The Professor's Notes

Another interesting conversation over at Community College Dean’s blog.  He notes that here in Pennsylvania the Governor is considering having state funding for some higher ed follow the students rather than funding the state “affiliated” schools in large blocks. My brother (whom you may know is also a Dean–at a Pennsylvania university) and I have been going a few rounds on this one as well. Perhaps he and I should record one of our podcasts. That said, I wanted to address a few of the points made by Dean Dad.

First, a couple things need to be made clear. For instance, the most recognized PA “State School” (Penn State) is actually not a State School, receiving less than 4% of their funding from the state. Most other private schools are the same. In fact, the article points out that the schools Gov Corbett is considering funding through vouchers are the schools that are specifically NOT the state schools. He believes that the state schools should have institutional support.

Now, for the real “State schools” (those that are part of the Pennsylvania university system, such as Indiana U of P, Mansfield, Bloomsburg, Shippensburg, etc…) Their funding is about 30% from the state. There is already a significant distinction between these schools. That is why the governor is not willing to cut those loose. Read the rest of this entry »

Once again I am befuddled at the complete lack of ability of the local media. In this case, the Centre Daily Times in State College, PA.  In reporting crime for the past week they have two stories that just serve to literally “beg the question.”

Story 1: Alleged Kidnappers Surrender to Police.  In this story 3 men (without description) are said to have lured a 21 y.o. woman into their van and sexually assaulted her.  While the report was filed after 2 AM, there is no hint as to when the abduction and assault occurred.  Oh–and the three men apparently surrendered to police on their own.

Is anyone surprised that the comment section is rife with people challenging every aspect of the story?  Someone was lured (not abducted forcibly) into a van, and the story failed to include any description of the perpetrators.  Not their estimated ages, race, height, or even accents.  And while the report was early morning (2 AM) no indication of the time of the abduction makes things even more “sketch” as the youth today say.

I am like the rest of the more rational commenters on this story in that I believe we wait for all the facts before reaching any judgement.  But this story doesn’t help in any way.  As far as news goes, it creates more questions than it answers.  Is this something we should all be worrying about?  Was this someone that she knew? What was the “technique” used to lure a young adult into a (purple-the only retail we get) van with three men?  And what compelled these men to turn themselves in?

Make no mistake: I am not excusing bad/evil/illegal behavior.  I am saying that this reporting does nothing but feed fear without providing any useful information.

Story 2:  PSU Students cited for trespassing at pool.  This story should be well below everyone’s radar, especially the CDT, but apparently it was made “newsworthy” by the lead sentence:  ”A Penn State student convicted of being involved in November’s downtown State College riot got a citation after police said they caught him and two others at the university’s outdoor pool this past weekend.” The story goes on to say the suspect and his friends were caught inside the fenceline “‘partially clothed’ but hadn’t gone into the pool yet.”

In what world is this a news story?  I worked at several swimming pools and during the summer “fence hoppers” were a common occurrence.  Generally speaking we not only didn’t notice, but we didn’t mind, except in those instances when they felt compelled to vandalize the pool. (And keep in mind, the vandalism usually consisted of simply tossing lounge chairs into the pool.)

No–what made this story “news” is that one of the three was convicted of “being involved” in the “riot” following the firing of Coach Joe Paterno.  Really?  What is the connection?  Does being involved, and caught up in the moment last November make this action somehow more heinous?

What happened is, once again, there is “just enough” information to get the commenters on the CDT site all riled up and full of righteous indignation. They get to once again hate on the vicious criminals that burned their city down.

By the way, for those that missed it on Twitter, I have been quite incensed at the use of the term “riot” to describe much of what happens on college campuses and around the US lately.  Read up on Riots.  REAL Riots.  Riots that, in fact, were occurring simultaneously with the events on US College campuses.    In “real” Riots people die.  Property is damaged in large swaths.

What happened in State College was not a riot.  It was large gathering of students expressing their emotions, and a few, a very few, took an opportunity to commit vandalism.

But we can’t expect it to be reported that way either–since once again, it would involve too much work on the part of local media reporters.

Not trying to cause TOO much trouble here, but over at Dean Dad’s blog he was commenting (complaining?) on the many requirements for his time both professionally and personally.  One comment he makes is about his boy’s school testing “The Boy has his statewide standardized test this month — thanks, President Bush! — so the school is ramping everything up in preparation.”

I am not sure you can blame Bush or anyone in the last decade for the onslaught of standardized testing in elementary school. I remember when I was a wee lad in the late 60s and early 70s we had regular testing as well, that lasted a week or more.

These tests were known by the states from which they came, “The California Test.” “The Iowa Test.” And these tests were often used for placement  in the upcoming two years.

It seems that, with the “no child left behind” initiative the complaint really isn’t about the testing so much as holding the teachers and schools accountable for the outcomes. Perish the thought that, at the end of the day, the producers would be measured by the quality of the output!

So let’s break that particular discussion down this way:

1. Can we agree that for any job there should be a way to assess how effective an employee is at performing that job?

2. Should your promotions, or continued employment, be contingent on how well you perform your job?

3. Is the education of children important enough to make sure that those performing their task are doing it well?

If we answer yes to these (and why shouldn’t we?) the then next question, the one that really is the heart of the argument, is:

4. How can we measure the ability of the teachers (employee) to produce the desired outcome (an educated student)?

I would love to hear your thoughts on these… Please, leave your comments and “join the discussion”

An interesting thought comes out as a result of someone on another post writing “I’m so clueless as to why this is even an issue.” He was talking about the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Now, I could assume that he is “clueless” because obviously same sex marriage is wrong, or because it is “right.” But… given recent research from a self-identified liberal academic from UVA, I would predict that David is clueless because the conservative view cannot be understood. I found this research to be quite interesting. The author/professor/researcher Jon Haidt writes in his book “The Righteous Mind” that conservatives are far more likely to understand how liberals think than the other way around. Interesting, is it not?
Something else interesting–Haidt writes on his own site that ” I hardly ever get the chance to meet or talk to conservatives.” So, for those that don’t think Academia is the hotbed of liberalism, maybe we need to re-think that view. (Or, perhaps, this is more about him and a general reluctance of liberals to associate with people they “don’t understand.”)

Real Tech for Real People 110 .  This was a fun episode.   My son, Matthew (known as @Spreadhdgfx on Twitter for his graphics work) joined us to share his first thoughts on his new Samsung Note. The comments might surprise you!  Check out the rest of the show notes below… and apologies to the Senate Sergeant at Arms office, but we didn’t talk about the Senate this time, or any particular Senators… not even U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, but we encourage you to all listen to our show! Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Last night over on Facebook  we had a rather good and amicable discussion about Obama, and the trend in government to rule the people rather than be ruled by the people. I made a claim that Obama is seeking to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court. Several (correctly) pointed out that many conservatives have argued for years that the Supreme Court should not be “activist” and should not “legislate” from the bench.

The argument generally falls on the view that the Court should follow the “strict constructionist” view–that is, it is there to assess the constitutionality of laws, not create new rights or laws. And this is where Obama’s criticism, and the criticism from the right, diverge. President Obama said he was: Read the rest of this entry »

I realize I haven’t cross-posted many of our shows lately, but I wanted to let my readers know that we are up to Episode 111 at Real Tech, and I will be cross posting the past few episodes to help catch you up!  If you haven’t been listening, you can find all our episodes over at Tony’s site GetTheNext.com (or simply get there through RTFRP.com)

Episode 109 (Scroll to the bottom of the post after the break to listen): Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Another Venture into politics… This one is really REALLY heartfelt…

Here’s what scares me about Obama.  On New Years Eve he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, allows the President to authorize the indefinite detention, in secret, and without legal counsel, of US Citizens.  At the time, he expressed his concerns about the language but promised that his administration would never use it.

Then he (at the beginning of the month) started a campaign to discredit the Supreme Court, attacking them as “unelected people” who should never consider overturning a law (Obamacare) that the majority supports. (Set aside, for just a moment, the thought that he isn’t interested in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the Majority)

He is now running the campaign against Congress, working to do things without them passing laws first. This he is calling “We can’t wait.”

What do you call a President who is actively working to discredit two branches of government that are in place to control the excesses of the other two? A President who is actively working to undermine the “Checks and Balances” protections that our constitution so brilliantly enacted.   A President who has convinced the “Law makers”  to give him the authority to detain and even kill at will?

I hate to say it–but I think the word is “Dictator.”

N.B.:  Now I hope my good friend over at A liberal Dose, and the other one at Pressing the Flesh may actually agree with me on this.   We as a nation must band together. And honestly, at this point, I am beginning to think our only answer will be Ron Paul.  And if you know me, you know I don’t really like that idea all that much.  But at least he isn’t part of the corrupt system.

We talk about the lawsuit brought by the US in the most recent Real Tech for Real People, Episode 110.  While we share our thoughts on the pluses and minuses of the lawsuit, I thought it would be good to share this article from LifeHacker as well.  In this article they discuss the impact the lawsuit could have on pricing.  They write in part:

In a nutshell, this means prices on ebooks went up because the agreement with Apple made it so other sellers, like Amazon, couldn’t lower the price on ebooks.

Three of the seven publishers have already settled with the Department of Justice, but Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan rejected the offer. Now that we know the reasons behind the lawsuit, let’s see if any of this news is actually will have an effect on pricing.

Read the full article here.

Hopefully you have all seen this commercial by now.  I want you to watch it closely, and really think about what you first think (or thought) when you see it.  Does it really sell the car?

Watch the video (and read MY thoughts) after the break: Read the rest of this entry »