Scott Galloway discusses education reform for boys

Underlying this prosperity was robust state support. The GI Bill funded college for 2 million soldiers and home loans and small business loans for hundreds of thousands more. Truman's housing legislation expanded the government's role in building homes and financing home ownership. Eisenhower launched a 40 year project to build a national highway system at a cost of over 500 billion in today's dollars. Income taxes were progressive, the top rate was 91%, and the wealth of the biggest earners was redistributed through social programs and investments in infrastructure, education and science. The greatest innovation in the history of the west, the American middle class was the product of intentional and sustained public investment. Our retreat from that vision has led to decades of prosperity but little progress. We've slid into a cascading pattern of failure to rear, educate, and employ young men. Returning to our tradition of investment could rebuild the engine of capitalism and reverse the slide in their fortunes. Some ideas the day a boy walks into school, he's behind half the class. With brains that mature later than girls, boys almost immediately fall behind girls in school. We should red shirt them, just as we hold back college athletes for a year so they can develop further. This proposal comes from Richard Reeves, who wrote last year's landmark book of Boys and Men. He joined me on my podcast and recently left Brookings to found the American Institute of Boys and Men. Once in school, boys have fewer male role models. Fewer than one in four teachers in America are men, down from one in three in 1980. It's a vicious cycle, as the fewer male teachers boys see, the less interested they become in pursuing teaching themselves. Lacking male exemplars of strength, kindness and generosity, boys look elsewhere for models like Andrew Tate, the global alpha male.