More from the Bauer family archive

That's me, visiting my sister in Los Gatos (Bay Area), 1973.

She had married "Davy Do," an engineer working for HP, earlier that year

Family backpacking trip, Mt. Ritter (or Banner Peak), Sierra Nevada, 1973.

As I recall, there was no trail as we crossed from Lake Catherine to Thousand Island Lake.

Mom and sister Annie, Los Gatos, 1973

Mom, me, Ray, and Ron--at the San Diego Zoo, 1973

Trabuco Canyon, 1964

Trabuco Canyon, 1964 (with our dog Prince).
In those days, overnight camping was permitted in the canyon.

Everybody's a "scout," Orange, 1964.
Ray was three. He taught the scouts how to tie square knots.

My brother Ray was 12 during the '73 Sierra trip.
He loved the mountains and would go anywhere, fearlessly.

1973, near Banner Peak

A higher-education bubble?

.

New Grilling of For-Profits Could Turn Up the Heat for All of Higher Education (Chronicle of Higher Education)

     Congress plans to put for-profit colleges under the microscope on Thursday, asking whether a higher-education model that consumes more than double its proportionate share of federal student aid is an innovation worthy of duplication or a recipe for long-term economic disaster.
     The review is being led by Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the Senate's education committee. Mr. Harkin has expressed concern that recent moves by Congress to pump billions of new dollars into student aid might be undermined by corporate-owned colleges interested primarily in maximizing returns to shareholders.
     The evaluation threatens new headaches for an industry that is sometimes exalted by government policy makers as a lean results-oriented example for the rest of academe, and other times caricatured as an opportunistic outlier that peddles low-value education to unprepared high school dropouts.
     Many of the issues at stake, however, could mean harsher scrutiny for all of higher education, as worries about rapidly growing costs and low-quality education in one sector could raise questions about long-accepted practices throughout higher education.
. . .
     Reflecting [higher-education bubble] fears, Mr. Harkin joined other Democratic lawmakers this week in calling on the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the quality of for-profit institutions and their use of federal money.
     The lawmakers, including Rep. George Miller of California, chairman of the House education committee, said their concerns included the growing rate of indebtedness among students who attend for-profit colleges.
     That points out another parallel with the housing bubble: Much as the government failed to fully consider the effects of encouraging millions of people to buy homes they could not afford, it doesn't have firm data on how many millions of potential students can truly afford a college education.
. . .
     However complicated to derive, lifetime loan-default figures loom large over the Obama administration's commitment to make Americans the world's leader by 2020 in their proportion of college graduates. That's because the goal, which would require almost doubling the current level of 20-million students graduating from college in a year, will almost certainly require a vast expansion of the sector most capable of rapid growth: for-profit colleges. And the limited loan-default data now available show students who attended for-profit institutions fare the worst.
. . .
     …The Education Department, in an analysis last November, estimated that more than 15 percent of federally subsidized loans, by dollar value, would enter default at some period. And among two-year for-profit colleges, it said, the estimate is 47 percent….

Punishing UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union

.

     Terry Francke, the general counsel of Californians Aware and the OC Voice’s “open government consultant,” today offers his view regarding UCI’s recent disciplinary action (now being appealed) against the so-called “Irvine 11” and the Muslim Student Union:

A First Amendment Lawyer's Take on Punishing the 'Irvine 11' (OC Voice)

     Brief summary: in Francke’s view, though these eleven students certainly have a right to speak, they do not have a (1st Amendment) right to prevent someone else from speaking. Further, it appears to be a fact that the relevant interrupting actions (of the Israeli Ambassador, at UCI, Feb. 8) were a concerted effort of the MSU, and thus disciplining that organization is justified. Finally, the suspension of that organization does not take away the voice of Muslim students, for they can continue to speak or to be represented by other organizations.
     Francke’s argument seems compelling. I do, however, believe that there is a further consequentialist consideration against UCI’s harsh action. That is, in my view, the consequences of this action could be very unfortunate to the community, and that fact also needs to be taken into account (given that failure to take the harsh disciplinary action that UCI took would not harm anyone or violate anyone’s rights*).
     The harm I see is the potential that this entire incident, ending with the one-year suspension of the MSU, will further polarize and divide the opposing camps.
     Sometimes, an honest attempt at discussion or discourse about an issue (e.g., the Feb. 8 event) can make further useful discussion less likely, at least for a time.
     Nobody said that “free speech” guarantees progress.

*I suppose that one could argue that the failure to discipline the MSU would be an act of inconsistency on the part of the University; hence, it would be unfair to some. Hence, it would do harm to some.

Appealing to the experts on global climate change: the logic is simple and compelling

.
     Today, the Guardian offers an editorial, warning of the irrationality of the general public and far too many politicians: Science: Beyond reason

…[S]cientists since Galileo have repeatedly overturned common sense, and shown that reason without secure knowledge is an uncertain guide. Politicians are chillingly willing to invoke common sense and reject science when it suits them. So those senators, congressmen and parliamentarians who implicitly endorse electromagnetic theory whenever they read messages on a mobile phone also feel free to dismiss climate change as uncertain or a simple conspiracy.
     This really is irrational: the scientific method behind meteorology, molecular biology and quantum mechanics is the same. The past 50 years have seen a matchless growth in scientific discovery. It would be good for politics – and good for everybody – if the rest of us understood a little more not just about the results of science, but about how they were achieved.

     Yesterday, the following was posted by Leo Hickman on the Guardian’s environment blog:

"Why don't we trust climate scientists?"

      Trust is, perhaps, the most important word within the climate debate at present. "Who do you trust?" is the question that hangs over every discussion on the topic.
     Do you trust the vast majority of climate scientists who claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing a clear and present climatic danger? Or do you trust the much smaller band of sceptical climate scientists who argue that there isn't a problem?

     I teach (avoidance of) “informal fallacies” in my philosophy courses, including the fallacious appeal to authority or expertise. Perhaps this fallacy is misunderstood. If one appeals to authority or expertise, one has not ipso facto committed a fallacy. As Hickman notes,

In much of our lives, we rely on the testimony and views of experts. We do so when we feel ill and choose to visit the doctor. We do so when we want to reduce our tax liabilities. We do so when we wish to be ably represented in a court of law. We do so when a strange noise appears from the engine of our car. We will often pay good money to benefit from the many years of training and experience offered by experts in their field - be they doctors, accountants, lawyers or mechanics.

     It is possible to appeal to authorities and experts fallaciously—as when one “cherry picks” among them. Nevertheless, assuming that one is not an expert, one would be foolish not to appeal to relevant experts regarding a difficult topic. That is, one would be a fool to disregard the view of one’s mechanic, one’s doctor, and so on, in favor of one's own relatively untutored opinion.
     Naturally, complications can arise, as when there is significant disagreement among the relevant experts.
     But there is little disagreement among climatologists about the likely reality of global climate change.
     Further, says Hickman, the set of climate change believers, among the experts, has more authority or reliability than the set of climate change skeptics—or so concludes a study that has now appeared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

The authors, led by Professor Steve Schneider at Stanford University, have conducted an extensive literature review to establish the identities, views and respective authority of 1,372 climate researchers whose work "constitutes expertise or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research". …[T]hey wanted to provide a tool to those outside the climate sciences to help them better assess which experts to trust.

     Hickman briefly outlines the study’s methodology. He then quotes the findings of the study’s authors:

We provide the first large-scale quantitative assessment of the relative level of agreement, expertise and prominence in the climate researcher community. We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change sceptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group. Despite media tendencies to present "both sides" in ACC debates, which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC, not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus sceptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change. .

     As I’ve often noted in my courses, the topic of global climate change is complex. One (as a nonexpert) must in the end appeal to experts. And if one will appeal, logically and honestly, to relevant experts with regard to climate change, one will suppose that global climate change is real.
     Of course, one can simply ignore the experts.
     Why would one do that?

Scrutinizing online instruction, for-profit higher education

 .
• Seed of Doubt (Inside Higher Ed)

Is online education as good as traditional, face-to-face education?

     It is a loaded question. Online programs comprise the fastest-growing segment of higher education, with brick-and-mortar colleges — many ailing from budget cuts — seeing online as a way to make money and expand their footprints. Meanwhile, some politicians are eager for public institutions to embrace online education as a way to educate more people at a lower cost.
     These movements have much invested in online education being equal or superior to the old-fashioned kind. And since a Department of Education meta-analysis last summer concluded that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction,” many advocates now consider the matter closed.
     Not so fast, say researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
     The Education Department’s study was deeply flawed and its implications have been overblown, say the authors of a working paper released this month by the bureau.
     “None of the studies cited in the widely-publicized meta-analysis released by the U.S. Department of Education included randomly-assigned students taking a full-term course, with live versus online delivery mechanisms, in settings that could be directly compared (i.e., similar instructional materials delivered by the same instructor),” they write. “The evidence base on the relative benefits of live versus online education is therefore tenuous at best.”
     Mark Rush, an economics professor at the University of Florida and one of the study’s three co-authors, says he thinks the Education Department was under immense pressure to reassure online education’s many stakeholders, particularly cash-strapped state higher-education systems, that online education is just as good, if not better, than the classroom kind. But the fact that it “did not compare apples to apples” and severely lacked experimental data means that to treat the meta-study as a conclusive vote of confidence for online education would be scientifically irresponsible. “The conclusion that Internet-based and live classes are comparable might have been reached a little hastily,” Rush says.
     Rush and his collaborators — Lu Yin, also of the University of Florida, and Northwestern University’s David N. Figlio, the lead author — sought to contribute to the online-education debate something they say it sorely lacks: reliable data collected via a controlled experiment.
. . .
     Barbara Means, director of the Center for Technology and Learning at SRI International and lead author of the Education Department’s meta-study, says the bureau's paper, in addition to being rife with erroneous claims, draws conclusions that are essentially irrelevant to the debate over online education.
     By taking pains to isolate the online-versus-classroom variable while keeping other variables constant, Means says Rush and his collaborators miss a crucial point: that what distinguishes online education from classroom education has little to do with the fact that one comes on a computer screen and the other does not….

• Mounting Congressional Scrutiny of For-Profit Colleges (Inside Higher Ed)

     Five Congressional Democrats on Monday asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to begin a study of for-profit higher education that would look at institutional quality and business practices. The request comes just days after a House of Representatives hearing on accreditation that included criticism on the sector, and on the same day that witnesses were announced for Thursday's Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on the for-profits. (The group scheduled to testify has a decided slant against the sector. The witnesses are Kathleen Tighe, the U.S. Department of Education's inspector general; Steven Eisman, an investor who has warned that the sector is "as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the subprime mortgage industry"; Yasmine Issa, a former student at the for-profit Sanford Brown Institute; Margaret Reiter, a former California deputy attorney general and consumer advocate; and Sharon Thomas Parrott, chief compliance officer at DeVry, Inc.)
     The request for a GAO review came from the chairs of the House and Senate education committees – Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa – and three other influential members…. Citing "recent press reports [that] have raised questions about the quality of proprietary institutions" in a letter to the GAO, the members requested information on the sector's recent growth, as well as data on program quality, student outcomes and the amount of corporate revenues that comes from the Title IV federal financial aid program and other government sources. They also asked for a consideration of whether the Education Department's regulations on Title IV program integrity (in the process of being revised) do enough to safeguard against waste and fraud….

SEE ALSO: Democrats in Congress Call for Federal Review of For-Profit Colleges (Chronicle of Higher Education)

• Suit in Illinois Adds to Questions on For-Profit Higher Ed (Inside Higher Ed)

     Some former students have filed a class action against the Illinois School of Health Careers, a for-profit provider, after they spent eight months completing a program (with federal loans financing their tuition) to become nursing assistants, only to find out that the program wasn't approved for them to receive state certification, the Chicago Tribune reported. Those suing cite materials they received that said that completing the program would allow them to sit for the state exam. The school admitted that some "unauthorized and wrong" information had been given out.

• Experts Ponder the Future of the American University (Chronicle of Higher Education)

     American universities have long set a global standard for higher education. But U.S. institutions will have to change, an international panel of experts said Monday, if they want to retain their edge and help the country in an economy ever more dependent on knowledge and innovation.
     "The American model is beginning to creak and groan, and it may not be the model the rest of the world wants to emulate," said James J. Duderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and one of the speakers on a panel assembled by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here to discuss the university of the future and the future of the university.
     The other panel members largely agreed with Mr. Duderstadt's assertion that higher education could be among the next economic sectors to "undergo a massive restructuring," like the banking industry has seen.
     Among the factors that could lead to change, they said, are the globalization of commerce and culture, the accessibility of information and communication technologies, and the shift in demographics in developed countries that will result in the need to educate greater numbers of working adults.
     One model of a new approach to education could be the for-profit University of Phoenix, whose president, William J. Pepicello, also spoke at the Wilson Center forum. He argued that higher education must be more responsive to and tailor the curriculum to students' needs….
. . .
     The challenge, [Duderstadt] said, is that the United States lacks a coherent national policy for using higher education to drive economic development. By contrast, many Asian governments are spending on universities and research to advance their economies. The American approach to higher education is very "laissez faire," Mr. Duderstadt said. "That's why the U.S. is in trouble."
. . .
     When asked to predict what the university of tomorrow will look like, Mr. Duderstadt suggested two ideas: the global institution and the "meta" institution.
     On the first point, he said, higher education has always been international, but in the future, there will be a growing number of universities or consortia of universities that compete on a worldwide level for students and faculty. They will also define their missions as trying to solve large issues, like climate change or global societal inequities.
     The so-called meta university will be built on rapidly advancing information technology and such applications as OpenCourseWare, digital libraries, and social-networking programs that facilitate peer learning.
. . .
     John L. King, vice provost for academic information for the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, said universities are deep repositories of academic knowledge that can't simply be replaced. "They're not going to be wiped out," he said.
. . .
     New technology will, of course, alter some academic practices. Mr. King predicted that OpenCourseWare and similar learning tools could mean the end of the "guild status" enjoyed by professors and the death of tenure….