Tuesday, January 29, 2013

SOCCCD CHRONICLES: Saddleback College claims that particular part of the color spectrum

IVC's PAC: Saddleback north?
     As you know, among the construction projects at Irvine Valley College is the new biology building, which, after the inevitable snafu (problems with bankrupt contractors, as I recall), got back on track and is well on its way to completion, I guess.
     Recently, a colleague dropped by to explain the latest absurdity concerning the project. There’s very little color in the building, he said, and what color there is is some kind of red.
     But there’s a problem. Those red accents must be replaced, it seems.
     Why?
     Said the friend: “evidently Saddleback College claims that particular part of the color spectrum.”
     “Huh?”
     “Red is Saddleback’s color. We’re blue.”
     “Yeah, like those goddam balloons they put up all the time,” said another colleague.
     "You're kidding!" I said. "We can't use any red?"
     “Nope. No red allowed.”
PAC: there were so many options
     There was silence.
     “Evidently, black is OK, too. They’re gonna go with black. Beige and black.”
     After a second or two, another colleague mentioned the curious factoid that our celebrated Performing Arts Center (PAC) is colored red, more or less. It looks like a big, rusty collision of geometric shapes.
     “Yeah,” said the friend, “but that’s because the building was supposed to be brick, but they fucked up and the project ran out of money, and so they went with the usual cheapy stucco and painted it ‘brick’—i.e., a particularly ugly shade of red chosen by Glenn [Roquemore, IVC’s Prez].”
     "I heard that he chose that color 'cuz the paint happened to be on sale," I said.
     We stared into space.

Note: I am not suggesting that Saddleback College has somehow interceded to prevent the use of red in the building. My assumption was that some district or college official imposed some sort of district rule or understanding to the effect that red is for Saddleback, blue is for IVC. C'mon.


From IVC Facebook page

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is one of thsoe Dissent stories where I am not sure if it is real or not - and then I realize that it must be.

Roy Bauer said...

Dude, every word of it is true.

Anonymous said...

Saddleback had first dibs on red years ago. Besides, they now have to put up with (fully tenured!) Howard Gensler. Have not they suffered enough? Let them have their red. Commies.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine any Saddleback faculty member objecting to an IVC building with red in the color scheme - why would they care? where does this come from? And why, after the plans and designs have been approved (for YEARS now), do they have the power to force changes? What did Glen do about it?

Anonymous said...

If an IVC building gets painted red people might become confused and think they are Saddleback! It happens all the time.

Anonymous said...

This did NOT come from Saddleback faculty.

Anonymous said...

The floor in A-100 is red.

Anonymous said...

This is embarassing...I just see red faces.

Anonymous said...

sorry, Sammy Hagar claimed red long ago........
Where do you get this crap??

Anonymous said...

Blue and white! Fight team, fight!

Red and gold, you're growing old!

8-14: do you regret all the lying?

✅ Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President NYT ✅ Orange County Sees Overall Coronavirus...

Goals and Values and Twaddle

blather: long-winded talk with no real substance*
The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the '90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC [accreditors]. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none….
The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)
In the summer of ’13, I offered a critique of the awkward verbiage by which the district and colleges explain their values, goals, and objectives —aka SOCCCD'S G&V (goals and values) blather.
I wrote a post each for the district, Saddleback College, and Irvine Valley College efforts. (See the links below.)
This verbiage—stated in terms of “values,” “missions,” “goals,” “visions,” and whatnot—is often badly written. It is sometimes embarrassingly trite.
It occasionally communicates something worthwhile.
No doubt you are familiar with the usual objections to jargon. Higher education, too, has its jargon—an irony, given typical college-level instruction in writing, which urges jargon eschewery.
Sure enough, SOCCCD G&V blather is riddled with jargon and with terms misused and abused. For instance, in the case of the district’s dubious blather, the so-called “vision” is actually a purpose. Why didn't they just call it that?
As one slogs through this prattle, one finds that "visions" tend to be awfully similar to “missions,” with which they are distinguished. The latter in turn are awfully similar to “goals,” which must be distinguished from “objectives.” But aren't goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
These perverse word games will surely perplex or annoy anyone armed with a command of the English language. In fact, readers will be perplexed to the degree that they are thus armed. Illiterates, of course, will be untroubled.
Here's a simple point: the district and colleges’ G&V blather tends to eschew good, plain English in favor of technical terms and trendy words and phrases (i.e., it tends to be bullshitty and vague). Thus, one encounters such trendy terminological turds as “dynamic,” “diversity,” “student success,” and “student-centered.” Even meretricious neologisms such as ISLOs and “persistence rates” pop up, unexplained, undefended.
Does anyone see a transparency problem with all of this? Shouldn't the public, or at least the well educated public, be able to comprehend statements of the colleges' goals and values?
In the case of the district, to its credit, all it really seems to want to say is that it wants to teach well and it wants students to succeed. Admirable!
So why all the ugly, common-sense defying, buzzword-encrusted claptrap?

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle - July 31, 2013

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" - August 4, 2013

IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts - August 5, 2013

THE IRVINE VALLEY CHRONICLES: no ideas, just clichés & buzzwords - Sep 30, 2013

*From my Apple laptop's dictionary