A colleague looks back at 2025

Image
Image
Image

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Image
Image

I get knocked down

But I get up again

BETSY WOLF

DEC 31

Image

I’ve been quiet for most of 2025. Much of that is because I was a direct casualty of DOGE and the trauma inflicted on the federal workforce. Almost overnight, I saw my job, entire federal research and data programs, and much of the field of educational research disappear. Private research firms, nonprofits, and any organization receiving federal funds were also hit, laying off hundreds, if not thousands, of highly qualified researchers. Coupled with attacks on university funding and cuts to state and local budgets, the result was a dire job market.

At first, it felt like a nuclear bomb had been dropped on the profession. Everything was hit all at once. So many people in education research were suddenly out of work or pushed into other fields. It felt like we were losing not just jobs, but an entire generation of education researchers. It took about six months for the dust to settle. Slowly, people began emerging from their bomb shelters. A few jobs appeared here and there, but nowhere near enough to meet the supply.

Image

This is the most competitive job market I’ve ever seen, and the number of highly qualified candidates far exceeds the number of jobs. I’ve been fortunate enough to have part-time work with my former employer, but I have spent ten long months on the job market and burning the candle at both ends while juggling part-time work, applying to jobs, working on papers, networking, and reviewing for grant panels. Over the ten months, I have:

  • Applied to 64 jobs
  • Completed 11 performance assessments, often multi-part and done over weekends
  • Participated in 17 screening, first-, and second-round interviews
  • Authored two technical reports
  • Submitted two articles for publication
  • Served as a grant reviewer for more than 100 proposals

And I have learned a lot:

  • I figured out how to get around AI screeners. It took months of trial and error. As a researcher, I collected my own data, experimented with different approaches and tools, and eventually figured it out, or at least improved my stats. Applying for jobs took far longer because of AI, and few people could articulate how to get around it, often providing contradictory advice.
  • I was pushed to articulate what I actually did and accomplished, not just my listed responsibilities, and to think about how to quantify my accomplishments in terms of metrics. This is a critical area of need in my field because the public does not fully understand (or appreciate) what education researchers do, which we’ve learned has real consequences.
  • I met some top-notch people. I’m an introvert after all, but this process forced me to get out and about, and I’m grateful for the people I met along the way.

But I’m still explaining to people that it’s not “fine.” This wasn’t a good thing for me, for others in my field, or for the country. It was destruction for the sake of destruction, and it harmed real people’s lives. I also recognize my privilege in all of this. I’m not worried about losing my house. My kids are out of daycare. I can get on my spouse’s health insurance. I’m not worried about deportation or imprisonment. I’m in the best possible circumstances to weather this, and it was still incredibly challenging.


Many were stunned when DOGE gutted long-standing research departments, including the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the research arm of the Department of Education, which was founded under President Bush in 2002. IES produces a wide range of research and data and is best known for the national education datasets and NAEP, the nation’s report card, which allows for apples-to-apples comparisons of student performance across states. 

Republicans have long claimed to support data use and accountability in education. Yet for the first time in my memory, a Republican administration attempted to dismantle the very subagency that produces research and data. How does that make sense? The most insightful explanation I’ve heard came from a former colleague: Accountability, itself, was never the goal. When accountability supported GOP policies like school accountability systems, school choice, and anti-union efforts, it was embraced. Now that accountability no longer supports GOP goals—such as expanding vouchers for which research largely shows null or negative effects—it has been cast aside.

Many people welcomed the destruction, not because they had better ideas, but because they wanted to tear things down. While no federal agency is perfect, the argument that improvement is best achieved by gutting the public sector and eliminating institutional knowledge simply doesn’t pass muster. So here we are, a country stuck in a group project where half of us want to do the work and the other half wants to burn the building down.

I want to live in a society that benefits from research and science. I want to live in a society where we can critique the status quo, learn from new evidence, and change course when something isn’t working. If I’m wrong about something, I want to update my priors based on evidence. That’s how research and science are supposed to work. It requires a willingness to learn new things, to grow and adapt, and to change course when reality isn’t consistent with ideology. This stands in direct contrast to systems where a small group controls the narrative and dismisses evidence they don’t like. When truth becomes something to manage rather than something to learn from, we are all worse off because we limit our ability to improve and to do our most innovative work.

I wish I could say that we’re through the worst of it, or that things will get better soon. What I can say is this: truth ultimately prevails, and this Administration will not have the final word. I recently heard the saying, “You can’t fall down if you’re lying on the floor.” Here’s to getting off the floor in 2026.

Image
Image

© 2025 Betsy Wolf
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe

Get the app
Start writing

Don’t Follow Advice from Billionaires

This is by Julian Vasquez Lustig.

—————-

When billionaires step onto a stage, release a book, or tweet some glossy piece of wisdom, the world pays attention. They are the icons of achievement, the proof that extraordinary success is possible. Their words are repeated in classrooms, boardrooms, and commencement addresses. Yet, beneath the glimmering surface of motivational sound bites lies an uncomfortable truth: the advice that billionaires and other ultra-successful people give is often bad advice. Not because they are foolish or malicious, but because they are the rare exceptions who won a game that is stacked against nearly everyone else. They are the one percent of their peer group that made it through a gauntlet designed to fail the other ninety-nine percent. Listening to them as if their stories are blueprints is like studying lottery winners for financial planning tips. It feels inspiring, but it will not work for most of us.

Survivorship Bias and the Mirage of Wisdom

The core problem with advice from billionaires is a concept called survivorship bias. We hear from those who made it to the top, but we never hear from the countless others who tried the same strategies and failed. A billionaire might tell you that the key to ultra success is “never giving up,” but for every person who refused to quit and made it, there are thousands who refused to quit and went bankrupt. We do not see their stories on magazine covers. Their podcasts are not downloaded millions of times. Survivorship bias distorts reality because it magnifies the voice of the rare survivor while erasing the experiences of the much larger group that followed the same path without ultra success.

Consider Silicon Valley. Every venture capitalist loves to repeat the story of the scrappy founder who dropped out of college and built a multibillion-dollar company in a garage. Yet for every Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, there are thousands of college dropouts and founders who ended up with crushing debt and no safety net. Their advice is missing from TED Talks because failure does not sell. This imbalance creates the illusion that ultra success is a formula when in reality it is often a combination of timing, luck, privilege, and structural advantage. The myth of meritocracy hides the role of chance.

The Myth of Hard Work Alone

Another favorite refrain from ultra successful elites is that hard work alone is the ticket to prosperity. “Just work harder than everyone else” sounds noble and egalitarian. It reassures us that anyone can achieve greatness if they put in enough effort. But this ignores the countless people who already work harder than anyone else and remain trapped in poverty. The night shift nurse who juggles two jobs, the farmworker under the blazing sun, the single parent hustling to make rent—these are some of the hardest working people in society, yet their labor is undervalued, underpaid, and unprotected. Hard work matters, but it does not guarantee the kind of upward mobility that billionaires attribute to it.

When billionaires say hard work is everything, they obscure the role of systemic inequality and priviledge. If you dig deep enough into the origin story, they often inherited advantages such as family wealth, elite education, insider connections, or the safety net to take massive risks without catastrophic consequences. Elon Musk can glamorize risk-taking because his family’s wealth and resources gave him a parachute if he failed. That is not advice most people can realistically follow. For the majority, betting it all could mean losing everything.

Privilege Disguised as Insight

The most dangerous kind of bad advice from ultra successful people is when privilege is disguised as insight. When a wealthy hedge fund manager insists that “anyone can make millions if they just invest smart,” they erase the reality that starting capital, financial literacy, and access to networks are not distributed equally. When a celebrity entrepreneur insists that “school is useless,” they may have forgotten that their own elite connections and early financial backing insulated them from the consequences of not having a degree. Advice like this is seductive because it sounds rebellious and bold, but for most people it is reckless. Following it can lead to ruined finances, broken careers, and wasted years.

Privilege does not make billionaires and other ultra successful people evil, but it does make their advice incomplete. They cannot fully see the barriers that others face because those barriers were either removed for them or never existed in their path. What they call wisdom is often just the story of their privilege told through the lens of personal genius.

The Cult of the Outlier

Society loves outliers because they represent the dream of transcendence. We want to believe that anyone can become Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey, or Warren Buffett. This cultural obsession is why their advice is treated like sacred scripture. But outliers are outliers for a reason. They represent rare, extreme cases of success that cannot be generalized. Their paths are not scalable or repeatable. It is like training for the NBA by copying Michael Jordan’s exact workout from 1993. Even if you followed it perfectly, the odds of becoming Jordan are infinitesimal. And yet, billionaires often present their paths as replicable roadmaps. They suggest that if you mimic their habits, you too can join the club. What they do not emphasize is that luck, timing, and a supportive ecosystem were critical to their rise.

What We Should Be Listening To

If billionaire advice is unreliable, where should we turn? The answer is not to ignore all successful people, but to recalibrate who we listen to. Instead of only amplifying the voices of the one percent who succeeded spectacularly, we should also be listening to the ninety-nine percent who tried and failed. They often have far more practical wisdom. The entrepreneur who started three businesses and lost them all may have a better understanding of risk, resilience, and humility than the one who got lucky on their first attempt. The worker who juggled jobs and still could not escape poverty can tell us more about the structural flaws of the system than the billionaire who insists that anyone can “make it” with hustle. Failure teaches lessons that success often obscures.

We should also turn to research. Social science gives us evidence-based insights into what actually works for economic mobility, personal growth, and societal well-being. Studies on inequality, labor markets, education, and social capital reveal patterns that are far more trustworthy than anecdotes from billionaires. When policies and practices are built on data rather than inspirational slogans, they have a greater chance of improving lives on a broad scale.

Why We Fall for It Anyway

Despite the flaws, society will likely continue to idolize the advice of billionaires. Their stories are intoxicating because they promise that the American Dream is still alive. We want to believe that there is a formula we can follow, that success is within our control, that if we just wake up at 4 a.m. and drink green smoothies like our heroes (man, I hate celery in my smoothies), we too will ascend. Hope sells. And billionaires, whether consciously or not, are in the business of selling hope. The media reinforces it because audiences crave inspiration more than sobering reality. Failure is boring. Success sells tickets and earns views.

The danger is that while we are busy idolizing bad advice, we neglect the real work of fixing broken systems. We focus on mimicking habits instead of dismantling structural barriers. We chase dreams built on exceptions rather than building policies that benefit the majority. The billionaire tells us to think positive, but what we need is collective action to change the rules of the game to be fairer for all.

Conclusion: Advice We Can Trust

Billionaires are fascinating to study, but their advice should be taken with heavy skepticism. They are the one percent of their peer group that survived, while the other ninety-nine percent fell by the wayside. Their wisdom is shaped by survivorship bias, privilege, and the myth of meritocracy. Following their advice blindly is like planning your retirement by studying Powerball winners. The odds are not in your favor.

I know this because my own journey has been shaped not by shortcuts, windfalls, or gilded safety nets, but by decades of teaching, researching, and advocating in communities where inequality is lived every day. In classrooms in Detroit, in university leadership roles, and in my work on education policy, I have seen firsthand that opportunity is not evenly distributed. The “bootstrap” stories billionaires sell rarely account for the systemic barriers—poverty, discrimination, underfunded schools, precarious jobs—that most people face.

The better path is to look for advice grounded in evidence, humility, and lived experience that reflects those struggles. We should value the lessons of failure as much as success. We should demand policies and structures that make opportunity more widely available, instead of glorifying the rare individuals who managed to escape the gravity of inequality. My life’s work has convinced me of this: progress comes not from idolizing billionaires, but from expanding opportunity for everyone.

Right Wing Trump Allies Hide Study Showing That Right Wing Extremists Cause Most Domestic Terror Attacks

Here is the first part of that study, which was apparently not fully stored on the Wayback Machine.

Click to access 306123.pdf

Image

Are we alone?

Dr Rob Zellem posed this question last night (9-13-2025) to NCA members and visitors at their monthly meeting at the University of Maryland Observatory.

Image

Are we alone in the universe, or are there exoplanets with life of some sort, and even some advanced civilizations out there?

Dr Zellem said the correct answer right now is, maybe. We just don’t have enough data to tell.

He reminded us that Giordano Bruno and Isaac Newton both correctly predicted that other stars would have planets around them. We now know that just about every single star is born with a retinue of planets, asteroids, dust, and comets, so there are at least as many planets as there are stars in our galaxy and all the others as well. Previous speakers to NCA have noted that many of these objects end up getting flung out into the vast frozen emptiness of interstellar space in a giant random game of ‘crack the whip’. No life can exist out there.

My calculations here: It is estimated that there are literally trillions (10^12) of galaxies, each with millions (10^6) or billions (10^9) of stars. Let’s start with our own galaxy, the Milky Way, with maybe 200 billion stars (maybe more). I will assume that life needs a nice, calm, long-lived G class yellow star, which only make up 7.6% of all stars. Roughly 50% to 70% of those stars are in binary systems, which I fear will reduce the chances of having a planet survive in the Goldilocks zone. Perhaps one-third to two-thirds of those G stars have a planet in their habitable zone. We have no idea how likely life is to get started, but after reading Nick Lane’s The Vital Question it sounds pretty complicated to me, so I’ll use a range of estimates: somewhere between 10% and 80% of them develop some form of life. We know that on Earth, the only form of life that existed during the vast majority of the existence of the Earth was unicellular microbes. Four-footed tetrapods like ourselves have only occupied about 1% of the life of our planet, and we humans have only had the telescope for just over 400 years, out of the 400,000,000 years since four-footed animals evolved, which is one in a million. Low estimate:

Image

If my low-end estimates are correct, then there are about five thousand or so exo-planets somewhere in our galaxy with a civilization formed by some sort of animal that can look out into outer space. High estimate:

Image

In that case, there are well over a hundred thousand civilizations in our galaxy — but the Milky Way is huge, hundreds of thousands of light-years across! Most of our exoplanet detections have been within the nearest 100 light years, and we have no way of detecting most exoplanets at all because the planes of their orbits point the wrong way.

Even so, Zellem pointed out that thanks to incredible advances in sensitivity of telescopes and cameras, we are now closer than ever to being able to answer the title question: Are We Alone.

Plus, any amateur astronomer can take useful measurements of exoplanet transits with any telescope, and any digital camera. Following the directions on NASA’s Planet Watch webpage, you can take your data, in your back yard or from a remote observatory, process it the best you can, send it in, and be credited as a co-author on any papers that are published about that particular exoplanet. Then, later, a massive space telescope can be aimed at the most promising exoplanets during their transits. Astronomers can use their extremely sensitive spectroscopes to detect the atmospheres of those bodies and look for signs of life. They do not want to waste extremely valuable telescope time waiting for a transit that doesn’t recur!

Some day we will be in a situation where scientists will be able to say that based on their measurements, the signal indicates a very good chance of life at least a bit like ours, with similar chemistry on some planet. They will also state what the chances are that they are wrong, and indicate what further steps could be made to disprove or confirm their claim.

Zellem noted that both the Doppler-shift method and the transit methods are quite biased in favor of large exoplanets that are close to their suns.

I asked the speaker how likely it would be for observers from some exoplanet to detect the planet Mercury, but couldn’t do the math in my head and didn’t have paper and pencil to write anything down at the time. But now I do.

Image

The closer Mercury is to the Sun, the larger the possible viewing angle.

Using a calculator to find the arc-tangent of that ratio (865,000 miles solar diameter, divided by the smallest and also by the largest distances between them, namely 28,500,000 and 43,500,000 miles) gave me an angle between 2 and 3 degrees, depending. So there is a circular wedge of our galaxy where observers on some other planet might view a transit of our innermost planet. Where is that wedge in our galaxy?

The following sky diagram has the Ecliptic in pink. Only observers within a degree or so of that curvy line could detect that Sol has planets.

Image

So what fraction of the sky can ever hope to catch a transit of Mercury? Only about 1% or 2% of the sky — not much.

Turning things around, this means that we can ourselves only detect, via transits, a very small portion of all extra-solar planetary systems – those whose planes are pointing almost directly at us, and those with large planets that are very close to their stars. (Any planet so close to a star is not a very good candidate for life, in my opinion.)

The biggest obstacle is the sheer distances between stars. At the speed of our very fastest space craft (the Parker Solar Probe), which only goes 0.064% of the speed of light, it would take about 6250 years to reach our closest stellar neighbors near Proxima Centauri. One way. Which probably explains why, if all these other civilizations do exist, we do not appear so far to have been visited by any other extraterrestrial civilization.

At the meeting, someone in the audience was pretty sure that yes, we have already been visited by aliens. I talked with him outside after the meeting. His main evidence was a 2020 New York Times article concerning the upcoming release of classified data about mysterious flying objects (now called UAPs rather than UFOs). In the article, one Eric Davis claimed (without producing any evidence) that some items have been retrieved from various places by the US military that couldn’t be made here on earth. That is of course true of every single asteroid or meteorite ever discovered, since we can’t reproduce the conditions in which they were formed, so his claim is not very helpful. No technological devices clearly of alien manufacture have ever been publicly produced by him or anybody else for testing.

(It’s pretty obvious that American and other military forces spend a lot of money producing objects that go very fast and are highly maneuverable — and which they want to keep secret.)

There are in fact many, many unsolved mysteries in science (eg, the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and exactly how the nucleus arose in eukaryotes). Many of the unidentified sky or water phenomena that have been witnessed do not have clear explanations so far, but the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Reputable scientists require a lot more than hearsay evidence before they make bold claims.

Thank you for a great talk, Rob Zellem!

These fascists are proud of being that way.

Are we all on the same team?

Copied from Quora; I didn’t write any of this…

As an American I ask my fellow Americans, why can’t you realize at the end of the day we are all on the same team? Team USA. We can disagree but why is it so hard to unite as US citizens first and everything else second?

We are on the same team.

Every policy carried out by the government, every federal law passed by Congress, and every landmark case ruled by the Supreme Court impact you and me. Inflation impacts all of us. The price of grocery, gas, and household goods impacts all of us. The horrendous for-profit health insurance system harms all of us. Poorly funded schools harm all of us. Unsafe transportation, such as trains, airplanes, and poorly maintained infrastructure, harms all of us.

Everything I wanted: universal health care, a better-funded education system, a robust welfare system, more support for the homeless population, better mental/psychiatric care, student loan forgiveness, closing tax loopholes for corporations and the super-rich, women’s right to bodily autonomy, stranger food safety laws, stronger environmental safety laws, more money for national parks… everything benefits you (and I, and everyone else.)

I want what is good for everyone.

You want to own the libs. You relish the sight of immigrants, documented or undocumented, being deported, their families broken apart. You want to check every woman’s underpants just so a few trans people can not use the bathroom in public. You want to sentence women and their doctors to death for seeking abortions. You want to make Christianity the religion of the country. You want to see other people suffer, even if that means you suffer too.

So perhaps we are not on the same team.

I’m on Team America.

You are on Team Trump.


I have since received several comments from Christians telling me that this is not what they wanted.

You know what? It doesn’t matter. If you voted for Trump, this is what you wanted. Trump is a package deal. You don’t get to pick and choose. I don’t care if you voted him because egg prices, or immigrants, or abortion, or no warming centers for homeless people in winter.

I don’t fucking care.

You don’t get to vote to harm millions of Americans and then pretend to be a good Christian.

Back in the 1930s, a lot of Germans supported Hitler because they believed Hitler would make Germany great again. They didn’t agree on everything Hitler and the Nazis did, but they thought Hitler would bring down inflation and make things better for them.

Do you know what historians call those people?

Nazis.

Why is Trump attacking the best public schools in America?

Peter Greene explains.

https://open.substack.com/pub/curmudgucation/p/does-trump-want-to-dismantle-the?r=3u611&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

WTF, Democratic Caucus?

Why is the failure of this current budget bill being blamed on Republicans when almost every single Democrat voted against it?

If only half of the Dems had voted in favor, it would have passed and we wouldn’t be looking toward another government shutdown.

Published in: on December 20, 2024 at 12:07 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

It’s hard to win an election if you lose 11 million voters

I was wondering what the actual popular vote totals were over the last 7 or 8 US presidential election cycles, and discovered a few important things that haven’t been mentioned very much. Let me first present the entire table so you can look for any patterns that stand out for you.

Image

Here are a few:

(1) Harris got ten MILLION fewer votes than Biden.

(2) Trump only gained about 400 thousand over that cycle, which is not much.

(3) The big change was that over 10 million Democratic voters stayed home.

(4) Nearly every single registered voter got out and voted this time: 94.8%!

(5) Non-voters are definitely the largest US voting block: anywhere from one-third (34.1%) to one-half (48.3%) of the eligible voting population!

(6) If Democrats want to win elections, they need to convince large numbers of non-registered people that Democratic policies are good enough that they will register to vote Democratic. They also need to convince folks not to sit out elections.

Secretive Group of Billionaires and Right Wingers Have a plan for a Theocracy

Peter Greene, as usual,has done a lot of research. this group is pretty scary.

https://open.substack.com/pub/curmudgucation/p/the-hard-rights-planning-document?r=3u611&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email