Making sense of the RG Group's curious report

"We believe it is the failure of the field [of educational research] to develop … a [scientific culture] and to forge consensus on such matters as research quality and coordination of perspectives that has contributed to an environment in which members of Congress are compelled to impose them."

—Feuer, Towne, and Shavelson

1  Not as advertised
     I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s post, which examined—and ridiculed—a recent report, by the RP Group, entitled What students say they need to succeed – Key themes from a study of student support.
     Evidently, it is being passed around as an important tool (data!) within the CC system for improving student success (completion, persistence, etc.).
     Much verbiage in and about the report, including its title, implies that it reveals, in particular, “what students say they need”—that it’s essentially a survey of student opinion.

     (Naturally, one wonders why we would focus on student opinion about their needs. It isn't obvious that they are the best judges of that. This focus seems to suggest that the road to success for the CCs is "giving students what they want." If that's the road we're on, we're in big trouble.)

     One might suppose, therefore, that the RP people found some students and tried to derive from them their views about what helps them (or what would help them) succeed in completing their studies in college.
     But that’s not quite what happened in this study. The students weren’t provided a blank slate and asked to fill it. No, they were given six success factors—“directed,” “focused,” “nurtured,” “engaged,” “connected,” and “valued” (DFNEC&V for short)—and were asked essentially to rank these six (or otherwise opine about them) as “contributors” to “achievement.”
     These “factors” were evidently gleaned from a “review” of the relevant research literature, such as it is.*
     And so this “study” is more theory-laden than one might at first think. It’s not quite the survey of student opinion that it is advertised to be. (Is that a good thing? Not necessarily.)

Those odd bromidular emissions

2 What causes what?
     Today, I made a brief effort to understand this theory, but that only puzzled me further. As we’ve seen, the RP Group seems to say that research reveals DFNEC&V to cause success. But in a shaded section of the report entitled “Defining the “Six Success Factors” (page 6), we’re told that

     A growing body of evidence indicates that strategic supports … can increase students’ abilities to achieve completion and transfer. … The RPGroup’s review of leading studies on student support found that effective support … helps students become [directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected, & valued].

     Did you get that last part? “Effective support…helps students become” directed, focused, etc. That is, “effective support” yields (causes) students achieving the six “success factors.”
     (Or perhaps they mean to say that effective support is support that makes students DFNEC&V. Is that what they mean? If so, then they're saying that DFNEC&V causes success.)
     But aren’t these “factors” supposed to cause success? But, here, they are effects, not causes.
     So maybe it’s like this: the “Effective support” brings about DFNEC&V, and DFNEC&V brings about success. Sheesh, I dunno. I’m lost.

Minority report

     Elsewhere, the RP Group, discussing the “research,” assert that it “demonstrates that students are more likely to succeed when they are directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected and valued.” The causal claim being made here seems to be: let’s make sure that students are “directed” (etc.) because that will help them become successful. That is, “the factors” cause the success.
     So now I’m confused. Are we supposed to embrace the aforementioned “effective support” in order to have students that are DFNEC&V? Or are we supposed to bring about DFNEC&V in order to cause student success? Is it both?
      Evidently, the “effective support” is something other than (because it causes) DFNEC&V. Just what is it then?
     *And, again, one big question here is: what is the quality of this research regarding "effective support"? (See Re the quality of research in education.) Studies, I suppose. Did these studies involve large or small numbers of students? Were results replicated? Inquiring minds want to know.
     As you may know, in recent years, the issue of study/research quality (low quality and fraud) has roiled the scientific (let alone the education/pseudoscientific) community.
     SEE False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research (Guardian UK) and Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries (Scientometrics) and Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science (Guardian UK)

SEE ALSO EdDreck: the so-called experts

The odd bromidular emissions of community college “experts”

From "What students say they need."

 "We accept the diagnosis that a self-regulating professional community does not exist in education."

—Feuer, Towne, and Shavelson†

     I love my cat Teddy, but sometimes I wonder if I’m doing a good job taking care of the boy. What are his needs? Am I satisfying them?
     I decided to get scientific and just ask him what he needs. I mean, science is about cutting to the chase, isn’t it? And who would know better about Teddy’s needs than the Tedster himself?
     That's logic!
     So I went right up to Teddy and asked, “What do you need, Teddy?”
     Naturally, he said nothing. That’s ‘cause he doesn’t speak my lingo. Adjustments were in order.
     To make a long story short, I started to listen to what Teddy was telling me in cat, and it’s clear—from his consistent felocutions—that he is plainly of the opinion that he needs constant food and play and brushing.
     If you want his opinion, anyway, those are the things he needs.
     Hence, those are the things he needs. Now, I'm feeding him all the time, playing with him all the time, and brushing him all the time. Sheesh.

Teddy

     THE LOGICAL LEAP. I know what you’re thinking. “Hey,” you’re thinking, “that’s not scientific or logical! You’re assuming that Teddy knows what he needs, or at least that his opinion about what he needs is relevant to a determination of what he actually needs! How can you justify the logical leap from ‘he wants X’ to ‘he needs X’?”

     BEHOLD THE EXPERTS. Well, gosh, I think I’ve got an answer for you. Essentially, it's an appeal to The Experts. The community college Experts. And such fine Experts they are.
     As you know, officials and hired experts in the state community college system are paragons of scientific competence and integrity. It's well known. I mean, they’re all about data and evidence, man. Don’t you doubt it, cuz they throw those words around constantly.
     So if they do something, it's ipso facto scientific.
     And, as it turns out, the Experts just did a study that’s a lot like mine! The name of the study report is: What students say they need to succeed – Key themes from a study of student support.
     Let’s call it the “STN” study (for “say they need”). Check it out! It's official!

It can't be stopped. Resistance is futile.

     WE'RE JUST SAYIN'. At first, the title mystified me. Why should we care what students say they need? We want to know what they need, right? Why assume that the students know what they need? Prima facie, it would seem more reasonable to assume that they don't.
     On the other hand, the second part of the title emphasizes, not what students say they need, but what students need. It is, after all, “a study of student support” not a study of “what students think or say they need for support.”
     It's a report motif: switching from "what students need" to "what students tell us they need" and back again. Plus a persistent delightful obliviousness to this phenomenon as any sort of problem!

     THE EXPERTS EXPLAIN. Here’s how the RP Group—the clever bastards who conducted the study—explain their study:

…[W]e gathered students’ feedback on what generally supports their educational progress as well as their perspectives on the relevance and importance of “six success factors” to their achievement. We derived these success factors based on a review of existing research on effective support practices and interviews with practitioners and researchers.

     Here’s what I get out of this particular cluster of words:

• They zeroed in on some students, 900 of 'em.
• They got the students’ feedback on what “supports their educational progress.”
• They also got the students’ “perspectives” (their ranking, I guess) on the importance of each of the “six success factors.”*

     Just what are these "factors"? And where did they come from?
     Answer:

• They consulted the available research on “effective support practices.” [Gosh, I wonder if they asked themselves about the quality of this research? (See Re the quality of research in education.) Is that an uncivil question? I bet it is.]
• They interviewed the researchers and “practitioners” (teachers?).

     But wait! Presumably, the STN study seeks to identify ways to give students what they need. Or do the RP folks really care, not about that, but about what students “think” or “say” that they need?
     Gosh, that would be odd.
     But since these success “factors” are supposedly research- and practioner-based, and since RP didn’t ask the students whether these six factors are true factors (they only asked them to rank them, I guess; the factors as genuine factors were a given), it appears that this whole study presupposes a big chunk of [alleged] knowledge of what supports success and what doesn’t.
     So this isn’t a study to find out what students need after all. We already know that, evidently (namely, the six “factors”). It’s a study to find out what students think of these allegedly proven factors—i.e., how they rank them!
     But of course!
     Gosh, "science" sure can be deep. And puzzling. (Or maybe just fucked up.)
     So, already, I see that I made a mistake in my own study re Teddy. I shouldn’t fret about the link between what Teddy thinks he needs and what he in fact needs. Gosh, no—plus I already know what Teddy needs just by hanging around. I should just consult my inner genius whilst engaging in pseudo-research, sitting in my armchair, recalling buzzwords.
     The only thing to do now is to determine Teddy’s opinion of my list of Teddy’s needs. Yep.

     SUCCESS FACTORS. Let’s return to STN. Just what are these “success factors” that have been gleaned from research? Here’s the list ranked by the students:

• Directed: students have a goal and know how to achieve it
• Focused: students stay on track—keeping their eyes on the prize
• Nurtured: students feel somebody wants and helps them to succeed
• Engaged: students actively participate in class and extracurricular activities
• Connected: students feel like they are part of the college community
• Valued: students’ skills, talents, abilities and experiences are recognized; they have opportunities to contribute on campus and feel their contributions are appreciated

From RP Group's website:
the wheel of need

     (When I first encountered this list—presented with hoopla during a Flex session about a week ago—I thought the speaker was kidding. But no! My manifest incredulity notwithstanding, everybody nodded and stared. Seemingly awestruck, they beheld these curious profundities, strewn across a whiteboard in the dark. "Guess so," I thought.
     (Still, I was puzzled. "How," I asked myself, "can 'directed' by a factor? I guess they mean to say that a student's being directed contributes to success. Oh. They found that to be true whilst doing empirical research, did they?")
     So I gather that, based on research and practitioner advice, we know that, to help students, we need to make sure they’re directed, focused, nurtured, engaged, connected, and valued. (It’s a good thing I’m a trusting soul; I don’t doubt the high quality of research that yielded this list of “factors.” Only a lout would raise questions of quality!)
     (And isn’t it amazing how closely this list resembles the list certain people might pull out of their asses, sitting and thinking in their armchairs?)
     So here’s the news bulletin: our students ranked these research-identified factors. Yes! They put “directed” on top and “valued” on the bottom. Wow. Thank you, RP Group. A good day's work!

     ACHIEVING SUCCESS FACTORS AT SCALE. Let’s return to the RP Group’s account of their study:

… During this literature review [their survey of relevant research, I guess], we paid particular attention to the outcomes different strategies and approaches intend to accomplish with students. By exploring what outcomes these practices aim to achieve—rather than simply documenting how structures like learning communities or student success courses are delivered—we intend to begin shifting the conversation away from how to replicate entire programs to how to feasibly achieve these student success factors at scale.

     Here’s what I get out of this:

• Whilst surveying the research, we focused on the intention (goal) per strategy.
• By focusing on these intentions/goals, we intend to shift (completion efforts) in the direction of “how to feasibly achieve” the “success factors at scale.”

     I wonder what these RP folks mean by “strategies”? These darned researchers tend to be abstruse.
     Well, in context, it appears that “strategies” refers to “effective support practices”—those (allegedly) identified as effective by research, I guess.
     So, again, we see that this study presupposes knowledge of what works and what does not work in fostering student success. There are those “success factors,” plus there are the “effective support practices” that, somehow, connect with those factors. (I guess I’m too dumb to understand the connection. Anybody got it? 'Splain it to me, please.)
     So what then is the point of this study? It’s to determine what students think about that list of, um, factors.
     No, that can’t be right. They just said that they want to “shift the conversation” to achieving these “success factors.”
     Gosh, this sure does seem complicated. That’s because “it’s science”!

     ABSTRUSITUDE. Let’s return to the RP Group’s account of their report:

     As California’s community colleges … respond to the state’s Student Success Task Force recommendations, many constituents are considering how student support can be implemented to improve completion. College practitioners, policymakers and advocacy groups are all exploring how to preserve delivery of existing supports, while at the same time, rethink ways to effectively engage more students with the assistance they need to succeed.

     They must be seriously good thinkers, this RP crew. Their language is so technical, so delightfully convoluted! I wish I could be just like them. I think I’ll start by using the phrase “preserving delivery of existing supports” at the next School meeting.
     Now, despite what your college writing instructor told you, it is in fact a good idea to highlight all the good stuff you’ve got to say with italics or something. Use lots of exclamation points and coloring, if you’ve got it.

     BROMIDULAR PUKITUDES. Essentially, that’s just what the RP crew did in their report. Here are all the sentences that they put in bold face. As you read these Bold Remarks, allow the wisdom and sheer bedazzling scientificness therein contained to ooze all over you. Imagine the unfathomably elevated perch necessary to arrive at these penetrating bromidular pukitudes.
     Ready?

• …while many students arrive to college motivated, their drive needs to be continuously stoked and augmented with additional support in order for success to be realized. [I.e., when it becomes clear that college entails sustained discipline and hard work, many students lose interest.]
• …students spoke of their struggles to understand what they needed to do to succeed in college. [I.e., Some students are unprepared for college.]
• These findings imply that colleges should educate students about how to navigate their community college and thrive in this environment. [I.e., colleges must teach their students how to be students.]
• … students described how different factors interacted with each other to contribute to their success. [This is flat bullshit.]
• …they also identified relationships between the factors and noted how experiencing one factor often led to realizing another, or how two factors were inextricably linked to each other. [Good Lord what bullshit.]
• …colleges should consider investing in structures that connect more African-American, Latino and first-generation learners to existing services. [Structures? —Programs.]
• Colleges must find a way to provide a significant proportion of these student groups with comprehensive support—at scale. [Big programs.]
• These findings underscore the importance of colleges promoting a culture where all individuals across the institution understand their role in advancing students’ success. [How 'bout a culture where students do their homework? Promote that.]
• At the same time, students most commonly recognized faculty as having the greatest potential impact on their educational journeys. [Students see that teachers can help guide them. I did not know that.]
• This research indicates that because faculty are at the center of every student’s educational experience, they have a significant opportunity and ability to influence their students’ success not just in, but beyond, their own classroom. [Tell 'em "carpe diem." Follow 'em home and say it again.]
• …now is the time for colleges to redefine support in a way that aligns with what students say they need. [They tell me I'm too hard and demanding, so....]
• We encourage colleges to use the results from this research when reimagining student support and working to advance the completion of all learners. [I'm beginning to feel the urge to break things.]
• The RP Group recommends that the primary ingredient for productive discussions is the inclusion of people who interact with students at all points in their college journey…. [Who writes this shit?]

     I want to know. Do others share my, um, bedazzlement?
     And why do I feel such utter despair?

     †Scientific Culture and Educational Research (Michael J. Feuer, Lisa Towne, and Richard J. Shavelson, 2002)
     *I've long felt that people who insist on using the word "factor" should receive the death penalty.

stuff

8/21/13
• Register launches weekly university sections (OC Reg)
     In a move to dramatically expand its coverage of college campus life, the Orange County Register announced it will begin publishing three weekly, stand-alone sections devoted to UC Irvine, Chapman University and Cal State Fullerton.

• Supervisor Janet Nguyen Drew Scrutiny of the FBI (Voice of OC)
     Federal agents contacted a San Diego County-based contractor and another source close to Orange County government regarding Nguyen late last year.

• Outsourcing Public Higher Ed (Inside Higher Ed)
     California lawmaker wants MOOCs and other online providers to help meet student demand, and will encourage -- and some fear force -- public colleges to accept those credits.

In Defense of a Real Education

In today's New York Times (Yes, Rebel Girl gets the paper delivered to her canyon doorstep.  She's old school, very old school.), Michael Roth (president of Wesleyan University) reviews the new book by Mark Edmundson, professor of English at the University of Virginia—highlighted earlier this week by the editor of this distinguished blog.

She recommends the review and the collection of essays with the title "Why Teach? In Defense of a Real Education" as a good way into the academic year.

What is it now, Day Three of an unprecedented 18 week semester?

Sometimes in her feverish early semester dreamings, Rebel Girl imagines a book club for the college where faculty and staff and administrators read texts like this throughout the year and get together to discuss them monthly in gatherings where tea and wine flows and the food and talk sustain all in ways that truly help what we do here at the little college in the orange groves.  Could we get some FLEX credit for that?

excerpt:

...Much of “Why Teach?” concerns the impediments to this search. Under the guise of practicality, universities and their “customers” now stress that education should provide a return on investment. They speak of excellence and innovation, and what they really mean is money and notoriety. They talk of a well-rounded learning experience, and what they really mean is checking off boxes denoting that you’ve taken required courses that weren’t too challenging. Mr. Edmundson contends that the “corporate university” has abdicated its mission to confront our prejudices and conventions while inspiring our passions and talents.

He fervently advocates for the transformative power of a true education because he experienced it firsthand. In high school, he cared about football and rock ’n’ roll more than about literature until he was stirred by great teaching and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” “I think that the highest objective for someone trying to provide a literary education to students is to make such moments of transformation possible,” he writes.

This “highest objective” is also extraordinarily fulfilling. “Teachers who have been moved by great works have been moved to pass the gift on,” he says, with a nod to Wordsworth and Coleridge — and to all professors who introduce students to books that have changed their own lives. Art inspires us; teaching changes us.

Mr. Edmundson worries that too many professors have lost the courage of their own passions, depriving their students of the fire of inspiration. Why teach? Because great professors can “crack the shell of convention,” shining a light on a life’s different prospects. They never aim at conversion, only at what Emerson called “aversion” — bucking conformity so as to discover possibility.

To read the rest, click here.

*

The real and the unreal

Coming soon: bulletproof #2 pencils

Last Line of Defense (Inside Higher Ed)
     U. of Maryland at Eastern Shore's new whiteboards double as bulletproof shields. The $60,000 investment is part of a "proactive approach" to safety.

Comes in handy in a firefight

'Real Education' (Inside Higher Ed)
     It’s a question many professors may be asking themselves this month, as they prepare for another academic year: “Why teach?”
     Mark Edmundson, professor of English at the University of Virginia, answers the question in a new book, Why Teach? In Defense of a Real Education, out Tuesday from Bloomsbury.
. . .
     Although neither exists in pure form, the predominantly “corporate city” institution is an extension (and a shaper) of “good” high schools, where students succeed by being “all-arounders.” That means getting an "A" in every course, even if it equates to using SparkNotes for an English class in order to squeeze in a session with the math tutor between sports and clubs. Deep engagement of the material suffers, but with a turbo-charged resume, it hardly matters.
     Corporate cities are easy to spot: “Most of the students – and many members of the faculty – are buzzing from place to place, always feeling a bit self-important, always feeling a bit left behind, like that poor rabbit in Alice in Wonderland,” Edmundson says.

ACCJC: proactive attire soon required

     And the people representing corporate cities? They’ll talk “a lot about new computer initiatives, about partnering with business, and about the creation of young leaders. They’ll talk about kids who have hit the Silicon Valley jackpot. …You’ll hear the word ‘excellence’ about a billion times.”
     By contrast, the “scholarly enclave” teems with students “seeking knowledge so as to make the lives of other human beings better.” They’re students who want to become teachers, scientists, soldiers, doctors and legal advocates for the poor because the work matters to them more than the status a title brings, Edmundson says….

Resources

Mr. Morley's assurances

     As you know, IVC’s Scholarship Program has been under fire in recent years. I won’t go into all the details again.

     One unfortunate incident concerned a student, PT, who, way back in 2012, was selected to receive a Humanities and Languages scholarship, entitling him to $250. Soon thereafter, his name even appeared in the printed scholarship program (May, 2012) as a recipient.
     The problem seemed to concern subsequent stages of the process, for PT never received the money.
     Some of us complained, pointing to the Scholarship Program and the Foundation.
     The Foundation Director, Richard Morley, took exception to this. In June of 2013, he declared that it was the first he had heard about it. That was surprising to many of us. Several in the School of H&L had been plenty noisy about it for over a year.
     Morley claimed that he would take care of the problem (i.e., send the money) right away.
     Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn’t.
     Let’s review the facts, as suggested by a series of emails that I have.

1. Way back in January of 2012 (January 12, 2012; i.e., more than 20 months ago), PT emailed Rebel Girl, asking for a letter of recommendation to the USC Undergraduate Film Program (and one other institution). It was a polite letter from a deserving student. Naturally, the Reb agreed to do write the letter.
     Someone (Rebel Girl?) then suggested that PT apply for scholarships at the college. He did. At some point, PT was selected (by H&L faculty) to receive the Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship. Apparently, as she would later explain, Rebel Girl sent “several emails over the course of many, many days to ensure the correct scholarship went to the right person” (May 21, 2012). Why would she do that? Because of past screw-ups and irregularities that she did not want to see repeated.
     Nevertheless, somehow, the Scholarship people didn’t get the word. Sheesh!

2. On April 30, 2012, H&L’s Kurt M sent the Financial Aid Director, Darryl Cox, an email belatedly informing him that “the 2012 Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship Recipient” was PT.

3. Then, less than a month later (May 21, 2012), Rebel Girl emailed Cox, alerting him to some “irregularities.” She explained that, on May 18 (?), assuming that PT had won the aforementioned scholarship—for his name appeared in the printed scholarship program—she sent him a congratulatory email.

     On May 19, PT wrote back, explaining

     “I do not believe I received a scholarship…. My name was in the scholarship program though you say? That is strange because I applied to several scholarships under the IVC site. Was the program just a ceremony because I definitely did not receive any indication that I was in the program.”

     Continuing, she explained that

     This development comes on the heels of the distressing news that one of the two candidates chosen for the English Excellence in Learning scholarship (Moore) did not receive the $1,000 award. Instead that award went to another student who was not even ranked by our committee.

     Rebel Girl ended her letter with this:

     I would like to know who did receive the H & L scholarship–and I would like to know why [P]'s name was listed in the program and why he was not contacted after I selected him. ¶ I would also like to know what if anything can be done to address the wrong that has been done to him and Moore – two very deserving students who have very poorly served by this program. ¶ One wonders what other scholarships these two candidates would have been eligible for or even won in a fair and functioning process.

4. Then, on May 22, 2012, Cox sent Rebel Girl an email explaining that he was “looking into the issue.” He wrote:

     It appears that there was some confusion between the ASIVC Humanities and Languages Scholarships, the English and Humanities Endowed Scholarships and the Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship. [PT] was mailed the scholarship certificate, however, his name never made it onto the scholarship check list. I will place the $250.00 scholarship check request with the Foundation [my emphasis] as soon as possible. ¶ All of this is my responsibility and I apologize for the breakdown.

     Evidently, during the subsequent year (Fall 2012, Spring 2013), PT never received the money.

     This brings us to a new round of complaints about the Scholarship Program and money provided by the Foundation that arose at the end of the Spring, 2013, semester.
     The complaints yielded a special “debriefing” meeting, held by VP of Student Services Linda Fontanilla in early June (June 6) of 2013, to review the program and the many complaints.

5. I covered the event. In Today's scholarship program debriefing: "It's the first I've heard about it!" (DtB, June 6, 2013), I reported the discussion that occurred. According to my report (which, I assure you, is accurate), late in the meeting,

     [H&L’s] Kurt [M] referred to incidents that don’t help maintain an appearance of fairness and transparency. Last year, he said, a student was informed that he had won a significant Humanities and Languages scholarship, but, to date, he has never received the scholarship.
     Richard [Morley, Foundation Director] then reared up, said it’s the first he’s heard about it. (That’s odd. I’ve been experiencing piercing caterwauling about it for a solid year. Richard really needs to get around, or turn up his hearing aid.)

6. Four days later (June 10), Morley emailed KM, Rebel Girl, and me. He wrote:

     As you can see, the Foundation was never copied on [PT]'s scholarship for 2012. It's not just about turning up one's hearing aid [this, of course, is an allusion to my comment on DtB], it's just not possible to solve problems when one is not aware there is a problem. Nowhere was the Foundation copied on this mistake, until now, or it would have been fixed immediately. ¶ I believe it's clear now that this information did not reach the Foundation. ¶ I am committed to finding [PT], at USC, I understand. However, I can't find a [PT] with any USC connections on Facebook, and there are 17 [PT]'s listed in the IVC student directory. I just don't have a way to contact him right now. ¶ Might anyone have a contact for P? A middle name? student number? Address? Phone? ¶ Thanks. I will contact him immediately and issue the check he deserves. I'm committed to serving our students...and the wishes of our faculty.

     Morley’s assertion that “it's clear now that this information did not reach the Foundation” mystifies me. I don’t know what he meant.

7. About twenty minutes later, Morley emailed again, writing

     I was able to find [PT]'s phone number. I just spoke with him and confirmed with him that he is at USC in film studies. He is sending me his address and we will request a $250 check and get it out to him immediately. ¶ So, not counting the weekend, I believe we solved this problem in less than 24 hours after I was made aware of it. ¶ I hope you all see this as indicative and exemplary of the way the Foundation works, and the commitment I have in serving both our faculty and our students.

     So, at long last, it appeared that the PT saga was over.
     But no.

8. Yesterday morning (i.e., two months later), Rebel Girl emailed PT. She wrote:

…[I] wanted to check in and see how things are going – well, I hope. ¶ I do hope you were finally awarded our modest scholarship offering.

9. A few hours later, PT responded. He wrote:

Interestingly enough, I have yet to receive the scholarship check…. Thank you for your efforts in trying to get the check to me though; I really appreciate it….

10. Rebel Girl has emailed PT again, asking for further particulars.
     Amazing.