Random Education News

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:57 am

No, I don't buy the hasty generalization that it's all cultural. But I will concede its a factor even among white people.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:18 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:No, I don't buy the hasty generalization that it's all cultural. But I will concede its a factor even among white people.



For the record, I have never, nor will ever argue, that culture is responsible for 100% of the differences in performance across groups (however you define those groups). There are many other things as well -- socioeconomic status, intelligence of parents, race, obstacles you have to overcome, etc.

I simply think the left dismisses culture way too easy because they are so uncomfortable with the discussion partly because they often see that choices shouldn't have consequences -- the single parent thing is a great example -- I completely agree with the left that single parents (even those who made "mistakes" and didn't want the kids) shouldn't be morally looked down upon and ostracized...but I agree with the right in that a single 20 year mom has set up their child for a much more difficult life than a couple in their early 30's having their first child. And while it sucks for that child, it is what it is. Other people shouldn't have to pitch in to correct those obstacles.

Back to the role of culture....For example, Ashkenazi jews not only have the highest IQ they make the most money. Followed by Asians. IS this because of their cultures? Their heredity/biology? Both (probably)?

The effect is pronounced even by country....For examples, Japanese people living in Japan have a higher IQ then Japanese Americans who have a higher IQ than white folks in the US.

Just as a 2nd generation American with parents from Western Europe will have a higher IQ on average than a 2nd generation American with parents from Eastern Europe who happens to have a higher average IQ than people from Poland for example. Is that culture? Heredity? Both?





------


Anyway, this is all a neat side track conversation I'm enjoying...but the fact of the matter is I don't think smart Asian kids should be discriminated against because they are Asian. And that is happening right now.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:30 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Zarni, as the sole guy in higher ed here maybe you should explain to us what goes on at the admissions office.

My understanding is that most of the students who meet the qualifications that don't get in are the ones who are trying to cram into the more popular programs and that is where they have to make these decisions.

10,000 kids apply for 5,000 seats in the school of business so half get rejected for one reason or another but 300 students apply for 500 seats at the school of fine arts so they all get in.



Every school is different on several levels. Let's start at the elite level -- schools like Harvard accept about 5% of their applicants. The vast majority of these students are qualified to go to almost any school in America. A good state school like U of Michigan accepts about 25% of their students. Good private schools (not Ivy league level) like Notre Dame can be around 20% to 25% as well. Small private schools and regional state schools will have acceptance rates over 50% - sometimes as high as 80%. If you are a small private school all you really care about is whether someone can pay and has a good chance at graduating. If they can, you have every incentive to take their money.

My particular school doesn't consider race at all and yet we still score in the 80th percentile or higher every year for diversity (mainly because of large Hispanic and Asian segments in Dallas).




As for balancing out programs - again it all depends on the school. Small private schools and regional state schools don't really care about that. They just want students. Most large state schools are like that too. For the most part the % of students who major in a field is relatively stable across time. Most schools are built around those long run averages. You might get relatively minor fields like Diversity Ethics or Gender Studies something like that that experience large percentage shifts from one year to the next depending on what is the flavor of the month in culture, but most of the traditional programs (sciences, business, engineering, etc) change very slowly over time.

Many schools in fact, don't even let you apply to a college until your sophomore year -- you just get into the general University. At Ohio State, which is a good, but not great, state school, when they accept a student it is just to the university. As a sophomore that student will apply to the College of Business, College of Engineering, etc. The lower GPA students who want to study those fields will get turned away because of semi-fixed capacity. If they want to stay at OSU they have to find another major or improve their GPA. But those students aren't turned away at the acceptance level when applying in high school.

The balancing that you are talking about only occurs at the very elite schools. Harvard will absolutely turn away a 3.9 GPA who wants to study Business for a 3.6 GPA who wants to study Mathematics if there aren't enough 3.9 GPA Math majors. But again, those schools are pretty few and far between.

I don't know how USF does it now, but when I was there ('89-'91), you couldn't declare a major until certain core course requirements were met for the major you intended to study. I found that out the hard way. I wanted to major in accounting which was under the College of Business. However, I arrived there with a lib arts AA degree...meaning I was missing some of the core course requirements I needed in order to apply to the College of Business as an accounting major. I spent most of my first year there taking those missing courses. After a part-time curriculum of about 3 quarters taking courses I could have taken in community college, I was finally able to declare my major.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12005
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:34 pm

It is a good discussion and yes, the left does get uncomfortable considering culture.

One of the cultural hurdles for everyone is the thought that higher ed is only for the wicked smart or rich kids which is only partially true. I never considered college in HS because I thought my 3.2 gpa was not good enough to get in so I disregarded trying to avoid getting disappointed. The adults in my life were either ignorant of how that worked, or were too preoccupied pushing me to work harder to stop and tell me that it was absolutely in reach even if certain schools were less likely. They weren't screwing me over, just ignorant of the possibilities that did exist.

I can't imagine what it's like to grow up being told or otherwise believing that college was not for me by default. That's a fucked up thing to tell a kid.

Not a lot can be done about the "wicked smart" perception, but the "rich kid" one can be addressed by joining the rest of the modern world and removing much of the cost barriers by freeing tuition.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:00 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:It is a good discussion and yes, the left does get uncomfortable considering culture.

One of the cultural hurdles for everyone is the thought that higher ed is only for the wicked smart or rich kids which is only partially true. I never considered college in HS because I thought my 3.2 gpa was not good enough to get in so I disregarded trying to avoid getting disappointed. The adults in my life were either ignorant of how that worked, or were too preoccupied pushing me to work harder to stop and tell me that it was absolutely in reach even if certain schools were less likely. They weren't screwing me over, just ignorant of the possibilities that did exist.

I can't imagine what it's like to grow up being told or otherwise believing that college was not for me by default. That's a fucked up thing to tell a kid.

Not a lot can be done about the "wicked smart" perception, but the "rich kid" one can be addressed by joining the rest of the modern world and removing much of the cost barriers by freeing tuition.

Interestingly enough, the cost of education has skyrocketed over the last few decades. Professor salaries have barely increased at all. What has increased is the campus bureaucracy, and so tuition cost increases are basically the result of adding a managerial class to campus life.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:52 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It is a good discussion and yes, the left does get uncomfortable considering culture.

One of the cultural hurdles for everyone is the thought that higher ed is only for the wicked smart or rich kids which is only partially true. I never considered college in HS because I thought my 3.2 gpa was not good enough to get in so I disregarded trying to avoid getting disappointed. The adults in my life were either ignorant of how that worked, or were too preoccupied pushing me to work harder to stop and tell me that it was absolutely in reach even if certain schools were less likely. They weren't screwing me over, just ignorant of the possibilities that did exist.

I can't imagine what it's like to grow up being told or otherwise believing that college was not for me by default. That's a fucked up thing to tell a kid.

Not a lot can be done about the "wicked smart" perception, but the "rich kid" one can be addressed by joining the rest of the modern world and removing much of the cost barriers by freeing tuition.

Interestingly enough, the cost of education has skyrocketed over the last few decades. Professor salaries have barely increased at all. What has increased is the campus bureaucracy, and so tuition cost increases are basically the result of adding a managerial class to campus life.



Yes, not only have professor salaries stagnated class sizes have gone up. Throw in the fact that the use of part time, non-tenure track professors is increasing exponentially (we recently crossed the 50% line in terms of courses taught by non-tenured factory in America) and its impossible to argue that school costs are rising because of faculty.

You hit the nail head on about administration. My school is a very small DIII school. We have under 2,000 students. We have 7 vice presidents. The highest paid teacher isn't in the top 15 of salaries on campus. It's insane. Here is a great article posted on Huffington that goes into the #'s. (mind you, I'm not complaining about teacher pay...most teachers are paid just fine....I'm looking at reducing overhead costs so students aren't burdened with as much debt)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/ ... 38584.html


On average there are 2 1/2 administrators to every 1 full time faculty member!!! It’s jaw dropping.

If I'm improving the cost of education, administration is among the first things (if not the first thing) I look at.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby deltbucs » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:24 am

I'd imagine that everyone in this forum knows who the highest paid public employee is in most states....
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5301
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:42 am

Yes and in most instances it seems fine IMO
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:52 am

That Huffington article reminds me of an Oscar Wilde quote


the beareaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beareaucracy



Sadly this is rampant in much of education and government and to some degree general business as well.

There needs to be a direct force against this. And sadly in education there isn’t much of one as the demand for education is highly inelastic.

It’s no different then when boardrooms full of CEOs sit down and make the compemsation package for another CEO...of course they will be outrageous. In education the administration sits down and figures out how much more administration it needs
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:19 pm

I hadn’t heard of this till today...but some colleges are experimenting with income share options instead of traditional tuition and student loans. The school and student agree to a percent of salary over a specified period of time.


Quite interesting. I can see the pros and cons of this....need to weigh them some more

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/coll ... 10443.html
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:01 pm

Student Suspended for Trump Border Wall Shirt to Get $25G and Formal Apology
Jul 25, 2018 // 7:18am
by Fox News Insider

Image

An Oregon high school student who sued his school district after administrators said he couldn't wear a pro-Trump border wall T-shirt will be given a written apology and $25,000 in a settlement.

Liberty High School senior Addison Barnes,18, was suspended earlier this year after he refused to cover up his “Donald J. Trump Border Wall Construction Co.” shirt.

The shirt -- which also features a 2016 Trump quote: “The wall just got 10 feet taller.” -- was worn by Barnes in his “People and Politics” class on a day where immigration would be discussed.

Barnes sued his school, the Hillsboro School District and Principal Greg Timmons, claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated.

On Tuesday, Barnes' lawyers announced they had reached a settlement with the district.

Timmons will write a letter of apology to Barnes, and the district will pay $25,000 to Barnes to cover his legal fees.

Barnes said in a statement that he brought the case “to stand up for myself and other students who might be afraid to express their right-of-center views.”

Timmons also released a statement after the settlement:

As an educational institution, Hillsboro School District and each of our schools supports, encourages, and celebrates free speech and reasoned debate. We also have a responsibility to ensure that each of our students feels welcome and safe in our schools so they can effectively learn. This was an instance where we were challenged to do both simultaneously and the decision landed on the side of ensuring student safety. Moving forward, we will continue to use professional discretion to meet both objectives and will actively seek ways to turn sensitive situations into learning opportunities.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12005
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:16 pm

Kid looks like a putz with that shirt on.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:21 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Kid looks like a putz with that shirt on.


total putz
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Rocker » Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:58 pm

Ensuring student safety?

Wow.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 4049
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:09 pm

Couple of genuine questions regarding student debt.

1. Are grants and student loans a form of price fixing?

2. Do non-dischargable (in bankruptcy) student loans create moral hazard?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:10 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Couple of genuine questions regarding student debt.

1. Are grants and student loans a form of price fixing?


Probably not. There is more than 1 supplier of student loans, grants and scholarships...and many offer different rates


Mountaineer Buc wrote:2. Do non-dischargable (in bankruptcy) student loans create moral hazard?



I see no reason they shouldn't be treated as any other form of debt that is forgivable under certain bankruptcy conditions.

When that happens though, it would be stupid not to expect loan rates to increase dramatically and fewer loans to folks with poor credit backgrounds.




The federal government shouldn't be in the student loan business in the first place...they fucked up the laws because they needed to get theirs first. They also incentivized people who really can't afford college to rack up immense debt and by stimulating demand as much as they did, they also drove up the cost of college.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:31 pm

Banks. Is there moral hazard for the banks to write loans of enormous cumulative quantity to people who have no or little income?

Particularly if the loan is hedged with the government as a guarantor, AND the debt cannot be discharged.

Does that not create moral hazard?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:43 pm

Banks wouldn’t be lending all this money if it wasn’t backed by the federal government. they can’t really do a traditional risk assessment on 18 year olds who have no money and have only part time jobs.


Any policy that pushes kids to take on debt they realistically won’t be able to pay back is wrong.


The modern socially accepted route through college is ridiculous. If you have to take out massive loans you shouldn’t go the traditional route, instead

1. Do 2 years at Junior College

2. After that choose a state school and go part time so you still have income

3. Make sure you choose a major that will help you pay back your loan quickly



This idea that everyone has a right to go to a 4 year college, live on campus and major in gender studies or sociology is absolutely stupid
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:09 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Banks wouldn’t be lending all this money if it wasn’t backed by the federal government. they can’t really do a traditional risk assessment on 18 year olds who have no money and have only part time jobs.


Any policy that pushes kids to take on debt they realistically won’t be able to pay back is wrong.


The modern socially accepted route through college is ridiculous. If you have to take out massive loans you shouldn’t go the traditional route, instead

1. Do 2 years at Junior College

2. After that choose a state school and go part time so you still have income

3. Make sure you choose a major that will help you pay back your loan quickly



This idea that everyone has a right to go to a 4 year college, live on campus and major in gender studies or sociology is absolutely stupid

That's the "How it should be." We'll have plenty of time to get into that. But I think we should take a good, long look at "how it is."

You're absolutely right that no bank would stroke these loans without federal guarantees. But let's put this through the mortgage crisis machine.

Current SL default rates are about 15%. A prospectus I just read for a SL trust put together by Navient as an investment vehicle (AAA rated) stress tested the trust with a default rate of 35% and said they can cover the obligations of the trust.

What if that's bullshit? In 2008 the default rate for mortgages went up to 40% and I'm sure the securities they sold were stress tested too. What if that rate happens in the next recession?

What if more kids decide its not worth the debt and the freshman attendance rate drops from 65% to 45% or 30%

What if all the kids with those liberal arts degrees decide to occupy Navient and collectively opt to not pay their student loans anymore?

Any one of these scenarios would put a helluva strain on colleges, banks, investors, and the federal government.

Not saying any of this is bound to happen, nor am I saying there's a bubble here, but each of these scenarios is plausible.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby NYBF » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:40 pm

Teachers spending their own money to stock their class for back to school, but we've got gun money!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/p ... -guns.html
Image
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 6321
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 198 times
Been thanked: 517 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Ken Carson » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:53 am

That article doesn’t say what you want it to.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:58 pm

DeVos proposing a very good, long needed change to the ridiculousness of the previous administration's abysmal title IX procedures

(it could go farther though)

The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty, an official with knowledge of the proposal has confirmed to Reason.

If adopted as formal policy, these measures would go a long way toward fixing the due process deficiencies that plagued the Obama administration's guidance relating to Title IX, the federal statute that deals with sex discrimination in schools.

This news was first reported by The New York Times, which obtained a leaked draft of the new rules. The Education Department had not planned to release details to the public yet; as such, the agency declined comment to the Times. But Reason was able to confirm that the Education Department is indeed mulling the changes detailed in the Times story.

According to the Times, the new rules "would add the ability for victims and their accused perpetrators to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other. The rules also allow the complainant and the accused to have access to any evidence obtained during the investigation, even if there are no plans to use it to prove the conduct occurred."

Cross-examination is a key component of due process and an important tool for arriving at the truth of a dispute. But under the previous administration's Title IX guidance, university officials were discouraged from extending this right to students accused of sexual misconduct, under the theory that scrutinizing alleged victims would be traumatizing.

The new policy would mandate cross-examination in situations where a school's adjudication process involves a live hearing, and it would require an effective substitute in all other cases.

Schools would also be empowered to choose non-adversarial approaches to handling disputes, such as mediation and restorative justice, as long as all parties voluntarily agree that this is in their mutual best interests. Restorative justice has many adherents—public health professor Mary Koss, a feminist and victims' advocate, is one—but was disfavored under the previous administration's rules.

The Education Department also wants to define sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school's education program or activity," according to The Times. Previous guidance, released in 2011, compelled administrators to combat any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

These modifications to the federal government's enforcement of Title IX are bound to provoke the ire of those feminists who claim accusers should receive preferential treatment in disputes. But for everyone who values basic fairness in campus sexual misconduct procedures, Secretary Betsy DeVos's plan looks like a massive victory.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby HamBone » Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:34 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:DeVos proposing a very good, long needed change to the ridiculousness of the previous administration's abysmal title IX procedures

(it could go farther though)

The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty, an official with knowledge of the proposal has confirmed to Reason.

If adopted as formal policy, these measures would go a long way toward fixing the due process deficiencies that plagued the Obama administration's guidance relating to Title IX, the federal statute that deals with sex discrimination in schools.

This news was first reported by The New York Times, which obtained a leaked draft of the new rules. The Education Department had not planned to release details to the public yet; as such, the agency declined comment to the Times. But Reason was able to confirm that the Education Department is indeed mulling the changes detailed in the Times story.

According to the Times, the new rules "would add the ability for victims and their accused perpetrators to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other. The rules also allow the complainant and the accused to have access to any evidence obtained during the investigation, even if there are no plans to use it to prove the conduct occurred."

Cross-examination is a key component of due process and an important tool for arriving at the truth of a dispute. But under the previous administration's Title IX guidance, university officials were discouraged from extending this right to students accused of sexual misconduct, under the theory that scrutinizing alleged victims would be traumatizing.

The new policy would mandate cross-examination in situations where a school's adjudication process involves a live hearing, and it would require an effective substitute in all other cases.

Schools would also be empowered to choose non-adversarial approaches to handling disputes, such as mediation and restorative justice, as long as all parties voluntarily agree that this is in their mutual best interests. Restorative justice has many adherents—public health professor Mary Koss, a feminist and victims' advocate, is one—but was disfavored under the previous administration's rules.

The Education Department also wants to define sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school's education program or activity," according to The Times. Previous guidance, released in 2011, compelled administrators to combat any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

These modifications to the federal government's enforcement of Title IX are bound to provoke the ire of those feminists who claim accusers should receive preferential treatment in disputes. But for everyone who values basic fairness in campus sexual misconduct procedures, Secretary Betsy DeVos's plan looks like a massive victory.


Thanks trumphitler
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby RedLeader » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:55 pm

Outstanding student loans in the US (not seasonally adjusted)

2006: $0.48 trillion
2018: $1.53 trillion

Fred Economic Data




Cant tell if this means we're getting smarter... or dumberer... :?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Buc2 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:51 am

Zarniwoop wrote:DeVos proposing a very good, long needed change to the ridiculousness of the previous administration's abysmal title IX procedures

(it could go farther though)

The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty, an official with knowledge of the proposal has confirmed to Reason.

If adopted as formal policy, these measures would go a long way toward fixing the due process deficiencies that plagued the Obama administration's guidance relating to Title IX, the federal statute that deals with sex discrimination in schools.

This news was first reported by The New York Times, which obtained a leaked draft of the new rules. The Education Department had not planned to release details to the public yet; as such, the agency declined comment to the Times. But Reason was able to confirm that the Education Department is indeed mulling the changes detailed in the Times story.

According to the Times, the new rules "would add the ability for victims and their accused perpetrators to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other. The rules also allow the complainant and the accused to have access to any evidence obtained during the investigation, even if there are no plans to use it to prove the conduct occurred."

Cross-examination is a key component of due process and an important tool for arriving at the truth of a dispute. But under the previous administration's Title IX guidance, university officials were discouraged from extending this right to students accused of sexual misconduct, under the theory that scrutinizing alleged victims would be traumatizing.

The new policy would mandate cross-examination in situations where a school's adjudication process involves a live hearing, and it would require an effective substitute in all other cases.

Schools would also be empowered to choose non-adversarial approaches to handling disputes, such as mediation and restorative justice, as long as all parties voluntarily agree that this is in their mutual best interests. Restorative justice has many adherents—public health professor Mary Koss, a feminist and victims' advocate, is one—but was disfavored under the previous administration's rules.

The Education Department also wants to define sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school's education program or activity," according to The Times. Previous guidance, released in 2011, compelled administrators to combat any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

These modifications to the federal government's enforcement of Title IX are bound to provoke the ire of those feminists who claim accusers should receive preferential treatment in disputes. But for everyone who values basic fairness in campus sexual misconduct procedures, Secretary Betsy DeVos's plan looks like a massive victory.

{like}
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12005
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:01 am

DeVos' proposed change to the absurdity of President Obama's Title IX mandate can't come soon enough...but at least in the time being....

A male student who was kicked off campus has alleged that the University of Michigan did not give him the opportunity to properly defend himself against sexual misconduct charges.

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the lawsuit filed by ex-student "John Doe" against the university has merit. In a decision written by Judge Amul Thapar—a judge with a reputation for defending due process norms in cases involving Title IX, the federal statute that sets rules for campus sexual misconduct cases—the court held that Doe's lawsuit should survive a motion to dismiss.

"If a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder," wrote Thapar. "Because the University of Michigan failed to comply with this rule, we reverse [the lower court's decision]."
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:27 am

more anti-science from academicians...i swear to god these people give academics a worse name then the bad name we deserve!!!!

muh feelings.....


Theodore Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Tech, claims that activists successfully pressured the New York Journal of Mathematics to delete an article he had written for the academic journal because it considered a politically incorrect subject: the achievement gap between men and women at very high levels of human intelligence.

The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, first proposed by Charles Darwin, suggests that there are more men than women at both the bottom and the very top of the distribution for intelligence scores. More men than woman are Nobel Prize winners and chess grand champions, and more men than women are homeless, unemployed, and in prison. Men as a group express greater variability in aptitude and ability. This difference, of course, need not be innate—it could be the case that social custom and pressure has punished women for falling anywhere outside the norm.

Writing for Quillette, Hill says that he and a co-author came up with a theoretical model that would help explain the gap, then attempted to publish a paper about their work in Mathematical Intelligencer. The paper was accepted, though the topic is controversial: Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University in part due to criticism he received for broaching the subject of variability at an academic conference.

As might have been anticipated, the paper was poorly received by feminist scholars. Hill's co-author, Sergei Tabachnikov, faced strident opposition at Penn State, where he is employed as a professor of mathematics. According to Hill:

At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that "women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias." Sergei said he had spent "endless hours" talking to people who explained that the paper was "bad and harmful" and tried to convince him to "withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have."...

The National Science Foundation eventually wrote to Tabachnikov asking him remove from the paper any acknowledgment that the NSF had helped to fund the research. This was done, according to Hill, after two Penn State academics—the chair of the climate and diversity committee, and the associate head for diversity and equity—had warned the NSF that the paper promotes ideas "detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF."

Mathematical Intelligencer rescinded its acceptance of the paper. According to its editor-in-chief, publishing Hill and Tabachnikov's work would create a "very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally." In his Quillette piece, Hill claims that a University of Chicago mathematics professor, Amie Wilkinson, lobbied the journal to abandon its plans to publish the piece.

Some time later, an editor at another publication, the New York Journal of Mathematics, wrote to Hill and offered to publish the paper. Hill accepted, and the article was published. But then:

Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been. As it turned out, Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board. Upon discovering that the journal had published my paper, Professor Farb had written a furious email to [NYJM Editor-in-Chief Mark Steinberger] demanding that it be deleted at once. …

Unaware of any of this, I wrote to Steinberger on November 14, to find out what had happened. I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and "harass the journal" he had founded 25 years earlier "until it died." Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. "A publication in a dead journal," he offered, "wouldn't help you."

Hill wrote to University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer, a vocal defender of academic freedom and free speech, about Wilkinson's conduct. He received a response that in the administration's view, Wilkinson had merely been exercising her own academic freedom in urging the journals not to publish the paper:

A reasonable inference is that I was the one interfering in their academic freedom and not vice versa. My quarrel, the vice-provost concluded, was with the editors-in-chief who had spiked my papers, decisions for which the University of Chicago bore no responsibility. At the Free Speech University, it turns out, talk is cheap.

I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic. I'm much more troubled by the actions of the journal editors, who seem to have acquiesced to activists' demands to kill a paper—not because its conclusions were faulty but because broaching the subject is forbidden. NYJM, in particular, did something rather cowardly: The journal should either stand by the material or retract it after an investigation. Opting to simply make it disappear is a terrible move.

The Intelligencer's editor was worried that publishing the paper could prompt "right-wing media" to hype it, but killing the paper in such a censorious fashion is far more likely to attract media attention—and not just from the right-wing. Neither Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker not Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis are members of the right, yet both criticized the academic left's attempts to bury this research. Indeed, Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Buc2 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:08 am

Is it any wonder people mistrust, so-called, settled science? This type of collusion in the scientific community does nothing but feed skepticism. smh
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12005
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 985 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:26 am

Buc2 wrote:Is it any wonder people mistrust, so-called, settled science? This type of collusion in the scientific community does nothing but feed skepticism. smh

The only people who question climate change are people in the fossil fuel industry, people who think the earth is 6,000 years old, conservative political pundits, and people who worship some or all of the above.

A dispute over a paper on gender studies does not change that. The planet is still choking on its own ****.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: Random Education News

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:37 am

I'm curious why mathematical paper on a subject that already has multiple studies saying Greater Male Variability exists supposedly got this treatment when other papers did not. I'm sure it's 100% political as the author asserts and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of his paper.

muh feelings, indeed.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 163 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 13 guests