Cédric Villani: mathematician challenging to be Paris mayor(ft.com)
ft.com
Cédric Villani: mathematician challenging to be Paris mayor
https://www.ft.com/content/73c7a6a6-ee57-11e9-ad1e-4367d8281195
118 comments
Very well said. He is part of the clique that made a hold-up on the last presidential election. Most of these people are opportunists who smelt the wind but don't care about addressing the real issues of the country that make master-level people emigrate instead of staying at home. They maintain the statu here and there, liberalise companies and deregulate
few sectors as gift to friends, speak empty words all the time ("values of our Republic", "democracy", etc.) while not giving a shit about any professionals (nurses, police, firemen) that rightfully manifest their fedupness. They are perfectly grooming the "populism" they despite.
I don't like your comment for several reasons>
1.) You don't provide any example how he damaged academia. It lacks substance.
2.) "he doesn't care at all about being a mathematician (well, except when it gives him credit he doesn't deserve)" That bit of character assassination is unnecessary. He is obviously one of the most accomplished Mathematicians alive.
1.) You don't provide any example how he damaged academia. It lacks substance.
2.) "he doesn't care at all about being a mathematician (well, except when it gives him credit he doesn't deserve)" That bit of character assassination is unnecessary. He is obviously one of the most accomplished Mathematicians alive.
1) You're right, sorry. Substance in followup comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21404314 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21406475
2) The fact that he is one of the most accomplished mathematicians alive does not contradict the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with him doing politics, and that he doesn't do politics the way we could expect a member of academia would. That's what I meant: since he does not seem interested in research and higher education as a politician, it doesn't really count, on the politics side, that he is a member of academia.
2) The fact that he is one of the most accomplished mathematicians alive does not contradict the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with him doing politics, and that he doesn't do politics the way we could expect a member of academia would. That's what I meant: since he does not seem interested in research and higher education as a politician, it doesn't really count, on the politics side, that he is a member of academia.
About Parcoursup, more substance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21409203
The fact that Villani did not say anything about it and even supported the change says a lot of things on how he is now a politician and his mathematical background does not count anymore. I don't know of a single person with basic knowledge of algorithm who wouldn't be horrified by the design decisions in Parcoursup.
The fact that Villani did not say anything about it and even supported the change says a lot of things on how he is now a politician and his mathematical background does not count anymore. I don't know of a single person with basic knowledge of algorithm who wouldn't be horrified by the design decisions in Parcoursup.
I think it's unfair to blame him for everything his political party does. If you want to be in a place where you can make a difference, you need to go along with certain decisions you may disagree with.
He has not disagreed with a single thing. The only difference he wants to make is to have his political career on track.
Trying to get foreign students (outside of EU) to pay tuition fees in university is not damaging to anything. On the contrary, it is flabbergasting that they get free tuition at the moment.
Of course the issue is that free tuition has just been ruled to be a constitutional requirement and changing the constitution is a big hurdle.
Of course the issue is that free tuition has just been ruled to be a constitutional requirement and changing the constitution is a big hurdle.
We can think about this in a more nuanced way. The language of instruction, for example, is an important consideration. If foreign students are going to pursue degrees in France, in programs where the coursework is exclusively or primarily in French, then why not offer them the normal tuition-free deal? It would benefit French culture and France’s economy, while also respecting the fact that most of the students in question would come from former colonies.
English-language degree programs (thinking of other European countries) are a different story. There you end up with a situation that is more parasitic or exploitative.
English-language degree programs (thinking of other European countries) are a different story. There you end up with a situation that is more parasitic or exploitative.
How much would these students be willing to pay? How much does it cost the university to provide the tuition?
I'm in the UK. Universities charge £10k+ a year to foreign students (US, Australia, etc do the same) and they have queues of them waiting to sign up. There are plenty of foreign students willing to pay thousands of euros a year and it is madness for France to subsidise them, then complain that universities lack resources.
Nothing prevents some of the money from being used to provide scholarships to bright foreign students who couldn't otherwise afford it.
This needs to be looked at with pragmatism. The position that tuition has to be free is ideological, not pragmatical.
I'm in the UK. Universities charge £10k+ a year to foreign students (US, Australia, etc do the same) and they have queues of them waiting to sign up. There are plenty of foreign students willing to pay thousands of euros a year and it is madness for France to subsidise them, then complain that universities lack resources.
Nothing prevents some of the money from being used to provide scholarships to bright foreign students who couldn't otherwise afford it.
This needs to be looked at with pragmatism. The position that tuition has to be free is ideological, not pragmatical.
"dommageable" is "damaging", for anyone who couldn't guess.
Can you go into detail about what his party has voted for that's so bad for higher education and research?
I consider myself pretty academia-friendly, and there's a lot of things I'd vote for that most people would consider damaging to higher education and research.
For example, I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy.
Can you go into detail about what his party has voted for that's so bad for higher education and research?
I consider myself pretty academia-friendly, and there's a lot of things I'd vote for that most people would consider damaging to higher education and research.
For example, I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy.
First we do not agree on free education. I believe that's a good thing.
Now, what Macron's government did wrong with research and higher education is: literally everything they did about it. The switch to high tuition as you said (especially given that it was only for foreigners, which I consider racist, and anyway the Conseil Constitutionnel recently found this measure unconstitutional). Parcoursup was a very bad decision: it is poorly designed, it is much worse than the previous system for university admissions for obvious algorithmic reasons that my undergrad students can spot (but that Villani apparently can't?), and it also does not solve the actual problem which is the lack of universities and professors. There is also the way they force universities to merge by making funding conditional to merger, this comes at high cost for no clear benefits (except for maybe jumping a _few_ places in the Shanghai university ranking, which is pure bullshit). There is the way they decided to fund public research: almost exclusively via calls for project, which is a very very inefficient wqy of distributing money as everyone has to work for month to make application and less than 10% of applicants are actually funded so more than 90% of all this work is done for next to nothing, and in addition to that the money is very badly distributed with very rich man that have so much money they don't even know how to spend it and a majority of labs where it becomes difficult to do any research at all. Their funding policy also force universities to cut there spending which is mostly salaries, meaning not replacing professors who retires for example, which means even less professors while there is more and more students (and that was forseeable, they all were born around two decades ago and have been through primary and middle and high school, we saw them coming). I could continue but I'm on my mobile phone so I will stop there.
Now, what Macron's government did wrong with research and higher education is: literally everything they did about it. The switch to high tuition as you said (especially given that it was only for foreigners, which I consider racist, and anyway the Conseil Constitutionnel recently found this measure unconstitutional). Parcoursup was a very bad decision: it is poorly designed, it is much worse than the previous system for university admissions for obvious algorithmic reasons that my undergrad students can spot (but that Villani apparently can't?), and it also does not solve the actual problem which is the lack of universities and professors. There is also the way they force universities to merge by making funding conditional to merger, this comes at high cost for no clear benefits (except for maybe jumping a _few_ places in the Shanghai university ranking, which is pure bullshit). There is the way they decided to fund public research: almost exclusively via calls for project, which is a very very inefficient wqy of distributing money as everyone has to work for month to make application and less than 10% of applicants are actually funded so more than 90% of all this work is done for next to nothing, and in addition to that the money is very badly distributed with very rich man that have so much money they don't even know how to spend it and a majority of labs where it becomes difficult to do any research at all. Their funding policy also force universities to cut there spending which is mostly salaries, meaning not replacing professors who retires for example, which means even less professors while there is more and more students (and that was forseeable, they all were born around two decades ago and have been through primary and middle and high school, we saw them coming). I could continue but I'm on my mobile phone so I will stop there.
Foreigners aren't a "race", what are you saying. The proper definition of foreigner in this context is: never paid any taxes and most likely will not later. If foreigners in China, Chile or Uganda start paying french taxes, I'll follow you.
On raising in the Shanghai index, it's bullshit only if you don't want to compete. Sure the metrics can be discussed but the impact of the low rank is very much here: top researchers abroad won't even hear about french labs and won't feel it will further their career compared to a serious university in the middle of Japan who invested to fit the metric.
Another thing that I always feel when I hear those grumpy french rambles is that it's absolute, as if time didnt change things and situations were eternal. What's wrong with adapting and trying and reverting if it doesnt work then try something else ? Doing nothing or whining at every attempt to solve a problem will just lead to...nothing.
On raising in the Shanghai index, it's bullshit only if you don't want to compete. Sure the metrics can be discussed but the impact of the low rank is very much here: top researchers abroad won't even hear about french labs and won't feel it will further their career compared to a serious university in the middle of Japan who invested to fit the metric.
Another thing that I always feel when I hear those grumpy french rambles is that it's absolute, as if time didnt change things and situations were eternal. What's wrong with adapting and trying and reverting if it doesnt work then try something else ? Doing nothing or whining at every attempt to solve a problem will just lead to...nothing.
> If foreigners in China, Chile or Uganda start paying french taxes, I'll follow you.
As a non-french national living in France since 2011, I don't follow you. I'm paying the same taxes as my french colleagues, and I'm very happy about that.
As a non-french national living in France since 2011, I don't follow you. I'm paying the same taxes as my french colleagues, and I'm very happy about that.
And to clarify: that also applies for PhD salaries in France, as well as "housing tax" (taxe d'habitation) both of which will be paid during the studies, so even if you just arrive for the studies and leave straight after.
Are you sure you know what racism is? Racism isn't about race. Otherwise it wouldn't exist: there is only one human race. Racism is about culturally perceived race. The vast majority of the people who are affected by this measure come from North Africa. You know, French ex-colonies. So yes, it was a racist move in my opinion.
Concerning Shanghai index: what if I don't want to compete? The model of small French universities was good enough even for elitist standards such as international awards. It produced as much Medal Fields as the entire US system. It produced a lot of Nobel Prizes in a variety of disciplines. And most of them will tell you: in the current system where they would have had to spend months and months each year to look for funding instead of doing actual research, where they would have had a series of short term contracts working on different projects in their early career, and then would be forced to recruit collaborators on the same kind of short term contracts, they simply wouldn't have been able to conduct the research that lead them to the award.
Finally, I think you should pay attention to what it seems you don't want to hear when you listen to "grumpy french rambles". Your analysis is ridiculous. It's not the problems that are denied, it's wrong solutions. Take Parcoursup as an example. The problem is: there are more and more students coming to universities due to a baby boom starting in 2000, and there is not enough places at universities to have them. It's not like it wasn't easy to see it coming. Those kids went through the whole school system before arriving at uni. But instead of preparing for it by recruiting more professors, by building new universities if necessary (or at least new buildings), the governments decided to just wait and let the situation rot. Once it was a mess, they used it to push their political agenda of adding a selection step to enter university in addition to the one we already have which is the Baccalauréat. The new thing is: this selection step is not Nation-wide, it's done with varying criterion (which are typically not known by candidates) uni by uni, department by department. In addition to that the Parcoursup platform which runs all that is an algorithmic mess leading to deadlock (like a candidate A who prefers uni X over Y and a candidate B who prefers uni Y over X but uni X ranks B before A and uni Y A before B so A and B both wait to see if a spot will be freed at their most wanted uni but they depend on the other first giving up their place there, which won't happen because they don't know that they can safely do that) all that because they imposed stupid design conditions just so it is different from the previous system which used Gale-Shapley algorithm to solve these situations…
So sorry but no, it's not that it's wrong to "adapt and trying and reverting if it doesn't work". It's just plain wrong to do stupid things that do not solve the actual problems, especially when we can know in advance that they won't. I'm absolutely not for doing nothing (although in the Parcoursup case, nothing would have been better), I'm for doing what is actually necessary to solve problems that exists.
Concerning Shanghai index: what if I don't want to compete? The model of small French universities was good enough even for elitist standards such as international awards. It produced as much Medal Fields as the entire US system. It produced a lot of Nobel Prizes in a variety of disciplines. And most of them will tell you: in the current system where they would have had to spend months and months each year to look for funding instead of doing actual research, where they would have had a series of short term contracts working on different projects in their early career, and then would be forced to recruit collaborators on the same kind of short term contracts, they simply wouldn't have been able to conduct the research that lead them to the award.
Finally, I think you should pay attention to what it seems you don't want to hear when you listen to "grumpy french rambles". Your analysis is ridiculous. It's not the problems that are denied, it's wrong solutions. Take Parcoursup as an example. The problem is: there are more and more students coming to universities due to a baby boom starting in 2000, and there is not enough places at universities to have them. It's not like it wasn't easy to see it coming. Those kids went through the whole school system before arriving at uni. But instead of preparing for it by recruiting more professors, by building new universities if necessary (or at least new buildings), the governments decided to just wait and let the situation rot. Once it was a mess, they used it to push their political agenda of adding a selection step to enter university in addition to the one we already have which is the Baccalauréat. The new thing is: this selection step is not Nation-wide, it's done with varying criterion (which are typically not known by candidates) uni by uni, department by department. In addition to that the Parcoursup platform which runs all that is an algorithmic mess leading to deadlock (like a candidate A who prefers uni X over Y and a candidate B who prefers uni Y over X but uni X ranks B before A and uni Y A before B so A and B both wait to see if a spot will be freed at their most wanted uni but they depend on the other first giving up their place there, which won't happen because they don't know that they can safely do that) all that because they imposed stupid design conditions just so it is different from the previous system which used Gale-Shapley algorithm to solve these situations…
So sorry but no, it's not that it's wrong to "adapt and trying and reverting if it doesn't work". It's just plain wrong to do stupid things that do not solve the actual problems, especially when we can know in advance that they won't. I'm absolutely not for doing nothing (although in the Parcoursup case, nothing would have been better), I'm for doing what is actually necessary to solve problems that exists.
>Racism isn't about race. Otherwise it wouldn't exist: there is only one human race.
Offtopic but I wonder, where does this notion come from?
Biologically there is more variance in the humans species than in others species that we consider to having races. One example of big phisical distinction is themarathon winner's race, most modern marathon winners descend from the same tribes, and have very distinct physiology due to millenia of adapting to persistence hunting. Literally evolution.
My definition of racism was always: race based discrimination. Aa in I should not treat you different because of your race. The definition about denying even the existence of different human races seems weird to me, as there seem to be a lack evidence to support the inexistence of different human races.
Offtopic but I wonder, where does this notion come from?
Biologically there is more variance in the humans species than in others species that we consider to having races. One example of big phisical distinction is themarathon winner's race, most modern marathon winners descend from the same tribes, and have very distinct physiology due to millenia of adapting to persistence hunting. Literally evolution.
My definition of racism was always: race based discrimination. Aa in I should not treat you different because of your race. The definition about denying even the existence of different human races seems weird to me, as there seem to be a lack evidence to support the inexistence of different human races.
Having the law discriminate between nationals and foreigners is not, in itself, racist (eg. foreigners can't vote in most elections). You may state that you believe this move was racist, but you have to back your claim.
>Otherwise it wouldn't exist: there is only one human race.
Hopefully you won't need a bone marrow transplant anytime soon.
Hopefully you won't need a bone marrow transplant anytime soon.
> top researchers abroad won't even hear about french labs
I think it's not how it works. Researchers in a given field know each other. They will choose to collaborate based on personal reputation and scientific affinity, rather than the shanghai ranking of their institution.
I think it's not how it works. Researchers in a given field know each other. They will choose to collaborate based on personal reputation and scientific affinity, rather than the shanghai ranking of their institution.
What I've never understood is why not just create an other ranking that competes with the Shanghai ranking. I wish polytechnique or some other institution of high learning published their own ranking and marketed it as well as that ranking was marketed.
You are right, it's pure bullshit and heavily favors big institutions rather than small ones which does mean that French style grande écoles are penalized but the solution isn't to conform to it but instead to change the way universities is ranked.
I have also been very disappointed with Macron's policies when it comes to education. The higher tuition for foreigners is also I believe a mistake since it is good for a country when highly educated foreigners come to study there. France is at a disadvantage when attracting foreign talents due to the language barrier but could compensate for it thanks to the low tuitions. Now with those changes, it will become harder and diminish the cultural influence that France had. Not a good long term move.
You are right, it's pure bullshit and heavily favors big institutions rather than small ones which does mean that French style grande écoles are penalized but the solution isn't to conform to it but instead to change the way universities is ranked.
I have also been very disappointed with Macron's policies when it comes to education. The higher tuition for foreigners is also I believe a mistake since it is good for a country when highly educated foreigners come to study there. France is at a disadvantage when attracting foreign talents due to the language barrier but could compensate for it thanks to the low tuitions. Now with those changes, it will become harder and diminish the cultural influence that France had. Not a good long term move.
I'm curious, what's been going on with Parcoursup? (I don't read enough French to understand the discussions.)
Also, I'm not surprised that tuition for foreigners is a lever they are pulling. A government is responsible, first and foremost, to its own citizens. Racism? Really? What about "localism" or "separation of duties"?
Also, I'm not surprised that tuition for foreigners is a lever they are pulling. A government is responsible, first and foremost, to its own citizens. Racism? Really? What about "localism" or "separation of duties"?
For the racism part: France, as an ex-empire, is very attractive to its former colonies' students. And we have agreements to make it easier for them to come. So we get many students from Africa or the Middle East, often on merits and/or scholarships. In my engineering school, there were students from Turkey, Sudan (might be South Sudan now)...
Raising the price of tuition will mostly impact people from these countries rather than people from other European or American countries.
Raising the price of tuition will mostly impact people from these countries rather than people from other European or American countries.
So because France had colonies they now have an obligation to take in foreign students?
It's a moral obligation, yes. Plus, it's still nowadays a very powerful lever to keep relationship with local elites.
No, it isn't. They are independent countries and should be treated as such. Diplomatic bribes aren't a good enough reason to continue doing subsidising this.
In France, university is open to everyone with a Baccalaureat (a national diploma you get when graduating high school). There are other higher education that involves selection of candidates, but not for public university. Everyone is entitled to it.
Since you can't make a selection of candidates with an entrance exam or by looking on grades, what do you do when too many students want to join the same university curriculum? That's what Parcoursup is for. Students put in their wishes, and some algorithm decides who goes where regardless of their grades. The algorithm uses a bunch of criteria and is pretty complex to understand. At some point they had to release the source code to be transparent, and it was a mess.
What the current government did is introduce grades into the system, so students who have better grades in the subjects relevant to the curriculum have better chances to get it. In a way it makes sense, but it also goes against the old principle that everyone is entitled to knowledge and can enroll in any curriculum - get a chance to succeed even if it wasn't their major in high school.
Since you can't make a selection of candidates with an entrance exam or by looking on grades, what do you do when too many students want to join the same university curriculum? That's what Parcoursup is for. Students put in their wishes, and some algorithm decides who goes where regardless of their grades. The algorithm uses a bunch of criteria and is pretty complex to understand. At some point they had to release the source code to be transparent, and it was a mess.
What the current government did is introduce grades into the system, so students who have better grades in the subjects relevant to the curriculum have better chances to get it. In a way it makes sense, but it also goes against the old principle that everyone is entitled to knowledge and can enroll in any curriculum - get a chance to succeed even if it wasn't their major in high school.
This is not correct.
With the previous system, APB (Admission Post-Bac), candidates ordered their wishes, and a bunch of (known, public) criteria were used to rank students in each of the curriculum they enter in their wishes. There criteria included, among other things and as the most important factor the position of the curriculum in the candidate ordered wishlist. So if a candidate placed a curriculum at the top of their wishlist, the particular curriculum will prefer this student over one who placed it in the third position for example.
Now, with the new system, Parcoursup, two main things changed.
The first thing: curriculum have to manually order candidates according to whatever criteria they want. Universities are given access to grades and high school of the candidates. This can lead to (sometimes unconscious) discrimination (candidate from a prestigious high school is more likely to get what they want compared to someone who went to a suburb high school, for example). This is already stupid. The fact is also that candidates do not know the criteria in advance, and that the criteria may differ (and trust me, they do!) depending on each university and curriculum. Grades now may be a part of the selection, but they do not have to. And there is no way to really know if they do and if so, how.
This is a nightmare for candidates (and their parents).
The second thing: candidates can no longer order their wishes. This is really, reaaaaaaally, plain stupid. And it is what can lead to deadlock as I explained in another comment. It is no longer possible to apply an optimal pairing algorithm such as stable marriage (Gale-Shapley, of which a variant was used by APB). So the professors managing each curriculum have to manually set the number of candidate they call in their ordered list. If your department has 100 places for new students, then you might call the top 200 of your candidate local ranking at first, knowing that some of them with strong application will also be called somewhere else (because they most likely have a strong application there too) and they might prefer to go there. Now what happens when you have say 70 confirmed wishes and you are left with 50 candidates waiting. If they are waiting, it's most likely because they would like another university better than yours, but they can't let your offer go as long as they are not sure that this other university offers them a place. And in this other university, the situation is the same, with other people who may prefer to go to your university. And there we have a deadlock. A completely stupid deadlock that would be avoidable trivially if candidates could simply order their wishes.
This leads to even more stress for candidates and their family because it often takes up month before the situation is little by little solved by candidate settling for their second or third choice while it would have been possible to make everyone more happy way more quickly.
With the previous system, APB (Admission Post-Bac), candidates ordered their wishes, and a bunch of (known, public) criteria were used to rank students in each of the curriculum they enter in their wishes. There criteria included, among other things and as the most important factor the position of the curriculum in the candidate ordered wishlist. So if a candidate placed a curriculum at the top of their wishlist, the particular curriculum will prefer this student over one who placed it in the third position for example.
Now, with the new system, Parcoursup, two main things changed.
The first thing: curriculum have to manually order candidates according to whatever criteria they want. Universities are given access to grades and high school of the candidates. This can lead to (sometimes unconscious) discrimination (candidate from a prestigious high school is more likely to get what they want compared to someone who went to a suburb high school, for example). This is already stupid. The fact is also that candidates do not know the criteria in advance, and that the criteria may differ (and trust me, they do!) depending on each university and curriculum. Grades now may be a part of the selection, but they do not have to. And there is no way to really know if they do and if so, how.
This is a nightmare for candidates (and their parents).
The second thing: candidates can no longer order their wishes. This is really, reaaaaaaally, plain stupid. And it is what can lead to deadlock as I explained in another comment. It is no longer possible to apply an optimal pairing algorithm such as stable marriage (Gale-Shapley, of which a variant was used by APB). So the professors managing each curriculum have to manually set the number of candidate they call in their ordered list. If your department has 100 places for new students, then you might call the top 200 of your candidate local ranking at first, knowing that some of them with strong application will also be called somewhere else (because they most likely have a strong application there too) and they might prefer to go there. Now what happens when you have say 70 confirmed wishes and you are left with 50 candidates waiting. If they are waiting, it's most likely because they would like another university better than yours, but they can't let your offer go as long as they are not sure that this other university offers them a place. And in this other university, the situation is the same, with other people who may prefer to go to your university. And there we have a deadlock. A completely stupid deadlock that would be avoidable trivially if candidates could simply order their wishes.
This leads to even more stress for candidates and their family because it often takes up month before the situation is little by little solved by candidate settling for their second or third choice while it would have been possible to make everyone more happy way more quickly.
About parcoursup, nobody really knows up to my knowledge.
About the tuition for foreigner, very few university applied it, and it has been declared unconstitutional by the "conseil constitutionnel" (it's kind of the french supreme court).
About the tuition for foreigner, very few university applied it, and it has been declared unconstitutional by the "conseil constitutionnel" (it's kind of the french supreme court).
About Parcoursup, we know: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21409203
See my answer to one of your sibling comments.
> For example, I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy.
A terrible idea from what perspective? I'd love to hear more! (I'm on the other side of the spectrum)
A terrible idea from what perspective? I'd love to hear more! (I'm on the other side of the spectrum)
I'm not opposed to free college if 1) you're studying something with a proven ROI, and/or 2) you have a good academic history, and/or 3) you can't otherwise afford it.
I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars.
I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd.
Further, some of the most expensive schools are some of the worst schools. I don't think we should be paying an unlimited amount of money for the same education. If the University of Pittsburgh can deliver results much better than USC (I'm not saying it can, this is a hypothetical) -- I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k.
All that being said, I think it's a phenomenal use of my tax dollars to train someone to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer (etc), who's demonstrated an interest in medicine (or something relevant) and has done well in high school -- especially if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to afford going to medical school (or law school or whatever). Especially if the tuition at that school isn't excessive, and people who graduate from it actually go on to get jobs as doctors and not baristas at Starbucks.
There's a lot of other things to consider as well -- is it just tuition we're covering? In Europe, most of the universities dorms and cafeterias aren't exactly 5-star hotels. Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that. But I also think it's important to pay for room & board, because some people might really not be able to afford it, or will probably do worse in school if they have to work a full-time job to pay for room & board. I don't think it's a good investment to pay to put people in school and then set them up for failure.
Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game. If college is 100% free, I'm not sure that creates the best incentives for the students. Maybe the government should pay for 80% and give you a low-interest loan for the other 20%. And maybe the max you can get is the minimum tuition of schools in the top 5% in your field of study. And maybe you get a stipend for room & board that is reasonable. That, I think would prevent a lot of potential abuses.
I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars.
I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd.
Further, some of the most expensive schools are some of the worst schools. I don't think we should be paying an unlimited amount of money for the same education. If the University of Pittsburgh can deliver results much better than USC (I'm not saying it can, this is a hypothetical) -- I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k.
All that being said, I think it's a phenomenal use of my tax dollars to train someone to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer (etc), who's demonstrated an interest in medicine (or something relevant) and has done well in high school -- especially if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to afford going to medical school (or law school or whatever). Especially if the tuition at that school isn't excessive, and people who graduate from it actually go on to get jobs as doctors and not baristas at Starbucks.
There's a lot of other things to consider as well -- is it just tuition we're covering? In Europe, most of the universities dorms and cafeterias aren't exactly 5-star hotels. Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that. But I also think it's important to pay for room & board, because some people might really not be able to afford it, or will probably do worse in school if they have to work a full-time job to pay for room & board. I don't think it's a good investment to pay to put people in school and then set them up for failure.
Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game. If college is 100% free, I'm not sure that creates the best incentives for the students. Maybe the government should pay for 80% and give you a low-interest loan for the other 20%. And maybe the max you can get is the minimum tuition of schools in the top 5% in your field of study. And maybe you get a stipend for room & board that is reasonable. That, I think would prevent a lot of potential abuses.
And I'm totally opposed to paid-for-degree American style College. It is a stupid system that favorise social jails and reward people based on their parent's income, not based on their work.
Education is the cement of the society, allowing anyone to have a chance to succeed in life whatever their social origin.
This is the European model. And when I see the current status of USA/UK student debt and USA Universities entrance fees: I tend to think it is a much more sane model than the American one.... even when I see my taxe bill.
Education is the cement of the society, allowing anyone to have a chance to succeed in life whatever their social origin.
This is the European model. And when I see the current status of USA/UK student debt and USA Universities entrance fees: I tend to think it is a much more sane model than the American one.... even when I see my taxe bill.
> I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars.
Why Art is not a good use of tax dollars? Who decides what is good or bad to study? Should only be the free market? I believe a cost of $50k/year/student is not optimal. I also think cost for education per student/year is much cheaper in Europe.
> I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd.
It's hard to tell "a priori" if someone studying certain degree will make X amount of money. Because of that, I believe the balance is better adjusted after the fact of someone studying (meaning: paying taxes on salary once they get a job) than before (when studying).
> I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k
Completely agree. One of the issues that I see on the current system is that perhaps people start paying more for the connections that studying there will entail than for the education per-se.
> Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game
Students should always have skin in the game. The question here is: should be mainly economical? There are a lot of other factors that can affect the status of someone that are not just about money. However I agree with you that perhaps a formula like 80%/20% might make sense. I believe that model is much closer to the one applied in Europe... and that model is actually closer to the concept of "free education" than anything else :) (at least, when viewed from the US prism)
Why Art is not a good use of tax dollars? Who decides what is good or bad to study? Should only be the free market? I believe a cost of $50k/year/student is not optimal. I also think cost for education per student/year is much cheaper in Europe.
> I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to. The idea someone else should pay for it seems absurd.
It's hard to tell "a priori" if someone studying certain degree will make X amount of money. Because of that, I believe the balance is better adjusted after the fact of someone studying (meaning: paying taxes on salary once they get a job) than before (when studying).
> I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k
Completely agree. One of the issues that I see on the current system is that perhaps people start paying more for the connections that studying there will entail than for the education per-se.
> Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game
Students should always have skin in the game. The question here is: should be mainly economical? There are a lot of other factors that can affect the status of someone that are not just about money. However I agree with you that perhaps a formula like 80%/20% might make sense. I believe that model is much closer to the one applied in Europe... and that model is actually closer to the concept of "free education" than anything else :) (at least, when viewed from the US prism)
Being not American, and given that if we assume that school are business like any others I would be curious to know why the university fees has inflated so much over the last decades. Shouldn't we expect price decreasing due to competition? Any law or anything else explaining this?
Federal student loan guarantees and subsidies complicate the economics. Lenders are prepared to provide larger and riskier loans than the marker would otherwise support. Universities can handle only a limited number of students, so they have no incentive to lower prices until it would result in a marginal slot going unfilled.
> Lenders are prepared to provide larger and riskier loans than the marker would otherwise support.
The only lender that has benefitted from federal guarantees/subsidies for a number of years is...the US Department of Education. Whose lending is directed by the same laws that provide the guarantees and subsidies, and so are not incentivized by them.
The only lender that has benefitted from federal guarantees/subsidies for a number of years is...the US Department of Education. Whose lending is directed by the same laws that provide the guarantees and subsidies, and so are not incentivized by them.
> Further, some of the most expensive schools are some of the worst schools. I don't think we should be paying an unlimited amount of money for the same education. If the University of Pittsburgh can deliver results much better than USC (I'm not saying it can, this is a hypothetical) -- I don't think you should be able to get $70k a year to go to USC when you can study the same thing with better results at Pittsburgh for $20k.
But in France all the good universities are the public ones, and they are all roughly the same price (e.g. the Bordeaux one is roughly 250€ per year for undegrads and 500€ per year for graduates -- or 15€ if you have a scolarship).
> I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to.
50% of the people in france make under the median salary which is around 20150€ post-tax per year. Most people "couldn't pay it for their fucking self" (and were you making 400k$ when you were 16 y.o. which is the age you could start university if you're quite good and skipped a class or two ?)
But in France all the good universities are the public ones, and they are all roughly the same price (e.g. the Bordeaux one is roughly 250€ per year for undegrads and 500€ per year for graduates -- or 15€ if you have a scolarship).
> I also don't think it's a good idea to give someone like me a free college education. I make $400k a year. I can pay for it my fucking self if I want to.
50% of the people in france make under the median salary which is around 20150€ post-tax per year. Most people "couldn't pay it for their fucking self" (and were you making 400k$ when you were 16 y.o. which is the age you could start university if you're quite good and skipped a class or two ?)
I think it will be the death of society and culture if rank areas of study by ROI. Businesses need engineers and accountants, but society needs philosophers, artists, musicians and social scientists. It's about the balance between those two.
Actually, I am not sure what its like in the United States. Are only the rich allowed to study art or theater?
Actually, I am not sure what its like in the United States. Are only the rich allowed to study art or theater?
Why would anyone poor study it assuming that person is not a grnius in the area?
It seems like a fantastic way to continue the income hardships your parents endured, even if college (and dorm) is free.
I am against an heavy discrimination of pricing/subsidizing based on major/area, but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.
It seems like a fantastic way to continue the income hardships your parents endured, even if college (and dorm) is free.
I am against an heavy discrimination of pricing/subsidizing based on major/area, but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.
> Why would anyone poor study it assuming that person is not a grnius in the area? It seems like a fantastic way to continue the income hardships your parents endured, even if college (and dorm) is free.
I know a few that are studying art or music and are definitly not wealthy. A former roommate studies music and her parents are old-school lower working-class. They know they're not going to make much money. They are doing it anyway. It's their life. Also, nobody knows whether they're a genius or not, it's harder to quantify than mathmatical abilities, at least in some areas. A lot of the art-students I know are fully aware of their prospects. I am currently taking some philosophy-seminars and the philosophy-majors are also not ignorant of the situation they're in.
An art-student I know recently married and it's going to be hard to raise kids because she's the only one that is going to make some money, at least consistenly. And she's a teacher, so it's also not much. We talked about it, it's not that he doesn't know.
Most of my friends are not doing something technical, or business-realted (art, music, literature) and I always feel lucky (or undeserving?) because I just don't have those existential problems while still doing something that I chose because I really wanted to. I have always chosen stuff because I had the inner drive to do it.
> but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.
I think that's still a perfectly valid arguments, especially with art.
To finish my argument, I don't know how most of the would finance themselfs if they would have to heavily borrow money to study their subject. And I think society benefits heavily from them. They tour around giving concerts, organizing art-installations etc.
I know a few that are studying art or music and are definitly not wealthy. A former roommate studies music and her parents are old-school lower working-class. They know they're not going to make much money. They are doing it anyway. It's their life. Also, nobody knows whether they're a genius or not, it's harder to quantify than mathmatical abilities, at least in some areas. A lot of the art-students I know are fully aware of their prospects. I am currently taking some philosophy-seminars and the philosophy-majors are also not ignorant of the situation they're in.
An art-student I know recently married and it's going to be hard to raise kids because she's the only one that is going to make some money, at least consistenly. And she's a teacher, so it's also not much. We talked about it, it's not that he doesn't know.
Most of my friends are not doing something technical, or business-realted (art, music, literature) and I always feel lucky (or undeserving?) because I just don't have those existential problems while still doing something that I chose because I really wanted to. I have always chosen stuff because I had the inner drive to do it.
> but not because of the argument 'poor people wouldn't study art', that's a weak argument.
I think that's still a perfectly valid arguments, especially with art.
To finish my argument, I don't know how most of the would finance themselfs if they would have to heavily borrow money to study their subject. And I think society benefits heavily from them. They tour around giving concerts, organizing art-installations etc.
As a Frenchman who greatly benefited from free Universities I was about to verbally tear you a new asshole, but I don't actually disagree as much as I thought with what you wrote and I appreciate the time you put in writing a nuanced take.
Point 3 I think is a given, social aids should be given proportionally to the financial needs of each student. The fact that I paid almost the same as a child from a poor family as some of my friends did while being bankrolled by their parents is not normal.
Point 1 I agree but with caveats. The issue is that ROI is hard to estimate. If you just use "money" as the metric then you end up with only shallow education system where only the rich can afford to study the classics and everybody else has to be a good little drone. Money doesn't quantify social good, and an educated population is a good thing to have even if not everybody is an engineer. Maybe a set of scholarships should be set aside for the students willing to sacrifice themselves to fill that need, and the rest of the available funds be divided among people who have a career plan? It might cut down on the number of kids going into biology, psychology or business administration as a place holder until they figured out their life.
Point 2 is even harder because I was a barely passing high school student, but I now have a PhD in computer science and I teach in a Russell Group university in England - high school performance is a piss poor indicator of academic ambition, and should not be used as a proxy for it. My personal opinion is that conditioning funding on effort, rather than results, would be a better thing - show up to classes and do the work and the funding will keep coming even if you have a few setbacks here and there. That's already in place in our current funding system in France, but the administrative cost means that there is often a one year lag between the student completely slacking off and the CROUS cutting off their stipend.
Point 3 I think is a given, social aids should be given proportionally to the financial needs of each student. The fact that I paid almost the same as a child from a poor family as some of my friends did while being bankrolled by their parents is not normal.
Point 1 I agree but with caveats. The issue is that ROI is hard to estimate. If you just use "money" as the metric then you end up with only shallow education system where only the rich can afford to study the classics and everybody else has to be a good little drone. Money doesn't quantify social good, and an educated population is a good thing to have even if not everybody is an engineer. Maybe a set of scholarships should be set aside for the students willing to sacrifice themselves to fill that need, and the rest of the available funds be divided among people who have a career plan? It might cut down on the number of kids going into biology, psychology or business administration as a place holder until they figured out their life.
Point 2 is even harder because I was a barely passing high school student, but I now have a PhD in computer science and I teach in a Russell Group university in England - high school performance is a piss poor indicator of academic ambition, and should not be used as a proxy for it. My personal opinion is that conditioning funding on effort, rather than results, would be a better thing - show up to classes and do the work and the funding will keep coming even if you have a few setbacks here and there. That's already in place in our current funding system in France, but the administrative cost means that there is often a one year lag between the student completely slacking off and the CROUS cutting off their stipend.
I think you made a lot of good points. And am disappointed that so many people who replied to you ignored that you were in favour of supporting low income individuals.
Let me add another point: There is a class of people who will never go to university - the real underclass whom 99% of people here have never met - instead they quit school at 15/16 to start working. The fact that these people then pay for some middle class yuppie's B.Art degree is outrageous.
Let me add another point: There is a class of people who will never go to university - the real underclass whom 99% of people here have never met - instead they quit school at 15/16 to start working. The fact that these people then pay for some middle class yuppie's B.Art degree is outrageous.
A lot of these problems are solved by making student loans dischargeable and subject to market forces. Nothing like someone with monetary incentive to sort out who has a positive ROI on education.
As a side effect it would almost certainly make American universities much leaner than the zero-risk loan-glutted monstrosities they are now, which also means more people could afford to go without a loan.
As a side effect it would almost certainly make American universities much leaner than the zero-risk loan-glutted monstrosities they are now, which also means more people could afford to go without a loan.
I completely agree. I think the biggest problem with the current situation is that these loans are non-defaultable. If you want something to cause a bubble, let banks lend money with no risk of default!
Better yet: make the school liable for the loans if the student defaults.
As the other sibling replies point out, your assumptions about how free education works in France and Europe are wrongly based on what appears to e an American experience tainted by a libertarian view.
With experience in both US and French universities, the only point I can agree with is "skin in the game." To me, the French students didn't seem to value the university experience as much because the cost wasn't explicit to them. Certainly, they were aware of the social contract whereby they worked hard and crammed for entrance exams, and then they would have high taxes in life and lower salaries than in liberal economies (the European term for US/UK freer markets). But in the everyday work I felt they didn't appreciate the effort and structure that they were benefitting from.
At the time I wondered if some symbolic 1000 Euro annual fee would make it more explicit. But if it were need based, it would just be another invisible subsidy to poorer students and just as invisible to richer students whose parents would pay it. And otherwise, it would just take away from the poorer students' housing and food budget, so I don't know the answer. It seemed to be more of a perception that needed adjusting, perhaps with a different attitude given by professors and administrators.
With experience in both US and French universities, the only point I can agree with is "skin in the game." To me, the French students didn't seem to value the university experience as much because the cost wasn't explicit to them. Certainly, they were aware of the social contract whereby they worked hard and crammed for entrance exams, and then they would have high taxes in life and lower salaries than in liberal economies (the European term for US/UK freer markets). But in the everyday work I felt they didn't appreciate the effort and structure that they were benefitting from.
At the time I wondered if some symbolic 1000 Euro annual fee would make it more explicit. But if it were need based, it would just be another invisible subsidy to poorer students and just as invisible to richer students whose parents would pay it. And otherwise, it would just take away from the poorer students' housing and food budget, so I don't know the answer. It seemed to be more of a perception that needed adjusting, perhaps with a different attitude given by professors and administrators.
> I think the idea that someone can get straight C's in highschool and get $50k a year to study art in college is not a good use of my tax dollars.
What if that person ends up being successful in that field ? Should we only have the kids of the rich do arts ? That seems to be what's going on in the US and you see the devastating cultural result.
> Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game
You have skin in the game, because you need to feed yourself. The government paid for my studies, that doesn't mean I wasn't thinking "how will I have a roof over my head" afterwards.
> Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that
Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. French public (individual) dorms cost like 120e a month.
What if that person ends up being successful in that field ? Should we only have the kids of the rich do arts ? That seems to be what's going on in the US and you see the devastating cultural result.
> Additionally, I think students should have SOME Skin in the Game
You have skin in the game, because you need to feed yourself. The government paid for my studies, that doesn't mean I wasn't thinking "how will I have a roof over my head" afterwards.
> Stanford's dorms can cost $2.5k per month for a swanky broom closet. I'm not sure it makes sense to pay for that
Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month. French public (individual) dorms cost like 120e a month.
> Trust me, if they're focused on reducing costs, they won't cost 2.5k a month.
They don't cost 2.5k a month, and they aren't swanky broom closets. The average is ~1k, cheaper if you live with more people; this is below Palo Alto rent, mind you.
I believe the Stanford dorm experience is way better than that of most American institutions. For starters, every undergrad is basically guaranteed housing for the entirety of their college education, so no one is unwillingly ejected from university housing and forced to rent elsewhere (which is more expensive, as I already pointed out).
Not sure why gp decided to throw some random defamation at Stanford (might have been exaggerating to make a point, but it's not at all clear from the writing).
Disclosure: Stanford alum.
They don't cost 2.5k a month, and they aren't swanky broom closets. The average is ~1k, cheaper if you live with more people; this is below Palo Alto rent, mind you.
I believe the Stanford dorm experience is way better than that of most American institutions. For starters, every undergrad is basically guaranteed housing for the entirety of their college education, so no one is unwillingly ejected from university housing and forced to rent elsewhere (which is more expensive, as I already pointed out).
Not sure why gp decided to throw some random defamation at Stanford (might have been exaggerating to make a point, but it's not at all clear from the writing).
Disclosure: Stanford alum.
I’ve stayed in Stanford dorms, and they were pretty swanky (but then, so was pretty much every other dorm in the US I’ve seen)
The variance is huge among all the different dorms so there are relatively swanky ones and ones that are not so (most are in the latter category, depending what you perceive as swanky of course). But my rebuttal was more on the "broom closet" part.
This is interesting because paid education has been pretty bad for mathematics in the US as opposed to France which sees a continuous stream of brilliant and successful mathematicians.
It probably should be pointed out that most French-educated famous mathematicians actually came out of schools that pay you to be a student from the undergraduate level (actually third year out of high school).
There is also a continuous stream of brilliant and successful American mathematicians!
Where did they study ? (real question here, because USA is really good at attracting brilliant people from everywhere).
Well, as you might expect, many successful American mathematicians studied at top American universities such as Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, etc. (Not sure if your were expecting a significantly different answer.)
It's a pretty common pattern for brilliant people to do a PhD in the Ivy league while having done undergrad in some other country entirely. Not sure if that is less or more common than having done undergrad at an Ivy and/or some other US university.
To add to this, foreign students coming to do math in the US have a huge advance compared to other students (due to their educating system being more advanced), and are thus prone to continue over achieving.
> I think free college for everyone is a terrible idea. Most people consider that heresy.
Twitter is not a great reflection of real popularity. I highly doubt this is really that popular, especially when it comes to actually implementing and the real costs are considered.
It’s far easier to be hand wavy about this stuff in political campaigns than when it comes to policy and real life implications.
Especially given the highly questionable ROI we’ve seen with the large rise in people going to college and not finding work after. That plus the massive rise in tuition. This would have been way easier to pull off in the 70s than today.
Twitter is not a great reflection of real popularity. I highly doubt this is really that popular, especially when it comes to actually implementing and the real costs are considered.
It’s far easier to be hand wavy about this stuff in political campaigns than when it comes to policy and real life implications.
Especially given the highly questionable ROI we’ve seen with the large rise in people going to college and not finding work after. That plus the massive rise in tuition. This would have been way easier to pull off in the 70s than today.
But "popularity" is determined by people, many of whom do not consider the real costs (at least not at this time).
I have always wondered at the popularity of the first name Cedric, because the name was newly coined(in the early 1800s) by Walter Scott in his novel Ivanhoe, for the character Cedric of Rotherwood, a Saxon chief, and is not a historically relevant name.
I'm a bit sad to see such a brilliant mathematician playing the game of petty politics. I like when scientists participate in "everyday" duties, but in this case it feels that we completely lost the guy to administrative tasks.
paywall
Not just a mathematician but a Fields medal winner.
The current mayor of Paris is also an interesting person, being a Spanish-born woman from a working class family. She has made huge strides in the greenification of Paris:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/europe/paris-anne-h...
The current mayor of Paris is also an interesting person, being a Spanish-born woman from a working class family. She has made huge strides in the greenification of Paris:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/europe/paris-anne-h...
Current mayor is hated by a lot of Parisians because of the "greenification of Paris" as you call it.
She closed a few roads and made them pedestrian-only; that was not well received by a number of people.
She closed a few roads and made them pedestrian-only; that was not well received by a number of people.
> She closed a few roads and made them pedestrian-only; that was not well received by a number of people.
And it has been very well-received by a larger number of people, I guess. As for me, I would make the whole city pedestrian-only. Clarification: I live in banlieue and take the RER-B every day.
And it has been very well-received by a larger number of people, I guess. As for me, I would make the whole city pedestrian-only. Clarification: I live in banlieue and take the RER-B every day.
She's applying short sighted solutions for the declining 2 million of "rich" Parisians (aka her electors) in an area of 12 million. She's basically flipping the bird to more 80% of the population.
Lived in Paris for 20 years, everything is getting worse:
- Public transportation => many subway lines are saturated
- Traffic jams => stupid road and signals reworks (for cycling lanes mostly), it's a disaster, I am starting to think that about 90% of the population lives more than 5km from work and will never use a bicycle
- Security => cops have been in overtime for 5 years with Vigipirate & gilet jaunes and have no time for anything else
- Pollution => not a single cop around to enforce vehicles pollution laws, better hand parking tickets
Overall feels like a third world country where the state is losing control over everything.
Anyone younger and applying (scientifically) proven solutions could do.
source: http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/paris-perd-encore-des-habi...
Lived in Paris for 20 years, everything is getting worse:
- Public transportation => many subway lines are saturated
- Traffic jams => stupid road and signals reworks (for cycling lanes mostly), it's a disaster, I am starting to think that about 90% of the population lives more than 5km from work and will never use a bicycle
- Security => cops have been in overtime for 5 years with Vigipirate & gilet jaunes and have no time for anything else
- Pollution => not a single cop around to enforce vehicles pollution laws, better hand parking tickets
Overall feels like a third world country where the state is losing control over everything.
Anyone younger and applying (scientifically) proven solutions could do.
source: http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/paris-perd-encore-des-habi...
The problem is that she is elected by the 2 millions and not by the 12. Paris needs to annex its surrounding, Grand Paris is just too slow. A mayor of the 7-8 million of Petite Couronne would probably benefit Paris immensely.
That means public transport is working, Paris is one of the few big mature cities that invests heavily in new lines. (Not all of them make sense, but I guess that's politics)
Cars create traffic. Paris has been basically one traffic jam since 50 years, congestion pricing is what's needed, which she sadly is not pushing for, but which would create an even crazier absurd outcry than the closing of the berges (if that's possible).
The Paris Police Prefecture is under the Ministry of Interior, there slowly rolling out a much needed municipal police force.
Automatic enforcement of vehicle vignettes is not allowed yet, but will, from my understanding, be changed with the new mobility law.
Have you been to a country without working infrastructure and state with little power?
One of the problems is investing so much in public housing that could be used in better ways. So the debt of Paris has been rising quite sharply. At least the region (Ile de France) is actually building lots of housing compared to other big cities.
That means public transport is working, Paris is one of the few big mature cities that invests heavily in new lines. (Not all of them make sense, but I guess that's politics)
Cars create traffic. Paris has been basically one traffic jam since 50 years, congestion pricing is what's needed, which she sadly is not pushing for, but which would create an even crazier absurd outcry than the closing of the berges (if that's possible).
The Paris Police Prefecture is under the Ministry of Interior, there slowly rolling out a much needed municipal police force.
Automatic enforcement of vehicle vignettes is not allowed yet, but will, from my understanding, be changed with the new mobility law.
Have you been to a country without working infrastructure and state with little power?
One of the problems is investing so much in public housing that could be used in better ways. So the debt of Paris has been rising quite sharply. At least the region (Ile de France) is actually building lots of housing compared to other big cities.
Basically, everyone without a car loves her, everyone who drives in Paris hates her.
I think one has to hate oneself to drive in Paris.
To add to your point, she is disliked by some for the gentrification of Paris, of which 'greenification' is only one aspect. Granted, this is a phenomenon that started well before her, and is not completely under the mayor's control.
Basically, only super-rich, single households or very poor (only in designated neighborhoods, thanks to social housing) people can still afford to live there. Middle-class families with kids can't anymore.
Basically, only super-rich, single households or very poor (only in designated neighborhoods, thanks to social housing) people can still afford to live there. Middle-class families with kids can't anymore.
This appears to bother the people that live outside Paris rather than most Parisians. I'm all for it. I've watched my balcony become unusable from pollution. I imagine if half the stuff that was collecting on the balcony floor was going into my lungs my lungs would look like a 50 year heavy smoker.
I am all for it too, I was just giving some context for HN readers who might be surprised to see a lot of hate comments regarding the current mayor under most articles covering Paris elections :)
Have you considered that maybe it has been in fact well received by pedestrians?
It's not because you are good at maths that you are good at politics. And he's the best example about that we've had so far.
If politics works like it is said in "The Prince" (ie. Machiavelli), then I do not see any easily transferable skill set from renowned mathematician to politician.
Except for game theory maybe?
Except for game theory maybe?
Yeah, agreed. And he proved he's a shitty politician. (with shitty ideas too, but that's my point of view)
[deleted]
Nothing to see here unfortunately, he's like any other politician. I mean you wouldn't be able to tell he's received a Fields medal by the way he speaks and what propositions he makes.
I too would like to hear him say " ... you bring up the subject of housing in Paris and I'll tell you how I think about the problem: in mathematics we have a rather abstract concept called a Group ... ".
I too would like to hear him say " ... you bring up the subject of housing in Paris and I'll tell you how I think about the problem: in mathematics we have a rather abstract concept called a Group ... ".
Maybe he’s secretly actually talking about a differen kind of building? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
He was commissioned for a report on AI while been part of the french parliament. You can found it here in EN : https://www.aiforhumanity.fr/pdfs/MissionVillani_Report_ENG-...
Being a former Parisian, I can object here you can be a medal fields winner and not having a clue about economic problem. Paris is facing quite sensible issues right now ( higher debt, untidy streets, insecurity,etc...) and for now all he's proposing here is very similar to what any others politician would offer to get elected.
Parisians need some radical changements and for now I haven't heard anything from him tackling the right issues but just big promises and gifts for all ( please note that this also applies to the others candidates as well).
I think the dude lacks a ton of human centric skills, and his political ethos is yet to be determined.. he's running out of spite of a former colleague in a way.
The odds that he can compensate by high grade mathematics are not good enough to me. I think he's gonna go depth first into tech/ideal solutions that nobody really want.
The odds that he can compensate by high grade mathematics are not good enough to me. I think he's gonna go depth first into tech/ideal solutions that nobody really want.
What radical changes would you like to see?
I don't live in Paris but I may be living there in the years to come.
I don't live in Paris but I may be living there in the years to come.
Not radical changes but just expect some common sense being applied.
Over the last decade housing prices has doubled and the city receives a small percentage for each transactions. However this money did benefit only for the whole community but rather for clientlism. Debt has been getting higher and so the taxes. Driving has been made impossible and restaurants are too expensing for the similar service and quality you can get in London ( where I live now). Even the nightlife has been restricted
Paris is becoming a big sleepy museum where only real Parisians do appreciate the lifestyle.
Again I more disappointed here by the lack original idea And innovation promised by the candidate not by the mathematician. If you look at what the current mayor propose and you will find nothing that different.
However I'm sure you will enjoy your Parisian experience, despite all the inconvenience, Paris is still a beautiful city.
However I'm sure you will enjoy your Parisian experience, despite all the inconvenience, Paris is still a beautiful city.
> Driving has been made impossible
Maybe this is a good thing.
> restaurants are too expensing for the similar service and quality you can get in London
Is this something that a mayor can control? there are things such as minimal wages that can interfere with service prices on which a mayor has not influence.
That being said, I don't know if Villani will be a good mayor or not. But there are a few things I appreciate.
He is (as expected) very knowledgable in scientific and technological matters, and this is refreshing compared to other politicians who are clueless.
He had an international career. Most French politicians don't even speak English and have never worked in a foreign country.
I listened to him in an interview where he talked about ecology, energy and so on, and he was well-aware of the challenges we're facing.
Overall, he sounds like a reasonable, practical, person to me. Not overly ideological.
Maybe this is a good thing.
> restaurants are too expensing for the similar service and quality you can get in London
Is this something that a mayor can control? there are things such as minimal wages that can interfere with service prices on which a mayor has not influence.
That being said, I don't know if Villani will be a good mayor or not. But there are a few things I appreciate.
He is (as expected) very knowledgable in scientific and technological matters, and this is refreshing compared to other politicians who are clueless.
He had an international career. Most French politicians don't even speak English and have never worked in a foreign country.
I listened to him in an interview where he talked about ecology, energy and so on, and he was well-aware of the challenges we're facing.
Overall, he sounds like a reasonable, practical, person to me. Not overly ideological.
Couldn't help to respond to this just to provide a contradictory opinion on Parisian restaurants and nightlife. I personally am a big fan of the quality of food, service, and fun to be had in Parisian establishments and I find them to be significantly better value than London and New York (where I live).
Funny to hear different contradictory views I might be bias like everyone. No misunderstanding, I do love Paris and restaurants are great there but I chose them cautiously now. Traffic are awful mainly to restrictions put in place. Last point to be challenged ( or everyone agrees): no one has contest the cleanest of the streets yet:)
Maybe it has changed since I was last there. But while living there I watched the nightlife scene explode in Paris. I'm from the 18eme which has had an interesting history as far as the nightlife. Since moving there I watched the bar scene grow in Bastille, Pigalle, Belleville, and Montmartre. Maybe this is super local and it was just the areas I frequented.
> Paris is becoming a big sleepy museum where only real Parisians do appreciate the lifestyle.
Funny they were saying this 10 years ago as well. Commerce has increased as companies exit the UK due to Brexit.
> Paris is becoming a big sleepy museum where only real Parisians do appreciate the lifestyle.
Funny they were saying this 10 years ago as well. Commerce has increased as companies exit the UK due to Brexit.
>> I'm from the 18eme which has had an interesting history as far as the nightlife.
Probably he lived in the South, we don't go that far North :-)
Probably he lived in the South, we don't go that far North :-)
> Driving has been made impossible
Sorry you can't drive a 2-ton vehicle through one of the most dense cities in the world, that also has a very extensive public transportation system.
Sorry you can't drive a 2-ton vehicle through one of the most dense cities in the world, that also has a very extensive public transportation system.
Now you can't even drive a simple scooter :)
> Paris is facing quite sensible issues right now ( higher debt, untidy streets, insecurity,etc...)
Most of these problems stem from national-level irresponsible policies such as uncontrolled immigration. They won't be fixed by the mayor alone, and they plague most big and even medium cities in the country.
Most of these problems stem from national-level irresponsible policies such as uncontrolled immigration. They won't be fixed by the mayor alone, and they plague most big and even medium cities in the country.
As far as I can judge, the problem of untidy streets and insecurity in Paris have nothing to do with "uncontrolled immigration". Do you have some evidence supporting your statement?
Marine Le Pen, sors de ce corps !
He has a few videos on Numberphile:
On the Fields Medal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp3sgYKULp0
On his wearing of decorative lapel spiders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4REVI30Qc
Beauty vs Utility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xopM9BFjcNo
On his office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpkCZkWfc
On the Fields Medal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp3sgYKULp0
On his wearing of decorative lapel spiders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4REVI30Qc
Beauty vs Utility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xopM9BFjcNo
On his office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpkCZkWfc
oh wow! much luck to him! i remember watching a talk from him on youtube and putting that book he wrote on my wishlist.
Maybe he should keep to writing books and making YouTube video. The guy has no clue whatsoever when it comes to political matters. It's depressing.
> The guy has no clue whatsoever when it comes to political matters.
I find it unlikely he is clueless and very likely that he has incentives that we do not see.
I find it unlikely he is clueless and very likely that he has incentives that we do not see.
Can’t help noticing this is an anagram for Cerci D. Villain (the D presumably stands for Diabolical).
Edit: fixed "dommageable".