Confidence In U.S. Universities Plunges To New Lows, As Young People, Women And Democrats Sour On Academia
Who could have guessed that after multiple Ivy League university presidents publicly humiliated themselves during congressional testimony – and then it broke that Harvard’s president, among others were likely involved in plagiarising key parts of their “academic” work – that confidence in U.S. universities has plunged to a new low?
In FIRE’s May poll, 42% of Americans expressed “some” confidence in U.S. colleges and universities, similar to Gallup’s 40%. However, fewer Americans reported “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence (28% vs. 36% in Gallup), while more expressed “very little” or “none at all” (30% vs. 22% in Gallup).
When compared to other institutions, confidence in higher education is on par with the U.S. Supreme Court (27%) and banks (26%). However, Americans have much higher confidence in small businesses (65%) and the military (60%), and much lower confidence in Congress (8%), television news (14%), and the criminal justice system (17%).
Confidence in higher education varies by political affiliation. Over 40% of liberals and Democrats reported high confidence in colleges, a stark contrast to only 12% of conservatives, 12% of Republicans, and 28% of independents.
Notably, significant drops in confidence are seen among young adults (18-34), Democrats, and women. Confidence among 18-34-year-olds fell from 42% to 22%, among Democrats from 59% to 42%, and among women from 39% to 29%. These declines suggest growing disillusionment in groups that previously held higher confidence in higher education.
Confidence in colleges and universities has dropped sharply since last summer, with notable declines following encampment protests in April and May. In February, 31% of Americans had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in these institutions, which fell to 28% in May. The percentage reporting “very little” confidence remained at 30%, but those with “none at all” rose from 7% to 10%.
Encampment protests, particularly those highlighting the war in Gaza, have coincided with these drops. Major subgroups, including liberals, Democrats, young adults (18-34), college graduates, Republicans, white Americans, and women, all showed reduced confidence since February. No subgroup in May reported a majority with high confidence.
The protests and the responses to them likely influenced these declines. This erosion of trust mirrors broader skepticism towards science and perceptions of universities as politically biased and financially burdensome.
And if you think these results are ugly, just wait until the public hears what’s being taught in economics courses…
Findings from a recent case study show that personalized lifestyle and environmental changes successfully reversed autism symptoms in fraternal twin girls diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The study appeared in the Journal of Personalized Medicine.
The study also reviewed existing literature on the impact of lifestyle and environmental modifications on ASD, supporting the findings with evidence from similar cases and studies.
The case study involved 4-year-old dizygotic twins who were diagnosed with “level 3 severity” autism spectrum disorder, which the study describes as “requiring very substantial support.” The twins were diagnosed at approximately twenty months of age.
Dizygotic twins, or fraternal twins, result from two separate eggs (ova) being fertilized by two separate sperm. These twins are genetically similar to typical siblings but can be as different from each other as siblings born at different times. They do not share the exact same genetic material and, therefore, can look different and have different characteristics.
The case study shows that a non-drug, personalized approach by a team of multidisciplinary clinicians successfully reduced the number and severity of ASD symptoms using a variety of methods.
Conception
The twins were conceived through in vitro fertilization using an egg donor and carried by a surrogate. Their father was 51 years old at the time of conception. They were born two months premature and spent several weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit. The twins received routine vaccinations at three and six months, but no further vaccination until fourteen months. The girls were given acetaminophen before and after vaccination.
Initial Symptoms
The girls’ parents observed some initial symptoms. One twin had sensitivity to changes, eczema, and digestive issues, and the other had problems making eye contact, babbling communication, difficulty breastfeeding, and decreased muscle tone (hypotonia).
Both twins received breast milk (from the surrogate and their biological mother) for twelve months and had no issues with eating or sleeping.
At twelve months, the girls stopped drinking breast milk, and the introduction of cow’s milk caused digestive as well as behavior and language problems in both girls.
In March of 2021, the girls received the series of vaccines that had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After this round of vaccinations, their parents noticed a worsening of some symptoms, including “significant language loss” for one of the girls, who began communicating using only single words.
ASD Diagnosis
Due to the worsening symptoms, the twins were evaluated for autism spectrum disorder, and both subsequently met the criteria for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.
Lifestyle and Environmental Interventions
After their diagnosis, the twins’ parents began a comprehensive, personalized approach to address their daughters’ condition. Their approach was holistic and non-pharmacological and considered a variety of potential environmental and biological factors influencing ASD.
The interventions and support for both the twins and their parents began after the twins’ diagnosis at approximately twenty months of age and continued over the following two years. The following is a summary of their interventions and support:
The parents worked with a coach to help understand the twins’ diagnosis and gain confidence.
The parents learned about the “total allostatic load” concept, which links chronic stressors to disease, and used resources like webinars and forums through Epidemic Answers.
The parents completed the Child Health Inventory for Resilience and Prevention survey—“a comprehensive assessment of total allostatic load (cumulative effects of chronic stress on mental and physical health) among children.”
Made Dietary changes—They followed the Reduced Excitatory Inflammatory Diet,eliminating glutamate, gluten, casein, sugar, artificial colors, and processed foods, and focused on organic, fresh, home-cooked meals from local sources.
Incorporated dietary supplements—The girls took supplements that included omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and homeopathic remedies.
Differentiated the twins’ needs—Genetic variants revealed that each twin had different needs, for example, one twin needed more vitamin D, while the other needed support for neuroinflammation and detoxification.
The twins received various therapies, including Applied Behavior Analysis, speech therapy, and occupational therapy focused on neuro-sensory motor reflex integration.
The family addressed toxins in their home, using an environmental consultant to evaluate air quality, moisture levels, and water damage.
One twin had osteopathic care on the recommendation of a developmental optometrist resulting in notable improvements in communication and overall disposition.
Throughout the study, the children’s parents shared insights about their journey, “Conventional statistics have stacked the odds against the ability to recover a child from an ASD diagnosis. Our approach was therefore focused on following a nonconventional, holistic understanding of each daughter’s bio-individual needs, exploring root cause and designing customized support,” they said.
“We chose practitioners who were aligned in our belief in our daughters’ intrinsic ability to heal given the right support.”
Results
Due primarily to the implementation of lifestyle and environmental changes over two years, the twins achieved a reversal of their diagnoses of level 3 autism spectrum disorder. Significant improvements were seen in their social interactions, communication skills, and behavioral patterns.
There were also dramatic improvements in scores using the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist—a 77-question assessment tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of ASD treatment, with lower scores indicating improvement in symptoms.
Both twins “improved dramatically,” with one going from a score of 76 to 36 in seven months, and the other from 43 to 4 over the same period.
The study notes that the improvements were so profound the pediatrician exclaimed that one of the girls had undergone “a kind of miracle.”
The combined interventions, along with the commitment of the children’s parents, led to a “dramatic improvement and reversal of ASD diagnoses” for the twins.
Beth Lambert is founder and executive director of Epidemic Answers, a website made up of parents, clinicians, researchers, authors, and wellness experts dedicated to helping kids heal from health issues. She is also one of the study authors.
Mrs. Lambert spoke with The Epoch Times and explained that there is hope for children with ASD and other conditions as well as resources for parents to support them through the process.
“We’re doing research to try to gather evidence that many of these conditions are reversible. But also we’re trying to create a platform where we can give solutions to parents—we’re trying to educate them, and we have an online community [Healing Together] where we’re teaching them how to do this work themselves,” she said.
Autism Prevalence
According to the study, the prevalence of autism is growing with increasing speed. In the early 1990’s the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States was 1 in 2000. Throughout the 1990s, the diagnostic criteria for autism were broadened to include a wider range of symptoms and behaviors. This expansion is reflected in updated editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
For example, in the DSM-IV, published in 1994, the diagnostic criteria were expanded and broken into subtypes such as Asperger’s disorder, autistic disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified.
There was a further expansion of the criteria in the DSM-5 released in 2013, which merged the previous subtypes into one unified diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.
These changes contributed to a significant increase in autism diagnoses in the subsequent years—however, some physicians believe that these factors alone are not enough to account for the dramatic rise in ASD diagnoses.
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, in 2000, 1 in 150 children had a diagnosis of ASD, but their most recent data state that in 2020, 1 in 36 children had a diagnosis of ASD, which represents more than a 300 percent increase in the last two decades.
The study states that “Published projections estimate that even if the future prevalence of ASD remained unchanged over the next decade, there would be approximately 1 million new cases, thereby resulting in an additional $4 trillion of lifelong social costs in the United States. Furthermore, if the current rate of increase in prevalence continues, costs could reach nearly $15 trillion of lifelong costs by 2029.”
Mrs. Lambert says, “Modern living is making our children sick, but it’s also making all of us sick—and our children are the canaries in the coal mine.”
Final Thoughts
The study findings suggest that environmental and lifestyle factors play a significant role in the manifestation of ASD symptoms and that targeted interventions in these areas can lead to substantial and lasting improvements—including a reversal of symptoms.
The study authors note that the engagement of the parents or caregivers is vital to the process.
“The commitment and leadership of well-informed parents or guardians is an essential component of the effective personalization that appears necessary for the feasibility of such improvements.”
What the study clarifies is that treating ASD requires a personalized, multifaceted approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, as ASD diagnoses are as unique and complex as the individuals they affect.
The twins’ parents agree, according to a section in the study containing their perspective.
“Having fraternal twin daughters diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder at 20 months has given us a profound appreciation of the highly individual presentation of Autism.”
For families dealing with an ASD diagnosis, Mrs. Lambert says “You are not alone.”
“I want people to know that there is support for them. We have a conference [Documenting Hope] so that we can invite parents in so that they can become part of our community. We can do this together, which is working to heal our kids together.”
California will help 1,700 first-generation homebuyers with down payments in the second round of its Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced June 28.
The state program that debuted last year provides potential homebuyers with vouchers to pay up to 20 percent of a home’s value up to $150,000 to cover a down payment and closing costs. Eligible applicants need to be first-time homebuyers (haven’t owned a home in the last three years) and whose parents don’t currently own a home in the United States.
“As part of the state’s comprehensive efforts to improve affordability, build generational wealth, and unlock access to housing, Dream for All is paving the way home for thousands of Californians,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement Friday.
“This program is more than just financial assistance—it’s about providing a pathway for individuals to achieve their California dream.”
The program allows low- to moderate-income families to apply for assistance.
Due to the extremely high demand for the program, however, the California Housing Finance Agency uses a random selection process to ensure all applicants have an equal chance at receiving funding from the $255 million available for the second round of awards.
A third-party audit is performed to certify that voucher recipients meet key program requirements, according to Mr. Newsom’s office.
The housing finance agency plans to allocate funds across nine regions throughout the state—the Capital Region, Central Coast, Central Valley, Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and rural areas.
Those who receive assistance have 90 days to find a home.
The state provides a portion of the down payment in exchange for a share in the property.
If the recipient sells or refinances the home later, they will be required to repay the initial amount of assistance, plus up to 20 percent of any increase in the home’s value.
Program proceeds will be used to fund the next round of homeowners, according to the governor’s office.
When the program was launched on April 3, 2023, with the passage of a bill authored by Sen. President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, its $300 million budget was depleted within days.
More than 2,400 first-time homebuyers qualified for the first round, according to Ms. Atkins.
Only 2,200 families received first-round financing, the governor said Friday.
The income limitation to qualify for the assistance is $159,000 for several counties throughout the state, including San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo.
Los Angeles’s limit is $180,000. and Orange County has the highest income limit in Southern California at $230,000.
The original legislation, written in 2021, proposed a $1 billion per year budget for the program for up to 10 years to assist an estimated 150,000 Californians.
However, after some negotiations, the proposed amount dropped to $500 million in 2022 after the state faced a $25 billion budget deficit that year.
Mr. Newsom again decreased the allocation to $300 million before the program debuted in 2023.
“Outrage”: Philadelphia Airport Adds Hidden 3% Surcharge To All Vendor Items
With the idea of an unrealized gains tax being tossed around at the Federal level, and just when you thought we couldn’t possibly conjure up any more fees, taxes, surcharges or other burdensome cash grabs, the Philadelphia Airport is calling your bluff.
The airport spurred “outrage” this week after it was revealed that they are adding a 3% surcharge to every purchase, according to View From The Wing. As if airports weren’t already adding 50% surcharge on everything they sell there to begin with…
According to the report the surcharge is “to offset the employee wages and benefits” that must be paid to airport workers, but none of the money actually goes to employees.
View From The Wing then asks the astute question: “You might ask, why allow vendors to charge people more than the marked prices, instead of just raising prices?”
And you already know the answer, right? It’s because the airport doesn’t let them raise prices, stating that “operators are only permitted to charge up to 15% more than a comparable street-side unit”.
Thus, the airport then pretends that a surcharge isn’t a price increase. And while we’re fuzzy on the innerworkings of the charge, it would seem to us that it puts another set of hands in between the customer and the vendor, so we’d be doubtful about vendors having access to all of the new cash they are bringing in. You’ll have to pardon our skepticism, but just remember, we’ve covered Wall Street for decades.
Off-airport stores have increased prices due to 20% inflation over the past four years, and airport vendors have followed suit. With price caps based on a percentage over ‘street pricing,’ the dollar gap between outside and airport prices has grown, the report says.
Now as a result of the charge, menu prices appear lower than they are, with a $10 item actually costing $10.30, excluding tips. This 3% surcharge, not a service charge, is attributed to the high minimum wage at the airport, which is $15.06 plus benefits.
Despite wages being a cost factor, not all airports have the same wage levels, with some, like St. Louis, paying more. Perhaps funds from paid water refill stations could cover these costs instead.
Vendors must disclose the surcharge but only at the point-of-sale and on receipts, meaning customers learn of it after being charged. This likely leads to lower tips as customers try to keep their total bill as expected. The 3% surcharge diverts money from worker tips to concession owners, undermining the minimum wage increase benefits for workers.
I think it was in the Bad News Bears, where I first saw that “Assume” can make an a** out of U and Me. I couldn’t get a good clip of that but did come across a scene from The Odd Couple where they went through the same dissection of the word (The Odd Couple, believe it or not, was before my time).
I’ve chosen this word for today’s report as I think it is relevant on many fronts. I am also going back and trying to figure out how many things I “assume” that I should recheck. We will use presume as well, which seems like a less severe version of assume. Finally, we will discuss “mirroring” once again, as this could be very important in the coming weeks.
Markets
Last weekend we wrote about Fragility in a One Stock, Stock Market, and we followed up on Thursday with One Trick Pony. While much of the focus is on the difficulties and risks of interpreting broad market signals in a market that is led by a handful of stocks, we can probably rephrase it in terms of assumptions and presumptions. “Normally” we see X and can interpret Y. In some groups, there has been a lot of discussion of co-movement versus correlation. In this case, correlation is more persistent and there is an element of causation, as opposed to a few things that seem to move together from time to time. I’d lump Bitcoin and almost anything in this category, as somedays it seems very correlated to big tech, and others it beats completely to its own drum – a drum that is getting weaker, but more on that later this week.
Then we can add “passive” to the mix. The large “passive” rebalancing in XLK is over, but in general, for the largest indices, every inflow and outflow is disproportionately (by historical standards) impacting a small percentage of the stocks in the index.
For now, I’m sticking with the overall sentiment being one of “greedy, but less greedy than before.”
Monday’s large sell-off in the Nasdaq 100 was completely reversed on Tuesday. The index moved higher Wednesday and Thursday, only to wind up fractionally down on the week, as stocks faded into the close on Friday. Maybe I’m alone in struggling with this price action, but it does seem indicative of a lack of any true conviction or depth of liquidity (in either direction).
We “presumed” or concluded (or guessed) that the debate would highlight the deficit and the fact that neither candidate is particularly serious about getting it under control, let alone balancing the budget.
In terms of being right for the wrong reasons, the 10-year Treasury yield closed at 4.4%, smack in the middle of our 4.3% to 4.5% range. But it had nothing to do with the debate (based on the trading during and after the debate). It had absolutely nothing to do with the economic data, as inflation data came in nicely (should have been priced in), and Michigan inflation expectations were surprisingly down (not priced in, but easily ignored). In any case, we were at 4.26% before the market rolled over.
The Nasdaq 100 decided to follow Treasury prices and moved almost in lockstep with them. Whether there was causation or not remains to be seen. It was month-end and quarter-end, so that could have had an impact, though normally the “rebalancing” trades create both demand and supply for stocks/bonds. However, both were for sale. One “assumption” many use is that month-end is good for bonds, as index trackers “extend” duration into the close. That didn’t occur, again, making us wary of assumptions and rules of thumb. Adding to that, NVDA, which has been one of our main “tells” was higher for most of the day, before finishing the day lower.
Do we bounce on Monday as we start the new quarter? Or has momentum lost enough steam that selling continues? Will asset managers slow their purchases or sell now that they have finalized what they show clients on their quarter-end statement? I remain focused on the 50-day moving averages for the broad indices, which would indicate more selling to come.
Oil behaved differently. It traded strongly into the open, sold off with the economic data, and while finishing lower on the day, it had support into the close (unlike stocks or bonds). We will have more to come on oil as the best geopolitical risk trade.
Elections and Debates
European elections are nearing, and I’m leaning towards them causing some market hiccups in Europe. I’d avoid European risk here, and those elections could add pressure to U.S. markets.
While we are non-partisan here at Academy, it is impossible to ignore the debate. While it didn’t seem to have any immediate market impact, it is difficult to know if it had any influence on markets over the course of the day (I’d like to claim I was right and the debate was why Treasuries sold off, but that is a stretch).
There are two things that I think I can safely say about the debate:
Based on betting data, we saw President Biden’s odds decline, noticeably, but former President Trump’s odds increased marginally. Basically, the betters were taking chips off the Biden table, and spreading them around, not just throwing them all to Trump. I used RealClearPolling (the link seems ok, but I wouldn’t bother clicking it without a good VPN). It seemed comprehensive and in line with other reports I’ve seen. I do not know how easily manipulated the betting markets are (e.g., depth of liquidity). So, you can take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that we’ve seen a change in how people are thinking about the upcoming election.
We can now see why the media has been very careful to say “presumptive” nominee, as there was a lot of chatter, from sources I would consider pro-Biden, that some consideration should be given to rethinking the Democratic ticket (which seems supported by the betting odds).
I don’t think this is what drove markets on Friday, as the day wore on, but I do think it is important from a geopolitical risk perspective.
Assumptions and “Mirroring”
We have discussed the concept of “mirroring” in many different reports. It is the “problem” that intelligence officers face when trying to extrapolate what an adversary might do. It is extremely difficult not to “mirror” your thoughts and perspectives when analyzing an adversary. It is one of the reasons why most military exercises have “red teams” – teams that play the role of opposition. Trying to gameplay things “properly” is important so that you are facing, in practice and simulation, the opponent that you will face on the battlefield.
The concept of “mirroring” or making incorrect assumptions is likely part of why Academy, with our geopolitical insight, has not only been correct on our trajectory with China but was also predicting it well ahead of time. We cut through some of the “mirroring” issues many seem to face. It is certainly one element of our The Threat of Made By China 2025.
But today, we are revisiting this concept, because it may prove important in understanding how our adversaries/competitors may take the debate.
China (Xi), Russia (Putin), Iran (Khamenei), and North Korea (Kim) are all autocrats. They are in charge. What they say goes. While they likely “understand” at some level, how our House of Representatives and Senate work and how the Supreme Court has influence, it may be difficult for them to comprehend that the president (with “Executive Powers”) doesn’t have the same freedom of action that they do. It seems like there is at least a potential that these actors (and some others across the globe) may view the criticism of Biden’s performance as something bigger than it is.
The U.S. media was (and is) completely domestically focused at the moment. U.S. media coverage always tends to be “parochial” (relatively small domestic events/human interest stories often take priority over potentially much more important events occurring globally). However, the U.S. media and social media are being dominated by the debate and the election.
To the extent any of these actors were planning on influencing U.S. elections, they probably already have some elements in place.
It seems plausible, that having watched the Ukraine funding debate and the relationship with Israel evolve since October 7th, any bad actor has potentially added some new influencing tools to their tool kit.
A combination of misunderstanding how the U.S. works and overconfidence in their ability to win a misinformation campaign may give these bad actors the incentive to act sooner than later.
In our recent Geopolitical Risks – Perception vs Reality we highlighted “wildcard risk.” The intensity and variety of geopolitical risks already seemed high (something we’ve mentioned in recent reports), and it seems that it is necessary to increase our estimate of geopolitical risk after Thursday.
The concern is that some adversary, or competitor, will try to take advantage of what they perceive as an opportunity, with the president facing some new questions, even from supporters.
The common denominators between these countries (and their likely actions) are commodities and trade.
I want to own energy and commodity related assets now (the commodities, but also the stocks of companies in those industries). Since I’m worried about trade, in the event of some act, I’m leaning more towards energy than industrial commodities. I’ve been asked about gold and silver (and Bitcoin), but I don’t have a strong opinion (though, gold and silver would certainly seem to fit my geopolitical risk thesis).
If you have time, re-reading The Game of Chicken in Today’s World seems like a good use of time, as all of the actors above are likely trying to figure out what, if anything, to do given the election news here and in Europe.
Bottom Line
Higher yields and less inverted curves. 4.3% to 4.5% is still our working range for 10s. The bias is now to break higher, but geopolitical risk, while not providing a “flight to safety” trade like it has done in the past, will support Treasuries (more at the front end).
Lower stocks and the “catch-up” will only occur in a down market at this stage.
With geopolitical risk rising, own commodities and commodity-related stocks (and bonds) with a bias towards energy.
Apologies to anyone we may have offended regarding politics or the debate. We have tried to stick to the obvious things that have been happening since the debate. It would be easier to avoid discussing it at all, but since our adversaries and competitors are analyzing it, and it could influence their behavior in the coming weeks, we felt that it was important to go down this uncomfortable path. Given Academy’s expertise in Geopolitical Risk, and often being asked when and how to hedge it, it seems more timely than ever to put some trades on that will benefit from increased activity (while hoping, on a personal level, that nothing occurs, as we already have more than enough fighting happening in this world).
In the meantime, we will continue to challenge our own assumptions and presumptions in this tricky market and world.
