Sunday, June 17, 2018

“4 Year” Community Colleges Highlight Administrative Incompetence

By Professor Doom

     Soaring tuition costs are forcing people to reconsider going to university, but we still have this ingrained belief that you need a “4 year degree” to get a good job.

      Community colleges, the “cheapo” option of higher education, are starting to satisfy this need. Hey, I’m all for lower tuition, so I should be for this even though I’m justifiably quite hard on community colleges. Heck, if some clown offered 4 year degrees out of his garage I’d be ok with giving him a fair shake, but the government has something of a chokehold on how degrees are granted, so that’s not an option, alas.

      Now we have community colleges in many states granting 4 year degrees. While this does somewhat make one wonder why bother with universities, the responses to this new phenomenon really highlight just how incompetent our “leaders” in higher education are:
·         RSS

     What kind of degrees are being offered now at a CC? The above article cites an example:

Starting in fall 2019, students at Ohio’s Sinclair Community College will be able to enroll in a four-year degree program in unmanned aerial systems…

     Hey that sounds nice, until you realize that “unmanned aerial systems” means “drones.” This new technology is pretty amazing. I can absolutely see someone studying 4 years to learn how to make these tiny flying machines. Is that what they learn here?

They’ll learn mission planning, maintenance, laws, data analytics and more.

      None of that sounds like their students will learn how to build drones. That’s a shame. Instead, they’ll learn how to operate them.

      Um…they sell these things in stores. The laws are covered on an insert in the box, a quarter page of text, as are maintenance instructions. Seriously, everything you could need to know about maintenance you can master in a few hours at most. “Mission planning”? C’mon now, even the most advanced military drones don’t require years of training to figure out how to plan a mission.

      Does this even remotely sound like enough material to require 4 YEARS of training? I know, there’s an “and more” there, but I just don’t understand why it didn’t occur to the admin at the CC that they could fill all this material into a 3 month course and probably have 11 weeks left over. You can join the military and be flying and maintaining the most advanced drones on the planet in less than 4 years, after all.

     Bottom line, it’s clear they’re just taking some fad people will sign up for, and slapped together a program stretched out to maximize the revenue from the student loans.

      A nearby university offers something more involved:

Just up the road, Youngstown State University offers a somewhat similar four-year degree, in mechanical engineering technology — but tuition there is double Sinclair’s.

     I rather suspect the graduates of the engineering program know quite a bit more than how to fly a drone anyone can buy for a few bucks. It really is striking that community college couldn’t strip out the harder material, just offer a 2 year program in drone operation, and call it a day.

      Our leaders in higher education have Ph.D.’s in “Leadership Curriculum” and other strange fields…it seems like they could have come up with something better than the university, instead of just changing the words around, hacking off the hard material, and lowering the price.

     Halving the price while stripping the content, while still taking just as many years, doesn’t strike me as much of an achievement. Simply lowering the price by half under these circumstances just doesn’t cut it.

     Other places do better with different 4 year degrees:

…will have spent about $2,000 a year to go to the community college. Tuition and fees at Loma Linda cost more than $33,000 a year, according to College Factual, a website that tracks college costs…

     That said, a 90% reduction in price, while an extreme example, illustrates that there really is room for improvement in our “4 year degree” programs already on offer at universities.

  In California, 15 community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in health and technology subjects such as biomanufacturing and health information management. In Georgia, students at two-year schools can get their bachelor’s in nonprofit management and respiratory therapy.

One California student, Elvia Esquer, is a mother of two college-age children who has worked as a medical coder for 22 years near her home in San Diego. She is going to a community college, San Diego Mesa College, to get her bachelor’s in health information management. 

     Perhaps I’m just picking on the Ohio CC, as it’s clear other community colleges are offering 4 year programs on topics more advanced than what an interested hobbyist can learn in an afternoon.

      Now, universities aren’t happy at all with this muscling in on their territory, but listening to their shrill protestations really highlights what higher education today is all about:

“We live in a state with limited resources for higher education,” Youngstown State’s provost, Martin Abraham, said. “We’re continuously cutting back — not increasing funding — for higher ed. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to set up a competing system for the same set of funds.”

--hey, at least his title isn’t twice as long as his name, that’s quite the rarity.

      Wow, they’re continuously cutting back? How did student loan debt get to over 1.5 trillion dollars, then? Why is tuition perpetually rising? Why does nobody else ask these questions when this Provost spouts these talking points?

“There’s a reason the tuition structure is different at a four-year university versus a two-year university,” Abraham said. For example, he said, Youngstown State’s career fair attracts 70 companies to campus every year...

      Aren’t the schools in the same state supposed to be on the same team, with a shared mission of educating the state’s citizens to create a more powerful state? That’s what they say, but it’s clear the provost doesn’t believe any of this, instead he sees a problem with an upstart competitor who can offer the same product for much less.

      If this supposed educator was really on a mission to help people in his state, he’d invite the community college graduates to the job fair as well, right? The state schools really are on the same team and should help each other out, and providing employers with more candidates would be a plus as well. But the provost sees none of this, and only fears a competitor endangering his (overpriced) monopoly.

      I assure the gentle reader, this provost isn’t the only admin in higher ed so incompetent he has no idea what his job actually is.

      He continues his display of total confusion:

 “That’s economy of scale. It drives up the cost of our education,…

      (pause for laughter)

      I can’t make this stuff up. Our leaders in higher education honestly think “economy of scale” means the price per unit should go higher as you increase in size. This is the kind of idiocy you learn when you get an administrative Ph.D.

     To illustrate my point that this provost isn’t alone in his total confusion, the article quotes another utterly clueless leader:

And C. Todd Jones, president and general counsel of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio, said the argument that baccalaureate degrees are unaffordable is a “red herring.”

"Financial assistance makes degrees affordable, particularly for low-income individuals in our state," he said. There's no reason in terms of costs for creating a community college baccalaureate degree, he said.

     How do you even find someone this ignorant to be president of an administrative association? Seriously, anyone with even vague knowledge of higher ed knows student loan debt is insane right now, that “financial assistance” is mostly a trap into perpetual debt servitude, especially for low income individuals.

      This dude actually thinks there’s “no reason in terms of costs”? Again, I couldn’t imagine this level of stupidity if I tried. If community colleges can offer the same thing for half the price, this in and of itself is a reason. What’s *wrong* with our system that it chooses leaders who can’t understand this basic idea?

      The gentle reader should keep this in mind when he sees another tuition increase, because our education system really is ruled by people who think “we’re bigger, so it’s economical to cost more” and “customers see no benefit to having a lower price.”

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Penn State Responds To Pedophilic Showers By Banning…Hiking.

By Professor Doom

Editor: “We’re cancelling your column.”

Me: “Why? I thought it was very popular, to judge by reader’s comments.”

Editor: “Oh it is, and we like it quite a bit, too. But we’re worried that you won’t be able to continue to be as good, so we’re ending it before that happens. Sorry.”

--Back when I wrote for magazines, back when there were magazines, this is how I lost one of my side jobs.

     The corporate mentality is incredibly risk-averse once the corporation reaches a certain size. It’s often a self-destructive trait, as a willingness to take risks often was the main reason the company achieved that size in the first place. Nevertheless, once a business gets large enough to support a middle management, those guys do whatever they can to make sure nothing happens to shrink the company back down to the point they don’t need middle managers any more.

     In any event, this risk aversion is a core value of our largest corporations, leading to far more sequels than new ideas in our movies, for example, and it seems every few years we see another large company simply obliterated because it failed to take even a small risk by way of adapting to possible changes in the world (hi Blockbuster!).

      Stumbling over to higher education, our administrative caste is filled with people trying to adopt the corporate mentality. Not just in the “innovative” student-as-customer paradigm or endless self-promotion to get more student loan loot, but also in shutting down anything that might bring risk to campus, especially in a way administration can’t control or profit from.

       A recent example highlights this mentality:

Penn State Lets Students Keep Their Scuba Club, But Only After They Swear Never to Host Scuba Trips Again

      So, you can join the campus scuba club…but only if you don’t actually scuba. It’s so weird; I’ve seen fraternities disbanded over a single hazing incident gone wrong, and we’ve seen plenty of horrific injuries (and vicious criminal behavior) regarding sportsball players without the teams being shut down. Surely there was some huge accident slaughtering dozens of scuba aficionados, to justify this action?

No one at Pennsylvania State University has ever drowned on a scuba-diving trip,club has existed for 50 years and has never had a safety issue.

     So, nothing has actually happened in decades of operation, admin is simply afraid something might happen at some point, and then possibly an administrator might lose her job.

      The club can still meet, mind you, but no more trips for them. Well, to clarify:

Penn State's recreation department has promised to organize scuba trips on behalf of interested students. These trips would happen under administrative supervision.

     Wait…what? Administrative thinking is just so weird. We’re supposed to accept that students are responsible enough to check a box damning them to a lifetime of student debt, but can’t organize scuba trips, not even with a 50 year track record of being able to successfully do so?

      Why do our campuses even have “recreation” departments, anyway? Clearly they mainly exist simply to justify yet another administrative fiefdom, ever eager to expand its own power regardless of how it impacts anything else.

      You can bet the administratively organized trips will be laughable—scuba diving in swimming pools, perhaps, and certainly nothing more than 6 feet deep (if that much) in any event.

      It is actually pretty generous of the university deanlings to even allow students to get together and discuss this risky behavior all by themselves. Other “dangerous” clubs are being disbanded entirely:

Penn State recently decreed that three student-led outdoor adventure groups—the hiking club, the cave exploration club, and the scuba club—would have to disband due to safety liability concerns, even though none of the long-running clubs had ever reported a problem. 

      The hiking club? Seriously? This university is admitting students so reckless that they cannot be trusted to walk without administrative supervision? It’d be easier to believe the university’s concerns as legitimate if, you know, there had been an actual problem.

      I feel the need to point out that Satanists can form clubs on campus, and there are even “After School Satan” meetings at grade schools…but hikers can’t form a club. Too risky, you see. Something might go wrong.

     We really, really, need to ask ourselves if the “leadership” in higher education  belongs on campus.

      In any event, the scuba club had to beg permission to still exist on this campus, which was generously granted provided they didn’t actually do any scuba diving on their own. I suppose the other clubs had too much pride to grovel before these self-proclaimed masters of the universe, and kudos to them.

       I remind the gentle reader that this is happening at Penn State, notorious for “after school” activities going on in the showers…to date, those showers are still there, and there’s no interest in shutting down showering on campus, even though there’s a clear liability issue.

      The comments section righteously laughs at this administrative push for more control and one comment highlights a possibly more important issue than simple risk aversion:

it is all about Penn State's Adventure Recreation office charging students money for trips that they used to do for free. The Scuba Club had a sizable endowment and could pay for trips for their members. Now the members must pay Penn State.

      I concede there’s some truth in the above, but the way how funding and pay is handled on campus is so bizarre nowadays. The administrator who changed these clubs so that the members will end up paying hundreds of dollars to Penn State to “organize” things they used to do all on their own, will probably get a $20,000 pay raise for his “bold” plan to increase revenues.

      While the above is my primary explanation for this particular bizarre behavior by our leaders at Penn State, I do concede another possibility: lowering insurance premiums. I hate to keep referencing what went (goes?) on in the showers at Penn State, but I suspect their insurance company, upon finding out just how severe the corruption is there, and rightfully suspecting the place still has many pedophiles leading to future lawsuits, decided to raise their premiums. While I’m no fan of insurance companies, I see their point here, as they set their original premiums assuming, as the university puts in writing, that the university will act with integrity. Now that it’s common knowledge that Penn State doesn’t act with integrity, the risks for lawsuits are far higher. So, shutting down these “risky” student organizations is a means to lowering those premiums.

      And so I puzzle over the reasoning behind yet another strange plan by the leaders in higher ed. Meanwhile, bold plans to improve education and restore integrity to higher education are still non-existent, and will likely continue to be so. Such a plan would risk losing all those sweet student loan checks, after all.


Monday, June 11, 2018

Wyoming Best Practices: Destroy Higher Ed

By Professor Doom

     A few years back, I called attention to changes to the way how higher education in Wisconsin was being run. Namely, they were introducing new rules which potentially could eliminate tenure, annihilate academics, and reorganize higher education into a jobs training program. Naturally, the politicos making the changes said that the “potential” was just pure paranoia, that academics had nothing to fear from the new rules, which would just allow for better education, somehow.

      Three years later, Wisconsin went ahead and used the new rules to eliminate tenure, annihilate academics, and reorganize higher education into jobs training.

       Now, I’ve nothing against jobs training, and if you’re going to spend $100,000 on “education,” you absolutely should get educated in something which justifies that sort of expense (especially if you’re taking out a loan). Trouble is, the people running higher ed degraded education, far too often, instilling indoctrination over education. The only thing that slowed down this degradation was the academics…with them removed, why would anyone think the jobs training will be legitimate?

      “Legitimacy” is seldom discussed in higher ed. “Best practices,” on the other hand, is. Time and again I’ve seen it: some Poo Bah finds a new way to loot student loan money away from the poor kids stumbling onto campus, and then other schools use “best practices” to do the same thing…ethics, much less legitimacy, isn’t part of the decision making process.

        Now that Wisconsin has established that even “lifelong” contracts can be casually changed at a whim, it was only a matter of time, in this case weeks, for other places to adopt these “best practices”:

Proposed changes to shared governance at the University of Wyoming recall those passed in Wisconsin. Professors in Wyoming say tenure would exist in name only if their governing board gets what it wants.

      Maybe the professors “say” that because it’s true? Naturally, faculty are generally against this. For what it’s worth, faculty aren’t much for protesting. Yes, we teach quite a bit, but we also do our research in the summer, and that usually requires travel. Still, we’ll protest the destruction of our jobs if we can.

      Gosh, what would be the best way to keep faculty protests to a minimum?

 “…the new planned board vote in July -- when far fewer faculty members will be on campus or even in the state.”

     One of the reasons “best practices” is considered a good way to do things is because it does make sense to simply copy ideas and actions which have been used successfully before. It’s the same thing with skullduggery, alas.

     It’s very clear Wyoming will be following Wisconsin’s lead:

“…that university regulations may be “adopted, changed or amended at any regular or special meeting of the trustees without prior formal notice.”

      So, they can just change the rules whenever they feel like it, and they can do so without anyone even knowing what’s going on. Yeah, there’s “potential” there for higher education to be simply stripped down to nothing but what the plunderers at the top want it to be. Why is it such a stretch to think the plunderers will take this opportunity to engage in more plunder?

“…such a change effectively means “the end of shared governance. Without even consulting the faculty, they could do whatever they wanted -- with no prior notice, even on a phone call, at any time.”

       Again, I point out the only thing that’s kept even a minimal amount of education in our universities is the tenured faculty, who are in a position to fight hard to keep some respectability there. At the community college level, tenure doesn’t exist, which is why you can commonly find 3rd grade material being taught there, assuming the classes have any material at all.

“All efforts would be made to preserve full-time faculty positions, but they wouldn't be guaranteed.”

     Yeah…anyone who thinks anything less than a guarantee is worth much is a fool. Granted, even a guarantee isn’t worth much anymore, since the previous rules were guaranteed, with the only caveat being that they might be changed later, under certain restrictions. They’re changing the rules, and eliminating the restrictions on further changes, and it’s that elimination which ultimately will result in the mass destruction of higher ed.

     I grant that right now it’s all being “discussed,” but hey, it’s my blog. I’ll discuss it again in a few years (or less) when it all becomes reality.

Friday, June 8, 2018

The Computer Scientist “Shortage”

By Professor Doom

     Although there is a Ph.D. glut for much of higher education, there is one field where there’s something of a shortage: computer science.  A recent article on Inside Higher Ed highlights the immense cluelessness of the “leaders” which led to this situation, although the author of the article seems to miss this detail:

Computer science students on a number of campuses complain that their departments can't meet demand. 

  Many campuses have responded to this shortage by simply closing down their computer science departments, or greatly reducing course offerings so they can’t meet student demand. It’s a strange response, considering our schools otherwise bend over backwards to satisfy student demands, whether it be installing crying closets, building climbing walls and lazy rivers, providing puppies and Play Doh for stressed students…or a host of other silly things.

      But those things all merely require spending a bit of money, as opposed to providing job skills. Doing the actual work of building and keeping a department full of computer science scholars? No way, better to just close it all down, student and job market demands are irrelevant next to the idea of our admins doing work.

Students at Harvey Mudd and Pomona Collegesalso recently have expressed public frustration with what they describe as inadequate administrative responses to the growth of their computer science departments.

      Keep in mind, this shortage has been around for years, and the shortage, such as it is, is simply student demand has risen sharply for this field, while faculty positions have remained flat. The only things that have increased are administrative positions, but none of these very highly paid leaders could see this coming, could make any decisions to change things twenty years ago when it started happening, so that we wouldn’t be at this point today.

Then there is relatively low entry into academe among those computer scientists who do obtain doctorates: just 29 percent, including nonteaching jobs, due to their ability to earn up to five times more in industry on average, according to some estimates.

      So…let’s take a look at this problem. The current advertisement for this faculty position is the following:

 “We’ll pay you 20% of the market salary, and give you a job where you’ll report to a dozen bosses making 5 times as much as you but knowing 5% as much as you, at best. When class sizes get larger increasing your work load, they’ll make even more, but your pay will not change, ever. You’ll have minimal job security, and we’ll replace you just as soon as you train someone who will work for less, or simply fire you without recourse for any number of ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with your job. Also, there will be mandatory ideological indoctrination.”

     Could this job description be a factor in why Ph.D.’s in this field tend to flee academia? How is it that our leaders in higher ed complain about the shortage rather than actually address why there’s a shortage?

     Ok, I grant that the ideological indoctrination happens in the tech world often enough (Hi Google! Say, does anyone else worry about their tag line of “Don’t be evil”? If I saw a guy walking around mumbling “don’t rape children,” I’d rather worry he’d done something bad to a child. But Google goes around reminding itself to not be evil…), but the above is the job description for a computer science faculty member on most campuses today, and is almost certainly a reason they’ve avoiding campus.

      Now, money is a great equalizer, so if higher ed wanted to fix the shortage, they could just, you know, offer appropriate pay. Too bad faculty pay hasn’t risen anywhere near as much as tuition or administrative pay. To judge by the endless multimillion dollar golden parachutes being awarded in higher ed, the money really is there for an extra $100,000 a year. That’s still much less money than you’ll spend on yet another Vice President of Diversity.

Stanford…the department has lost twice as many faculty members to other opportunities in the last decade as it has in the previous 40 years.

     Even when people come in to serve as faculty, they take a good look at the job situation and say “no.” They leave, and you can bet they don’t come back if they have any choice in the matter. If a job at a top school like Stanford isn’t good enough, maybe admin could ask themselves some questions about what they’ve done to make working conditions in higher ed so vile?

A computer science professor involved in hiring at a liberal arts college who did not want to be identified by name or institution…

     Speaking of working conditions, maybe the culture of fear could be a factor here? I’ve cited dozens of faculty in higher ed who are willing to point out problems in higher ed, provided they’re anonymous—they’re afraid of retaliation from our out-of-control administrative caste. Here we have a computer science professor, and despite the situation in computer science, he’s still terrified to speak openly.

      Really, maybe the working conditions in higher ed right now are a factor.

“In years past, we’ve had hundreds of applications; now it’s tens of applications for a tenure-track job,” 

      Wait. “Tens” of applications? So they can fill the positions, they just don’t have the massive glut like for other subjects. The issue isn’t really lack of supply, then, it’s that our administration of higher ed has simply failed to account for the growth, failed to use their highly self-touted and even more highly self-rewarded “leadership” to open up new faculty positions. Toss in working conditions which cause prospective faculty to eagerly leave even our top schools in favor of anything else, and yes, we have a bit of a problem.

     Ten faculty are enough for a decent department, so any school getting “tens” of applications could fill a department in short order. Trouble is, they’ll come in, realize the working conditions are ridiculous, and leave, and then admin would have to hire a new crew all over again. Admin have no time for that, it would cut into shopping for more lakefront property for themselves.

       The real shortage we have here? We don’t have enough (more likely, any) “leaders” in higher ed willing to do the work of building a department, or creating a less hostile work environment so that people with a choice would stay on campus as opposed to any other job option.

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Another Uni Sex Scandal, With Resignations and $Multimillion Parachutes

By Professor Doom

     One of the most infuriating things about higher education is how, when the people at the top are exposed, there are no criminal charges, and they get huge bonuses, even when they resign their positions. Time and again we hand millions over to these “leaders” in higher education, and this situation is so common that it barely makes the news anymore…but I feel the need to highlight it all the same.

--yep, that Ken Starr. It’s weird how political lawyers end up as Poo Bahs.

      Baylor is a decent enough sized university, with some 17,000 students and a billion dollar endowment. I doubt most readers have even heard of it, beyond their football program. Football is something of a blight on higher education for many reasons, not least of which is it’s often responsible for academic and sex scandals. Football also sucks up huge amounts of that student loan money despite football having little impact on anyone’s education, but today it’s about the sex scandals.

      The coach (Art Briles) and Starr didn’t really participate in the scandal directly, which involved sexual assaults by football players. The scandal mostly involved a serial rapist on the football team, with enough victims to generate a 20 year prison sentence, as well as a few other players engaging in rape. Horrible, of course, but let’s talk about the scandal leading to the resignations of the Poo Bah and end of the coach of the university.

      I’ll say it again later, but I want to emphasize: they lost their jobs under a huge cloud. This netted them nearly 20 million dollars in golden parachute money. Ken Starr actually resigned, quit the position, and still received $4.5 million for his role in the scandal. By all means, if any of my gentle readers know of any other jobs where you can quit and receive millions of dollars for doing so, please use the contact form to let me know how I can apply for it so I can change careers immediately. You needn’t worry I’ll hold the position long, of course.

      So how were these “leaders” involved in the scandal? Well, quirks in our laws allow universities considerable leeway in how to investigate allegations of criminal behavior, at least if they happen on campus. So, when the coach and Poo Bah were presented with the knowledge of a football player raping kids on their campus, they did what any responsible leader in higher education, the best we can find to judge by their pay, would do: they covered it up and protected the football player. There’s no reason to let a raped female negatively impact the team’s record, after all.

     In a report released by Sue Ambrose and David Tarrant of the Dallas Morning News, some within the Baylor community criticize Starr for being silent about rape and sexual offenses on school grounds and for how the school puts football above crime victims.

      The allegations of cover-up go on for years, and I’ve only included a snippet above…interested readers can see a timeline here, but there’s enough of a pattern over a long enough period of time that it’s hard to believe the coach and Poo Bah didn’t know what was going on and thus had no reason to take steps to protect their other students at least a little from the kind of people they had on their football team.

      Well, one more snippet from this extensive timeline:

…who sent messages attacking Tracy.[101] The same day, Randy Cross, a College Football Hall of Fame inductee, voices his disgust for the scandal. He said, "I thought (the NCAA) should have stepped in (and punished Baylor for the sexual-assault scandal). I thought Art Briles should have gotten a show-cause. This whole idea that he can be back in coaching, I think, is an embarrassment. It’s not only that; it’s a travesty to those 17 women that have accused these kids of doing what they did."[102]

     Hey, I get that some people really love their college football, and that this is the justification our leaders use for covering up crime by the football players…but honest, higher education isn’t supposed to be about protecting rapists and thugs. Our leaders think differently, of course.

      All the leaders in higher education care about is getting the money, the huge sums of money from the student loan scam being a primary source. Only accredited schools can get that money, and so perhaps the accreditor can step in here and say “look, protecting rapists and thugs on your campus should be discouraged, and so we’ll do something about that.” Any luck with that?

Accrediting committee recommends no punishment for Baylor over sexual assault scandal

    The reader might find this shocking, but there are no prescribed penalties for violating any aspect of accreditation. My blog has highlighted this time and again, of course, but bottom line this is why our leaders honestly don’t care about protecting rapists and thugs on their campus. Accreditation doesn’t care, they just want the checks, too.

Briles apologizes for his part in the school’s scandal, saying "I made mistakes. I did wrong, but I'm not doing this trying to make myself feel better for apologizing. I understand I made some mistakes. There was some bad things that went on under my watch. I was the captain of this ship. The captain of the ship goes down with it." [81]
----to clarify, he means “the captain of the ship goes down with a huge golden parachute,” at the risk of mixing metaphors for the sake of honesty.

     Now, to be fair, the coach’s $15 million payout wasn’t due to a resignation, it was to cover the rest of his contract. One might hope that there’s a “for cause” clause in that contract, however. We really, really, need to ask why “the best” people in higher education aren’t smart enough to put prudent clauses in their contracts so they can fire people for protecting thugs and rapists, without awarding millions of dollars like this.

“…part of widespread leadership changes at Baylor following the scandal. Board of Regents chair Richard Willis said in the May 2016 announcement the school was "horrified" by findings from an independent review handled by the Law Firm of Pepper Hamilton…”

--the review has, so far, not been released to the public. Of course.

     We need to understand there’s a whole infrastructure, a completely corrupted infrastructure, which is allowing these sorts of scandals to be everyday events on campus, to take place over a decade or more before any of it comes to light. This isn’t just about the head coach and the Poo Bah, any more than it’s about “a few bad apples” on the football team.

      Make all the leadership changes you want, as long as they’re paid millions for covering up horrible crimes, it won’t make any difference as to what the leaders will do when confronted with horrible crimes.

Grobe…states that Baylor’s issues are common to every school.

--Grobe is another football coach at Baylor.

      Moreover, we need to understand that as long as the people at the top are not penalized, are actually rewarded with millions of dollars for covering up the scandal, and would get absolutely nothing for ripping out the corrupted infrastructure, these scandals will happen, and as the coach hints at above, are almost certainly in progress at many other schools.

      In the meantime, perhaps we could stop the student loan money going to at least the football schools? I mean, if football really is so important that rape is acceptable behavior, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind giving up all that money…