, led by industry expert and certified coach Anne Mühlethaler, is your trusted partner in achieving your brand's vision. Ready to transform your brand and drive meaningful change? Don't wait any longer. We like to make magic happen.FIND OUT MORE ABOUT AVM CONSULTING HERE. ***If you enjoyed this episode, click subscribe for more, and consider writing a review of the show on Apple Podcasts, we really appreciate your support and feedback. And thank you so much for listening!  For all notes and transcripts, please visit Out Of The Clouds on Simplecast - https://out-of-the-clouds.simplecast.com/   Sign up for Anne's email newsletter for more from Out of the Clouds at https://annevmuhlethaler.com.  Follow Anne and Out of the Clouds: IG: @_outoftheclouds or  @annvi  Or on Threads @annviOn Youtube @OutoftheClouds For more, you can read and subscribe to Anne's Substack, the Mettā View, her weekly dose of insights on coaching, brand development, the future of work, and storytelling, with a hint of mindfulness.

General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Ret.) (New York) is a Partner at KKR and Chairman of the KKR Global Institute, which he established in May 2013. He is also a member of the boards of directors of Optiv and OneStream, a Strategic Advisor for Sempra and Advanced Navigation, a personal venture investor, an academic, and the co-author (with British historian Andrew Roberts) of the New York Times best selling book "Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine." Prior to joining KKR, General Petraeus served over 37 years in the U.S. military, culminating his career with six consecutive commands as a general officer, five of which were in combat, including command of the Surge in Iraq, command of U.S. Central Command, and command of coalition forces in Afghanistan. Following retirement from the military and after Senate confirmation by a vote of 94-0, he served as Director of the CIA during a period of significant achievements in the global war on terror, the establishment of important Agency digital initiatives, and substantial investments in the Agency's most important asset, its human capital. General Petraeus graduated with distinction from the U.S. Military Academy and is the only person in Army history to be the top graduate of both the demanding U.S. Army Ranger School and the U.S. Army's year-long Command and General Staff College. He also earned a Ph.D. in international relations and economics from Princeton University. General Petraeus taught both subjects at the U.S. Military Academy in the mid-1980s, he was a Visiting Professor of Public Policy at the Honors College of the City University of New York from 2013 through 2016, and he was for 6 years a Judge Widney Professor at the University of Southern California and a Senior Fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center. He is currently the Kissinger Fellow at Yale University's Jackson School, Co-Chairman of the Global Advisory Council of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Senior Vice President of the Royal United Services Institute, and a Member of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Aspen Strategy Group, as well as a member of the boards of the Atlantic Council, the Institute for the Study of War, and over a dozen veterans service organizations. He is also a LinkedIn Top Voice. Over the past 20 years, General Petraeus was named one of America's 25 Best Leaders by U.S. News and World Report, a runner-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year, the Daily Telegraph man of the year, twice a Time 100 selectee, Princeton University's Madison Medalist, and one of Foreign Policy magazine's top 100 public intellectuals in three different years. General Petraeus has earned numerous awards and decorations, including four Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor, two NATO Meritorious Service Medals, the Combat Action Badge, the Ranger Tab, and Master Parachutist and Air Assault Badges. He has also been decorated by 14 foreign countries and he is believed to be the only person who, while in uniform, threw out the first pitch of a World Series game and did the coin toss for a Super Bowl. 

Dr. Joyce Mushaben presents her lecture "The Art of Mainstreaming: Ursula von der Leyen in Pursuit of a Union of Equality" on May 25, 2022. Dr. Mushaben was at the time the CIDEU Scholar in Residence at the University of Washington's Jackson School of International Studies. This podcast was co-funded by the European Union.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Dr. Andrea Kendall-Taylor joins us to discuss the evolving relationship between Russia and China. Dr. Kendall-Taylor discusses the broader geopolitical factors driving Russia's desire to strengthen ties with China. She analyzes Russia's increasing dependence on China in the context of its war in Ukraine, and recent reports that China may be providing lethal aid to Russia. Dr. Kendall-Taylor also explores the dynamics between Putin and Xi, highlighting how their close relationship shapes the strategic coordination between the two countries. Finally, Dr. Kendall-Taylor addresses potential challenges for Europe and the United States in responding to this growing alignment. Dr. Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at CNAS, specializing in national security issues, particularly regarding Russia, authoritarianism, and the transatlantic alliance. She previously served as deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). She also served as a senior analyst at the CIA, focusing on Russia, autocratic regimes, and democratic decline. Outside CNAS, she is a distinguished practitioner in grand strategy at Yale's Jackson School, and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Her work has appeared in numerous prominent journals including Journal of Peace Research, Democratization, Journal of Democracy, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post, The Washington Quarterly, and Foreign Policy. She holds a BA from Princeton and a PhD from UCLA. Kendall-Taylor was also a Fulbright scholar in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

Much of the critical writing about authoritarianism warns that contemporary populism threatens democracy. But as Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein argue in their interesting new book, The Assault on the State, this global attack on legalistic government by wannabe dictators like Putin, Erdogan and Modi endangers not just democracy but also much of what we take for granted about the convenience of modern life. It's a return to what they call the “patrimonialism” of The Godfather - a chillingly dysfunctional future in which to get a road fixed or a school built, we have to kiss the ring of a Don Corleone or a Donald Trump. Weird, eh?Stephen E. Hanson is the Lettie Pate Evans Professor in the Department of Government at William & Mary.  At William & Mary, he served as the Vice Provost for Academic and International Affairs from 2011 to 2022. Hanson received his B.A. in Social Studies from Harvard University (1985) and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley (1991). He served from 2011–2021 as the Director of the Wendy and Emery Reves Center for International Studies, while also serving as Vice Provost for International Affairs at William & Mary. In 2016, William & Mary received the Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization from NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hanson served from 2009–2011 as the Vice Provost for Global Affairs, and from 2000–2008 as the Director of the Ellison Center for Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies at the Jackson School of International Studies, at the University of Washington, Seattle. Hanson is the author of Post-Imperial Democracies: Ideology and Party Formation in Third Republic France, Weimar Germany, and Post-Soviet Russia (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and Time and Revolution: Marxism and the Design of Soviet Institutions (University of North Carolina Press, 1997), which received the 1998 Wayne S. Vucinich book award from the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies. He is the co-author (with Richard Anderson Jr., M. Steven Fish, and Philip Roeder) of Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2001).Jeffrey Kopstein is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California, Irvine. In his research, Professor Kopstein focuses on interethnic violence, voting patterns of minority groups, antisemitism, and anti-liberal tendencies in civil society, paying special attention to cases within European and Russian Jewish history. These interests are central topics in his latest books, Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms on the Eve of the Holocaust (Cornell University Press, 2018) and Politics, Memory, Violence: The New Social Science of the Holocaust (Cornell University Press, 2023).Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

ERLC presidential kerfuffle, Secret Service Director Resignation, and Mr. Netanyahu goes to Washington. Find us on Youtube. This week, Clarissa, Mike, and Russell welcome Pete Wehner (The Atlantic, NYT, Trinity Forum) to talk about the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and the unlawful firing of their president, which leads to discussion of populism in the church. Then, the three engage in a review of the Secret Service director's resignation and what this means for the American people. Finally, Chris Seiple (Comparative Religion Program Fellow at University of Washington) joins for a discussion of the events and implications surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to DC. GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Follow the show in your podcast app of choice Find us on Youtube. Rate and Review the show in your podcast app of choice Leave a comment in Spotify with your feedback on the discussion–we may even respond! TODAY'S GUESTS:  Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs. Chris Seiple is the Senior Fellow for Comparative Religion at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is widely known and sought after for his decades of experience and expertise regarding issues at the intersection of geopolitics, US foreign policy, Asia, conflict resolution, human rights and religion. He has pioneered innovative solutions in the U.S. Marine Corps, at the U.S. State Department, the Templeton Religion Trust, and as the president of the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), where he developed a “Track 1.5” theory of change rooted in relational diplomacy.  ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a weekly (and sometimes more!) current events show from Christianity Today hosted and moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's Editor-in-Chief) and Mike Cosper (Director, CT Media). Each week the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scientists are studying birds' unique vocal organ, the syrinx, to better understand its evolutionary history. Also, the eerie calls of the common loon have been heard in songs by Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Lana Del Rey, and more.The Organ That Gives Birds Their VoicesHave you ever wondered how a bird sings? Or made some of their less melodic vocalizations, like squawks, trills, or chirps? It all happens in the syrinx, a vocal organ unique to birds. Reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, including humans, use their larynx to produce sounds.The syrinx varies widely between bird species and there's still a lot that scientists don't understand about how it works and its evolutionary history. Better understanding the syrinx of living birds can help scientists get closer to figuring out what dinosaurs sounded like. (No, the dinosaur sounds in “Jurassic Park” are not scientifically accurate.)Guest host Arielle Duhaime-Ross talks with Dr. Julia Clarke, professor of vertebrate paleontology at the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas, Austin, about her recent research studying the syrinxes of ostriches and hummingbirds.Common Loons Are Pop Music IconsFor decades now, one music star has managed to show up on tracks spanning multiple genres and appear alongside many famous artists—while also remaining bafflingly under-recognized. Any guesses?Of course, we're talking about none other than the common loon—a waterbird with striking red eyes and black-and-white checkerboard plumage. This bird's calls have been used in songs by artists like Michael Jackson, Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Doja Cat, and Lana Del Rey. They've also been used as a sound effect in Hollywood blockbusters like “Harry Potter” and the TV show “Game of Thrones.”So how did this bird's call become a regular in everything from hip hop and EDM to pop music? A story in Audubon Magazine dove into this, and guest host Arielle Duhaime-Ross talks with author Maddie Burakoff, an associate editor at Audubon.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

A Jackson School interview with Latin American and Caribbean Studies Alum ‘01 Natalie “Tasha” Kimball, Associate Professor of History at the College of Staten Island, and affiliated faculty at the Graduate Center, both within the City University of New York, on their career and research trajectory in reproductive health care with a particular focus on Latin America. Kimball is the author of “An Open Secret: The History of Unwanted Pregnancy and Abortion in Modern Bolivia” (Rutgers University Press, 2020). This interview was held and recorded in-person on April 25, 2024 by University of Washington students Cora Bern-Klug, a master's degree student in International Studies, and Kati Sosa, a bachelor degree student in Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Hosted by Vanessa Freije, Chair and Associate Professor, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies.

Discover why Dr. Scott W. Tinker (Chairman of the Switch Energy Alliance) asks leaders "what's the question?", how he succeeded by "saying yes a lot", and when he said to "follow the money trail"! (14 minute episode). ============================================= CEO Blindspots® Podcast Guest: ⁠Dr. Scott W. Tinker, Chairman of Switch Energy Alliance, CEO of Tinker Energy Associates, and Director Emeritus of the Bureau of Economic Geology. Scott Tinker brings industry, government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations together to address major societal challenges in energy, the environment, and the economy. Dr. Tinker is Director Emeritus of the Bureau of Economic Geology, and a professor holding the Allday Endowed Chair in the Jackson School of Geosciences at The University of Texas at Austin. With Director Harry Lynch, Tinker co-produced the award-winning documentary films Switch and Switch On, which have been screened in over 50 countries. Dr. Tinker founded the nonprofit Switch Energy Alliance, whose educational materials appear from schools to board rooms globally. Tinker is the host of PBS Energy Switch, an energy and climate talk show appearing on over 200 PBS stations nationwide, and Earth Date, featured weekly on over 450 public radio stations in all 50 United States. In his visits to more than 60 countries, Scott has given over 1000 keynote and invited lectures. Dr. Tinker presented a TEDx talk on The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment. Scott serves on public company boards and science councils, Trinity University's Board of Trustees, and is an angel investor who has helped bring companies from startup to acquisition. His writing has appeared from Forbes to Fortune to Scientific American. Dr. Tinker has served as president of several international professional associations and is an AGI Campbell Medalist, AAPG Halbouty Medalist, GCAGS Boyd Medalist, AIPG Parker Medalist, and a Geological Society of America Fellow. For more information about Switch Energy Alliance; https://switchon.org For more information about Earth Date; https://www.earthdate.org/   For more information about Dr. Scott W. Tinker's TEDx Talk on The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment; https://youtu.be/hnT-PYHaSxA?si=ST321FXkrggYHGf4 ======================================== CEO Blindspots® Podcast Host: ⁠Birgit Kamps⁠. Birgit's professional experience includes starting and selling an “Inc. 500 Fastest Growing Private Company” and a “Best Company to Work for in Texas”, and serving as a Board Member with various companies. She is able to help investors and executives quickly discover blind spots holding their organization back, and accelerate leadership effectiveness. In addition, Birgit is the host of the CEO Blindspots® Podcast which was recognized for having the “biggest listener growth” in the USA by 733%, and most recently for having the "top 1.5% global podcast" ranking in its category; ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.ceoblindspots.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To ask questions about this or one of the 200+ other CEO Blindspots® Podcast episodes, send an email to⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠birgit@ceoblindspots.com⁠

Nassu Fofanah is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Susue Consulting and Susue Women's Finance, in addition to being a Yale World Fellow at the Jackson School of Public Affairs. In this episode, Naasu speaks about her vision for Sierra Leone, and how it should be difficult to do difficult things.

Michael and Andy speak to International Security Studies students and community members at Yale, in New Haven, Connecticut, for a special episode. Moderated by the Jackson School of Global Affairs's Ted Wittenstein, they discuss the challenges facing US intelligence agencies today including China, Russia, and the Israel-Gaza war. They also talk about what it takes to be a superior intelligence officer and analyst, and how to make national security decisions in the 21st century. 

The Super Bowl is over and the Chiefs are the champs. MAGA is sad about that for some reason, but don't worry they'll have something new to be upset about soon enough. From mysterious new Russian space nukes, to Biden's old age to another looming government shutdown. It's a lot. And then throw Trump's 91 felony indictments on top of that and it's nearly impossible to keep track of. But never fear vigilant listener, we've got just the answer. An expert in all things law, Trump and national security. She's a returning favorite and she's bringing the heat. Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) is our guest. A true American badass, she is an Assistant Dean and Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. She served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents, and performing undercover work.  She's the perfect guest to break it all down before the trials start (or don't in some cases) and get you caught up and up to speed on all things Trump. From DC to Georgia she gives her straight and often sobering assessment of the situation ahead and how and when it will unfold.  Every episode of Independent Americans hosted by Paul Rieckhoff (@PaulRieckhoff) provides light to contrast the heat. It's independent content for independent Americans. And every episode delivers a dose of the Righteous Media 5 Is: independence, integrity, information, inspiration and impact. This is another insightful pod to help you stay vigilant. Because vigilance is the price of democracy. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans will continue to be your trusted place for independent news, politics, inspiration and hope.  Stay vigilant, America.  -Watch Paul and Asha's conversion on YouTube. -Get extra content, connect with guests, attend exclusive events, get merch discounts and support this critical show that speaks truth to power by joining us on Patreon. Where you can also see or watch extra content with this guest.  -Check the hashtag #LookForTheHelpers on Twitter. And share yours.  -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us–where you can also grab some cool IA gear. Independent Americans is powered by Righteous Media.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Thursday, October 5, 2023, the China Power Project held its eighth annual conference. The conference consisted of five separate debates by leading experts each taking a side on core issues underpinning China's power. We will be releasing each of these debates as their own podcast throughout the holiday season. We will be back with our regularly scheduled debates in Mid-January 2024.  For this debate, the proposition is “the United States and China are locked in a new cold war.” Arguing for this proposition is Dr. Michael Beckley, who is the director of the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, an associate professor at Tufts University, and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Arguing against this proposition is Dr. Arne Westad, who is a professor at the Jackson School of Global Affairs at Yale University.  To watch the debate recordings, read the transcripts, or view the live or twitter polling, visit our website at https://chinapower.csis.org/chinas-power-up-for-debate-2023/.

Scott Tinker brings industry, government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations together to address major societal challenges in energy, the environment, and the economy. Dr. Tinker is Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, the State Geologist of Texas, and a professor holding the Allday Endowed Chair in the Jackson School of Geosciences at The University of Texas at Austin. With Director Harry Lynch, Tinker co-produced the award-winning documentary films Switch and Switch On, which have been screened in over 50 countries. Dr. Tinker founded the nonprofit Switch Energy Alliance, whose educational materials appear from schools to board rooms globally. Tinker is the host of PBS Energy Switch, an energy and climate talk show appearing on over 200 PBS stations nationwide, and Earth Date, featured weekly on over 450 public radio stations in all 50 United States. In his visits to some 60 countries, Scott has given over 1000 keynote and invited lectures. Dr. Tinker presented a TEDx talk on The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment. Scott serves on public company boards and science councils, Trinity University's Board of Trustees, and is an angel investor who has helped bring companies from startup to acquisition. His writing has appeared from Forbes to Fortune to Scientific American. Dr. Tinker has served as president of several international professional associations and is an AGI Campbell Medalist, AAPG Halbouty Medalist, GCAGS Boyd Medalist, AIPG Parker Medalist, and a Geological Society of America Fellow. https://switchon.org/ https://nexuspmg.com/

Greetings & welcome back to the rose bros podcast.This episode we are joined by Dr. Scott Tinker - founder of the nonprofit Switch Energy Alliance, and Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin, the Texas State Geologist of Texas, and a professor holding the Allday Endowed Chair in the Jackson School of Geosciences at The University of Texas at Austin.Along with Director Harry Lynch, Dr. Tinker co-produced the award-winning documentary films Switch and Switch On, which have been screened in over 50 countries. Dr. Tinker is the host of PBS Energy Switch, an energy and climate talk show appearing on over 200 PBS stations nationwide, and Earth Date, featured weekly on over 450 public radio stations in all 50 United States. Dr. Tinker's writing has appeared from Forbes to Fortune to Scientific American. Dr. Tinker completed a Bachelor of Science in Geology and Business Administration, Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa at the Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Tinker also received a Master of Science in Geological Sciences from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1985, and a Ph.D. in Geological Sciences from the University of Colorado, Boulder.Dr. Tinker is also a member and past President of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). Among other things we sat down and discussed 2 Billion without power, regressive taxes & why western energy policy is changing.Enjoy.This podcast episode is sponsored by Connate Water Solutions.Do you need cost effective water sourcing options to supply your next drilling or completions program?Connate Water Solutions is a specialized hydrogeology company focused on water well drilling, testing and water management services in Western Canada and Texas.Contact info@connatewater.com or www.connatewater.com for more details.This episode is brought to you by Canada Action, whose aim is to promote the importance of Canada's Energy industry which is the bedrock of our nation's economy, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs and economic opportunities across the country. Learn more at canadaaction.ca, or check out Canada Action on social media.This podcast is sponsored by Headracingcanada.comLooking for high performance ski gear this winter? In partnership with 4x-Olympian Manny-Osborne Paradis, Headracingcanada.com is offering the lowest prices possible through its online storefront, by passing brick and mortar savings to customers. Check out  Headracingcanada.com for more info on high performance gear for the upcoming ski season.      Support the show

Scott Jaschik, cofounder and former chief executive officer and editor of Inside Higher Ed, leads the conversation on the changing landscape of college and university admissions criteria. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Scott Jaschik with us today to discuss the changing landscape of college and university admissions criteria. Mr. Jaschik was a cofounder and former chief executive officer and an editor at Inside Higher Ed, a media company and online publication that provides news, opinions, resources, and events focused on colleges and university topics. He previously served as editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education and was a former board member of the Education Writers Association. And he's a leading voice on higher education issues, publishing articles in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Washington Post, Salon, and elsewhere. So, Scott, thank you very much for being with us today. There's a lot here to cover, I thought maybe you could give us context and set the stage of the current trends in college and university admissions, as well as the role and importance of international students and scholars at U.S. universities. JASCHIK: Sure. Thanks very much for the invitation. And it's great to speak to CFR people. And it's great particularly because you're a group whose interests extend far beyond higher education. And it just goes to show, higher education is important to every society and everyone, really. So I think this is a great opportunity for me to talk to you. And mainly, I'm excited to hear what the attendees have to say about these issues. But briefly, to give an overview. The big issue, and I want to say a few—one thing, in terms of setting the context. Admissions, talking about college admissions, can vary hugely depending on who you are talking about—by student, by institution, and so forth. So I'm going to talk, for instance, at the beginning about affirmative action. And I'll talk about the institutions that are most affected by the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. But then I'm going to talk about a trend in the rest of higher ed, direct admissions, and how that affects people in higher ed. And then at the end, I'll throw in a few comments on the international students. So on affirmative action, the big news was this summer the Supreme Court ruled six to three that colleges—that two colleges in particular, Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill, were not following the law with respect to how they used affirmative action in admissions. It was a very strong decision, a very thorough decision, but one that greatly upset most people in colleges. The general public generally is a little bit skeptical of affirmative action. But in higher ed, there is very strong support for affirmative action. Now, it's important to remember that this decision will directly affect maybe two hundred institutions. Now, it may indirectly affect many more down the road. I'll talk about that in a minute. But it's important to remember, at most colleges—you know, you read these stories every year about how under 5 percent of applicants get into Harvard, Yale, and whatever. Well, most colleges admit most applicants. And I'll just repeat that, because it's really important to remember. Most colleges admit most applicants. I think that is largely lost in the coverage of late on affirmative action. And it's really important, if you have an opportunity, to shout that out to the world. Because even if a student doesn't feel comfortable applying to an elite college or university, it's important to always say that there is a place in higher ed for that student, and for all students. But on higher ed, this is a big decision for higher education because most of the top colleges in the country have used affirmative action in admissions. They don't maybe want to talk about it now, but they have used it for their admissions processes. And now they can't. And, you know, there's really a lot of skepticism about what it will be like. Now, the expectations are based on the University of California, the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas, because in prior court rulings and in state votes they do not use affirmative action. And if you expect them to follow—to follow what's going to go on, people will predict a major decline for Black students, Latino students. White students actually are not going to gain a lot. Asian students will gain. But that's based on those past examples. There's a big question mark this year which is about the admissions tests that in the past were required of all students, but now they aren't. And test-optional admissions truly took off during the pandemic, because there was a period of time when students literally couldn't take the SAT or ACT. But a secondary reason, and arguably, I think, the more important reason, colleges dropped the test-optional—or, went test-optional, is this decision. They knew it was coming and this gives them a lot more flexibility. So do I expect to happen what happened with the University of California? I would say yes, but, because nobody really knows what the impact will be of test-optional admissions. Now, very quickly, some other things on affirmative action to remember. Many colleges are adding essays specifically to reach students who are minority students or who have particular experiences that colleges want to have. And this is, again—remember, even if a college asks, are you Black, Latino, or whatever, they cannot use that information when they evaluate students. So that will be totally invisible to the colleges. The Supreme Court decision explicitly said that students can write about their experiences in life and how that affects them for higher ed. But the Court's going to be watching very carefully and wants to make sure that anything that the students say is not just a way to go back to considering students differently, as the Court said, on the race and ethnicity. Also, there's a group working to create a new system to evaluate students' character, because character is something that many people cite but they don't really have a way to cite it. That's the kind of thing that we're seeing. Now, there are other issues too. Legacy admissions, in which colleges favor the children of alumni or relatives, that is under real tight scrutiny right now. There was nothing in the Supreme Court decision to say they couldn't do legacy admissions, but many colleges are uncomfortable given that they cannot use the systems they came up with to help Black, and Latino, and Asian American students get into college. They are uncomfortable with legacy admissions because it primarily helps white students get into college. And that's not something they want to do. Similarly, early decision is something that is very controversial, because it primarily helps white students. Now what's unknown is two things. One is the final rule, so to say, on admissions. That's going to be decided not by anything I say or that anyone else says, but it's going to be back in the courts. I would be absolutely certain it will return to the courts. And they will, you know, hash that out. Also, there's the question of financial aid. Some colleges award—and this is many more colleges—award financial aid in part based on race and ethnicity. Is that legal? We don't yet know. Some players on both sides have offered their opinions, but that will be a huge decision that will come down. Now I want to talk about another issue in higher ed that's going on, which is direct admissions. And if you're not familiar with direct admissions, in direct admissions students do not apply to colleges. Students simply fill out a form, which includes their transcript, any test scores they want to submit, and roughly where they want to go to college. I don't mean institution names, but, like, I live in Connecticut and these are the—and I want to go to college near my home. It's important to remember, most college students go to college near their homes. So and then after that, colleges will look at the application that they filled out. And colleges will admit those students. Now direct admissions is very popular among all the institutions that I wasn't talking about before, because it is a good way to recruit more low-income students, who seem to really like this system. But direct admissions has primarily been used on a small scale. And that—we have to see what will happen as it goes to a larger scale. So that is something still to find out. And then on international students, with international students most colleges very much want international students. But there are key things that may make it difficult to recruit them. One is foreign—the foreign relations, as your group well knows. I mean, you've got the war in Russia and Ukraine, which didn't send a lot of foreign students to the United States, but they sent some. And, interestingly, some of the colleges in New York City have both Russian and Ukrainian students at the same college. And they are dealing with issues related to that. But the most students have come from China. And our relations with China are, frankly, pretty bad right now, I would say. And that raises real questions about which students will come. My guess is that the top universities are not going to have a loss in foreign students, or at least not a substantial loss. But it's important to remember, foreign students are enrolling at every type of college and university. And they may be affected at institutions that aren't as competitive in admissions. So that's my rough answer to your question. Have at it. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you so much. And now we're going to go to all of you for your questions and comments. And please use this as a forum too to share best practices. (Gives queuing instructions.) So I'm going to take the first written question from Edie Gaythwaite, professor at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida: The issue of essays is now the use of AI-generated essays being submitted. So how do you see the admissions process moving forward with this in mind? JASCHIK: That's a great question. And it's something that's getting a lot of attention right now. And I'm going to answer first for what's going to happen this year, and then I want to talk about the future. Right now, this is making a lot of people in admissions very nervous, because every day someone does a story on—on the way AI can be used to write essays. Colleges don't know. So they are nervous. Now, some of the services that colleges use to detect plagiarism can also be used, they say, to maybe detect the use of AI. So that's one possibility. Others are suggesting that colleges should instead of using regular essays, should require an essay that is handwritten and was graded by a high school teacher, and to turn it in with the high school teacher's grades. Now that's a little—there's something odd about that, in that that assumes that the student didn't use AI in high school, which, you know, who knows if that's true. But the reason I would say not to get a huge panic this year, is that a bunch of colleges are working on the issue. I suspect that by the end of this year, they are going to have better ways to deal with AI than they do right now. So I would say, you know, watch. But remember—and the other thing I would say is to remember past examples. Remember, when Wikipedia first started? There were people saying, no college student is ever going to write his or her own essay again. They're all going to come from Wikipedia. Well, they're not. And so because a lot of people figured out how to use Wikipedia, and how not to use Wikipedia. So I don't mean to sound like a Pollyanna, but there may be a better way coming. FASKIANOS: Our next question comes from Beverly Lindsay. Beverly, please identify yourself and ask your question. Q: Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. We can. Q: Great. Beverly Lindsay, University of California, multicampus. Hello, Scott. Good to hear your comments. I have something that wasn't quite covered. Because I have been at two major research universities, actually more, but two in particular. They actually have informal legacy admits. And I would like your speculation on how that will continue. The second part of the question relates to HBCUs, particularly the ones that are known as the Black Ivies. I was at two of them. And I also know that they are concerned about having more diverse students from different economic backgrounds. Could you comment on that as well? Thank you. JASCHIK: Sure. Those are very good questions. So, first, on the informal legacies, which is something I have heard about. And I, in fact, did a story about a university that said it was eliminating legacy admissions, but it turned out they weren't. They still had legacy admissions. And that's because legacy admissions is something that colleges like to talk about with their alumni, but maybe not with the public. It strikes me that informal legacy admissions really doesn't make sense. If you believe in legacy admissions, defend it. But informal strikes me as inappropriate, frankly. Now, on the HBCUs, and particularly, the so-called top HBCUs, there's interesting developments with regard to affirmative action. When California eliminated affirmative action way back when, more Californians started to go to Morehouse, and Spelman, and other very good HBCUs. And we are going to see more of this in the next year, I think. But at the same time, I would caution against assuming that HBCUs can provide the answers to everything here. Morehouse and Spelman, despite being great colleges, to not have the financial aid that Harvard and Stanford have. They just don't. There's not enough money there. And it's a different kind of experience, a great experience for some students. But financially and otherwise, there are limits to what they can do. Now, if Morehouse and Spelman could grow by a thousand students, well, that would sound wonderful. But I don't think they can grow by a thousand students, at least not immediately. So this year, I think we're going to be watching what goes on at those colleges. So I hope I've answered. FASKIANOS: Great, thank you. I'm going to take the written question from Todd Barry, who is professor at Hudson County Community College? Excuse me. How safe is it geopolitically for U.S. professors to teach abroad? JASCHIK: How what is it? FASKIANOS: Safe is it. JASCHIK: Oh, how safe? I think it really depends on the country. In lots of countries it is totally safe, in that—you know, you have to be realistic. What is—how safe is it to teach in the United States is a legitimate question, in some parts of the country. To go abroad, there are real issues if the country is not secure, it does not have an adequate system for making sure that people are protected. And also, there are issues related to the potential in other countries for anti-American thought to happen and to be a cause of concern. At the same time, there are many countries where you will find yourself welcome. And I think it's great for American college professors to look for those places and to go abroad. They will learn as much as they will teach. So I think that's, you know, that's great. FASKIANOS: Great. Don Habibi has raised his hand, and also written a—written a question. But, Don, I think you've put your hand down, but I'd love you to ask it yourself, if you could unmute yourself. Q: OK. Yes. Hi. Yeah, my question was triggered by the first AI question. And that is, what's to prevent—or how do you check a student who writes a fabulous story of their overcoming adversity or their combat experience, or whatever it is that, you know, would just sort of bring them to the top of the applicant pool. And the likelihood of fact checking that sort of thing is pretty small. And I mentioned in the question that several times reporters won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on stories, and they made them up. FASKIANOS: And Don is—can you give us your affiliation? Q: I'm a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. FASKIANOS: Thank you. JASCHIK: Yes, that is a real concern. And it's not just in admissions. Colleges are worried about that issue in the essays they will assign to students to write after—you know, after they're enrolled. There, they—some people are arguing for in-person writing. You know, in class, where the students will be forced to write it down. Now, some students say they can't write a long, handwritten essay anymore, because all they can do is type. And I have some sympathy for them, but that's what they're saying. It goes back to what I said before. Colleges are working on solutions to this and going to try. I would say that a good admissions counselor should be able to see some things that come out in their applications. Also, some colleges are changing their essays so that they are more about the college you are applying to, to make it more difficult to use a copied essay. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. The next question we'll take from Melissa McGinnis, assistant director of admissions at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs: What are your thoughts on how these affirmative action issues impact graduate admissions for professional programs, not PhD? JASCHIK: Sure. Yeah, well, I'll tell you about both. In law schools, medical schools, business schools, it is the same thing. That there's no expectation that this decision doesn't apply. And they have got to redo their systems and procedures just like their undergraduate counterparts do. PhD programs actually are interesting, though, because in many colleges and universities, those decisions are done by the department level. And it is more difficult to control a department than it is to control a whole school. You know, you may have six members of the English department or whatever deciding on admissions. But they can't use race. That's just—and if they do they're going to get sued. So that's just the rules. FASKIANOS: Great, thank you. We have a raised hand from Sneha Bharadwaj. Excuse me if I did not pronounce it correctly, but you can correct me. Q: OK. So my name is Sneha Bharadwaj. I'm from Texas Woman's University here in Dallas, Texas. I was following up on other questions you answered regarding the holistic admission process. And I'm wondering, beyond the handwritten essay, are there any talks about video interviews or uploading video prompts, where you hear from that person? And if that is something that's in the talks or is being considered, because I think we're all in the same boat of wondering how this holistic admissions is going to work. JASCHIK: Right. Well, and Texas Woman's University is a great example. It is a—it is a university in Texas that has men, for those who are not familiar with it. It is not—does not just admit women. And it's—and in recent years, it's become quite popular and is growing with more people using holistic admissions to get in. So, you know, to do an interview for everyone, on the one hand, it makes perfect sense. You meet the people, find out about them, find out about their interests, et cetera. But in most colleges, and I don't know if this is true of Texas Woman's University, that is a major undertaking, to interview everyone, even via Zoom. And most college admissions offices will be hard stretched to interview every student. Also, there have been charges that admissions interviews favor or don't favor minority students. They are said to favor them, if colleges want to admit more minority students. They are said to disfavor them when the students don't have the same expertise in doing interviews as wealthier students do. And most of the wealthy students are white students. So it is something that they are looking at, but I am not sure it will work at very many institutions this year. Q: Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to take the next question from Kurt Schmoke, who is the president of the University of Baltimore: Which states are using direct admissions? And will this spread to other states? JASCHIK: Great question. Nice to have a president here. And so, there are not any statewide requirements, but Minnesota is the state to look at. In Minnesota, they made it possible for any college that wanted to, to use direct admissions. And most of the colleges opted in in part. One college opted in entirely. They said, that's the way you're going to apply to get into that college. Most colleges, though, are doing it on a piecemeal basis, admitting just some students. And I'm curious, does the University of Baltimore—did you use direct admissions? FASKIANOS: Kurt, if you want to unmute and respond, that would be great. We'd love to hear your experience. Q: Sure. The closest that we have to that is dual enrollment programs that allow students to obtain X number of credits. And it usually is with the community college, some with high schools. But now I'm quite interested in this direct admissions. So I'll take a look at what Minnesota is doing. JASCHIK: Right. You should do that. In Minnesota, the colleges that definitely didn't do it were the flagship University of Minnesota campus and Carleton College. You know, again, colleges that get tons of applicants don't need to, but it was all the other colleges. And if you search on Inside Higher Ed's website, you'll find a bunch of stories on the players in direct admissions, EAB, the common app, et cetera. There are places you can go. Niche does direct admissions. There are places that would love to talk to you, I'm sure. Q: Good, thank you. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Kevin Collymore, who is an assistant dean of retention and persistence programs at the University of San Francisco: How will institutions handle donor gifts, scholarships intentioned for students of color moving forward? FASKIANOS: Very carefully. (Laughs.) They will have to say that a gift cannot be used by the college specifically for minority students. In fact, some think the best way will be for colleges to work with outside groups, and to say: Don't give us the money. Give it to the such-and-such foundation. And then that group may decide to give financial aid to minority students at the University of San Francisco, or any university. But this is very much in play right now, in that I think it's one of the issues about which there will be a court ruling soon. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'll take the next question from Mahmood Khan, a professor at Virginia Tech: Can you comment on anything that can be done about the time to get a U.S. visa? Students cannot join because they didn't get visas on time. So I guess they couldn't come this semester. JASCHIK: That is a terrible problem. And it has been a big issue this year. Many of the—going back to the pandemic—at the height of the pandemic, no one wanted to come to the United States. (Laughs.) And the United States didn't really want them. Everyone was viewed as a threat, really, to the health of others. Since then, officially, they've opened up. But students from certain countries report incredible delays in getting their visas. And particularly these are students trying to travel to the United States from countries where there are many Muslim students, or many Muslim people and Muslim students. And they say they're not rejected, but they just—it just takes forever for them to fill out and to get an answer. Now, why this is sort of—it's subject to debate. Many of the people who work in processing visas say they are working as fast as they can, looking for the information they need, et cetera. Many in higher education view that very skeptically. And they see students who they cannot think of a good reason why that student should be denied a visa. And it just lingers. Some colleges have taken to educating students abroad for their first semester when they can't get in. But that is something that only some colleges can do. And also, it denies the students what they're seeking, which is a real experience at Virginia Tech, or any college. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Beverly Lindsay has her hand—I don't know if that's a residual from your last question or if you had a follow-on comment. OK. I'm going to move on, then. I'm going to take the next question from Michael Strmiska, a professor of world history at the Orange County Community College: Do you think that the ban on affirmative action in student admissions might eventually apply to academic employment? I teach in a community college with very low representation of non-white faculty and I think if the Supreme Court or other powers signaled that any diversity motivated hiring among minority faculty could come under dispute this would hamper or even halt our very slow progress toward creating a more diverse faculty. JASCHIK: You're absolutely right. And many colleges do use affirmative action in hiring. The court decision itself did not speak to that. However, if you look at the justices on the court today and imagine a case involving academic hiring reaching them, it is hard for me to imagine the six justices would not also object to affirmative action in hiring. And that would be very limiting in terms of who colleges have to hire. Now, there is some leeway in that academic hiring decisions are mainly made at the department level, with some administration involvement. I don't know if that will work. But I think you're right to see that as a potential problem ahead. FASKIANOS: OK. The next question is from Galia Benitez, an associate professor of international relations at Michigan State University: You began the discussion by asserting that the number of Black and Latino students was going to decline. How do you see the actual class environment for professors and for minority students already in the system or in the future who form part of a minority would be teaching and learning in a less diverse environment? In short, what would be the consequences of these new admissions rules and learning? JASCHIK: The consequences aren't good. We are already seeing racial incidents on campuses that sort of relate to the Supreme Court decision. And when the Supreme Court has taken up these issues in the past, they have similarly been incidents about race on campus. In terms for learning, again, I think it's going to be very negative because students look to a diverse student body to learn, for all the reasons that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote back in 2003 still apply. Well, or I think they should still apply. They aren't. They don't apply because of the recent Supreme Court decision. I think it's going to be tougher for faculty members who are truly committed on those issues. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I think Beverly has re-raised her hand, so I'm going to try again. Beverly, I'll give you a few minutes to—seconds to unmute yourself. You're still muted. There we go. Q: I don't know what's happening because I didn't have another question. There may be a technical problem, but since I'm on I will ask something else. FASKIANOS: OK. (Laughs.) OK. Q: Scott, with reference to the international students and the international faculty, as we know in many of the tier one, AAU major research universities, and the ones also in our neighboring countries like Canada with the University of Toronto which is also a member of AAU and McGill, for example. A number of the faculty and the PhD students in particular—this is one of my areas of research—are in the STEM fields, but they're from other countries. So how are we going to think of other ways to get diverse students, whether they're Canadians in Canada, or Americans in the United States, to be able to pursue some of these programs in STEM fields? JASCHIK: It's going to be very challenging. Look, in STEM fields international students are admitted not because only—in the past, haven't been admitted only because of affirmative action. They've been admitted—there aren't enough American students of any race or ethnicity to fill those classes. There aren't. And that is true at any university in the country, really. Now it's not that there aren't talented Americans, but they are not—they're just not in the right numbers to help. And so, you know, a bunch of things. When recruiting international students or recruiting any students, it's money. And here, the University of California, I'm less worried about than colleges that are not as high in the rankings as UC is. But, you know, it's money. And it's also—it's also mission. Why you come and do that. And it's really important that professors have good answers to questions—to both of those questions, because they are going to be asked. But, no, it's not going to be easy at all. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Beth Hillman. Beth, do you want to ask your question that you've written? Putting her on the spot. Q: Sure. I just—I'll read it there. So how will the new return on investment economic models influence student choices about institutions and programs? JASCHIK: Return on investment, I don't like the use of return on investment but I'm in a minority. And a lot of students and their parents love it. Look, return on investment is greater if you are a student in STEM at MIT than if you're a student in English at any college or university. That's just a fact. But to me what that misses is that in many areas the student studying English may have a perfectly good return on investment. And it's important for colleges to publicize the actual returns that students get. Look, students who study English, and history, and political science, and whatnot, are not, in fact, as a group, ending up working at Starbucks And they, they have the ability to get good jobs. Now, most of them, they get good jobs by not staying as a—in that field. I am a history major. I am not a historian. And most people don't seem to really understand that. But every year people will come up with more ways to rank colleges by return on investment. I don't really put too much in it. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Please raise your hands if you have more questions. I see none—no more raised hands or written questions, but we'd love to hear from you. So I do have a couple, though. I wanted to ask you a little bit about how do you think the U.S. higher education admission strategies is affecting our image in the world, our global standing? JASCHIK: That's a really important question. Look, most people abroad would love to attend a great American college or university. They felt that way during the Trump administration, during the Biden administration, during the Obama administration. They want a U.S. college. Now, that doesn't mean that they favor the U.S. in terms of what the U.S. is doing around the world, but they do value American colleges and universities. There's no doubt about that. And so, in fact, I'd say it's a real loss that the U.S. doesn't act with more on that, because—you know, potentially it's a great, great reason to come to the U.S. FASKIANOS: And what resources do you recommend for higher ed leaders and administrators to better understand how to promote equitable missions, processes, or to navigate now what's this current landscape? JASCHIK: Read Inside Higher Ed—(laughs)—and, you know, pay attention to the issues. If you are at an elite institution, there's a set of questions that you have about early admissions, about legacy admissions. You know, why are you continuing those policies if they are specifically resulting in—(coughs)—excuse me—in the admission only of white students? Align your financial aid to admitting more low-income students. You can base it on income, not race and ethnicity. Totally legal. And, you know, why aren't more colleges doing that? If you are a less-wealthy institution, and an institution of less stature, I would raise the same question, particularly about merit aid—so-called merit aid, is what I would call it. Because merit aid is really aid for those who don't really need aid. And, you know, why do you do these policies that don't—that don't actually improve things in terms of your student bodies? FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Todd Barry. Again, it's Hudson County Community College: Will any of President Biden's debt forgiveness programs be upheld by the courts? And will college rankings involve more companies to become more diverse? JASCHIK: Companies? FASKIANOS: Todd, do you want to just clarify that second part of your question? Thank you. Q: Yes, thank you. Will there be more organizations that put out college rankings rather than just the two that do so already? JASCHIK: Ah, OK. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Q: Thank you. JASCHIK: I suspect there will be. I've yet to find a ranking that I truly like, because I personally believe that college—the way to pick a good college is not to look at what somebody else said are the rankings of colleges. It's just not a good way. But it may be a good way for some people to make a lot of money, so the rankings will continue. I'm sorry. I just forgot. What was the first part of that question? FASKIANOS: The first part was—let me pull it back up—will any of President Biden's debt forgiveness programs be upheld by the courts? JASCHIK: Ah, yes. I don't know. (Laughs.) The most recent of his debt relief things are being challenged. And I don't know. I really don't know if he'll be successful. It depends which judges the cases are before to tell. Yet, I think I saw—I read this weekend, four million have applied for the most recent debt relief, with more expected to. That's a lot of people. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Amanda Shanor, assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School: Why haven't universities used First Amendment arguments to defend their admissions policies? And should they do so in the future? JASCHIK: I don't think that that argument would carry the day with the current Supreme Court. I just don't. They were—if you read the decision, if you listened to the arguments that were made, they were wholly committed to getting rid of affirmative action. It may help in the future with a different Court, but I think we have the current court for a while. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Edie Gaythwaite, again, a professor at Valencia College: To build off the global conversation, do you see institutions actively recruiting international students as admission applications decline? JASCHIK: Definitely. Many colleges—most colleges have some international recruitment strategy. Now, at—at Valencia, I don't know what your strategy is. But, you know, many Florida colleges, they are trying to—they have a tremendous advantage in Latin America, as opposed to Europe and the Middle East. That may be something that they are trying. All types of colleges are pushing for more students. And it makes perfect sense. They should definitely recruit more. FASKIANOS: OK. And then we're going to take the next question from Sneha again, from Texas Woman's University: How does removing scholarships and merit aid impact enrollment and retention? JASCHIK: It depends what institution you're at. Many institutions use merit aid to get students who wouldn't otherwise attend. And that's just a reality. Most students are making their choice based on a combination of factors, both the academic quality of the institution and the money. And so shifting it is a risky business. Now, some colleges that are more prestigious have managed to eliminate merit aid. But the main problem for colleges that are not in the elite is that they are trying to get some students who wouldn't come, to come. And they're very nervous about eliminating merit aid for that reason. FASKIANOS: And now that the—the pandemic is in the rearview mirror, have the admissions or the matriculation from international students—is that going up again? JASCHIK: Slightly. The big study comes out, I think, in December. So we don't know yet for this year. FASKIANOS: Mmm hmm. Great. OK, so I'm doing a final call for questions from the group. Oh, I think—oh, one more from Kurt Schmoke: Do you think that the Court's exemption of military academies will undermine their rationale for ending affirmative action? JASCHIK: You know, that's really interesting. And the group that led the campaign against affirmative action, they are right now seeking plaintiffs at all the military academies. So I don't think it's going to last long. And I don't know. The court may have left it in place because they truly believe it. But in reading the overall decision, I would have a hard time imagining them voting to uphold it anywhere. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have a raised hand from Dena Bateh at NYU. Q: Yes. You pronounced that perfectly correct, thank you. My question is somewhat related, but maybe just on an alternative tangent. And it's something that I'm going to be doing some research on. So I do teach at NYU, but I am an administrator at another institution. And I've noticed—I'm in New York City, of course. And I've noticed the pattern of referring to students as consumers or customers has been a prevalent topic. And I can't even tell you how that boils my blood rather than, say, learner. So that's my research topic. But I'm wondering, how is this being addressed? You know, to uphold the standards of higher education, what are your thoughts on moving forward beyond a Google certification or just certificates that will get students who are—who have not pursued higher education to a certain point, but then they're going to need to return? What are your thoughts on that, I think, in general will be. JASCHIK: So I share your distaste, I guess, for calling students consumers. Look, you know, in a real higher ed environment, professors are teaching and they're also testing students on what they've done, period. But there are some areas where a more consumer approach can work. I did a story about fifteen to twenty years ago about—I wanted to take an online course. And I sent off emails of my interest, didn't say it was for journalism, to some nonprofit and for-profit places. And the for-profit places clearly saw me as a customer. And they wrote immediately—I mean, within an hour—and said, what can we do to help you? Blah, blah, blah. That spirit should be prevalent at any college, particularly that's going to get a lot of low-income students. That's how they will get more low-income students. So in some areas thinking about students as consumers is OK, but I hope they don't do it overall. FASKIANOS: OK. I'm going to take the last question for Babafemi Akinrinade: In Washington State, minority students will number white students in a few years. Will the Supreme Court decision impact the efforts of colleges to recruit these minority students, especially as the state is worried about declining birth rates, while other states are poaching students from Washington State. And Babafemi is with Western Washington University. JASCHIK: So it shouldn't. Look, it's great if Washington State has great numbers of students. They should shout out to the world. More colleges should go and recruit. That's just the fact of life. In the United States today, at Harvard—which was in this decision—they are a majority minority institution. So it didn't really help them out, but it can help—but lots of colleges can recruit students of all kinds, in Washington State and elsewhere. And thanks so much for your invitation to speak today. And I hope you found it useful. FASKIANOS: We did indeed. Thank you very much, Scott Jaschik. I appreciate it. And to all of you for your questions and comments. We enjoyed this conversation. We will be posting the video and transcript online afterwards if you want to review it and share it with your colleagues. You will receive an invitation to our next Higher Education Webinar under separate cover. In the meantime, I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on X, formerly known as Twitter, and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org, for research and analysis on global issues. We also have a dedicated series for students and professors, so professors can invite their students to join the Academic Webinar series. And the first one of this semester is next Wednesday at, I believe, 1:00 p.m. So I hope you will join us for that. If you haven't gotten an invitation, please do email us at CFRacademic@CFR.org. Again, thank you all for being with us today. We look forward to your continued participation in our program series. (END)

Scott Jaschik, cofounder and former chief executive officer and editor of Inside Higher Ed, leads the conversation on the changing landscape of college and university admissions criteria. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Scott Jaschik with us today to discuss the changing landscape of college and university admissions criteria. Mr. Jaschik was a cofounder and former chief executive officer and an editor at Inside Higher Ed, a media company and online publication that provides news, opinions, resources, and events focused on colleges and university topics. He previously served as editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education and was a former board member of the Education Writers Association. And he's a leading voice on higher education issues, publishing articles in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Washington Post, Salon, and elsewhere. So, Scott, thank you very much for being with us today. There's a lot here to cover, I thought maybe you could give us context and set the stage of the current trends in college and university admissions, as well as the role and importance of international students and scholars at U.S. universities. JASCHIK: Sure. Thanks very much for the invitation. And it's great to speak to CFR people. And it's great particularly because you're a group whose interests extend far beyond higher education. And it just goes to show, higher education is important to every society and everyone, really. So I think this is a great opportunity for me to talk to you. And mainly, I'm excited to hear what the attendees have to say about these issues. But briefly, to give an overview. The big issue, and I want to say a few—one thing, in terms of setting the context. Admissions, talking about college admissions, can vary hugely depending on who you are talking about—by student, by institution, and so forth. So I'm going to talk, for instance, at the beginning about affirmative action. And I'll talk about the institutions that are most affected by the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. But then I'm going to talk about a trend in the rest of higher ed, direct admissions, and how that affects people in higher ed. And then at the end, I'll throw in a few comments on the international students. So on affirmative action, the big news was this summer the Supreme Court ruled six to three that colleges—that two colleges in particular, Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill, were not following the law with respect to how they used affirmative action in admissions. It was a very strong decision, a very thorough decision, but one that greatly upset most people in colleges. The general public generally is a little bit skeptical of affirmative action. But in higher ed, there is very strong support for affirmative action. Now, it's important to remember that this decision will directly affect maybe two hundred institutions. Now, it may indirectly affect many more down the road. I'll talk about that in a minute. But it's important to remember, at most colleges—you know, you read these stories every year about how under 5 percent of applicants get into Harvard, Yale, and whatever. Well, most colleges admit most applicants. And I'll just repeat that, because it's really important to remember. Most colleges admit most applicants. I think that is largely lost in the coverage of late on affirmative action. And it's really important, if you have an opportunity, to shout that out to the world. Because even if a student doesn't feel comfortable applying to an elite college or university, it's important to always say that there is a place in higher ed for that student, and for all students. But on higher ed, this is a big decision for higher education because most of the top colleges in the country have used affirmative action in admissions. They don't maybe want to talk about it now, but they have used it for their admissions processes. And now they can't. And, you know, there's really a lot of skepticism about what it will be like. Now, the expectations are based on the University of California, the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas, because in prior court rulings and in state votes they do not use affirmative action. And if you expect them to follow—to follow what's going to go on, people will predict a major decline for Black students, Latino students. White students actually are not going to gain a lot. Asian students will gain. But that's based on those past examples. There's a big question mark this year which is about the admissions tests that in the past were required of all students, but now they aren't. And test-optional admissions truly took off during the pandemic, because there was a period of time when students literally couldn't take the SAT or ACT. But a secondary reason, and arguably, I think, the more important reason, colleges dropped the test-optional—or, went test-optional, is this decision. They knew it was coming and this gives them a lot more flexibility. So do I expect to happen what happened with the University of California? I would say yes, but, because nobody really knows what the impact will be of test-optional admissions. Now, very quickly, some other things on affirmative action to remember. Many colleges are adding essays specifically to reach students who are minority students or who have particular experiences that colleges want to have. And this is, again—remember, even if a college asks, are you Black, Latino, or whatever, they cannot use that information when they evaluate students. So that will be totally invisible to the colleges. The Supreme Court decision explicitly said that students can write about their experiences in life and how that affects them for higher ed. But the Court's going to be watching very carefully and wants to make sure that anything that the students say is not just a way to go back to considering students differently, as the Court said, on the race and ethnicity. Also, there's a group working to create a new system to evaluate students' character, because character is something that many people cite but they don't really have a way to cite it. That's the kind of thing that we're seeing. Now, there are other issues too. Legacy admissions, in which colleges favor the children of alumni or relatives, that is under real tight scrutiny right now. There was nothing in the Supreme Court decision to say they couldn't do legacy admissions, but many colleges are uncomfortable given that they cannot use the systems they came up with to help Black, and Latino, and Asian American students get into college. They are uncomfortable with legacy admissions because it primarily helps white students get into college. And that's not something they want to do. Similarly, early decision is something that is very controversial, because it primarily helps white students. Now what's unknown is two things. One is the final rule, so to say, on admissions. That's going to be decided not by anything I say or that anyone else says, but it's going to be back in the courts. I would be absolutely certain it will return to the courts. And they will, you know, hash that out. Also, there's the question of financial aid. Some colleges award—and this is many more colleges—award financial aid in part based on race and ethnicity. Is that legal? We don't yet know. Some players on both sides have offered their opinions, but that will be a huge decision that will come down. Now I want to talk about another issue in higher ed that's going on, which is direct admissions. And if you're not familiar with direct admissions, in direct admissions students do not apply to colleges. Students simply fill out a form, which includes their transcript, any test scores they want to submit, and roughly where they want to go to college. I don't mean institution names, but, like, I live in Connecticut and these are the—and I want to go to college near my home. It's important to remember, most college students go to college near their homes. So and then after that, colleges will look at the application that they filled out. And colleges will admit those students. Now direct admissions is very popular among all the institutions that I wasn't talking about before, because it is a good way to recruit more low-income students, who seem to really like this system. But direct admissions has primarily been used on a small scale. And that—we have to see what will happen as it goes to a larger scale. So that is something still to find out. And then on international students, with international students most colleges very much want international students. But there are key things that may make it difficult to recruit them. One is foreign—the foreign relations, as your group well knows. I mean, you've got the war in Russia and Ukraine, which didn't send a lot of foreign students to the United States, but they sent some. And, interestingly, some of the colleges in New York City have both Russian and Ukrainian students at the same college. And they are dealing with issues related to that. But the most students have come from China. And our relations with China are, frankly, pretty bad right now, I would say. And that raises real questions about which students will come. My guess is that the top universities are not going to have a loss in foreign students, or at least not a substantial loss. But it's important to remember, foreign students are enrolling at every type of college and university. And they may be affected at institutions that aren't as competitive in admissions. So that's my rough answer to your question. Have at it. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you so much. And now we're going to go to all of you for your questions and comments. And please use this as a forum too to share best practices. (Gives queuing instructions.) So I'm going to take the first written question from Edie Gaythwaite, professor at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida: The issue of essays is now the use of AI-generated essays being submitted. So how do you see the admissions process moving forward with this in mind? JASCHIK: That's a great question. And it's something that's getting a lot of attention right now. And I'm going to answer first for what's going to happen this year, and then I want to talk about the future. Right now, this is making a lot of people in admissions very nervous, because every day someone does a story on—on the way AI can be used to write essays. Colleges don't know. So they are nervous. Now, some of the services that colleges use to detect plagiarism can also be used, they say, to maybe detect the use of AI. So that's one possibility. Others are suggesting that colleges should instead of using regular essays, should require an essay that is handwritten and was graded by a high school teacher, and to turn it in with the high school teacher's grades. Now that's a little—there's something odd about that, in that that assumes that the student didn't use AI in high school, which, you know, who knows if that's true. But the reason I would say not to get a huge panic this year, is that a bunch of colleges are working on the issue. I suspect that by the end of this year, they are going to have better ways to deal with AI than they do right now. So I would say, you know, watch. But remember—and the other thing I would say is to remember past examples. Remember, when Wikipedia first started? There were people saying, no college student is ever going to write his or her own essay again. They're all going to come from Wikipedia. Well, they're not. And so because a lot of people figured out how to use Wikipedia, and how not to use Wikipedia. So I don't mean to sound like a Pollyanna, but there may be a better way coming. FASKIANOS: Our next question comes from Beverly Lindsay. Beverly, please identify yourself and ask your question. Q: Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. We can. Q: Great. Beverly Lindsay, University of California, multicampus. Hello, Scott. Good to hear your comments. I have something that wasn't quite covered. Because I have been at two major research universities, actually more, but two in particular. They actually have informal legacy admits. And I would like your speculation on how that will continue. The second part of the question relates to HBCUs, particularly the ones that are known as the Black Ivies. I was at two of them. And I also know that they are concerned about having more diverse students from different economic backgrounds. Could you comment on that as well? Thank you. JASCHIK: Sure. Those are very good questions. So, first, on the informal legacies, which is something I have heard about. And I, in fact, did a story about a university that said it was eliminating legacy admissions, but it turned out they weren't. They still had legacy admissions. And that's because legacy admissions is something that colleges like to talk about with their alumni, but maybe not with the public. It strikes me that informal legacy admissions really doesn't make sense. If you believe in legacy admissions, defend it. But informal strikes me as inappropriate, frankly. Now, on the HBCUs, and particularly, the so-called top HBCUs, there's interesting developments with regard to affirmative action. When California eliminated affirmative action way back when, more Californians started to go to Morehouse, and Spelman, and other very good HBCUs. And we are going to see more of this in the next year, I think. But at the same time, I would caution against assuming that HBCUs can provide the answers to everything here. Morehouse and Spelman, despite being great colleges, to not have the financial aid that Harvard and Stanford have. They just don't. There's not enough money there. And it's a different kind of experience, a great experience for some students. But financially and otherwise, there are limits to what they can do. Now, if Morehouse and Spelman could grow by a thousand students, well, that would sound wonderful. But I don't think they can grow by a thousand students, at least not immediately. So this year, I think we're going to be watching what goes on at those colleges. So I hope I've answered. FASKIANOS: Great, thank you. I'm going to take the written question from Todd Barry, who is professor at Hudson County Community College? Excuse me. How safe is it geopolitically for U.S. professors to teach abroad? JASCHIK: How what is it? FASKIANOS: Safe is it. JASCHIK: Oh, how safe? I think it really depends on the country. In lots of countries it is totally safe, in that—you know, you have to be realistic. What is—how safe is it to teach in the United States is a legitimate question, in some parts of the country. To go abroad, there are real issues if the country is not secure, it does not have an adequate system for making sure that people are protected. And also, there are issues related to the potential in other countries for anti-American thought to happen and to be a cause of concern. At the same time, there are many countries where you will find yourself welcome. And I think it's great for American college professors to look for those places and to go abroad. They will learn as much as they will teach. So I think that's, you know, that's great. FASKIANOS: Great. Don Habibi has raised his hand, and also written a—written a question. But, Don, I think you've put your hand down, but I'd love you to ask it yourself, if you could unmute yourself. Q: OK. Yes. Hi. Yeah, my question was triggered by the first AI question. And that is, what's to prevent—or how do you check a student who writes a fabulous story of their overcoming adversity or their combat experience, or whatever it is that, you know, would just sort of bring them to the top of the applicant pool. And the likelihood of fact checking that sort of thing is pretty small. And I mentioned in the question that several times reporters won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on stories, and they made them up. FASKIANOS: And Don is—can you give us your affiliation? Q: I'm a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. FASKIANOS: Thank you. JASCHIK: Yes, that is a real concern. And it's not just in admissions. Colleges are worried about that issue in the essays they will assign to students to write after—you know, after they're enrolled. There, they—some people are arguing for in-person writing. You know, in class, where the students will be forced to write it down. Now, some students say they can't write a long, handwritten essay anymore, because all they can do is type. And I have some sympathy for them, but that's what they're saying. It goes back to what I said before. Colleges are working on solutions to this and going to try. I would say that a good admissions counselor should be able to see some things that come out in their applications. Also, some colleges are changing their essays so that they are more about the college you are applying to, to make it more difficult to use a copied essay. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. The next question we'll take from Melissa McGinnis, assistant director of admissions at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs: What are your thoughts on how these affirmative action issues impact graduate admissions for professional programs, not PhD? JASCHIK: Sure. Yeah, well, I'll tell you about both. In law schools, medical schools, business schools, it is the same thing. That there's no expectation that this decision doesn't apply. And they have got to redo their systems and procedures just like their undergraduate counterparts do. PhD programs actually are interesting, though, because in many colleges and universities, those decisions are done by the department level. And it is more difficult to control a department than it is to control a whole school. You know, you may have six members of the English department or whatever deciding on admissions. But they can't use race. That's just—and if they do they're going to get sued. So that's just the rules. FASKIANOS: Great, thank you. We have a raised hand from Sneha Bharadwaj. Excuse me if I did not pronounce it correctly, but you can correct me. Q: OK. So my name is Sneha Bharadwaj. I'm from Texas Woman's University here in Dallas, Texas. I was following up on other questions you answered regarding the holistic admission process. And I'm wondering, beyond the handwritten essay, are there any talks about video interviews or uploading video prompts, where you hear from that person? And if that is something that's in the talks or is being considered, because I think we're all in the same boat of wondering how this holistic admissions is going to work. JASCHIK: Right. Well, and Texas Woman's University is a great example. It is a—it is a university in Texas that has men, for those who are not familiar with it. It is not—does not just admit women. And it's—and in recent years, it's become quite popular and is growing with more people using holistic admissions to get in. So, you know, to do an interview for everyone, on the one hand, it makes perfect sense. You meet the people, find out about them, find out about their interests, et cetera. But in most colleges, and I don't know if this is true of Texas Woman's University, that is a major undertaking, to interview everyone, even via Zoom. And most college admissions offices will be hard stretched to interview every student. Also, there have been charges that admissions interviews favor or don't favor minority students. They are said to favor them, if colleges want to admit more minority students. They are said to disfavor them when the students don't have the same expertise in doing interviews as wealthier students do. And most of the wealthy students are white students. So it is something that they are looking at, but I am not sure it will work at very many institutions this year. Q: Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to take the next question from Kurt Schmoke, who is the president of the University of Baltimore: Which states are using direct admissions? And will this spread to other states? JASCHIK: Great question. Nice to have a president here. And so, there are not any statewide requirements, but Minnesota is the state to look at. In Minnesota, they made it possible for any college that wanted to, to use direct admissions. And most of the colleges opted in in part. One college opted in entirely. They said, that's the way you're going to apply to get into that college. Most colleges, though, are doing it on a piecemeal basis, admitting just some students. And I'm curious, does the University of Baltimore—did you use direct admissions? FASKIANOS: Kurt, if you want to unmute and respond, that would be great. We'd love to hear your experience. Q: Sure. The closest that we have to that is dual enrollment programs that allow students to obtain X number of credits. And it usually is with the community college, some with high schools. But now I'm quite interested in this direct admissions. So I'll take a look at what Minnesota is doing. JASCHIK: Right. You should do that. In Minnesota, the colleges that definitely didn't do it were the flagship University of Minnesota campus and Carleton College. You know, again, colleges that get tons of applicants don't need to, but it was all the other colleges. And if you search on Inside Higher Ed's website, you'll find a bunch of stories on the players in direct admissions, EAB, the common app, et cetera. There are places you can go. Niche does direct admissions. There are places that would love to talk to you, I'm sure. Q: Good, thank you. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Kevin Collymore, who is an assistant dean of retention and persistence programs at the University of San Francisco: How will institutions handle donor gifts, scholarships intentioned for students of color moving forward? FASKIANOS: Very carefully. (Laughs.) They will have to say that a gift cannot be used by the college specifically for minority students. In fact, some think the best way will be for colleges to work with outside groups, and to say: Don't give us the money. Give it to the such-and-such foundation. And then that group may decide to give financial aid to minority students at the University of San Francisco, or any university. But this is very much in play right now, in that I think it's one of the issues about which there will be a court ruling soon. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'll take the next question from Mahmood Khan, a professor at Virginia Tech: Can you comment on anything that can be done about the time to get a U.S. visa? Students cannot join because they didn't get visas on time. So I guess they couldn't come this semester. JASCHIK: That is a terrible problem. And it has been a big issue this year. Many of the—going back to the pandemic—at the height of the pandemic, no one wanted to come to the United States. (Laughs.) And the United States didn't really want them. Everyone was viewed as a threat, really, to the health of others. Since then, officially, they've opened up. But students from certain countries report incredible delays in getting their visas. And particularly these are students trying to travel to the United States from countries where there are many Muslim students, or many Muslim people and Muslim students. And they say they're not rejected, but they just—it just takes forever for them to fill out and to get an answer. Now, why this is sort of—it's subject to debate. Many of the people who work in processing visas say they are working as fast as they can, looking for the information they need, et cetera. Many in higher education view that very skeptically. And they see students who they cannot think of a good reason why that student should be denied a visa. And it just lingers. Some colleges have taken to educating students abroad for their first semester when they can't get in. But that is something that only some colleges can do. And also, it denies the students what they're seeking, which is a real experience at Virginia Tech, or any college. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Beverly Lindsay has her hand—I don't know if that's a residual from your last question or if you had a follow-on comment. OK. I'm going to move on, then. I'm going to take the next question from Michael Strmiska, a professor of world history at the Orange County Community College: Do you think that the ban on affirmative action in student admissions might eventually apply to academic employment? I teach in a community college with very low representation of non-white faculty and I think if the Supreme Court or other powers signaled that any diversity motivated hiring among minority faculty could come under dispute this would hamper or even halt our very slow progress toward creating a more diverse faculty. JASCHIK: You're absolutely right. And many colleges do use affirmative action in hiring. The court decision itself did not speak to that. However, if you look at the justices on the court today and imagine a case involving academic hiring reaching them, it is hard for me to imagine the six justices would not also object to affirmative action in hiring. And that would be very limiting in terms of who colleges have to hire. Now, there is some leeway in that academic hiring decisions are mainly made at the department level, with some administration involvement. I don't know if that will work. But I think you're right to see that as a potential problem ahead. FASKIANOS: OK. The next question is from Galia Benitez, an associate professor of international relations at Michigan State University: You began the discussion by asserting that the number of Black and Latino students was going to decline. How do you see the actual class environment for professors and for minority students already in the system or in the future who form part of a minority would be teaching and learning in a less diverse environment? In short, what would be the consequences of these new admissions rules and learning? JASCHIK: The consequences aren't good. We are already seeing racial incidents on campuses that sort of relate to the Supreme Court decision. And when the Supreme Court has taken up these issues in the past, they have similarly been incidents about race on campus. In terms for learning, again, I think it's going to be very negative because students look to a diverse student body to learn, for all the reasons that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote back in 2003 still apply. Well, or I think they should still apply. They aren't. They don't apply because of the recent Supreme Court decision. I think it's going to be tougher for faculty members who are truly committed on those issues. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I think Beverly has re-raised her hand, so I'm going to try again. Beverly, I'll give you a few minutes to—seconds to unmute yourself. You're still muted. There we go. Q: I don't know what's happening because I didn't have another question. There may be a technical problem, but since I'm on I will ask something else. FASKIANOS: OK. (Laughs.) OK. Q: Scott, with reference to the international students and the international faculty, as we know in many of the tier one, AAU major research universities, and the ones also in our neighboring countries like Canada with the University of Toronto which is also a member of AAU and McGill, for example. A number of the faculty and the PhD students in particular—this is one of my areas of research—are in the STEM fields, but they're from other countries. So how are we going to think of other ways to get diverse students, whether they're Canadians in Canada, or Americans in the United States, to be able to pursue some of these programs in STEM fields? JASCHIK: It's going to be very challenging. Look, in STEM fields international students are admitted not because only—in the past, haven't been admitted only because of affirmative action. They've been admitted—there aren't enough American students of any race or ethnicity to fill those classes. There aren't. And that is true at any university in the country, really. Now it's not that there aren't talented Americans, but they are not—they're just not in the right numbers to help. And so, you know, a bunch of things. When recruiting international students or recruiting any students, it's money. And here, the University of California, I'm less worried about than colleges that are not as high in the rankings as UC is. But, you know, it's money. And it's also—it's also mission. Why you come and do that. And it's really important that professors have good answers to questions—to both of those questions, because they are going to be asked. But, no, it's not going to be easy at all. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Beth Hillman. Beth, do you want to ask your question that you've written? Putting her on the spot. Q: Sure. I just—I'll read it there. So how will the new return on investment economic models influence student choices about institutions and programs? JASCHIK: Return on investment, I don't like the use of return on investment but I'm in a minority. And a lot of students and their parents love it. Look, return on investment is greater if you are a student in STEM at MIT than if you're a student in English at any college or university. That's just a fact. But to me what that misses is that in many areas the student studying English may have a perfectly good return on investment. And it's important for colleges to publicize the actual returns that students get. Look, students who study English, and history, and political science, and whatnot, are not, in fact, as a group, ending up working at Starbucks And they, they have the ability to get good jobs. Now, most of them, they get good jobs by not staying as a—in that field. I am a history major. I am not a historian. And most people don't seem to really understand that. But every year people will come up with more ways to rank colleges by return on investment. I don't really put too much in it. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Please raise your hands if you have more questions. I see none—no more raised hands or written questions, but we'd love to hear from you. So I do have a couple, though. I wanted to ask you a little bit about how do you think the U.S. higher education admission strategies is affecting our image in the world, our global standing? JASCHIK: That's a really important question. Look, most people abroad would love to attend a great American college or university. They felt that way during the Trump administration, during the Biden administration, during the Obama administration. They want a U.S. college. Now, that doesn't mean that they favor the U.S. in terms of what the U.S. is doing around the world, but they do value American colleges and universities. There's no doubt about that. And so, in fact, I'd say it's a real loss that the U.S. doesn't act with more on that, because—you know, potentially it's a great, great reason to come to the U.S. FASKIANOS: And what resources do you recommend for higher ed leaders and administrators to better understand how to promote equitable missions, processes, or to navigate now what's this current landscape? JASCHIK: Read Inside Higher Ed—(laughs)—and, you know, pay attention to the issues. If you are at an elite institution, there's a set of questions that you have about early admissions, about legacy admissions. You know, why are you continuing those policies if they are specifically resulting in—(coughs)—excuse me—in the admission only of white students? Align your financial aid to admitting more low-income students. You can base it on income, not race and ethnicity. Totally legal. And, you know, why aren't more colleges doing that? If you are a less-wealthy institution, and an institution of less stature, I would raise the same question, particularly about merit aid—so-called merit aid, is what I would call it. Because merit aid is really aid for those who don't really need aid. And, you know, why do you do these policies that don't—that don't actually improve things in terms of your student bodies? FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Todd Barry. Again, it's Hudson County Community College: Will any of President Biden's debt forgiveness programs be upheld by the courts? And will college rankings involve more companies to become more diverse? JASCHIK: Companies? FASKIANOS: Todd, do you want to just clarify that second part of your question? Thank you. Q: Yes, thank you. Will there be more organizations that put out college rankings rather than just the two that do so already? JASCHIK: Ah, OK. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Q: Thank you. JASCHIK: I suspect there will be. I've yet to find a ranking that I truly like, because I personally believe that college—the way to pick a good college is not to look at what somebody else said are the rankings of colleges. It's just not a good way. But it may be a good way for some people to make a lot of money, so the rankings will continue. I'm sorry. I just forgot. What was the first part of that question? FASKIANOS: The first part was—let me pull it back up—will any of President Biden's debt forgiveness programs be upheld by the courts? JASCHIK: Ah, yes. I don't know. (Laughs.) The most recent of his debt relief things are being challenged. And I don't know. I really don't know if he'll be successful. It depends which judges the cases are before to tell. Yet, I think I saw—I read this weekend, four million have applied for the most recent debt relief, with more expected to. That's a lot of people. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Amanda Shanor, assistant professor of legal studies and business ethics at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School: Why haven't universities used First Amendment arguments to defend their admissions policies? And should they do so in the future? JASCHIK: I don't think that that argument would carry the day with the current Supreme Court. I just don't. They were—if you read the decision, if you listened to the arguments that were made, they were wholly committed to getting rid of affirmative action. It may help in the future with a different Court, but I think we have the current court for a while. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Edie Gaythwaite, again, a professor at Valencia College: To build off the global conversation, do you see institutions actively recruiting international students as admission applications decline? JASCHIK: Definitely. Many colleges—most colleges have some international recruitment strategy. Now, at—at Valencia, I don't know what your strategy is. But, you know, many Florida colleges, they are trying to—they have a tremendous advantage in Latin America, as opposed to Europe and the Middle East. That may be something that they are trying. All types of colleges are pushing for more students. And it makes perfect sense. They should definitely recruit more. FASKIANOS: OK. And then we're going to take the next question from Sneha again, from Texas Woman's University: How does removing scholarships and merit aid impact enrollment and retention? JASCHIK: It depends what institution you're at. Many institutions use merit aid to get students who wouldn't otherwise attend. And that's just a reality. Most students are making their choice based on a combination of factors, both the academic quality of the institution and the money. And so shifting it is a risky business. Now, some colleges that are more prestigious have managed to eliminate merit aid. But the main problem for colleges that are not in the elite is that they are trying to get some students who wouldn't come, to come. And they're very nervous about eliminating merit aid for that reason. FASKIANOS: And now that the—the pandemic is in the rearview mirror, have the admissions or the matriculation from international students—is that going up again? JASCHIK: Slightly. The big study comes out, I think, in December. So we don't know yet for this year. FASKIANOS: Mmm hmm. Great. OK, so I'm doing a final call for questions from the group. Oh, I think—oh, one more from Kurt Schmoke: Do you think that the Court's exemption of military academies will undermine their rationale for ending affirmative action? JASCHIK: You know, that's really interesting. And the group that led the campaign against affirmative action, they are right now seeking plaintiffs at all the military academies. So I don't think it's going to last long. And I don't know. The court may have left it in place because they truly believe it. But in reading the overall decision, I would have a hard time imagining them voting to uphold it anywhere. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have a raised hand from Dena Bateh at NYU. Q: Yes. You pronounced that perfectly correct, thank you. My question is somewhat related, but maybe just on an alternative tangent. And it's something that I'm going to be doing some research on. So I do teach at NYU, but I am an administrator at another institution. And I've noticed—I'm in New York City, of course. And I've noticed the pattern of referring to students as consumers or customers has been a prevalent topic. And I can't even tell you how that boils my blood rather than, say, learner. So that's my research topic. But I'm wondering, how is this being addressed? You know, to uphold the standards of higher education, what are your thoughts on moving forward beyond a Google certification or just certificates that will get students who are—who have not pursued higher education to a certain point, but then they're going to need to return? What are your thoughts on that, I think, in general will be. JASCHIK: So I share your distaste, I guess, for calling students consumers. Look, you know, in a real higher ed environment, professors are teaching and they're also testing students on what they've done, period. But there are some areas where a more consumer approach can work. I did a story about fifteen to twenty years ago about—I wanted to take an online course. And I sent off emails of my interest, didn't say it was for journalism, to some nonprofit and for-profit places. And the for-profit places clearly saw me as a customer. And they wrote immediately—I mean, within an hour—and said, what can we do to help you? Blah, blah, blah. That spirit should be prevalent at any college, particularly that's going to get a lot of low-income students. That's how they will get more low-income students. So in some areas thinking about students as consumers is OK, but I hope they don't do it overall. FASKIANOS: OK. I'm going to take the last question for Babafemi Akinrinade: In Washington State, minority students will number white students in a few years. Will the Supreme Court decision impact the efforts of colleges to recruit these minority students, especially as the state is worried about declining birth rates, while other states are poaching students from Washington State. And Babafemi is with Western Washington University. JASCHIK: So it shouldn't. Look, it's great if Washington State has great numbers of students. They should shout out to the world. More colleges should go and recruit. That's just the fact of life. In the United States today, at Harvard—which was in this decision—they are a majority minority institution. So it didn't really help them out, but it can help—but lots of colleges can recruit students of all kinds, in Washington State and elsewhere. And thanks so much for your invitation to speak today. And I hope you found it useful. FASKIANOS: We did indeed. Thank you very much, Scott Jaschik. I appreciate it. And to all of you for your questions and comments. We enjoyed this conversation. We will be posting the video and transcript online afterwards if you want to review it and share it with your colleagues. You will receive an invitation to our next Higher Education Webinar under separate cover. In the meantime, I encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic on X, formerly known as Twitter, and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org, for research and analysis on global issues. We also have a dedicated series for students and professors, so professors can invite their students to join the Academic Webinar series. And the first one of this semester is next Wednesday at, I believe, 1:00 p.m. So I hope you will join us for that. If you haven't gotten an invitation, please do email us at CFRacademic@CFR.org. Again, thank you all for being with us today. We look forward to your continued participation in our program series. (END)

A conversation about nuclear energy, climate change, and inspiring young women to go into STEM fields. On December 15, 2022, Grace Stanke, a senior at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, studying nuclear engineering, took home the Miss America crown along with the scholarship of the Miss America Organization. She additionally won in a talent category for her classical violin performance. As Miss America 2023, Grace is embarking on a year of service taking her on a tour across the country and she is using her national platform to continue advocating for “Clean Energy – Cleaner Future.” She believes that America needs to convert to zero-carbon energy with a focus on nuclear power and breaking down misconceptions surrounding nuclear energy. Through it all, her goal is to inspire the next generation of female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. With increasing interest in, support for, and desire to become more informed about nuclear energy and how it can help mitigate climate change, combined with the wonderful goal of inspiring young women to enter the STEM fields, the evening promises to be interesting and inspiring. Scott Montgomery, University of Washington faculty from the Jackson School of International Studies, will be the interviewer for the event, and a Q&A will complete the evening. This special event is made possible by Friends of Fission Northwest and the generosity of the Anthropocene Institute, American Nuclear Society-Eastern Washington, Energy Northwest, Terrestrial Energy, and Town Hall Seattle. Scott L. Montgomery is an author, geoscientist, and affiliate faculty member in the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. He writes and lectures on a wide variety of topics related to energy (geopolitics, technology, resources, climate change), American politics, intellectual history, language and communication, and the history of science. About Friends of Fission Northwest Friends of Fission Northwest is a grassroots non-profit that, for more than six years, has brought speakers to the Puget Sound region and beyond. We strive to educate the public about the importance of nuclear energy, its value in fighting climate change, and to dispel myths and misinformation about nuclear power.

It's college graduation time. And NBA finals time. And Ukraine spring offensive time. And almost summertime. And for some key insurrectionists, it's judgment time. And it is definitely a time to stay vigilant.  We're digging into seditious conspiracy. And insurrection. And what the penalties should be. And how to fight it. And Stewart Rhodes and Trump and the #AmericanInsurgency. Stakes is high. And we're not afraid to have the hard conversations.  Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) is our guest. A true American badass, she is an Assistant Dean and Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. She served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents, and performing undercover work. And she joins us to break down this moment, the rising threat of violent domestic terrorism, the Stewart Rhodes verdict, the latest Trump legal issues, and what it's like to bounce from cable news network to cable news network. We also meet her friend, Pancake.  And our Paul Rieckhoff (@PaulRieckhoff) also digs into Ukraine hitting Moscow, Senator Redneck's locker room troubles and his pick for the NBA Finals. Welcome to a look inside the response to the most significant attack on America since 9/11.  Welcome to a conversation about the looming and rising threat that remains.  Welcome to a glimpse into what a jail cell for Rhodes, and Trump might look like.  Welcome to discussion about whether or not we're ready for the next Jan 6th. Or the next 9/11. Or something even worse that could look like a demented combination of the two.  Welcome to Independent Americans, Episode 225. Every episode of Independent Americans is independent light to contrast the heat of other politics and news shows. It's content for the 42% of Americans that call themselves independent. And delivers the Righteous Media 5 Is: independence, integrity, information, inspiration and impact. Always with a unique focus on national security, foreign affairs and military and vets issues. This is another pod to help you stay vigilant. Because vigilance is the price of democracy. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans is your trusted place for independent news, politics and inspiration.  -Get extra content, connect with guests, events, merch discounts and support this show that speaks truth to power by joining us on Patreon.  -WATCH video of Paul and Asha's conversation. -Check #LookForTheHelpers on Twitter. And share yours.  -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us. -See Paul's segment on MSNBC's Deadline Washington with Nicolle Wallace. -Hear Paul on The Chuck ToddCast talking about the mental health crisis among veterans -Watch Paul's weekly national security and politics segment on NewsNation with Marni Hughes from last Thursday.  -Hear other Righteous pods like The Firefighters Podcast with Rob Serra, Uncle Montel - The OG of Weed and B Dorm.  Independent Americans is powered by Righteous Media. America's next great independent media company. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the European Union as well as member states create swiftly changing policies affecting clean energy initiatives, their energy decisions show significant variability. Recent events emphasize both the need for and the challenges to establishing a unified approach to securing supply for EU states and for improving energy independence within the EU. As emerging technology revolutionizes energy markets, it has never been more important for European countries to synchronize their standards on protecting critical energy infrastructure, including electric grids, Smart Grids, gas pipeline sensors and wind and solar technologies. This symposium will showcase cutting-edge research on where the European Union is headed on energy security and what the U.S. and the EU can learn from each other. -- Dr. Sarah Lohmann is an Acting Assistant Professor in the Henry M. Jackson School for International Studies and a Visiting Professor at the U.S. Army War College. Her current teaching and research focus is on cyber and energy security and NATO policy, and she is currently a co-lead for a NATO project on “Energy Security in an Era of Hybrid Warfare”. She joins the Jackson School from UW's Communications Leadership faculty, where she teaches on emerging technology, big data and disinformation. Previously, she served as the Senior Cyber Fellow with the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University, where she managed projects which aimed to increase agreement between Germany and the United States on improving cybersecurity and creating cybernorms.

As the European Union as well as member states create swiftly changing policies affecting clean energy initiatives, their energy decisions show significant variability. Recent events emphasize both the need for and the challenges to establishing a unified approach to securing supply for EU states and for improving energy independence within the EU. As emerging technology revolutionizes energy markets, it has never been more important for European countries to synchronize their standards on protecting critical energy infrastructure, including electric grids, Smart Grids, gas pipeline sensors and wind and solar technologies. This symposium will showcase cutting-edge research on where the European Union is headed on energy security and what the U.S. and the EU can learn from each other. -- Lieutenant Colonel Frank J. Kuzminski is a U.S. Army officer and strategist and Ph.D. Candidate, Jackson School of International Studies. He was commissioned as an infantry officer in 2004 and served in multiple operational assignments around the world. In 2014, Frank was assigned to the Army Staff at the Pentagon, and later as a strategic plans officer with I Corps at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. He is currently a doctoral candidate in international studies at the University of Washington. He holds a Master's in Public Administration from Harvard University and Bachelor of Science from the United States Military Academy. He is married with two children and speaks Polish and French.

As the European Union as well as member states create swiftly changing policies affecting clean energy initiatives, their energy decisions show significant variability. Recent events emphasize both the need for and the challenges to establishing a unified approach to securing supply for EU states and for improving energy independence within the EU. As emerging technology revolutionizes energy markets, it has never been more important for European countries to synchronize their standards on protecting critical energy infrastructure, including electric grids, Smart Grids, gas pipeline sensors and wind and solar technologies. This symposium will showcase cutting-edge research on where the European Union is headed on energy security and what the U.S. and the EU can learn from each other. -- Scott L. Montgomery is an author, geoscientist, and affiliate faculty member in the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. He writes and lectures on a wide variety of topics related to energy (geopolitics, technology, resources, climate change), American politics, intellectual history, language and communication, and the history of science. He is a frequent contributor to online journals such as The Conversation, Forbes, and Fortune, and his articles and op-eds are regularly featured in many outlets, including Newsweek, Marketwatch, The Huffington Post, and UPI. He also gives public talks and serves on panels related to issues in global energy and their relation to political and economic trends and ideas of sustainability. For more than two decades, Montgomery worked as a geoscientist in the energy industry, writing over 100 scientific papers and 70 monographs on topics related to oil and gas, energy technology, and industry trends.

He was originally accused of paying hush money to an adult film actor, but now we know more about the criminal charges against Donald Trump, it seems the allegations run far deeper.  The former US president is accused of covering up multiple affairs so as to give himself a better chance of winning the 2016 election.  Today, lawyer and former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa, on the 34 charges against Trump, and whether his denials really stand up.  Featured:  Asha Rangappa, lawyer, former FBI agent and senior lecturer, Jackson School of Global Affairs, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, US 

He was originally accused of paying hush money to an adult film actor, but now we know more about the criminal charges against Donald Trump, it seems the allegations run far deeper.  The former US president is accused of covering up multiple affairs so as to give himself a better chance of winning the 2016 election.  Today, lawyer and former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa, on the 34 charges against Trump, and whether his denials really stand up.  Featured:  Asha Rangappa, lawyer, former FBI agent and senior lecturer, Jackson School of Global Affairs, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, US 

Oil runs the world. From our cars to our houses, most of us can't live without it. From the 1940s to the 1960s, though, oil played another specific role as a central part of conflict and diplomacy during the Cold War. It was during this era that Iran developed into the world's first “petro-state”: a nation whose state revenue, industrializing economy, military, and growing middle class all depended on the growth of the oil industry. This all occurred alongside major Cold War developments, including the regime of the Iranian shah, the coup d'etat of 1953, and more. Centering our analyses of these Cold War moments around the role of petroleum casts the histories of the Iranian and US governments in an entirely new light.   Joining our conversation this week is Dr. Gregory Brew, a leading expert on the relationship between Iran, the US, and oil during the Cold War.Gregory Brew is a historian and author specializing in U.S. foreign relations, oil, Iran, and the modern Middle East. He has authored two books on the Iranian “petro-state” and contributed to numerous peer reviewed publications. His work explores the connections between the formation of a global oil economy, the geopolitics of the Cold War, and the contemporary energy transition. After receiving his doctorate from Georgetown University in June 2018, he served as a post-doctoral fellow at the Jackson School for Global Affairs at Yale University from 2021-2023. Currently, Dr. Brew is an Analyst at Eurasia Group, covering energy and Iran.He is the author of The Struggle for Iran: Oil, Autocracy, and the Cold War, 1951–1954 and Petroleum and Progress in Iran: Oil, Development, and the Cold War.Follow him on Twitter @gbrew24 and visit his website gregorybrew.com.  

Dr. Devin E. Naar, a Judeo-Spanish language scholar, is the author of Jewish Salonica, and is an Isaac Alhadeff Professor in Sephardic Studies, Associate Professor of History, and faculty at the Stroum Center for Jewish Studies in the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He speaks with us about the fascinating history of the Ladino language: Judeo Spanish and how it serves as a bridge between many cultures. Let's listen in to this captivating interview with co-host Suzanne Lasser.

GeoFORCE Program Director Dr. Leah Turner discusses building the pipeline for the next generation of geoscientists. GeoFORCE Texas received the 2022 Special Commendation Award at IMAGE. The program is a free K-12 outreach program designed to increase the number and diversity of students pursuing STEM degrees and careers, especially geology. Each summer GeoFORCE Texas takes over 300 high school students on spectacular geological field trips in Texas and throughout the United States. Taught by university faculty, research scientists, and area educators and mentored by professional geologists from industry partners, the trips engage and empower students by exposing them to something completely different than their home and school environment. GeoFORCE Texas aims to inspire the next generation of geoscientists, foster increased diversity in the U.S. workforce, and create an increased awareness of the importance of geosciences in the communities the program serves. In this conversation with host Andrew Geary, Leah highlights why this program is necessary, the higher education issues that under-served and minoritized student populations face, and the benefits of expanding the talent base in the geosciences. She also discusses how geoscientists and educators outside Texas can best utilize this program. GeoFORCE Texas is at the forefront of training the next generation of geoscientists in a hands-on, powerful program that might change the world's future. You will want to hear about this program and how you can help get the next generation excited about geophysics. Listen to the full archive at https://seg.org/podcast. RELATED LINKS * Apply to join their Summer 2023 staff (multiple positions available, submit by January 3, 2023) (https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/geoforce/summer-academies/summer-staff/) * Learn about GeoFORCE Texas's results (https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/geoforce/about-us/geoforce-results/) * Connect on their website (https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/geoforce/) * Read about GeoFORCE in The Leading Edge (https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/tle41080558.1) BIOGRAPHY Leah earned her Ph.D. in Higher Education from Ohio University as a Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Doctoral Scholar. Her primary academic interests involve researching the college choices of under-served and minoritized student populations to address prominent higher education issues such as access, retention, degree completion, student involvement, and satisfaction. Her portfolio includes positions in career development, K-12 outreach, student affairs, athletics, and academic affairs. In addition, Leah oversees the GeoFORCE pipeline program and is passionate about creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture at the Jackson School. CREDITS SEG produces Seismic Soundoff to benefit its members and the scientific community and to inform the public about the value of geophysics. Please leave a 5-star rating on Apple Podcasts and Spotify to show your support for the show. It takes less than five seconds to leave a 5-star rating and is the number one action you can take to show appreciation for this free resource. And follow the podcast on the app to be notified when each new episode is released. Original music created by Zach Bridges. Andrew Geary hosted, edited, edited, and produced this episode at 51 features, LLC. Thank you to the SEG podcast team: Jennifer Cobb, Kathy Gamble, and Ally McGinnis.

Danny and Derek welcome back Greg Brew, AP's resident “oil man” and postdoctoral fellow at Yale's Jackson School of Global Affairs, to discuss oil: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. They touch on the markets for oil beyond gasoline, international legal structures around the commodity, its effect on US foreign policy, emerging oil markets, the current Russian price cap, and more. Pre-order your copy of Greg's book Petroleum and Progress in Iran: Oil, Development, and the Cold War! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.americanprestigepod.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.americanprestigepod.comDanny and Derek speak with Greg Brew, postdoctoral fellow at Yale's Jackson School of Global Affairs, about OPEC+'s oil production cut, the bloc's history, the state of the global oil market, and the US-Saudi relationship

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an assistant professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures and the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

The Russian Revolution of 1917 transformed the Jewish community of the former tsarist empire. The Pale of Settlement on the empire's western borderlands, where Jews had been required to live, was abolished several months before the Bolsheviks came to power. Many Jews quickly exited the shtetlekh, seeking prospects elsewhere. Some left for bigger cities, others for Europe, America, or Palestine. Thousands tried their luck in the newly established Jewish Autonomous Region in the Far East, where urban merchants would become tillers of the soil. For these Jews, Soviet modernity meant freedom, the possibility of the new, and the pressure to discard old ways of life. This ambivalence was embodied in the Soviet Jew – not just a descriptive demographic term but a novel cultural figure. In his monograph How the Soviet Jew Was Made (Harvard University Press, 2022), Sasha Senderovich finds this new cultural figure through close readings of post-1917 Russia/Yiddish literature, films, and reportage. Suddenly mobile after more than a century of restrictions under the tsars, Jewish authors created characters who traversed space and history, carrying with them the dislodged practices and archetypes of a lost world. Senderovich urges us to see the Soviet Jew anew, as not only a minority but also a particular kind of liminal being. How the Soviet Jew Was Made emerges as a profound meditation on culture and identity in a shifting landscape. Sasha Senderovich is an Assistant Professor in Slavic Languages and Literatures at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies and the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Since the FBI seized boxes of classified documents from Donald Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago, we've been learning a lot more about what they contained.  There are even reports the former President had taken details of a foreign government's nuclear capabilities, a move that could see him facing espionage charges.  Today, a former FBI investigator on why even if Donald Trump is found guilty and jailed, he could still try to run for President again, and probably will.  Featured:  Asha Rangappa, former FBI special agent and assistant dean, Jackson School of Global Affairs, Yale University 

KF BONUS DROP - EuroFile with Marley Clements (QANON: Search for Q) Enjoy this week's episode of EUROFILE with Monique Camarra and co-host Scott Lucas, who are joined by Marley Clements to discuss her Vice TV series “QANON: The Search for Q” and Season 2 premiering tonight! Subscribe to EuroFile on Mo's substack: https://camarra.substack.com/  MARLEY CLEMENTS is a documentary filmmaker and political strategist focusing particularly on issues of disinformation and hybrid warfare tactics. She is the co-creator and host of the VICE documentary series QAnon: The Search for Q and the writer/producer of the 2018 hit-documentary Active Measures, about a decades-long covert political war being waged by the Kremlin on democracies around the globe. She has been a featured speaker at Yale's Jackson School for International Affairs, European Parliament, University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, and a variety of other globally recognized institutions. Prior to making films, Marley worked in various capacities at think tanks, and advocacy organizations, including the Brookings Institution, PolicyLink, and the Laborers' Union. https://twitter.com/marleydclements  Kremlin File Season 3 returns mid-September!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mea Culpa welcomes back Asha Rangappa, Assistant Dean and Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post among others, and has been a legal and national security analyst for CNN, as well as appearing on NPR, BBC, and several other major television networks. In this episode Michael and Asha delve deep into the J6 hearings and the Supreme Court.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mea Culpa welcomes back Asha Rangappa, Assistant Dean and Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post among others, and has been a legal and national security analyst for CNN, as well as appearing on NPR, BBC, and several other major television networks. In this episode Michael and Asha delve deep into the J6 hearings and the Supreme Court.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices