Saturday, June 23, 2018

Professor Tries To Give Females Better Grades For…Being Female

By Professor Doom

     It truly is astonishing how common the racism and sexism is on campus today. Oh, our leaders prattle on about diversity and equality, but it takes little effort to discover they don’t know the meanings of these words.

     In times past, they did know what the words meant…but being racists and sexists themselves, they made sure to advance racist and sexist policies in a covert way. So, there was no written policy about hiring, but you better believe most (probably every) campus in this country gave priority hiring to females and “protected minorities” as they were called. I don’t make this claim lightly, as every hiring committee I’ve been on used the gender or race of the applicant as part of the decision making process, stinking “equal opportunity employer” notices be damned. We’d put the equal opportunity notice in writing to be sure, but there were many unwritten policies we used.

      It was all done with a wink and a nod in the past, but bottom line today’s administrators and faculty aren’t nearly so clever as before, and certainly not clever enough to do things with a wink and a nod. So, now we have documented job applications for physicists or university admin which are clearly racist and/or sexist (particularly against whites),  even math faculty positions requiring specific political views (social justice warriors only).

     Now, obviously, this behavior is still wrong, and eventually someone in admin with half a brain shows up (takes a while) and points that you can’t be so blatant, and knows that you can’t make such behavior as written policy. It’s all wink and a nod, you know.

      Time and again we get to see this stuff in writing, particularly racist stuff, but today we’ll focus on the blatant, and very common, sexism on campus:

     Isn’t it interesting how this stuff never seems to hit the mainstream news? Anyway, let’s see what prompted the professor to set up a sexist grading policy:

…he wanted to “test the water” to see if this approach could “attract female students into future classes” and help correct chronic gender imbalances in his field…

     It’s only one sentence, but it says much about the madness infecting higher ed right now.

     First, this “test the water” thing. I’ve been forced to listen to, and adopt, so many cockamamie, clearly stupid ideas that I actually see the professor’s thinking here. Most of these ideas are so obviously bad, so lacking anything to do with education, that absolutely, “screw it, let’s just give higher grades to the females” makes sense in this context. I mean, it’s not like integrity or decency ever seems to get in the way of ideas, time and again I’ve seen admin propose new policies which could only come from a depraved mind.

      Second, the “attract female students” thing. Again, I’ve been bombarded time and again with programs to attract female students, and, again, never has integrity been a factor in any of those programs. So, again, I see the professor’s point: “let’s just flat out promise females better grades” seems like perfectly good bribery, little different than, say, a missionary murdering all the adults in a village just so he can claim credit for taking care of many orphans. Honest, higher ed is just that messed up now that this sort of deranged thinking is consistent with other ideas in higher ed.

      Finally, the “chronic gender imbalances” thing. Again, this concept was hammered into my skull many times when I was at questionable schools. I couldn’t ask questions there, but this is my blog, so I will ask three obvious questions: “Who says the imbalance is a bad thing?,” “Why will the world be a better place if we change the imbalance?,” and “Do we have any evidence what balance would be optimal, so that we can even say there’s an imbalance now?” These questions are never, ever, asked in higher ed, or if they are you can’t hear them over the endless shouting to fix the gender imbalance.

     What kind of imbalance are we looking at here, anyway?

 …classes have “one or two female students” on average in a class of 20 to 30, and they are “not doing well,” he told The Fix in an email. These women will probably have to “repeat the courses or leave the program” without a grade boost…

      It always turned my stomach when admin would heap praise upon some faculty for “successfully passing” (I still hear the voice saying that abominable phrase in my head) some female or protected minority. Truth be told, I’d sometimes get that praise as well; it still turned my stomach. I passed, and pass, students because they demonstrate they understand the material, their genitals or skin color have nothing to do with it, not that admin sees much beyond race and gender.

       Of course, I’m not a racist or sexist like your typical college administrator, so they saw nothing offensive about praising me for passing people of certain races or genders. But I always felt uncomfortable with such praise, and am grateful to no longer be at a place where I must be subjected to it.

      To the school’s credit, they stepped in and stopped the professor from overtly giving female students better grades just for being female:

…the University of Akron “follows both the law and its policies and does not discriminate on the basis of sex,” and that Liu “has been advised accordingly, and he has reaffirmed his commitment to adhering to these strict standards.”

      So, yes, in writing, the university here will follow the law but…the professor’s policy didn’t happen in a vacuum. He didn’t wake up one day and say “We need for females passing my courses and this must be done in any way possible, integrity is not a factor here.” He got a memo with that directive.

       I assure the gentle reader, the professor was told many times how important it was to get more females in his classes. He was also told many times how important it was that females get better grades in classes. He saw with his own eyes that academic integrity was of no concern to how any administrative policy could be fulfilled.

       He saw it so often that, much like my examples in the beginning of the article, he was under the impression that sexism favoring females was perfectly legal, possibly even moral, and so he adopted the kind of policy admin was telling him to adopt.

      His mistake was putting that policy in writing. But, I’m sure now that admin has spoken (not written!) to him, he’ll do that sort of thing with a wink a nod.

      Because that’s how it’s been done in higher ed for decades now.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Campus Hiring Bias: 78% of Departments have ZERO Republicans

By Professor Doom

     The whole point of a university is to include the entire universe of ideas. It seems noble enough, but what happens when you allow people in whose ideas don’t allow any other ideas in? The seed for the takeover was planted decades ago when it was decided letting such people in was nevertheless part of the university mission.

     Eventually, you get a lockdown. It’s not a fast process, mind you, but as these people with exclusionary ideas put their chokehold on campus, it accelerates. Past a certain point (namely, control of the hiring committees), the only people who can become faculty must hold those ideas, and nothing else.

      And so it is that we now have campuses drowning in ideology, more importantly, drowning in exactly one ideology. How bad is it?

     How clear is it that there must be bias in the hiring process at these schools? Our schools scream about how much they want diversity…but as far as hiring goes, there is to be no diversity in political views. It is worth noting that even at the schools which may have some Republicans…they’re pretty rare.

      Looking at the statistics further, we get more interesting details, but first let us consider the data set:

Langbert sampled 8,688 tenure track Ph.D.-holding professors from the top 51 liberal arts schools, …used only full-time, tenure track faculty (full, associate, or assistant professors) and excluded all part-time professors (adjunct, visiting, and emeritus).

     They removed all the adjuncts and temp workers from the data, for good reason. The majority of college professors are adjuncts today, with minimal pay and no benefits. You can spend a decade or more as an adjunct, and if you make any waves (and God forbid you have a pro-Trump bumper sticker…), you’re gone. These poor adjuncts aren’t about to interrupt the ideological narrative being instilled in the students, so it’s fair to look at just the full-time tenure track faculty.

     He also excluded 101 professors—a little more than one percent of the total sample
—from the analysis, because they were registered as members of minor parties (cue big-L libertarian weeping).

      Our “two party” system is ridiculously corrupted at this point. My entire life it seems my only choices from the two big parties in a Presidential election are either the candidate for “massive debts, huge social programs, and endless war” or the candidate for “massive debts, endless war, and huge social programs.” There are other parties, and allow me to at least mention the Libertarian party, which thinks you should be allowed to keep your money, believes it’s far better for you to take care of yourself, and understands that murder is bad—basically diametrically opposed in every way to the only two parties you can realistically choose from in any election.

     Throwing out these “weird” third parties from the study is a little unfair but, seeing as that’s how alternative political parties are treated everywhere else, I guess I’ll overlook it here.

      While there is a definite Democrat bias on campus, there are some exceptions in certain departments:

…the hard sciences—engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics—had more even ratios of Democrats to Republicans…

     It’s “almost” curious that Republicans are often described as Bible-thumping, science-denying ignorant rubes, while the data from our campuses indicates that if you’re in a discipline which requires scientific thought and respects empirical evidence, you’re vastly more likely to be Republican. I put the “almost” in quotes because those offensive descriptions of Republicans are being provided by the media…which in turn is predominantly Democrat (incidentally, there are many hysterical videos on YouTube watching these media guys lose their minds at the outcome of the last Presidential election, and I encourage the gentle reader to watch a few, to see just how strong the bias evidently is).

     What departments are heaviest with the Democrats?

 …sociology, english, religion, and anthropology. Communications ranked highest in terms of ideological homogeneity skewed toward the left.

     Hmm, a few of those departments have the reputation of being academic slums. I’m rather surprised Education isn’t here, but the study is focusing on the higher tier schools, which probably don’t have Education departments.

…could not find a single Republican with an "exclusive appointment" to gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies.

--and yet somehow Communications was most skewed? The article doesn’t explain the contradictions here.

   I’ve never even heard of “peace studies.” In any event, we clearly are seeing a trend as far as the most disreputable departments also being the most filled with Democrats. It’s funny, our metropolitan areas most controlled by Democrats also have a vile reputation. Hmm.

      Now there are some small schools with a number of Republican faculty, but they tend to be religious or military schools. You can’t shout “ah ha!” here, because while it’s trivial to find schools which are exclusively Democrat schools, there are no schools with exclusively Republican faculty. It’s almost as though one side actually believes in diversity, while the other only uses it as a tool to grab power.

       Overall, the bottom line is a student can easily go his entire college education without exposure to any non-Democrat ideas:

…around 78 percent of departments did not contain a single full-time professor who identifies as Republican.

      Now, higher ed is already making holding certain political views part of the job requirement for faculty, even to teach mathematics. It’s safe to say that these departments with “perfect” Democrat representation are going to be that way forever more. Meanwhile, the departments which allow Democrats in are clearly endangered, because, sooner or later, there will be a Democrat lockdown, and then it’s all over for them.

     As I’ve said before, once a school becomes converged, controlled by this particular set of political beliefs, the only quick solution is bulldozers. This solution is not on the table, of course, and so instead these schools will die a slow death, as they invariably get a reputation for race riots and, more importantly, extreme indoctrination at the expense of all education. People don’t want to go to such schools, much less go deep into debt for the privilege of doing so.

       Will these schools take all of higher education down with them? I hope not, but at this point I can’t be certain.


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.