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.

Local academic superstar Elizabeth Loftus: remembering what never happened

     Be sure to check out Moheb Costandi’s brief profile of a local academic superstar: Elizabeth Loftus. It’s in the latest issue of Nature:

Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory (Nature)
     Elizabeth Loftus has spent decades exposing flaws in eyewitness testimony. Her ideas are gaining fresh traction in the US legal system.

[Excerpts:]

     …In a career spanning four decades, Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has done more than any other researcher to document the unreliability of memory in experimental settings. And she has used what she has learned to testify as an expert witness in hundreds of criminal cases … informing juries that memories are pliable and that eyewitness accounts are far from perfect recordings of actual events.
. . .
     Now, the 68-year-old scientist's research is starting to bring about lasting changes in the legal system. In July last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling — based largely on her findings — that jurors should be alerted to the imperfect nature of memory and the fallibility of eyewitness testimony as standard procedure. Loftus is working with judges in other states to make such changes more widespread.
. . .
     In 1990, Loftus got a call from a California attorney defending George Franklin, whose daughter claimed that during therapy, she had recovered decades-old memories of him murdering her friend, Susan Nason. Loftus decided to consult for the defence team. “I thought it was pretty fishy and started looking into the literature,” she says. She found little convincing research to support the idea that traumatic memories could be repressed for years.
. . .
     The courts went on to see a surge in cases based on recovered childhood memories, fuelled in part by popular books and high-profile accusations. Loftus began to wonder whether it was possible to fabricate complex, believable memories. “I wanted to see if we could implant a rich memory of an entirely made-up event,” she says. An idea eventually came to her as she drove past a shopping mall.
     Working with a student, Jacqueline Pickrell, Loftus recruited 24 people and, with the cooperation of family members, presented them with four detailed accounts of events from their childhood. Three of the incidents had actually taken place, but the fourth — a dramatic account of being lost in a mall — was entirely concocted by Loftus and corroborated by the participants' relatives. One-quarter of the participants claimed to remember the false event….

"Overheard During FLEX Week" OR "The Manufacture of Consent"

Monday morning, IVC: the spectacle of someone who is not in the room being introduced to the room as the Shiny New Hire and being told to stand up and recognize the applause. Now, this happens all the time around here.

The kicker this time: this someone was not only not in the room, but had never before been in the room–and, in fact, would never, ever be in the room. In reality, the person had weeks earlier declined the offer of employment for reasons that won't be revealed here (but let's just say they are embarrassingly numerous and highlight longstanding issues that were revealed in the recent district climate survey. Can't someone in HR or elsewhere tell new hires something about the salary scale and its steps? The contract? The workload? Is overload teaching optional or can a chair really compel faculty to teach overload? Good grief! Is no one in charge?) 

*

Tuesday, Saddleback College's McKinney Theater: Something about Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and the tune “Comfortably Numb”; something about the moment when people were asked to raise their hands if they ever learned something from someone who didn't have a Ph.D.—and then the audible eye-rolling of an administrator regarding the cost of faculty salaries.  

A certain pissed-off faculty member (with a Ph.D., natch) looked up that administrator's own salary and offers a pop quiz here (the first one of the semester): 

How much does this noisy fella make? Choose one. (Hint: this isn’t hard.)

a) $65,000

b) $85,000

c) $100,000

d) $125,000

e) $150,000

f)  $200,000

g) $225,000

e) $240,000*

*

Wednesday, IVC: a new faculty member who had been assured by a committee (one which s/he had faithfully served and whose work would impact her career here) that no decisions would be made over the summer found out that decisions had indeed been made over the summer. Imagine that. An old story around here, but it was a first for this new professor. It is sadly familiar to the rest of us, the dark dangers of summer and the noiseless manufacture of consent.

At the end of the day, faculty members were found busily changing their signatures on their emails to downplay their credentials. As one quipped: “What is this week supposed to show us? How little power we have and how little respect for our training exists?”

Signed:

XXX  XXXXXX, Ph.D. (who needs one anyways, when you can learn something from someone who never even went to college!)

*

Thursday: High noon BBQ in the back of the ivc PAC:

Where's that? Keep walking. How far? Keep going.

Vegetarians want to know if they still get FLEX credit if they didn't (i.e., couldn’t) eat anything.

The Ice Cream Initiative:

Quote of the Day: “We are giving you free ice cream sandwiches for attending this training because distressed students is a very important problem.”

One person liked the ice cream sandwiches: “Ice cream sandwiches were offered after the In-N-Out deal fell through. So they are consolation ice cream sandwiches anyhow. Admittedly, I would prefer the more secular ice cream to the faith-based burger. So, I see it as a win.”

Meanwhile, at the so-called bookstore:

"Did you know that they’re selling IVC shot glasses at the Bookstore? Five bucks each."

"No, bookstore, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison is not the same as The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells. Please try again."

Does it matter?  Only if you have a Ph.D.