text:
Home Sport What Is The Sport Of Curling latest 2023
What Is The Sport Of Curling latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The Sport Of Curling, today we will share with you article about What Is The Sport Of Curling was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic What Is The Sport Of Curling is useful to you.
A Golf Putting Tip From The Sport Of Curling
Video about What Is The Sport Of Curling
Question about What Is The Sport Of Curling
Rate Articles What Is The Sport Of Curling
Search keywords What Is The Sport Of Curling
I found a great golf tip when I learned a new sport for me – curling.
Curling is similar to golf in many ways.
These are two games that originated in Scotland several hundred years ago.
They are both games without malice and animated by powerful rules of etiquette, where politeness is the basis of the game.
That's why I love them both, and when I found out that the one and only purpose-built curling rink in England was a 40-minute drive from me, I was there like a shot.
Another thing the two games have in common is the small margin between getting exactly the result you want or being nowhere near close!
As I developed my technique of bringing the 42 pounds of granite to the target 40 yards deep on the ice, I learned that the strength of your shot does not come from the swing of the arm, but rather of the thrust of your leg.
You use your arm to get direction, but if you try to use your arm to judge strength, you won't be consistent.
It is this point that you can transfer as a golf tip to remove many strokes from your score.
Do not try to judge the distance of your putt with your follow-up, this will lead to inconsistency.
When you practice, practice using your backswing to gauge your distance.
When you backswing 3 inches and follow 3 inches, you'll soon be able to predict how far your putt will go.
Do the same for a 4-inch backswing and so on, so that over time when you're on the green and have judged how far you need to putt, you can switch to your pre-programmed backswing.
This will get the length of your putts exactly where you want them, even on the pressure shots, so you're just focusing on the line.
Even if it only reduces your 3 putts, you will see the benefits on your scoreboard.
When you use that golf tip and reap the rewards, thank the sport of curling!
You can see more content about What Is The Sport Of Curling on our youtube channel: Click Here
If you have any questions about What Is The Sport Of Curling, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!
The article What Is The Sport Of Curling was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article What Is The Sport Of Curling helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!
What Is The Sport Of Curling
way What Is The Sport Of Curling
tutorial What Is The Sport Of Curling
What Is The Sport Of Curling free
#Golf #Putting #Tip #Sport #Curling
Source: https://ezinearticles.com/?A-Golf-Putting-Tip-From-The-Sport-Of-Curling&id=433328
What Is The Second Most Popular Sport In The World latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The Second Most Popular Sport In The World, today we will share with you article about What Is The Second Most…
What Is The Number One Sport In America latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The Number One Sport In America, today we will share with you article about What Is The Number One Sport In…
What Is The National Summer Sport Of Canada latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The National Summer Sport Of Canada, today we will share with you article about What Is The National Summer Sport Of…
What Is The National Sport Of Cuba latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The National Sport Of Cuba, today we will share with you article about What Is The National Sport Of Cuba was…
What Is The Most Watched Sport In The Us latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The Most Watched Sport In The Us, today we will share with you article about What Is The Most Watched Sport…
What Is The Most Valuable Sports Franchise In The World latest 2023
You are searching about What Is The Most Valuable Sports Franchise In The World, today we will share with you article about What Is The Most Valuable…
What Is The Most Popular Sport In Italy latest 2023
What Is The Most Popular Sport In China latest 2023
What Is The Most Dangerous Winter Olympic Sport latest 2023
What Is The Most Dangerous Sport In America latest 2023
What Is The Most Common Sports Injury latest 2023
What Is The Most Boring Sport latest 2023
What Is The Least Popular Sport latest 2023
What Is The Healthiest Sports Drink latest 2023


text:
Frank B. Johnson (November 13, 1894 – February 5, 1949) was an American druggist and politician.

Born in Brainerd, Minnesota, Johnson served in the United States Army during World War I. Johnson went to the University of Minnesota and became a druggist. He served on the Brainerd City Council and was mayor of Brainerd. His grandfather was Parsons King Johnson. He served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1947 until his death. He died in Brainerd of a heart attack.

Notes

1894 births
1949 deaths
People from Brainerd, Minnesota
Military personnel from Minnesota
University of Minnesota alumni
Mayors of places in Minnesota
Minnesota city council members
Members of the Minnesota House of Representatives
20th-century American politicians
Pharmacists from Minnesota
United States Army personnel of World War I

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Anticipating the future
Due Diligence in Intellectual Property
Having in consideration the growing importante that intellectual property rights have acquired in businesses, influencing the company value, Due Dillingences directed towards Intellectual Property rights have become no longer an accessory tool but became a vital proceeding to assess a companys financial health.
Due Diligence towards Intellectual Property rights consists in an audit made to the IP portfolio rights designed to assess and identify their legal status, their threats and their opportunities.
For instances, in proceedings of mergers/acquisitions it is interesting:
to assess how important are the assets to be acquired;
to measure the size and strenght of the portfolio;
to identify what are the risks that the acquisition of certain assets may entail;
to understand if the company is properly securing its assets;
in case of exsitance of licensing agreements towards technologies/products, verifying the license status and their importance towards the business.
With a focus on Intellectual Property rights, this audit investigates the intangible assets and relevant factor of the past, present and future that may determine the business sustainability.
Relevant factors may consist of:
A trademark representing 90% of sales in a struggling business. If that trademark is notorious in its market, it may result in a company valuation or may result in a seperate transaction.
A startup, whose business model is a patented system, looking for an investor and arguing that the value of its business is set on the market exclusivity ensured by the patent filed 8 years ago. As an investor, you have to make sure that the patent is in force and is free of any legal issues that may rendered it worthless.
A business whose expasion strategy is based on a Franchising model, through trademark licensing. If a legal case on unlawful competition exists against this company, there is a risk factor for future franchisees.
In short, Due Dilligence sounds like a theoretic analysis, but is vital to learn in detail the current situation of the Intellectual Property rights and the risks associated with their transaction.
It is essential to take these matters into acount on a corporate operation such as licensing agreements, investments, mergers, trademark or company acquisitions, among others due to the fact that allows the company to take preventive steps on an operation that may involve some risk.
We have a team of certified professionals, with specialized IP knowledge, to carry out IP portfolio audits and draft a final report that will reflect the analysis on the performed audit.
Directly related to Intellectual Property Due Dillingence are matters related to Asset Valuation. Learn more about this service here.
Distinctive signs of tradePatents and Utility ModelsDesignsDomain NamesTechnical TranslationsPersonal Data ProtectionWatching ServicesPriority SearchesCopyrightAsset ValuationBuy & Sell AssetsOther services

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This level has medium difficulty. For this level try to play from top part of the board and make special candy as you get the chance. Combine them with each other to break more blockers or play near to honey blockers to break all bears to save them.
My screen is different. There are eight blockers, 6 with "X's" over them so it takes more hits to get rid of plus there are 4 purple candies intermixed with them. It's a lot harder than the screen shown here.
This video is sooooo different than the actual game . There are 4 purple pieces and blockers placed where u have to hit it extra times. Horrible!
Months on this miserable level. Managed 8/10 once. Most games 2 to 4 out of 10. Purple candies and a hole in the middle above the candy cane poles make this undoable. King, FIX IT!
I agree this level is not the same as pictured. Miserable doesn't even describe it. I've been on this level for over a week. Playing on my phone and laptop to no avail. Refuse to spend money to pass this .
Looks much easier with this screen layout but I have the four purple candies too which means more moves needed to get rid of them…..really starting to bug me now!


Jeremy McPike has lived in Prince William County, Va., for the past 40 years. Paying for school expenses by working as a construction laborer and eventually as a construction superintendent, Jeremy attended George Mason University for his Bachelor's and Master's of Public Administration degrees, where he was selected for the Northern Virginia Public Service Fellows Program.
For the last 16 years, Jeremy has served as a volunteer firefighter and EMT with the Dale City Volunteer Fire Department (DCVFD), where he is a Captain and has been honored with Life Membership. He helped found and serves as president of the DCVFD Foundation, well known in the community for its support of public safety initiatives and Santa visits to kids fighting cancer. He also led the design and construction of the innovative and environmentally conscious DCVFD Station 10, which received Washington Business Journal's 2010 Green Business Design Award and was the first volunteer fire station in the nation to earn the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Gold rating.
Jeremy has worked for the City of Alexandria for the past 15 years, currently serving as the Director of General Services. In this role, he works to make sure public building projects come in on time and on budget. He has also established gleaning programs and SNAP/EBT at local Farmers' Markets so healthy foods can reach the most vulnerable, has built new public-private partnerships for the city, and, as a LEED Accredited Professional, has set up sustainable green building policies for Alexandria.
He is also a graduate of the Sorensen Institute's Political Leaders Program, and the former Northern Virginia Chair for OneVirginia2021, a bipartisan organization advocating for an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that would bring fair and impartial redistricting to the Commonwealth.
Jeremy and his wife Sharon live in Dale City with their three daughters.
Greetings from Richmond! We've had a great first week of Crossover with over 1,000 bills passing over to the House and Senate.
In the 2019 Legislative Session, 17 bills that I introduced have successfully passed in the Senate and moved over to the House. This includes SB1737 Civil Relief; Furloughed Workers, which will provide needed relief for employees who have been affected by the partial government shutdown.
Greetings from Richmond! The fourth week of session hit the ground running after the successful passage of multiple bills last week.
Greetings from Richmond! The third week of session started off with some great constituents and visitors coming by.
Greetings from Richmond! The second week of session started off with visits from constituents and organizations in and around the Prince William area. Some of the legislation that moved forward last week were SB 1171; local special events licenses, and SB 1174; exemption for security canine handlers.


text:
Second Amendment experts: Merrick Garland's gun record has been distorted by NRA
Mike DeBonis The Washington Post
Mar 31, 2016 at 11:15 AM Mar 31, 2016 at 11:15 AM
WASHINGTON - Since Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court two weeks ago, few groups have been more strongly opposed to his confirmation than gun-rights supporters.
On the day of his nomination, for instance, the National Rifle Association declared that Garland's record "shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." The NRA's chief lobbyist followed up with a Washington Post op-ed that delved into that record and said the organization believes Garland would vote to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago -- the two landmark cases that established an individual right to bear arms.
A group of 10 law professors organized by the liberal American Constitution Society is challenging that assumption in a new letter to congressional leaders, arguing that the NRA's position is "based on an extraordinary misrepresentation of his record."
"The First Amendment may grant interest groups like the NRA the right to distort the facts and attempt to mislead the public," the professors, who specialize in Second Amendment, write to the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate judiciary Committee. "Nothing in the Constitution justifies the Senate acceding to such misrepresentations."
In the first of two gun cases Garland handled as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- Parker v. District of Columbia, which became District of Columbia v. Heller when it was elevated to the Supreme Court -- he was among four judges of his court who voted in 2007 for a rehearing of the case after a three-judge panel found that the Constitution includes an individual right to bear arms. The NRA and other gun-rights supporters have interpreted that vote as evidence of Garland's hostility, but the professors argue that conclusion is unfounded -- Garland, they argue, was justified in seeking additional review for a case that both overturned existing precedent and addressed a matter of exceptional importance. And, they note, a conservative judge joined Garland in seeking a rehearing.
"Any argument that a purely procedural vote reflecting no substantive judgment on the merits of the underlying case is proof that Judge Garland would vote to overturn Heller is specious and dishonest, and unworthy of acceptance by the Committee or the Senate as a whole," they write.
In the other case, National Rifle Association v. Reno, Garland in 2000 joined an opinion written by a fellow judge that found that the Justice Department, in keeping certain background check data for six months to conduct audits, had not violated the 1968 federal law barring the establishment of any national firearm registry. The professors write that the ruling was supported by the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush, and that the Supreme Court subsequently decided not to hear the NRA's appeal.
All told, the professors write, the two cases represent a thin reed on which to hang Garland's reputation as an anti-gun jurist. Better, they write, to have the Senate take up "a sober, objective and fair assessment of Judge Garland's record, experience, and qualifications by holding hearings on his nomination."
"As with other issues of national importance, we believe that the health and vitality of our democratic republic benefits when people express their diverse opinions on a Supreme Court nominee's qualifications, record, and views," they write. "It weakens our system of government, however, for the Senate to effectively grant a special interest lobbying organization veto power over a nominee-especially when its opposition is based on an unfair and fundamentally flawed assessment of the nominee's record."
But the NRA's opposition remains a important reason why Senate Republican leaders are maintaining the blockade on Garland's consideration. In a TV interview last week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he "can't imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association."


DURATIONS : 09 NIGHTS AND 10 DAYS .
Upon arrive at Tambulaka Airport / West Sumba , you are welcome by our guide representative then transfer to Hotel ( Manandang Hotel ) or similar to check in .afternoon Visit: Prai Ijing, Tarong, Waitabar Village near by Waikabubak, down to Local market of Waikabubak and stop at Algadri Artshop ( Best Collection of Sumba Antique in the City, return to hotel for afternoon coffee, dinner and overnight .
After breakfast at hotel trip to Wanukaka for Visit Waigali Village to See the Andung ( Scoultree ) Praigoli Village to See the kajiwa Stone and Pasola Field, return to Marosi Beach on the Way stop at Waiwuang Village, Waru wora and Wunta laka village in this area the traditional houses are on the hilltop, lunch box will prepare at Kerewei Beach, return to Hotel for dinner and overnight at Manandang Hotel.
After Breakfast , Your guide will pick you up then start the tour to Anakalang Area for Visit: PASUNGA, ( Megalitic Tombs build on 1926 ) LAI TARUNG, To see the Hause of Marapu/ ancestor , GALU BAKUL Village to see The Royal tombs King of Anakalang ( Umbu Sawola ) then drive to Mamboro Country side and will stop at Some Village for visit: Manuakalada, Wawarongu and Tambera Village, your pick nic lunch will provided on the way, during this trip you can enjoy the fantastic view of the rice field , green hill and safanah with the back ground of the Flores ocean ,afternoon return to Manandang for accommodation.
After breakfast at hotel, drive to East sumba via Mamboro-lenang- Cave sasar, ( this trip will show the vantastic view of the savana and ocean with back ground of Flores island you can see from here, we follow north of sumba road ( Pantura ) arrival in Wunga and prai liang village which is set a top a hill overlooking the valley and river.( lunch box will provided on the spot ) After a walk of around 300 meters , pass through the spirit gate, and see stunning local style houses. This village is not specially set up for tourists – this is the way these people live their daily lives. With cool breezes and amazing views, we can easily understand why they choose to stay in this beautiful area. Afternoon continous to Hotel Elvin for dinner and overnight.
After breakfast at Hotel, Visit Old harbor of Waingapu, local market, kampung raja ( Prai Liu Village ) see the ikat process, lunch at local restaurant , return to Hotel free on your own leisure Dinner and overnight at Elvin Hotel.
After breakfast at Hotel transfer to the airport for your next destination-Tours End.


text:
Works old
Infinite Friend by Mark Wylie
Infinite Friend is a concept record exploring life, death, afterlife and rebirth. The album was composed devotionally for God & Guru, inspired deeply by Yoga philosophy and by the writings of Paramahansa Yogananda. The Music explores the turbulent sufferings of the human experience and the tranquil serenity of our inherent divinity, offering listeners a bridge between physical and astral worlds. The record seeks a balance between catapulting listeners into the abyss and rescuing them on a magic carpet of bliss.
MOONLIGHT / HIDE & SEEK
Moonlight / Hide & Seek by Mark Wylie
Embark on a journey through celestial ripples, riding the tides of emanating echoes. Rays of luminous vibrations conducted by the acoustic guitar act as a beacon for the tandem forces. Primordial, yet ethereal, the grounding elements of drums harken to our tribal instinct while the currents of sound synthesis wash over us alluding to traces of the astral spheres. A distilled sense of spiritual yearning paves way for these healing sounds, a convalescence for the soul.
In celebration of the Summer Solstice, Mark returns with a pair of singles from his archives. Pillars of Mark's sound signature remain true; Zen-like guitar passages, ceremonial orchestral layers, lucid ambient soundscapes and the sound of spirit drums.
Moonlight and Hide & Seek were composed respectively during Full Moon cycles. A scribe for the Cosmic Vibrations, Mark cannot take all the credit for the sounds you hear. A process achieved by entering a trance-like state of one-pointed awareness, becoming equal part passenger, equal part composer. Each song features words of wisdom from Alan Watts, mantras for the Spirit seekers and embers of truth to spark the fires of realization.
Moonlight composed on Spring Equinox (March 20th, 2019)
Hide & Seek composed on Full Strawberry Moon (June 25th, 2019)
Releases on Full Buck Moon (July 5th, 2020) Dream Atoms by Mark Wylie
Bandcamp will be donating their revenue share of all album sales Friday, June 19th to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I will also be donating 100% of generated proceeds to support the fight against racial injustice.
Over the past weeks I have been watching racial prejudice take the media spotlight, many people sharing their stories, views and opinions to help shine light on this issue from various angles. It has been encouraging to watch people raise their voices in different forms to help feed the collective conscious on the matter, but I have remained silent not knowing if what I had to say would be of any value to the general public. After some soul searching I came to a conclusion my perspective and my art may be a way to use my voice to make a positive impact.
The optimist in me sees this year 2020 as a powerful catalyst for positive growth. Evil in all its outlets is necessary to redirect us to harmony. COVID-19 could be Earth's way of telling us that our economy, that values the manufacturing of materialistic goods over the sustainability of the environment, is no longer going to work. It is my hope that the disease of racial prejudice is also eradicated, by reorganizing and rethinking systematic institutions to provide all humans with equality.
It has been enlightening, however dark and tragic, to see the various cases against other human citizens because of skin pigmentation. Given my upbringing (as a 'white caucasian' suburbian male), I have never experienced blatant racism against myself or witnessed against my friends of different colour – which I am grateful for. It's easy for me to make a statement like "we are all human beings of one race, no matter the colour of our skin", when I have never experienced systematic inequalities. The perspective this affords me is one I would like to share, as it is my belief if this truth were universally realized we wouldn't find ourselves in this mess of racial injustice.
We are not just flesh and bones, we are the souls that temporarily inhabit these bodily temples. Gender, skin colour, nationality, religion and class do not define what we really are. Two great analogies I've picked up from my Yoga/Hindu studies illustrate this concept more eloquently then I could describe; 'drops from the same Ocean' or 'lightbulbs sharing the same electrical Current'. If we treat each other as if we were interacting with God, we might have more respect for all conscious-sentient beings.
The composition of Dream Atoms was inspired by the writings of Sri Paramahansa Yoganada. The writing process spanned approximately a week, in stream-of-consciousness fashion. The piece is intended to be one large song with 10 movements, largely improvised in the moment which reflects some rough edges (beauty in imperfection, right?). Conceptually, the work revolves around the question, is the reality we perceive upon awakening from a dream any more real than the reality of dreaming itself? Could the limited range of our consciousness not be able to discern waking life to be a powerful dream like matrix?
Anthology: 2019 by Mark Wylie
A mirror into my year through sound. A looking glass through which I channel discoveries, experiences and emotions.
I shift musical phases sporadically, usually after an extended period in one genre, results in the pendulum swinging toward something radically different. Works include solo fingerstyle guitar, ambient/new age, progressive metal, jazz fusion, world and experimental/avant-garde compositions.
I decided this year to keep the track list in alphabetically order instead of chronologically, the flow ended up working out nicely!
Fable EP
A portal was opened, from which flowed an energetic signature of origin one can't say for certain. The emanations flowed into this being, conjuring the sonic narrative that is the Fable EP. A construct of pure imagination, this musical mythos is an expression of the physical universe and a reflection of the soul.
Fable EP is a visionary deep-dive into the psyche of guitarist & composer Mark Wylie. Following up the emotionally-charged sophomore record, Moments, the next chapter in the saga focuses on the exploration of new grounds. The writing process began at the turn of the new year, spanning merely 5 days in an intense flood of consciousness. Influenced by visionary art, Mark teamed up with artist Simon Haiduk to create album art aligned in portraying the Divine nature.
Interwoven sounds of nature and land's heartbeat create the bedrock from which the music blooms. Ambient fractals dance in constant orbit around the cascading force of the acoustic guitar. A fabled passageway through the wilderness, destined towards a kingdom within.
Fable EP by Mark Wylie
Talisman / 6.1.19
Talisman by Mark Wylie
Talisman // A parable of celebration and farewell
The initial spark for this piece happened upon hearing the news that my Grandfather was in the hospital for surgery following a stroke. Writing this song was ultimately a coping mechanism, knowing soon it would be time to say goodbye. I wanted this song to take on a spirit that may help with the grieving process by bringing emotions to the surface.
There's a balance in play between the spectrum of sadness and joy. I didn't want this song to dwell uncomfortably in melancholy and sorrow. Instead, focusing on cherishment and celebration, reminiscing in fond memories and being grateful for all the little things.
I am thankful to have played this piece for my Grandfather on his last day.
Dedicated to my family. Written in memory of my Grandfather, John Wylie.
Moments / 2.13.19
The sophomore album, Moments, is set to release February 13th, 2019 – on Mark's 26th birthday. Composing for the album took place over the course of 2017 during significant personal moments that Mark encapsulated with Music. Each song with a unique emotional fingerprint, with its own story to tell.
Mark has developed an intriguing live show production for the Moments release that defies audience's expectations when they see one man with a guitar. Taking studio magic to the stage, Mark delivers the power of a symphony as a soloist. This innovative technique redefines the boundaries of solo guitar performance.
A chronology of my compositions spanning throughout the year. A cathartic expression of experiences, emotions and challenges encountered. This is my outlet for all the love, pain, hope, fear, joy and sorrow endured. These songs were a gift to me, each at a special time, and now I'm pleased to share them.
Dedicated to my family & friends.
A Summer's Journey
A Summer's Journey is an eclectic 14-minute epic inspired by my travel experiences to Australia & New Zealand with my brother Tom. I captured travel footage documenting the adventures and composed this piece as accompaniment.
A Summer's Journey by Mark Wylie
Detour / 12.28.16
Detour by Mark Wylie
Detour is a journey through the thoughts and emotions of composer Mark Wylie as he explores and discovers new terrain with his instrument. The album was composed and produced throughout the month of November 2016 and in many ways is a departure from previous works. Reflecting his Canadian heritage, Mark combines various cultural aesthetics that result in musical diversity from track to track. Throughout the album, Mark integrates traditional acoustic guitar playing with contemporary electronic synthesis to push the limits of what the instrument is capable of achieving sonically. All sounds you hear on the album were made with one acoustic guitar and digital production techniques.


Just talking…it's what I do….
I am still going to stand 100% behind food grade hydrogen peroxide as my yeast killing agent. It will penetrate at the cellular level and kill and it does it all with oxygen which will also repair the gut not to mention endless other health benefits…and it cost so little.
Three months, three times daily. Increase by one drop daily. Easy.
I am confident beyond words that I will get my life back once again!


Here are a few random thoughts on Schwartz's plan and the situation in general.
I like Schwartz's concept that as a general principal students should not be asked to pay more than the cost of their education.
More generally, it seems that a logical way to proceed on this situation would be to identify some overarching principals, such as the one mentioned above, as a framework of where we want to be down the road.
Actually implementing this overarching set of principles as a UC governing framework will take some time. Hence merely doing so would not solve the immediate crisis, because we still have to get through the next few years of budget reductions. But at least it would be good to have an established set of general principles that we could agree upon and be working towards.
For any individual student, approximating the cost of that student's education seems simple. The salaries of the faculty are public records, and students can easily determine how many students and classes the faculty are teaching in any quarter. So at the level of any individual student, estimating the cost of education seems a matter of simple math.
Then there is the issue of cross-subsidies between programs.
Many experts believe that generally speaking in the modern research university education ends up subsidizing research. Overall, this is probably true.
However some research sponsors pay much more indirect costs (IDC) than others. Those research sponsors insist on paying low IDC rates clearly are more like to require subsidies from other programs.
The same applies to many "gifts" for research.
Just as there is variation between subsidy rates for different research projects, similarly its well known that some education programs cost more than others.
By accident or design, the accounting methods used by modern universities make it nearly impossible to know what many things really cost.
Researchers who bring in grants like to boast about how many millions of dollars of IDC reimbursement they bring in.
But these same people are also bringing in millions of dollars of administrative expenses to the university which would otherwise not be necessary. They seem to forget this at times.
In his book "The Decline of Academic Dogma", Robert Nisbett presciently foresaw some of UC's current problems.
One of Nisbett's main points is that the education function of the University, considered by itself, really requires very little administration. Nisbett was writing at a time when all faculty were paid the same across disciplines, and administrative cost have risen since he wrote via unfunded mandates like sexual harassment training, for example, but Nisbett's main point that the offering of classes per se requires relatively little administrative overhead is still true.
Much of the University's administrative burden is research-related.
Something else to consider is that administrative costs are going to be exponentially related to organizational complexity. The exponential nature of this relationship is key. As the university has become more and more complicated organizationally, this exponential relationship has caused administrative costs to shoot up.
As a long-term principle, it seems reasonable that the university should say that every activity should generate revenue streams to cover it's own cost.
It there has to be cross-subsidation, it should be explicit and not covert.
To accomplish this, the organization structure has to be incredibly simplified. This will take some years to accomplish.
Large academic departments administering millions in Federal Research grants as well as education programs out of a combined business office need to be broken up. There should be research business offices and academic business offices, but not hybird offices doing both.
Combining these two functions in a single business office is merely a trick of modern research universities to hide the millions of dollars of costs related to writing Federal research grant proposals, a cost the Feds don't pay for and no one else explicitly funds. This cost is increasing as the "take rate" on grant proposals is dropping.
So if it were up to me, I would organizationally break out the research and the teaching of the large departments doing funded research into separate organizations.
There also needs to be major reduction in duplication of effort. But a structural problem is that few high-paid administrators want to voluntarily say they need less funding. Very few administrators are going to voluntarily turn back funding. This is a structural problem within the organization which has to be dealt with somehow.
Also, as Schwartz, Newfield and others have said, there needs to be much more transparency.
So we need tremendous amounts of organizational simplification along with the need for transparency.
Finally, for perspective, its useful to remember that the modern research university as we know it today hasn't been around for very long. It's basically something that has grown up since the 1960's. Even though UC has been around for much longer, the university as we know it today was really an organizational experiment. It was an ambitious experiment, but it some ways it was doomed to fail. It is failing and it needs to be reworked.
I agree with Prof. Schwartz's recommendation for reducing UC administration, but I disagree with his premises for separating the undergraduate education and research components of UC's mission.
1) If the state really cares about UG education, why is CSU so bad off?
2) If students care only about teaching and not research by their professors, why do they generally prefer UC to CSU?
3) If students prefer to go to a university where professors do research, why should we recommend that student fees should only cover the cost teaching and not research?
Note that I am not advocating the "privatization" of UC -- I just don't think it makes sense to have separate revenue streams for the teaching and research missions of UC. That's not what UC was founded for, nor why students wish to attend UC.
Agreeing with the above I don't think it's possible to separate out graduate education costs from undergraduate - or it is possible only at the price of misunderstanding what 'undergraduate education' really is.
Are graduate stipends a cost that should be associated with undergrad education? On one level, obviously not. On the other, without grad stipends, there will be no grad students (or only rich ones, or only lousy ones). Good faculty would leave to places with better grad programs - so the quality of both the faculty and the grad students who teach would decline - and hence so would undergrad education.
I am all for cutting admin and bloated bureaucracy - but it is a mistake to try to isolate 'undergrad education' as a budget item - the University stands or falls as an institutional whole. You cannot have good undergrad education without the rest of it.
SIO Prof asked: "If students care only about teaching and not research by their professors, why do they generally prefer UC to CSU?"
18 year old students simply don't have much understanding of the research side of things. A few do, but they are truly exceptional.
Motivated students can get just as good an education at CSU-Chico as Berkeley, but they might have to work harder at it. Moreover, the "credentialing" of a Berkeley degree is worth much more. This has nothing to do with student interests in faculty research per se.
I certainly agree that most students are more interested in status than in research, but status comes primarily from faculty research.
If students want the status, then they can't expect to pay only for direct costs of teaching (that is, if the state won't contribute to UC like it used to).
I do not see anything in the Schwartz plan that asks undergraduates only to pay for their education. The point is that there is a case to make to the undergraduates about why they, rather than the state, should be funding the research and administrative side of the house as well.
Similarly, there's nothing I see in the Schwartz plan that compels the conclusion that separating the accounting for undergraduate education and other matters that requires separation of missions. The plan shows an approach into the discussions, asks for transparency and accountability, not apologies for the status quo and a continued "politics of caution" to use Clark Kerr's phrase. If there's a case to be made for undergraduate support for administrators, then let's have it. If there's a compelling argument for how research informs instruction, let's hear it again, in the presence of some decent figures regarding just how the finances work out.
I will underscore the importance Schwartz places on the choice of vocabulary. How ever will UC orient to an acceptable direction by trying to translate its situation into corporate management-speak? As Jim Collins would have it in Good to Great and the Social Sectors, discipline and focus are not distinctively business attributes. What I see in the Schwartz plan is a way to get at things. For each element that might be impractical (like an administrative salary cap), think of it as a starting point that brings the core activities such as undergraduate instruction out of financial crisis by reducing the administrative contribution to that crisis, and then working back toward the administrative load that the state, or undergraduates, or donors, or university "industries" are asked to pay.
Finally, in all the discussions I have had on the subject of status, peer reviewed federal awards appear to be the gold standard. Extramural funding is not an issue here. The research and administration funding that is on the hook is that which connects with state initiatives, such as the Discovery programs and the California Institutes for Science and Innovation. Again, as I see it, and Charles Schwartz will be better than I will be to put a point on it or correct me, but if one takes this approach, the analysis has a great chance of focusing the attention of legislators on programs that directly affect their districts. Obscuring all that behind general claims about the integration of research and instruction, and the administrative complexity to run the whole affair is part of a largely failed two decades of rhetoric. Why not try something different for a change?
Your reading of the Schwartz plan is quite different from mine.
Point 3 of the Schwartz plan sounds exactly like asking students to pay only for their education.
"The Regents shall declare as a matter of firm policy that mandatory fees (tuition) for resident undergraduate students at UC shall never exceed the average per-student Cost of Undergraduate Education, as determined above."
Farther on Schwartz implies that students don't benefit from the research mission of UC.
"The Research mission of the Public University is still a Public Good; and it seems wrong to pass that cost on to students."
SIO Prof... You are right on the details... the Schwartz draft does aim for a cap... but I read it as asking UC to make a case for the connection between administration and undergraduate instruction--administration is not excluded from costs of instruction or tuition but is put up as first to justify the growth in administration--costs apparently being passed on to the students.
Should undergraduates be paying for core research administration, and likely disproportionately more as a group, than graduate and professional students? That's the question I see this approach setting up. It has some logic to it, no? It doesn't mean there's no possibility of cross subsidies. It means: explain them. Explain why undergraduates in a time of crisis should be carrying the load for 5 years of administrative growth, and why they should be (apparently) bailing out core research administration without any clear, public, disciplined self-examination or justification by administrators, for their part.
With regard to the research mission, again, the mandate in UC policy is that the cost of extramural research is to be covered fully by the sponsors. That's nothing new in Schwartz's plan. He just restates it. The question that remains is why, if this is UC policy, that the administration seeks from undergraduates in a time of financial crisis a subsidy of 30% increase in tuition and fees without even hinting that the increase is to support core research administrators salaries.
Again, Prof Schwartz will be the one to speak to his intent. I may be screwing it all up. I take his plan as a starting point for an angle into this mess, not a take-it-or-leave-it final expression of how things must end up. Perhaps some subsidy by students for research is a good thing. Maybe in fact students if presented with the connections would concur. Perhaps administrators demonstrate some portion of their growth is really important and faculty agree with this, too. The broad shape of the approach Prof. Schwartz puts forward is what interests me: show it, and show it grounded in academics and not in business-like terms.
What has anyone put forward that comes close to dividing the issues to make clear priorities in a crisis to establish a starting point for getting at a complex problem? That, perhaps, is something we should expect a physicist might be really good at. My thought is it is worth exploring. It would be a shame to throw out this kind of approach on details before gaining some sense of the big picture.
The problem is that state legislators cannot sell funding faculty research and graduate students to their constituents; they can sell funding undergraduate education--.i.e. this is for your sons and daughters. We have faced this problem for many years in trying to get Sac to value graduate education as much as it does undergraduate education. So to separate the two enterprises will result in a decline of those sectors of faculty research and graduate education that are not industry or federally funded, since the state will also not fund them. Therein lies the rub.
I think a good example of what Jenny is talking about is the use of State 19900 funds to offer a large six-figure start-up recruitment package to a new junior faculty hire in the Sciences.
Nominally these are called "State education funds". Presumably calling them educational funds sounds better to some, but in reality they are nothing more than State funds generally intended to stimulate future Federal research grants.
For the non-science undergraduate who is being taught in larger classes by adjunct faculty and graduate students the benefit of this use of State education funds is doubtful.
This is not to say that Science research isn't valuable or that it isn't a good State investment, but merely that calling it education funding is, from the perspective of most undergrads, a misnomer.
I appreciate many of Prof. Schwartz's contributions, but I think promoting the idea that undergraduates do not benefit from faculty research will definitely undermine UC. If California wants its students to be taught by top scholars, then the state and students must pay for faculty research.
Of course, it is a large problem that undergraduates are often not taught by top scholars. UC professors need to get back into the undergraduate classroom. This applies to me -- I do very extremely little undergraduate teaching! Why? Because the current system does not reward undergraduate teaching, either for individual faculty or for units such as SIO. It's much better for the individual faculty member and the unit to bring in more extramural funding.
Did you receive the comment I posted earlier today (Thursday)?
It is very good to see a serious discussion of these ideas; and I thank Gerald for getting this started so well. A major obstacle to previous attempts at spreading these ideas is the familiar concern expressed by Jenny: this is the old fear, among faculty at any research university, that "they" don't understand or appreciate the value of our research work and so we hide that cost under the cover of Instruction. In the old days when the state paid for all the core costs of education and research, one could justify that accounting by saying that both education and research are "public goods" and are paid for with public money. But with the rapid rise in student fees – under the philosophical justification that students gain a "private good" and should therefore pay for it – that old arrangement must be reexamined.
To ask the question, "Who is paying for what now?" does get many colleagues upset. However, I believe it is a necessary first step before one can discuss "Who should pay for what in the future?" Opening this topic is also important in trying to build (rebuild) respect and support for higher education among the general public. To focus on this topic also sharpens the distinction between public research universities and private ones.
I have found that colleagues in the arts and humanities (and some in the social sciences) are the most upset by this attempt to separate costing for undergraduate education from costing for research (I, along with most everyone else, do not try to separate graduate PhD programs from faculty research.) There is understandable anxiety that the familiar disparity in funding between the sciences and the humanities might get worse under the sort of separation I propose. It is up to all of us faculty members to stand together and not allow any such deterioration. We can and must enunciate the difference between a University and an Institute of Industrial Technologies.
I hope some will look closer at the details of my calculation disaggregating the cost of undergraduate education. I do allow for some allocation of research work to the cost of undergraduate education, following the data provided in the faculty time-use study. I also include cost of libraries, administrative and facilities overhead, student services (a very large component) and even some capital costs. But all of those details are open to debate, better data, and negotiation.
Again, the principles involved here are in no way unique to the University of California; they apply to all research universities.
A new compensation plan to better reward researchers who bring in extramural funds, similar to the Health Sciences plans, should be part and partial to the new accounting system to better segregate costs.
I'll try again. Forgive my persistence.
Parsing the financial problem by starting with undergraduate instruction does not mean that what follows will be a failure to make a great case for the importance of research. Research supporting education, research supporting economic development, research enhancing professional status, research feeding the imagination through curiosity-based investigation. All these things are still available as part of the public debate and the guiding administrative decisions. There are positive stories to be told.
These stories won't be told if there is no good route in to the financials. The politics of caution says: "Do not attempt to explain the financial condition of the core academic functions of the world's top university. Just stay with the standard simplifications that have been repeated for years to the public until we have come to believe them ourselves. Keep the status quo now or it's all up."
If Prof. Schwartz's numbers are a guide, it's the $600m of administrative expansion in recent years that should be considered before hitting on the undergraduates. It's that $600m load that should be considered before letting research faculty pack their bags for Texas.
I'm reminded of Matthew Stewart's account in The Management Myth of the phases of the whale hunt (pp. 68-69). Phase 3 is "eating the brain": "The key to establishing an enduring presence is to colonize key functions in the client's central nervous system. A good place to start is the planning function. Send the existing staff on long and impossible errands, and then steal their office space. Make it impossible for the client to think without you." Phase 4 is "metastasis".
The Schwartz proposal is, among other things, about determining whether there's been such a colonizing going on. Put up your best public argument (undergraduates) against the biggest expansion of cost (administrative growth), and audit the rest against the core state needs (regional research and economic development).
The great bargain in this plan is to support the undergraduates outright and joyously, reducing the uncertainty for the greatest number of families, and aligning faculty with these folks; then, do what the state is willing to fund for regional research; and reduce administration (positions, functions, salaries) to ensure that extramural research and graduate education remains robust.
Pit administrative priorities against graduate/professional education and state funding for core/regional research. Keep undergraduate instruction and extramural research out of it. Should the state fund (A) rampant administrative growth or (B) graduate/professional education and the core research done distinctively for the state? This is a fair distribution of the hurt. This is an appropriate place to make a stand. This is the crux of the crisis.
Folks have a golden opportunity to roll back some of the red tape that haunts every action with two or three layers of review, committees of committees, consultants advising on the hiring of consultants. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
Some commentors on this blog seem to assume that the growth of UC's administrative costs must be due to the proliferation of high-paid administrators at UC.
I suspect rather that the bulk of the dollar growth of administrative costs is probably more related to the legions of relatively lesser-paid staff who are doing routine clerical and administrative tasks. And of course many of these low-level administrative jobs are research-related.
I think it's this "back office" cost that is really killing UC financially. It's not the fault of the administrative staff per se, but simply the result of having very inefficient and extremely highly labor intensive paper-based processes at our research universities.
One wonders why research universities have not developed more efficient systems for contract and grant administration. Presumably part of the reason must have to do with the way the Federal government reimburses these costs.
Maybe eventually much of this research administration work will have to be contracted out to private companies, similar to what has already happened with medical clinical trials, partly because universities simply could not do the work in a cost-competitive way.
But the number of office workers UC employs is astounding. While some of these people are very well-paid; many of them are not. But the shear quantity of desk workers at UC is certainly excessive by today's industrial standards.
And many of these jobs are research-related and not what the public conventionally thinks of of as education-related.
Interestingly, for example, in the discussion of UC's budget published last month by the Legislative Analyst's Office, the word research does not appear even once! So even the LAO seems to lack an appreciation for UC's research mission.
Perhaps some are contented with this budgetary ambiguity because they feel that UC can more readily garner funds from Sacramento if legislators think of this money as being "for education". However the same lack of accounting transparency which obfuscates research spending under the veil of "education spending" also hides of lot of wasteful spending on highly-inefficient and paper-based administrative systems.
Disaggregating the budget as proposed here would be the end of UC as we know it. Faculty at UC are hired for many missions -- using time use studies to account for their salaries allows the Legislature to micromanage faculty time. Think of the current situation -- the Legislature would say use the state funds to teach more undergraduates -- that's all we will pay you for -- use your federal research dollars to hire different faculty and grad students to do research. It would cleve UC into separate entities -- those on state funds who would be required to teach undergrads and the rest who can get outside funds to do their research. There is no transparency issue here -- the state KNOWS it is paying for faculty who teach undergraduates and teach graduate students and do research. Trying to do simplistic accounting just leads to legislative micromanagement. Make the freshman engineering student pay twice the freshmen English student. Let's not pay for professions that don't result in jobs. Let's not pay for departments that train political liberals. The state pays for faculty and there are lots of cross-subsidies -- that isn't bad. A University can explain complexity, can't it? Overly simplistic models will lead to overly simplistic universities -- UC will become just another big state college under the proposed mode, make no mistake.
This last anonymous comment nicely presents the traditional fear: We must hide the cost of faculty research or else horrible things will happen.
The call for honest disclosure of where the money goes also has practical implications. When UC announces that student fees cover only 30% of The Average Per-Student Cost of Education that is an invitation to state lawmakers that they can cut the budget they provide us and more of the cost can be shifted to higher student fees. The way UC does that calculation is to include all of faculty research (not covered by sponsored research funds)as part of "The Cost of Education." My calculation, in contrast, disaggregates that bundle and says that undergraduate student fees now cover just over 100% of the cost of undergraduate education. That present an entirely new framework for any public debate about how high student fees should go.
If anyone has a plausible alternative to the faculty-time-use data for allocating costs in an objective manner, I would like to hear about it.
Currently, it costs about four times the amount of money to educate a graduate student for a year than an undergraduate. It is clear that undergraduates are subsidizing research, graduate education, and administration. Not only is this not fair, but the current move to increase graduate students and decrease undergrads will destroy the delicate balance between graduate and undergraduate education and research.
Usually, when I make this type of comment, senate faculty will say that I want to turn the UC into the CSU. However, I am just asking for more transparency and accountability; faculty want these things as long as they don't threaten prestige.
Senate Faculty also say they want to protect graduate students, but the current system often exploits graduate students and undermines undergraduate education. First of all, 50% of our doctoral students never get their PhDs, and the one's that do get their degrees rarely get tenured positions in research universities. Half of the PhDs looking for academic jobs never get tenure-track positions, so I consider them, and the long-term graduate students who never get degrees, to be exploited part-time faculty. However, the use of grad students to teach sections in large lecture classes drives up the cost so much that most large classes are more expensive than small classes. So, when universities say they cannot afford to teach more students in small, interactive classes because it is so expensive, they are not telling the truth.
Moreover, much of our research mission is being funded out of external grants, but we cannot figure out if these grants lose or gain money because every part of the budget is a fiction.
The solution is to to have more undergrad students, and only bring in graduate students that we can fully support. Too many grad students are now losing their support, and too many undergrads cannot gain access. If we bring in more undergrads, we can make a good case for more state funding. We also have to stop hiding the fact that more than half of the undergraduate courses are taught by lecturers and grad students.
Anon 1124 and others. Some would argue that "privatization" counts as the end of UC as we know it. Perhaps you don't want to explore alternatives that shift the financial burden away from undergraduates and diminish the hurt on the lowest paid UC workers. It's the spirit of the age not to, so you are in good company.
You may as well write "frankly, I'm a scared rat and as long as my piece of pie is still good, I'm okay with UC being corporate, students getting hosed with higher fees, and faculty pushed out of key decision making. A little self-interested financial darkness never hurts now and then." Then we'd have your anonymous opinion out in the open. Otherwise, I don't see where you are going with the comments. If you have another alternative, trot it out.
The legislature constitutionally cannot interfere in UC's business. They can cut the overall allocation, and they can fund what UC puts forward as its needs. It's UC's business to present its needs to the legislature in a fundable manner. The Schwartz plan has a chance of doing that by removing undergraduate instruction from the mix of what needs legislative attention.
If there's no compelling argument to make in Sacramento for graduate education, core research on behalf of the state, and administrative bloat, well then, folks have been hiding rotten stuff behind undergraduates to preserve their self-interest. If, however, there are good arguments, then it is time to trot them out directly, and make a case in the clear light of day for them, not try to mix them with the blood of undergraduates every time there is a chance they might be exposed on their own.
UC has gone from a public commitment argument to one of self-preservation of status. Students are the source of new revenue, not the reason for being. A jump of $12,000 or thereabouts in tuition over 4 years is now a matter of whether a boring middle class in-state student saves $92,000 over four years compared to a private university, or merely $80,000.
Gosh, put that way, what does it matter? Folks can keep their salaries, their status, and the whole shining ball of administrative support stuff, all without self-examination or public revelations, since it's just a question now of how much of a discount cheap-minded middle class folks should be barking about for a world-class status-filled exercise in obtaining paper credentials.
The last thing anyone would want then, I suppose, would be to move a discussion that's shaped to be about personal status and self-survival to one made in academic terms, with clear accounting.
Bob: I'm interested in your point that the Lecture/TA instructional model is more expensive than small classes. It seems counter-intuitive, but I'm all ears.
I completely agree that we have to look at the job market for Ph.D.s and it is unethical to size graduate programs based on how many TAs we need. I don't know that we need to only admit those we can fund, because there will always be some who want a degree and have saved up for it. But we should be moving in that direction.
The lecturers are a different matter, but when you add the cost of having graduate students teach the sections that go with many large classes, at a certain point, I calculated 125 students at UCLA, the large class with sections is more expensive than a class with 20 students taught by a professor. However, now they are getting rid of a lot of sections and having grad students teach bigger section, so grad students are being told to do more for less.
Bob: I'm not following you. You mean above 125 students it is no longer cost effective? At any rate, how we structure these classes shouldn't be decided on a pure cost analysis. Then we just duplicating the Gould Commission's "Through-put" model. But if it is somehow less expensive to have professors in direct contact with students, that would be great to document.
The last couple of comments make the point above about cross-subsidization -- costs calculated simplistically make it seem like using large lecture classes with grad student TAs is an expensive model -- but think about the need to provide support to the graduate supports, and the experience they get teaching -- these are not simplistic calculations. Saying something is complex is NOT hiding the cost of faculty of research, as Professor Schwartz says -- a great university is created by hiring the best faculty and paying them competitive salaries -- UC has been blessed with high faculty salaries compared to other public universities -- this state investment has paid off if you look at the research and clinical revenues generated by this investment. Disaggregating the current model does nothing but make it easier to change the model and hire faculty for specific missions, rather than hiring the best capable of carrying out more than one mission. I don't disagree with looking at using other revenue sources to better support core instruction or seeking to be more efficient in administration. But the cross-subsidy model should not be abandoned nor tarred with statements about "hiding the cost of faculty research" just because it is complex.
Are we are back then to fear and loathing of knowing in the hope that an appeal to complexity will maintain high salaries and business as usual? Perhaps, as Chris puts it recently in another place, it is a trauma that suppresses the subject's own role in having produced the trauma.
Nothing in the Schwartz approach says financials are tied simplistically to missions or duties. Where does that come from? All the complexity of academic life is ever available for discussion. This is not the issue.
The issue is how to build state funding to UC. It's tough making the case for public higher education. It's even tougher when folks within higher ed *don't want to make that case themselves*.
The Schwartz plan says: Show how the money is being used, starting with undergraduate tuition. Show the undergraduates what the 30% increase goes for. Make the case for the core research function, for graduate and professional programs, and for the administrative overhead to ensure a robust system-wide committee to review the risk management plan needed to mitigate risk in risk management plans.
professional programs should be compelling. The Schwartz plan says: research and graduate programs should lead in this crisis. Make the UC funding stand there--first with the state and the public, and then if necessary with the undergraduates.
What is left? The UC administration has apparently added some $600m in salary growth in recent years. The question then is: are faculty going to carry this burden for admin without questioning it or even making a case for it? Is it fiat lux or subsisto in obscurum?
The Schwartz public bargain comes down to this: UC will take a disciplined look at non-essential administrative costs if the state puts more money into the research and graduate programs directly focused at benefiting California.
Undergraduate instruction is *already privatized*. The question that remains, is: how is UC going to privatize administration? By taking out a second mortgage on undergraduate debt?
A rough approximation of the market replacement cost of any given undergraduate student's UC education can be calculated very easily from publicly-available data by apportioning the instructional salary and benefits of his or her instructors across the number of students those instructors are simultaneously teaching, and adding in some sort of an overhead factor.
For example, say an adjunct faculty is paid $4k to teach a course with 25 students. That instructors replacement market cost per student is $160. One could then add some estimate for the reasonable value of overhead.
Ladder-rank researchers who chafe at market values are, in my opinion, whistling in the dark. Students are not going to go on paying more than a reasonable market replacement cost forever.
Look at the crappy job market these kids are facing! Unemployment among recent college graduates has never been higher.
Another thing to consider too is the blatant inequity of expecting students to underwrite those researchers who hope to gain private commercial profit from the intellectual property from their own research. Of course, this does not apply to most researchers at UC. But thanks to the Bayh-Dole act, etc., there are many UC researchers who can make very handsome personal profits from the results of their research. Why should the students be expected to subsidize this self-interested personal wealth-accumulation for some researchers?
Finally, some will say that the value of being taught by the high-caliber faculty can't be compared to the adjunct/graduate student experience. But the reality is that for many undergraduate students this bait-and-switch has been going on for years at many universities, and no one seems to care or even notice.
However, over the years, a troubling pattern emerged in which participation of permanent faculty declined and the ad hoc recruitment and use of either advanced graduate students, lecturers, and temporary faculty increased.
This process of senate faculty disengagement from the DOC Program has continued to the present moment. Thus, in the current (2007-08) academic year, no permanent ladder-rank UCSD senate faculty are teaching in the sequence. Given the importance of the DOC sequence as the introductory general education requirement and initial collective intellectual experience of approximately one-sixth of all entering first-year undergraduates and transfer students at UCSD, the committee believes that this is a deeply troubling, and ultimately untenable, circumstance. Indeed, we believe that staffing by senior ladder-rank faculty is essential for DOC's future.
The full version of the report is available online at the URL below. From the report it appears that at least within the DOC program, the absence of exposure to ladder-rank faculty basically went completely unnoticed.
I'm not in disagreement over developing greater transparency in how funding is allocated. My disagreement is over the premise that undergraduates don't benefit from faculty research.
I think students receive the best education when taught by top scholars in field. Top scholars need time for research, and therefore students should pay for part of that (how much is worth discussing). If we no longer believe this, we might as well shut down UC.
As a previous commenter pointed out, most students are interested in status rather than the opportunity to interact with top scholars. That's their loss, and in my opinion, this mercenary desire for status makes it even more justifiable that these students pay for faculty research.
I do agree that it is difficult for UC to argue that faculty research benefits undergraduate education when professors aren't in the undergradaute classroom. This needs to be changed, but in order to do so, we need to revise how individual faculty and UC units are rewarded. At present, there's no benefit to doing undergraduate teaching, at least in my neck of the woods.
Why does this bit arguing that research and undergraduate education are disassociated keep coming up? Where is the argument that undergraduates don't benefit from faculty research? It's not in the Schwartz plan or even in my less-than-ept restatement of it. The point is: undergraduates do benefit from the research environment. Make the case for that, to the state, and to them. Don't just assume it or assert it. Demonstrate it. Trot it out. Show that top scholars in the field provide the best learning environment for undergraduates.
I'm having trouble with the argument for status as the basis for undergraduate tuition hikes, though. Perhaps someone will walk us through that one carefully.
I've read through almost all of Prof. Schwartz's material, and one of his fundamental premises is that faculty research is a public good that doesn't benefit students. I provided some quotes demonstrating that in a comment farther up. If I'm misunderstanding Prof. Schwartz, I welcome correction from him.
One of the common arguments for privatizing UC is that the benefit of UC goes to the students rather than the public. I think we can justifiably argue that the interaction of undergraduate students with faculty research will improve their education and benefit the state as a whole. But if students are uninterested in that and attend UC predominantly for status (because they can thereby get a higher-paying job), then there is no general benefit for society.
This is why it is important for UC faculty to be in the undergraduate classroom and interacting with undergraduate students. If the primary benefit undergraduate students receive from faculty research is a more prestigious and remunerative degree (a private good), why should the state subsidize that?
The Schwartz calculations are just based on operating expenses as is the calculation above that divides instructor costs by number of students. Students are paying to come to an institution like UC not solely because of its status, but also because they perceive value. That value resides in its faculty and staff (the main source of operating costs), but also in its physical infrastructure -- classrooms, labs, museums, libraries, artwork, glades, athletic fields -- you add in the amortized cost of the decades of state investment in UC, and the cost per student at the frosh level is probably 4-5 times the Schwatrz calculation. The University of Phoenix and its ilk cream off low cost courses like business and teacher education -- their library is Google and their physical infrastructure is the shopping mall. Yes, technology and the internet are changing education, but there is still a huge value (and not just status) in having students physically located within a vibrant intellectual community.
Saying that UC students/parents are paying more than the cost of their education does a huge disservice -- why would the state invest more in ANY aspect of UC? Why do good liberal arts colleges cost so much more than Univ of Phoenix? UC is delivering a high-quality, highly-sought-after education that far exceeds the calculations of operating cost. The withdrawal of state support is the issue, NOT some distracting internecine fight about internal allocation.
Schwartz and the business types are both heading in the same direction -- disaggregate all costs and charge everyone by level and discipline (be it the state or the parents). The result will be a slow drift toward the Univ of Phoenix -- the things that can pay for themselves will survive and the breadth and depth that make UC will wither.
Anonymous 1115 does a good job restating the official future, regrettable as it may be. In the regrettable official future, UC rationalizes taking more money from undergraduates by asserting for them the reasons why they attend UC. In the regrettable official future, they attend for value, and for the opportunity to pay personally and again for the trees and buildings, the coffee shop conversations, the status that attends the paper credential. They also pay for research the state won't pay for, and for graduate programs that supply them with TAs rather than faculty mentoring. Fine, but do these undergraduates attend for the bolus of administration that has built up a $600m nest in new salary over recent years? Yes, regrettably, in the official future, they do. That's what makes them different from folks at the U of Ph. They get to pay much more for all this value! Grrr.
The regrettable official future dislikes the idea of either a corporate or academic framing of the issues and advocates instead for keeping everyone financially in the dark. So much for fiat lux.
The general form is to imagine that any alternative to the regrettable official future proposed will be done badly and so can be dismissed. Perhaps this response projects a history of personal experience onto an organizational future as a kind of true but sadly self-fulfilling prudence. The only joy left, perhaps, is to announce the twilight.
Anon 1115 does, however, articulate the fundamental question: "why would the state invest more in ANY aspect of UC?"
The Schwartz plan, for one, provides an answer: UC should focus on making the case for robust state-centered research (and research infrastructure) and graduate programs while compressing where it can administrative growth salary growth. For once, leave the undergraduates out of it. They are not the poster children for what makes UC "UC", and they are not financial tissue to be caught eating more of in a time of need. The Schwartz plan says: for the sake of everyone in public higher education, find something else to eat. The undergraduate subsidy argument has failed. Lose it. Try, say, administrators making no more than 2x full professors. See if that works better. Are administrative salaries included in *any* ranking of universities for quality or value?
Make the case for research and graduate education. These are the hallmarks of UC. End covert capture of funds obtained by appealing to undergraduate education. Speak in academic terms. Provide an honest accounting without fainting at the requirement not to spin the numbers to cover special interests. Stop the predictably irrational comparisons to corporate compensation and private education, which land grant universities were established to be an alternative to, not to become the same as. Then rally to find the funds for the programs most needed. It's easy if you try.
Just saying. Who is advocating here for the undergraduates as beings being served, not little credit money bags being served up to save administrative investment and avoid an open accounting in changing times? When one moves from I-Thou to I-It, does one feel a change in one's regrettable organizational soul?
Unfairly and illogically, almost all of the IDC reimbursement revenues generated by funded research gets siphoned off for other purposes within the university.
A more simplified, fair and efficient system would be to let the PIs manage their own research via fiscally-autonomous research centers, foundations or institutes.
The PIs could be paid by their research practices for the research they do, and by the campuses for the teaching they do, but fiscally the two organizations could be completely separate. The campuses could charge the projects for space or other services used by the research entities. But the accounting could be maintained completely separately.
Breaking the work up into smaller, simpler organizations in this way would reduce the total administrative cost, in aggregate, since administrative costs grow exponentially with complexity.
The research entities could account for the effort of the researcher. The campuses would not need to be involved in effort reporting at all. Campuses could continue to evaluate faculty on their teaching, as they do now, and that system would be adequate to identify any hypothetical teacher/researcher who might be neglecting the former duties in favor of the later. But aside from this, the campuses don't need to be involved in the research effort reporting system or for that matter in managing in any way what the faculty is doing outside of the classroom.
Anon 905 makes a great point. UCOF ought to consider.
Not only that, but such "external" but affiliated organizations (some call them "intermediary") could negotiate their own IDC rates with the federal agencies--perhaps doing better at recovering their full costs than does UC now. And if one combined these institutes with the practice plans already available to medical center personnel, one could deal with public accountability, intellectual property, and innovation in much more direct ways. For that matter, faculty could continue to evaluate faculty on their research--how it is selected for funding, what comes from it, how those results are published, what impact they make--regardless of the venue in which the research takes place.
I imagine there are dozens of areas in UC administrative practice that would benefit from similar observations.
fwiw, I'll add that in the comments above worrying the impact of the Schwartz plan on university research, folks may have got it wrong about the relationship between undergraduate education and research.
One may argue that undergraduate education *supports* research well beyond any financial measure. The program visibility of swarms of talented undergraduates contributes to corporate and private donor interest and support, which is often (nearly always!)captured for research rather than general instruction. The smart talent of undergraduates continuously challenges TAs and holds them accountable for mastery of their subject where a specialized graduate research program may not. The broad engagement with UC of families supporting undergraduates provides a huge multiplier of public support in political debates--support not nearly so available with only graduate and professional instruction--all the more so because graduate and professional programs are so heavily shifted toward out of state students.
Finally, undergraduates maintain the tone for campus life, and their often populist and enthusiastic interests give a moral frame to research that often otherwise loses sight of community value, and such things as excitement and opportunity and whose future it is, really, that all this research is for.


go for copy that floppy on amazon cdbaby and itunes. i made it on thursday before easter sunday 2015. i have been eating a berner würstl that day. i used the basic idea of copy that floppy i had online at jamendo. i decided put the initial copy that floppy version from jamendo offline. the time where all music of funkyflo is for free of charge these times are gone. i also got to make a living and if you are a fan of mine you can show me your respect by buying my music.
funkyflo is not always single. funkyflo had ines. but we both made mistakes. it is better that funkyflo is now single again. funkyflo is not even single. funkyflo has a girlfiend a vff (virtual friend forever) a 35 year old ladie from philipines. hi emilyn if you read this, funkyflo says a loud hello and welcome to you, he loves you! he wants to say how glad he is that he found you via facebook!!!
dont feel too proud for yourself or to shy for to contact funkyflo via facebook. either via is funkyflo facebook site, please like it/subscribe, or via his personal facebook account you will find when you enter "Florian Suschetz" on facebook.


text:
package com.jayway.jsonpath.spi.mapper;

import com.google.gson.Gson;
import com.google.gson.JsonElement;
import com.google.gson.reflect.TypeToken;
import com.jayway.jsonpath.Configuration;
import com.jayway.jsonpath.JsonPathException;
import com.jayway.jsonpath.TypeRef;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

import java.util.concurrent.Callable;

public class GsonMappingProvider implements MappingProvider {

    private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(GsonMappingProvider.class);

    private final Callable<Gson> factory;

    public GsonMappingProvider(final Gson gson) {
        this(new Callable<Gson>() {
            @Override
            public Gson call() {
                return gson;
            }
        });
    }

    public GsonMappingProvider(Callable<Gson> factory) {
        this.factory = factory;
    }

    public GsonMappingProvider() {
        super();
        try {
            Class.forName("com.google.gson.Gson");
            this.factory = new Callable<Gson>() {
                @Override
                public Gson call() {
                    return new Gson();
                }
            };
        } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
            logger.error("Gson not found on class path. No converters configured.");
            throw new JsonPathException("Gson not found on path", e);
        }
    }

    @Override
    public <T> T map(Object source, Class<T> targetType, Configuration configuration) {
        try {
            return factory.call().getAdapter(targetType).fromJsonTree((JsonElement) source);
        } catch (Exception e){
            throw new MappingException(e);
        }
    }

    @Override
    public <T> T map(Object source, TypeRef<T> targetType, Configuration configuration) {
        try {
            return (T) factory.call().getAdapter(TypeToken.get(targetType.getType())).fromJsonTree((JsonElement) source);
        } catch (Exception e){
            throw new MappingException(e);
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The U.S. DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recently launched a new Human Trafficking Awareness and Public Safety Initiative.
The initiative includes two Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) totaling $4 million to prevent human trafficking and other crimes that may occur on buses, trains and other forms of public transportation.
The agency notes that human traffickers use several modes of transportation to conduct their activities, often using public transit due to the lower cost, greater anonymity in buying fare cards, and less direct interaction with government or transit officials.
The FTA published two NOFOs, each with $2 million in competitive funding. The application submission deadline for both is May 28, 2019.
The goal of the Innovations in Transit Public Safety NOFO is to develop projects that assist transit agencies with identifying and adopting specific measures to address public safety in transit systems, including crime prevention, human trafficking, and operator assault. Eligible applicants for awards are limited to state and local governmental entities; providers of public transportation; non-profit organizations; or a consortium of entities, including a provider of public transportation that will share the costs, risks, and rewards of early deployment and demonstration of innovation.
The Crime Prevention and Public Safety Awareness NOFO has the goal of developing and disseminating materials supporting public safety awareness campaigns for transit systems, including crime prevention, human trafficking and operator assault. Eligible applicants for awards are national non-profit organizations. Organizations must have crime prevention experience, the capacity to provide public transportation-related technical assistance and the ability to deliver a national public awareness campaign.
The FTA Human Trafficking Awareness and Public Safety Initiative builds upon the department's work with transportation stakeholders across all modes of transportation to prevent human trafficking.


Yale University is a private university in New Haven, Connecticut. Founded in 1701 as the Collegiate School, Yale is the third-oldest institution of higher education in the United States and is a member of the Ivy League.
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Yale University" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on original research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
This page was last modified 20:05, 9 March 2009.


text:
Q: Storing functions within arrays I'm having a issue with something very simple. I am just wondering as to I can store these functions within an array. Check out some of the code below. I am unsure as to if this is correct as to how I am storing these functions. I am unsure as to if these functions should be within a object literal or array.This is not necessarily for a project, just good practice. Thanks!
//declaring a function
function alert_name(){
    //declaring variables within a function asking user their name.
    var username =  prompt("Hey there, what is your name."," ");
//generating user input
    var chameleon = "Welcome " + username;
//combinators
    //alert("Welcome " + chameleon+ ", This is 'the website");
};
// inserting quotes into a string that is being alerted from the browser.
function otherTHings(){
    var single = 'He said \'RUN\' ever so softly.';
    //alert(single);
};
//running these functions and actually carry out the operations
//that have actually been declared into code above.

//string operations
function string_opertaions(){
    var complete = "Com" + "plete";
    //alert(complete);
    // using combinators to do the same thing.
    var sentance1 = "My name is";
    var sentance2 = "someone";
    var  totalsenatces = sentance1 += sentance2;
    //alert(totalsenatces);
};

//Booleans or true false values
function booleanys(){
    var lying = false;
    var truthful = true;
};
//Arrays very important. very similar to a object literal but different.
//Arrays store information or values or varibales/data.
var rack = [];
rack[0] = alert_name();
rack[1] = otherTHings();
rack[2] = string_opertaions();
rack[3] = booleanys();
//alert_name();
//otherTHings();
//string_opertaions();
//booleanys();

A: You are invoking the function and storing the result!
var rack = [];
rack[0] = alert_name;
rack[1] = otherTHings;
rack[2] = string_opertaions;
rack[3] = booleanys;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I'm trying to disable pkgs for we want to minimize the number of apps that can "talk "to network.
on J7, I found 255 installed apps (including mine), 121 has internet permission.
Now, my phone will be in a state where it constantly complains about "Context" or "com.android.phone" ..etc.
Ideally, the phone will be a single usage device , which means only my app can be launched.
I tried to put some apps to whielist and only disable the others. However, I couldn't really find a proper combination of list of apps to be safely disabled.
Could you please help me identify what are the "essential apps" for system to startup properly in below list that I should NOT disable??
Is that Samsung Knox SDK only for B2B?
I think the solution here is to use Knox's container-only mode (COM) or KioskMode, depending on the intended functionality. Both of these allow you to limit and control which apps the end user has access to without needed to disable any packages explicitly. If you can elaborate a little more on what your intended functionality is, I'd be happy to give you a better idea of how it can be done using Knox APIs.


text:
Christian community campaigns for right to elect, not 'select'
By Zia Ur Rehman
Elder Salamat Bhatti, a central leader of the Masihi Awami Party, a political party representing Pakistan's Christian community, is campaigning across the country for the non-Muslim communities' democratic right to directly vote for their candidates.
"We want election, not selection," said Bhatti, who came from the Gujranwala district of Punjab to a gathering in Essa Nagri, a Christian-populated neighbourhood.
"And for this purpose, we will pressure the political parties having representation in parliament into reviving the separate electorate system for non-Muslim communities in the country."
Until 1999, when former military chief Pervez Musharaf overthrew Nawaz Sharif's government, non-Muslims had dual voting rights in the general elections that allowed them to not only vote for Muslim candidates on general seats, but also for their own non-Muslim candidates.
But now in the general elections, non-Muslims candidate cannot be elected through direct voting.
"Now we, the non Muslim communities, are totally dependent on the Muslim leadership of the mainstream political parties. They select a non-Muslim on the reserved seats for minorities, depriving non-Muslims in the entire country of the right to elect their own candidates," Bhatti told The News.
He said he visit met with several political parties in Karachi, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, and is planning to include groups of other faiths into his party including Hindus and Sikh to launch a joint campaign.
Posters demanding the right of directing voting have been put up on the walls of Christian neighbourhoods.
"We have expedited our efforts as we want the direct voting system revived in the 2018 general polls," he said.
After the abolishment of the separate electorate system, now non-Muslim individuals are compelled to join Muslim-dominated political parties, and even Islamist parties, only to obtain tickets for reserved seats, be it the general elections or the local government polls.
"In the general elections, wealthy and influential non-Muslim individuals buy tickets for theses slots from the parties. These individuals aren't bothered about addressing the issues of non-Muslim communities and their neighbourhoods," Bhatti said.
"The people who occupy these seats have neither any links with the communities nor are aware about their issues, he added.
Al Haj Automotive launches Proton X70 SUV in Pakistan
KARACHI: Pakistan National Cricket Icon and Proton's Brand Ambassador Shahid Afridi attended the ceremony as the...
Teenage boy commits suicide
A teenage boy allegedly committed suicide after his father reportedly denied him permission to buy a motorcycle in...
KU puts off convocation
Karachi University on Friday postponed the Annual Convocation 2021-22 that was scheduled to be held today.According to...
MQM-P condemns worker's killing
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan on Friday condemned the killing of its senior worker, Khalidur Rehman Khanzada,...
ANP demands repair of Manghopir Road
Awami National Party Sindh president Shahi Syed on Friday demanded of the provincial and city authorities to repair...
Suspected robber killed, another injured as citizens foil mugging bid
A citizen allegedly shot dead a suspected robber, while a crowd beat up another suspect as citizens resisted a mugging...
Top US, Russia Diplomats Meet To Defuse Standoff On Ukraine
PSL 7: PCB Confirms 3 Players, 5 Support Staff COVID-19 Positive
NCOC Announces Closure Of Schools With High COVID-19 Positivity Ratio For One Week


The library of the village had worked since 1960 as the depositary of the Library of Szentes Township [Szentes Járási Könyvtár] with the leadership of a librarian with honorarium. Placement and loaning of the books were done in the clubroom of the local community centre. The opening hours of the library were accommodated to the opening hours of the community centre: on Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 2 to 7 pm. The initial number of 624 deposited books constantly increased. The stock was enriched by new volumes from new deposits, the action of "Agricultural associations for the libraries", as a gift from the local collectives, accepting books from the State Farm of Derekegyház [Derekegyházi Állami Gazdaság], as a gift from the County Library, together with books purchased from the allowance for developing the library provided by the executive committee of the local council. Four more deposit library belonged to the library. These were: Ótompahát, Lajosszállás, Mágocsoldal, and Lajostanya. The deposit libraries took place in suburban schools, where commissioned pedagogues who worked there loaned books to pupils and farmers. From time to time with the help of the cultural car of the Council of Szentes Township books were assorted and transported to the borrowing station taking demands of deposit librarians into consideration. By the increase of number of the books, the circulation also increased. By 1967, the book holdings reached the number of 6104; the number of readers was 435. The increased book holdings and the rise of the number and demands of readers made it essential to enlarge the room of the library. The executive committee exhibited its proposal to the council‑board concerning building up the open wing at the community centre. Constructional work started in 1969. In 1970 the library was opened with the ground‑space of 50 m2. From 1st January 1971 the library worked as an autonomic village public education library with a full‑time and from 1978 with a part‑time librarian.
With the termination of suburban schools in 1970, the depository libraries also closed except for the depository library of Ótompahát. New libraries were set up on the local swine-farm of the State Farm of Derekegyház and the local Factory of the Clothes Factory of Szeged. The union of the neighbouring village Árpádhalom also brought the union of the libraries. The library of Árpádhalom worked as the deposit library of the library of Nagymágocs from 1977 to 1990. In the beginning of the 1990s the deposits closed by the ceasing of positions, too.
In 1985 the library was enlarged again, the club room of the community centre was attached to the library, so it was possible to create a children's department and reading room at the same time. This way the education library worked on a 120 m2 area.
In the 1980s the library regularly organized reading camps for the neighbouring villages' pupils and for the pupils of the Horváth Mihály Secondary Grammar School, Szentes. By giving the community centre to an enterprise, the library took up the duties of public education: organizing study groups and cultural events.
From 1989 the local newspaper 'Nagymágocsi Hírmondó' has been edited in the library. Three local history publications has been released about Nagymágocs in the series of 'Brochures about Nagymágocs', they were made with the contribution of the library.
From 1st January 1991 the library became an autonomously managed institution by applying two full‑time employees, a part‑time cleaner, and a four-hour assistant. From 1994 two full‑time, one six-hour, and one four-hour employees served the duties. In 1995 the number of employees was reduced to two. From 1st January 1996 the library was institutionally and economically merged with the local primary school. Institutionally the library was inferior to the school, but it was managed with a separate budget on a professional basis. Two full‑time librarians served the duties of the public education library and the school library. The library worked in two buildings and three rooms on an area of 160 m2 altogether. In the library room in the building of the school the literature needed for the pedagogical work was placed.
In 1993 the leader of the library promoted to set up a 'Tele Cottage' in the library. The leader theoretically got the acceptance, but no financial support. Besides the tools won by applications, the lack of direct telephone telephone‑line and the failure of the support needed, the Tele Cottage was discontinued after a few months. The library together with the "For the Children of Nagymágocs" Foundation applied for a tender to set up a Tele Cottage, and it won support. The Tele Cottage opened on 19th March 1999, the library provides the place, and the workers of the library provide services in their working hours.
In the 2000s day‑care‑like, tradition‑preventing summer camps were regularly accomplished, primarily for local children.
On 1st July 2003 the community centre formerly working as an enterprise, the library, the newly formed tourists' hostel, and the local history collection were consolidated to form a new municipal public education institution. The institution worked as a public education centre until 30th June 2008. Because of financial reasons from 1st July 2008 the authority of the institution was abolished by the municipality. A general education centre was formed by consolidating the primary school, the kindergarten, and the newly set up nursery.
On 1st January 2013 the primary school separated from the general education centre, it came under national operation. From the separation on 1st August 2014 the following function as autonomic institutions: the kindergarten, the nursery – and the community centre, the library, the local history collection, and the tourists' hostel as the education centre.
The library is subscribed to 11 periodicals.
We don't ask for a registration fee from our readers.
The editorial staff of 'Nagymágocsi Hírmondó' functions in the library. We organize writer‑reader meetings, educational lectures, regularly hold introduction to the library and use of the library lessons. We organize quizzes and competitions for children in literature connected to current events.
The library has exploited the wide spectrum of possibilities of tenders for years. Support won from tenders meant a major leap in developing the library.
We attempt to satisfy the information and educational needs of the inhabitants and the pupils of the local school by our tools and opportunities. Our aim is to increase the availability of information and documents. We intend to enhance the library's role as being the local information centre where users, besides traditional library services, can draw on those telematics tools that are needed for work, learning, and getting information. Besides maintaining and high quality developing of our present services, our aim is to increase the information equality of the disadvantaged social groups. We ensure that they can draw on traditional and online library services.


The positive predictive value of a screening or diagnostic test indicates the likelihood that a person with a positive test result would actually have the condition for which the test is used; i.e. the probability that a positive test result is correct.
The higher the value of the positive predictive value (for example, 90% would be considered a high value), the more useful the test is for predicting that the person has the condition.
For example, the positive predictive value of mammography in breast cancer screening has been estimated to be less than 30%. That means that for every 100 people who have something discovered on their mammogram that looks like cancer, it will turn out actually to be cancer in less than 30 of those people.