"The biology professor at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge gives brief quizzes at the beginning of every class, to assure attendance and to make sure students are doing the reading. On her tests, she doesn't use a curve, as she believes that students must achieve mastery of the subject matter, not just achieve more mastery than the worst students in the course. For multiple choice questions, she gives 10 possible answers, not the expected 4, as she doesn't want students to get very far with guessing."
So, the response by LSU?
LSU removed her from teaching, mid-semester, without prior notice or discussion, and raised the grades of students in the class. Inside higher Ed notes, with some understatement, that LSU's administration has set off a debate about grade inflation, due process and a professor's right to set standards in her own course. Read the article, and see what each side has to say.
My response? This is exactly why large portions, very possibly even majorities, of the students in critical science-related subjects that will define America's future, are from other countries. And why aerosapce firms locate in Mississippi, and Louisiana's naval shipyard might well vanish (to the benefit of the US Navy).
University administrators can often be a waste of skin - but some of them abuse the privilege. The answers from her Test #2 bonus question say more about why these guys are HUYA than I could.
"LSU Sociology Professor Edward Shihadeh and Ph.D. candidate Raymond Barranco have published a study titled "Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy," in the March 2010 issue of Social Forces, the field's preeminent journal.
The study confirms that Latino immigration and dominance of low skill jobs have displaced blacks from low-skill labor markets, which in turn led to more violence in urban black communities. According to their analysis, this is traceable to U.S. immigration policies over the last several decades."
Part of this is simply intuitive, especially if you live in California. There are curveballs in the research conclusions, however, which point to an unexpected linkage mechanism and unintended policy consequences. It doesn't really slot left or right. Which makes it pretty interesting as a starting point for debate.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Exclusives - Julian Assange Unedited Interview | ||||
| ||||
*Sometimes not possible. If not possible replace with being beaten mercilessly about the head and shoulders, complaining about being beaten mercilessly about the head and shoulders, etc.Littlest Guy just put together a document on his plans and commitments for the year...this is the footnote.
Well those "other factors" are actually quite important - in fact, they are likely the dominant reasons why violence decreased in Iraq during 2007 and 2008 (and Andrew leaves out a critical one; the sectarian cleansing and subsequent ethnic enclaving that took place in Baghdad in 2007 and 2008, which contributed mightily to the fall in civilian casualties). In other words there were very specific factors that allowed the surge to "succeed" in decreasing sectarian violence in Iraq.and
Of course we've had the debate many times - but we need to keep having it over and over again; because the debate over the "success" of the surge is, in my view, the single most important foreign policy debate in this country. I make this argument for two reasons.What are his reasons?
But that notwithstanding, the implications of the pro-surge narrative is far more dangerous because it presupposes that the US "gets" counter-insurgency; that it can be fought in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties (which didn't happen in Iraq); and above all the US military has the capability to successfully wage counter-insurgencies and that this core competency can be replicated elsewhere . . like Afghanistan.
WASHINGTON (AP) Taliban release video showing American soldier captured [six months ago] in Afghanistan.PFC Bowe Bergdahl is shown in the video, and appears to be in good health. My thoughts are with him, his family, and the troops we know are looking for him right now.
Ex-U.N. envoy: Karzai may have drug problemLook, I've got a lot of issues with what's going on in Afghanistan, but this kind of fantasy regency from afar does nothing but make things worse.
Peter Galbraith questions Afghan leader's mental stability
In 1979, a coalition of Iranian liberals, leftists, and Islamists overthrew the tyrannical Shah Reza Pahlavi--and a new regime more dangerous and brutal than the last took its place.
An alliance of liberals, leftists, and Islamists made sense at first. The Shah oppressed them all more or less equally. But the Iranian Revolution, like so many others before it, devoured its children. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Islamists emerged the strong horse in the post-revolutionary struggle for power, and they liquidated the liberals and leftists.
One young Iranian man, who now goes by the name Reza Kahlili, joined Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards right at the beginning. He quickly became disillusioned, however, when he saw young people tortured and murdered in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. Repressing his countrymen was not what he had in mind when he signed up. Rather than quit and place himself and his family under suspicion, he contacted the CIA and agreed to work as an American agent under the code name "Wally."
"My role was to look and act the part of a devout Muslim enforcing all the new rules laid down by the mullahs," he writes in his terrific book A Time to Betray: The Astonishing Double Life of a CIA Agent Inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran
Reza lives safely in Los Angeles now, though he hasn't stopped doing whatever he can to contribute to the downfall of his home country's repressive regime--a regime he understands better than most having spent so many difficult years pretending to serve it.
He and I spoke for an hour on the phone over the weekend.
MJT: So why did you join the Revolutionary Guards in the first place?
Reza Kahlili: It was a special time after the revolution against the Shah in 1979. Everyone was jubilant and thought democracy had finally arrived. We were promised that the clergy wouldn't interfere in the new government, that people could choose the government they liked, that we would have freedom of speech and could criticize top officials. It was a great atmosphere at the time. We could stand on the corner and talk about politics. Everybody was really happy about the direction we thought it was going to take.
It was during this time that my friend Kazem told me about the opportunity with the Revolutionary Guards. They hired me immediately after the interview. I thought they were formed to serve the people, to protect the country, to help make sure the poor participated in the new infrastructure. I was willing to teach, I was willing to work, and that's why I joined.
MJT: You had no idea Khomeini was going to take control of the country the way he did.
Reza Kahlili: I don't think anybody had any idea. Everyone was so overwhelmed. We thought the Shah would never leave the country. It was unthinkable that anyone could force his regime to collapse. Something magical had happened.
