Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 5 5.00
Q Yeah, I agree. I also find it shocking how big the endowments of the universities are at the same time that we have education costs for universities going up so high and sort of like a declining ROI that kids are getting from universities. What do you think about it? Because you're, you're not quiet about the things that you don't like about universities while also working in one.
A Well, my industry is arguably the most, one of the most corrupt, maybe with the exception of social media or, you know, I, I work in a corrupt industry. People aren't under the impression that we're nice people with our Labradors, watching PBS every night, and we're noble people. We're like everybody else. We, Academics and administrators wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and ask themselves the same question, and that is, how do I increase my compensation while reducing my accountability? And we found the ultimate business strategy, and that's to sequester the majority of public from the freshman class and artificially constrain the, the freshman seat. So Harvard, fifty-four billion dollars in endowment. It's grown its endowment 4000% in the last 30 or 40 years, up forty-fold. It's grown its freshman class size four percent. So it admits 1500 kids on 55,000 applicants. It has the resources. It could let in 15,000 and not sacrifice any quality, but they decide to artificially constrain it because they're, if to a certain extent homeowners and people who already have college degrees, Have figured out that this LVMH rejectionist exclusionary strategy is the best way to entrench the incumbents. So if I already have a college degree and I already have a house, I love it when UCLA is impossible to get into. How many people do you say kind of proudly or jokingly say, I would …
AI assessment note: “Harvard, fifty-four billion dollars in endowment. It's grown its endowment 4000%”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85
Q Yeah, I agree. I also find it shocking how big the endowments of the universities are at the same time that we have education costs for universities going up so high and sort of like a declining ROI that kids are getting from universities. What do you think about it? Because you're, you're not quiet about the things that you don't like about universities while also working in one.
A Well, my industry is arguably the most, one of the most corrupt, maybe with the exception of social media, or, you know, I, I work in a corrupt industry. People are under the impression that we're nice people with our Labradors, watching PBS every night, and we're noble people. We're like everybody else. We, Academics and administrators wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and ask themselves the same question, and that is, how do I increase my compensation while reducing my accountability? And we found the ultimate business strategy, and that's to sequester the majority of public from the freshman class and artificially constrain the freshman seat. So Harvard, fifty-four billion dollars in endowment, It's grown its endowment 4000% in the last 30 or 40 years, up forty-fold. It's grown its freshman class size four percent. So it admits 1500 kids on 55,000 applicants. It has the resources. It could let in 15,000 and not sacrifice any quality, but they decide to artificially constrain it because they're, if, to a certain extent, homeowners and people who already have college degrees, Have figured out that this LVMH rejectionist exclusionary strategy is the best way to entrench the incumbents. So if I already have a college degree and I already have a house, I love it when UCLA is impossible to get into it. How many people do you say kind of proudly or jokingly say, I would ne…
AI assessment note: “So Harvard, fifty-four billion dollars in endowment, It's grown its endowment 4000%”
Redirected raw tape
D 1 · C 3 · P 3 · Cm 3 2.40
Q today is like, um, you know, Vanguard, State Street, and BlackRock own, you know, let's call it, 80% of the S&P and 40% of the broad market, but then people will say, but they're passive. They're passive investors. What do you think about that? Do you think they actually change governance on most of our companies in the, in the U.S. because they own them, or are they truly passive?
A It's a really interesting question. So concentration of ownership is just a bad, is this bad to begin with? Although I would argue that those industries, I mean, it's an interesting question. So there's two sides to it. I love low cost index funds. I, you want to have some fun. Everybody believes they're smarter than your average bear. I'm not immune. I stock big, but what I would tell young people is 70% of any of your savings when 99% of your savings is going to come from money you can't touch, whether it's equity or things that automatically go into a savings account. Uh, low cost index funds. The, I work with the brightest people in finance. I've advised the most prestigious VCs, private equity funds, and my sum net conclusion is no one has any idea. And the VCs that outperform are the ones that get better deal flow. But if you took the entire alternative, the entire alternative investments industry, any logo on CNBC, anyone that advertises, any hedge fund, anywhere, it's essentially a grift. And what they, If you look at their performance, they've exactly underperformed the S&P by the amount of their fees.
AI assessment note: “I love low cost index funds. I, you want to have some fun.”
