Second, most of the expense is entitlement programs, not defense, education, or any of the other line items that most budget crusaders normally howl about.
Third, as horrifying as these charts are, they don’t even show the trends of these two pies: The “expense” pie is growing like gangbusters, driven by the explosive growth of the entitlement programs that no one in government even has the balls to talk about. “Revenue” is barely growing at all.
Well, crap. They also have the entire report here.
Well now. This is interesting. Though right now they’re not looking at the content of profiles when they go recruiting, if anyone in the admissions chain sees something objectionable, that impression will stick with them for the rest of the process. I mean, what if you wind up doing a phone interview, or an in person one and the admissions officer you meet with was the one who found you on facebook to recruit?
Recruiters aren’t the only ones looking at candidates’ Facebook profiles. Four out of every five college admissions offices use the social network to recruit students.
That statistic comes from Kaplan Test Prep’s 2010 survey of college admissions officers. And like the company’s Senior Communication Manager Russel Schaffer clarified in an email, “we found that 82% of admissions officers reported that their school is using Facebook to recruit students.”
That doesn’t mean that the content of a Facebook profile factors into decisions on whether to admit students, but we suspect that the more competitive institutions might pay more attention to applicants’ social media presences. Other schools might simply look online to find students and encourage them to apply.
But is this even a problem? Do conservatives have a right to a place in academia? There are three potential arguments for why it’s a problem. One if the harm it does to conservatives. But the others are the harm it does to academia, and to the rest of us. I think the latter are by far the bigger problems. Not to trivialize the conundrum faced by conservatives who want to be professors … but it’s not like they’re ending up as longshoremen. The other two problems are much more broadly harmful. Excluding conservatives means that academia is losing the trust of the more conservative members of society. Academics are incredulous and angry about this—the way that many whites are when they hear rumors are spreading in the black community that AIDS was deliberately created and released by the government to destroy them. But the mistrust of the government in the black community is not crazy—not after things like the Tuskeegee Syphilis experiment. Nor is it crazy to think that academia wields its prestige like a club against conservative ideas—or even conservatives themselves, as with the steady stream of studies that characterize conservatives as authoritarian, less open to experience, and so forth. Conservatives point out that the questions are more than occasionally loaded, and the studies are done on psychology students, an overwhelmingly liberal group whose few conservatives may not look much like conservatives in the wild. Yet the academics in question more than occasionally participate in the denigrating connotations this information is given in the media. Which hints at the other problem with excluding conservatives: it makes scholarship worse. Unless we assume what to many liberals is “proven” by their predominance in academia—that conservative ideas have no merit—leaving conservatives out means that important viewpoints are excluded. We are never the best interrogators of our ideas. It requires motivated critics to lay bare our hidden assumptions, our misreading of the data, our factual inaccuracies. No matter how scrupulously honest you try to be, you are no substitute for an irritated opponent thinking, “That can’t possibly be right!” If you build a group with the same assumptions, you can all too easily go wrong.
“A Joke About Mathematicians
A physicist, a biologist, and a mathematician are sitting in a street café watching people entering and leaving the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people entering the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three people leaving the house. The physicist says, “The measurement wasn’t accurate.” The biologist says, “They must have reproduced.” The mathematician says, “If one more person enters the house then it will be empty.”—Quite true.
Or: How to one-up prohibition-era cosplaying bartenders.
The skulls, two from adults and one from a child, appear to have been fashioned into cups, according to a recently published report. Accounts of skull cups used in ancient rituals are widely accepted, but scientists say it’s rare to actually discover the primitive tools. The cups, found in Gough’s Cave in Somerset, will be housed at the Natural History Museum of London. They’re believed to be about 14,700 years old, dating back to ice-age inhabitants of that area.
Very interesting. One thing that caught my attention was this take on incentivizing teaching.
A related innovation has to do with teaching. Those university professors not judged to be good teachers are placed on a research track, which, far from being a reward as in the United States, prevents those assigned to it from achieving the highest rank in their fields. The result is to create good researchers who work hard to become good teachers.
Another thing mentioned were limited tenure contracts, thus enforcing professorial review with potential consequences.
So while you read all the stories about how Apple is destroying their ecosystem and killing innocent bystanders today, think about the very gray big picture:
This new subscription system is great for Apple as they’ll make a lot of money and create a new, better experience for their customers (and maybe publishers too). But if it backfires, they could lose a significant part of their ecosystem support. And if some companies pull their apps, consumers may start to leave.
The new system is awesome for customers as Apple has enabled a way for them to easily get new content on their devices at a fair price. But if companies back out of the App Store as a result, they will be shafted.
This new system sucks for companies that provider subscription services, as they’ll now be forced into Apple’s way of doing things and must pay them 30 percent for it. But if it leads to a massive amount of new customers, it could actually be a very good thing.
So, to recap what he’s saying, this is good for Apple and consumers (assuming it sticks/works) but potentially bad for subscription service providers. Makes enough sense for me.
A slightly alarmist article on parenting young girls in this day and age.
There’s been a lot of noise about little girls acting and dressing way too sexy lately. To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t that concerned when Miley Cyrus took her clothes off, or when her then-9-year-old sister, Noah, showed up for a Los Angeles Halloween event dressed in what looked like a Goth hooker outfit. (Those crazy child stars, I said to myself.) I rolled my eyes at the YouTube clip of scantily clad 8- and 9-year-olds in a dance competition, pelvis-thrusting to Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”; it reminded me of the show Toddlers & Tiaras — disturbing, but very different from the reality of most kids. But then I started hearing reports from my real-life friends. One complained that they only make padded training bras now and that her sixth-grader looked like a Pamela Anderson wannabe. Another called to talk about her 6-year-old’s dance-recital costume: fuchsia hotpants with heart appliqués on each buttock. The insanity seems to be trickling down to real girls — our girls. Take this so-wrong-I-hope-it’s-not-right statistic: According to a survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and cosmogirl.com, 22 percent of girls ages 13 to 19 have sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves online.
…it might be in their interest to emerge from the slightly-cowardly vagueness that makes ‘Fair Use’ too unreliable a defence for the ‘hip’ uploaders (that the studios ironically court - and perhaps imitate) to bypass the blanket copyright warnings plastered over YouTube. If we’re helping, they ought to take the gun-sights off us and set some fair and clear rules.
He’s exploring the current landscape of video uploading on youtube.com, and how it relates to the commercializing and astroturfing of user accounts.
The author (It’s a TIME.com article) addresses 5 apparently common misconceptions on Teach for America. Now, while it’s good to address this area, I’ve also heard that it take about 5 years to become a good teacher, and 2 year isn’t quite good enough for that, and while 52% continuation rates after the 2 year commitment is a good ratio, it could obviously be better.
To offer an analogy that I actually think isn’t stretched at all, but 21st century standards Isaac Newton should have patented calculus (“A Method For Using Fluxions To Determine Instantaneous Rate of Change”) and then waited patiently until Leibniz published his superior method and then sued the pants off anyone who tried to take a derivative without coughing up a hefty license fee.
Basically, he argues that patents and intellectual property aren’t really about property at all. He makes a short case for thinking of patents and IP as a type of regulation, in the form of state-created monopolies. This would hopefully change the dialogue on IP from notions of property to that of how useful is this state-granted monopoly right now and in the future.
At the heart of it all are young people, obviously; students; westernised; secularised. They use social media - as the mainstream media has now woken up to - but this obsession with reporting “they use twitter” is missing the point of what they use it for.
In so far as there are common threads to be found in these different situation, here’s 20 things I have spotted:
1. At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future
2. …with access to social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and eg Yfrog so they can express themselves in a variety of situations ranging from parliamentary democracy to tyrrany.
3. Therefore truth moves faster than lies, and propaganda becomes flammable.
If trends in the US continue, there might well be more cases of a new sociological class here as well.
BTW, this is something the VC community can agree with, imho. The evolution of social media to the edges will just create opportunities for new products, new startups, more money. As Bruce Sterling says, we’re always centralizing then decentralizing then centralizing. It’s the pulse of tech.
I question this conclusion. It lacks any amount of long-term trends behind it. Government intervention provided the only stopping point to tech centralization in the past, and instances where it picked a victor have also occurred. So there’s no guarantee that social media will always shift to the edges, or that it will provide opportunities for more money.
The students were working on an essay about “Animal Farm” and Danielle was complaining.
"I don’t like this book," she said. "Why do I need to write this essay?"
"Because it’s important to learn how to recognize symbolism and themes in literature — those are skills you need for college," I told her.
"I’m not going to college."
That got my attention.
"No? So what are you planning to do instead?"
"I want to become a therapeutic massage specialist," Danielle said. "I’m already taking courses in community college. I want to have something ready to go when I graduate."
A few years ago, I would have been horrified at this pronouncement. I know there are plenty of teachers and administrators who still would be. But these days, I’m more inclined to be impressed by Danielle’s self-awareness, foresight and her implicit understanding of a fact I wish our system leaders would see: that perpetuation of the current “college for all” trend in education is neither economically viable nor beneficial to all students.
I’m not convinced that a resurrection of high school trade options is the way to go, but something needs to be done in this space.
“Sound familiar? Remember when the only way to get your music onto your MP3 player was to rip your own CDs? And look where that led: The music industry almost destroyed itself until Apple and iTunes yanked the music folks’ collective head from the sand and started selling the music. Every time I can’t find a book I want on Kindle, I think that the book publishers are going the same way. Especially if mass-scanning takes off and suddenly the internet is awash with DRM-free PDFs.”—
So again: why have U.S. journalists and editor, as Youssef reported, “shunned” Assange? Youssef reports an almost unbelievably craven American press scenario: The “freedom of the press committee” — yes, you read that correctly — of the Overseas Press Club of America in New York City declared him “not one of us.” The Associated Press itself won’t issue comment about him. And even the National Press Club in Washington made the decision not to speak publicly about the possibility that Assange may be charged with a crime. She notes that it is foreign press organizations that have had to defend him.
Well, hmm. Regardless of how the news agencies see wikileaks, it is their job to report violations of and defend free speech. Their failing to do so threatens them as much, if not more so, as the rest of us.
“I’m not saying the reason it deserves to be nominated is because it was talked about on Jimmy Kimmel,” he says. “I’m saying the reason it was talked about on Jimmy Kimmel is that it was such an engaging piece of interactivity that it engaged the public well beyond a hardcore gamer at such a level that a mainstream comedian who has to be very careful about what he fills on a very expensive timeslot and what jokes he speaks to to make sure his audience gets them is willing to speak to that, because it has clearly permeated culture.”
Angry Birds, David Jaffe says, was just that good.
He has a point. Angry Birds is everywhere. People know of it, even if they don’t know of say, Master Chief or Call of Duty. On that front it really has done well. What do you think?
This, more than anything shows why it matters what you put up online. Even if you make it private, it’s still there. Hackers can get it, the government can get it, and if the site changes its policies nearly anyone could get it. Online is not your friend.
The other day I was talking to a friend of mine, who threw out this ingenius way to watch the Star Wars saga. Normally, one would watch 4,5,6,1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4,5,6. But the first way means that one already knows that the little Anakin Skywalker of Tattooine ends up a sith lord, and the second way and the second way means that one already knows that the little Luke Skywalker of Tattooine is the child of said sith lord.
Instead, watch: 4,1,5,2,3,6.
That’s right. Mix it up. Start with 4, because it is the movie that started it all. Become introduced to Luke, the son of a Jedi killed by Darth Vader. Then watch 1, and see Luke’s father’s introduction to the Jedi Order. Then watch 5, and hear the revelation that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker. Episodes 2 and 3 then reveal how that came to be, and the final episode 6 ties everything up nicely as the final movie.
I heard this, and was blown away. How did this never occur to me? And how quickly in my schedule can I make time for 15 straight hours of Star Wars to test this out?
You know… this makes so much sense. I will also have to give this a try sometime soon. Wow.
Amy Chua’s book was about parenting. Her style is based on extrinsic motivation. How do we raise successful, intrinsically motivated children? I’m sure someone will leave book recommendations in the comments — Alfie Kohn comes to mind. However, I suspect that one of the most important factors is how we live our own lives. If we demonstrate that work and creativity can actually be fun and enjoyable, that at least sets an example. If we first solve the puzzle for ourselves, we have a better chance of helping others to find their answer.
Now let’s take a look at American’s youth. Egypt’s universities are dramatically cheaper than their counterparts in the United States and the students graduate without debt. But there are no jobs waiting for them and so they take to the streets. Imagine how angry the Egyptian kids would be if they were buried in American-scale debt?
If I were to be a cynical Machiavellian evil doer, I might say that it seems like a smarter plan to overload the American kids with debt because it seems to depress them and rob them of their initiative. If a kid can’t get a job, send him/her to grad school and that will crush whatever spirit they have left. Giving the education away free may be a mistake because the kids undervalue it and fail to blame themselves enough. Instead they take to the streets and blame the government and that’s bad from the standpoint of a cynical Machiavellian manipulator.
I want to thank all the major world leaders who have worked so hard during the past few days to confirm my own personal thesis that the Development/Foreign Policy Establishment has a Double Standard on Democracy for rich and poor nations.
The shell game is a roadside con as old as civilisation. This column argues that the same swindle is being performed on a massive scale at the expense of the unsuspecting taxpayer. It says that, with their near zero interest rates, central banks are effectively subsidising the banking sector – with barely a pea passed on to the public.
While I’m a bit less skeptical than this, he makes some sense here.