First as a theme...it was that UC admin tampering with CSA surveys...
Then its admin survey work with cost overrun on originally budgeted $220 million but now $1 Billion dollar UC PATH project outta UCOP...you may not remember the Campus surveys UCOP used to monitor campus progress, so there is a link to that CSA report
included, as refresher, with additional analysis, here:
"Based on typical UC campus costs and extrapolating, the cost of providing an LMS for every UC campus for 20 years is likely $66 – $99 million
Using EDUCAUSE Core Data of $96 – $110 per student median spend in the US, the costs of centralized instructional technology support of all applications and services for every UC campus for 20 years is likely $500 – $850 million
The fallout from UCPath’s cost overruns and loss of planned savings likely exceeds the entire combined instructional technology budget for all 10 UC campuses. This project matters."
- but we digress...
Let's get back to this other concern...
Have the surveying problems now seeped into academic research?
Let's read a bit to try to understand...
Now, with more on the 'its junk science'-- 'is it 'anti-snowflake' propaganda?', or 'built in negative bias against college students survey methods?', 'just sloppy?', or accurate, true?
See Inside High Education article:
"Students and Free Speech: Was Study Valid?
Survey that attracted attention with its findings on student attitudes on First Amendment and violence turns out to have been opt-in, leading experts to criticize it as, in the words of one, “junk science.”
"In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, he acknowledged that the survey was opt-in and that there could be no assurance that the sample was representative. He said that the makeup of survey participants in various ways (party identification, gender, attendance at various kinds of colleges) pointed to what he said was the likely reliability of his data. But he said that nothing in his article was untrue, even if he didn't include that the survey was opt-in. "I was very careful with language," he said.
He also acknowledged that many experts in the field and journalists tend to pay little attention to opt-in surveys.
Asked if he regretted not including that detail, he said he always engages in "Monday morning quarterbacking" after he publishes articles, but said he wasn't willing to say he had made a mistake.
Villasenor said he plans to submit a more scholarly version of his article to a law review, and that he did plan to note the opt-in nature of the results in that piece."
Then read this piece in WaPo:
"Could everyone please stop freaking out about college students, please?
Some thoughts on that survey claiming college students are hostile to free speech."
"That’s a heckuva consensus you’ve put together, Beltway pundits. I’m just not sure it is either fair or accurate."
That Brookings report caused a lot of cookie cutter conclusion type coverage, content, much without reference to questions on methodologies:
And there are other pieces floating around with titles like:
"Millennials are snowflakes here's the data to prove it"
"Survey: 44% of College Students Say Hate Speech Not Protected in First Amendment"
"Survey: Only 39 Percent of College Students Know That Hate Speech Is Protected Speech"
"Survey Confirms What Many Suspected: Free Speech Is in Trouble"
"Students idiots on free speech? Look to their professors and politicians"
"How Far College Students Would Go to Stop a Controversial Speaker"
"Why don't college students know anything about the First Amendment?"
"College men far more supportive of shoutdowns and violence against speakers: survey"
"We must teach our kids how to disagree"
And a lot more just like that...
Clarence Page: "Some students tolerate too much intolerance"
You can find out there..
"MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with some bad news for the First
"According to a national poll of 1,500 college students, about one in five
think it`s OK to use violence if you don`t like what a public speaker has
to say. If you believe it is disgusting or hateful. These students
believe you have a right to use violent means to silence such views.
Well, many more of the students surveyed in this national poll – half in
fact – said it`s all right to create so much disruption in the room, such
unearthly havoc, that a speaker can`t even be heard.
The partisan break down for such views is disturbing. Democratic college
students are more likely to say it`s OK to disrupt the public speech that
defends them. Men are more likely than women to say disrupting a public
meeting in order to silence the speaker is OK. Men are more likely than
women to back the use of outright violence to silence words they consider
Well, back when I was in school, it was those in the liberal side or on the
left who defended free speech, defended the right of even communists to
speak their views without violence or disruption. Freedom of speech is a
basic right. We know that. It`s in the Bill of Rights for that good
reason, to protect those with unpopular views.
Popular views are easy to defend. Unpopular views are not. That`s why we
have this Constitution. Boy."
Any flashbacks on :
"linking arms and forming a human chain .... This is not non-violent civil disobedience."
Then those images during football this : last Sunday, Monday?
CNN on America's team coverage of it includes:
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
UC Berkeley comes up repeatedly in that Georgetown talk:
The lyric asks a question
"Oh says does that"..."yet wave?"
Perhaps to remind us of US.
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- Anguiano, Maria
- Park, Lark
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- Tauscher, Ellen
- Guber, H. Peter
- Paul Monge
- VACANT (by Lozano)
- VACANT ( by Pattiz)
- VACANT (by Reiss)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)