Scott Alexander challenges Richard Hanania's explanation for liberal dominance in institutions, attributing it instead to shifting coalition systems described by Thomas Piketty. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Richard Hanania's article asking why everything is liberal despite roughly equal numbers of conservative and liberal voters. Alexander argues that the reason is not, as Hanania suggests, that liberals care more about politics, but rather due to shifting coalition systems as described by Thomas Piketty. Piketty's research shows a change from a 1950s system of elite vs. common parties to a current system where the left captures highly educated voters while the right captures less educated and some wealthy voters. This shift explains why institutions dominated by highly educated people lean liberal. Alexander discusses the implications of this shift, including potential instability in the system and the risk of institutional monocultures. He suggests potential solutions like decreasing the importance of college degrees in society and solving racism to shake up political coalitions. Shorter summary

Scott reviews evidence on whether college improves critical thinking, finding modest short-term gains but questioning their long-term persistence. Longer summary

Scott examines the claim that college teaches critical thinking skills. He reviews several studies, finding modest evidence that college improves critical thinking, with effect sizes ranging from 0.18 to 0.44 standard deviations. However, he notes limitations in the research, such as lack of long-term follow-up and potential confounding factors. Scott expresses skepticism about whether these gains persist after college, drawing parallels to other temporary developmental effects. He also discusses specific aspects of college that may contribute to critical thinking gains, finding little evidence for dedicated 'critical thinking' classes but some benefit from liberal arts education and certain study habits. Shorter summary