The University of Kentucky dealt the state's economic prospects another blow by matching U of L's recent tuition increase with a 6 percent increase of its own, proving once again the need for a moratorium on tuition increases. This is just the latest piece of evidence that higher education costs are completely out of control and that college and university administrations are not taking the student debt crisis seriously.
UK apparently thinks we're all supposed to be overjoyed that they're not raising tuition by double digits. Huh? The next time someone fleeces you, make sure you thank them that they didn't do worse things to you.
These institutions have long made a claim on public support because raising the level of education in the state will improve the long-term economic picture of the state. But it is becoming increasingly clear that they are putting out more and more graduates who will spend a good part of the professional lives trying to pay back the debt they incurred to get their degrees.
As of 2009, the average college graduate had incurred student debt of over $24,000.
Here's the Louisville Courier-Journal's article today in which I am quoted.
These are schools, mind you, who seem to have a bottomless purse when it comes to promoting themselves with the public and with state lawmakers. How much money are they spending on lobbyists and on promotion in order to convince us that then need more?
Part of the problem is that state legislators have not asked university leadership the tough questions that need to be asked about their lack of cost control. It's time for someone to hold these people's feet to the fire.
C'mon guys, let's show some leadership on this issue.
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Where was the KY Human Rights Commission on the Gaskell Affair?
The Associated Press is on the story of the Scientific Inquisition at the University of Kentucky:
According to the deposition of Gaskell, it was revealed that, on the advice of his attorneys, he had filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, but never heard anything back. Why does the Human Rights Commission have plenty of time to use its statutory status to lobby for left wing social causes but has no time to bother with religious discrimination complaints from people like Gaskell?
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — University of Kentucky scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if an astronomer's Christian faith would interfere with a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory, according to court records in the man's discrimination case set for trial in February.While we're all marveling at the intolerance of a university that preaches Tolerance and Diversity but practices Intolerance and enforces Uniformity, let us take a moment ask where Kentucky Human Rights Commission was during all this.
Even though Martin Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.
According to the deposition of Gaskell, it was revealed that, on the advice of his attorneys, he had filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, but never heard anything back. Why does the Human Rights Commission have plenty of time to use its statutory status to lobby for left wing social causes but has no time to bother with religious discrimination complaints from people like Gaskell?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
More on UK's Gaskell Affair: What a tangled web they're weaving
Well, the defenders of Scientific Correctness have themselves into another fine logical mess.
They are claiming once again that Intelligent Design is a religious, rather than a scientific position. So far the claim has served them well. It allows them to simply dismiss it without actually doing any intellectual heavy lifting. They can simply raise their noses high, sniff audibly, and utter, in a dismissing tone, vague things about the integrity of science.
But the Gaskell affair at the University of Kentucky has got them all tied up in logical knots. Gaskell was the best qualified of seven candidates for the post of observatory director at UK until one member of the search committee got wind that he was a Christian, at which point some members of the committee--and apparently some faculty in the biology department--began a campaign to smear his reputation in order to deny him employment. They ended up hiring the third best candidate for the position rather than have a Christian on staff in one of their science departments.
It started when Sally Shafer, a UK staffer apparently in charge of keeping the university religion-free, Googled information on Gaskell and discovered he had given a lecture at UK in 1997 on science and religion, in which he went over the long list of Christian scientists in history and said that he adhered to the majority position in science that the universe--and the earth--were very old. He went on to say that, although he accepted natural selection, there were some unanswered questions about it.
Shafer, apparently appalled that Gaskell would discuss religion and science in the same lecture, and clearly disturbed that he had used the two words anywhere in the same vicinity, swung into action and reported Gaskell to the search committee as (brace yourself, this is strong language) a "potential evangelical."
Several other appalled committee members began calling him a "creationist" and "Intelligent Design" advocate, although the first is certainly untrue, and the second is not entirely clear from the record. In any case, the consequence was that he was passed over, even though, according to court documents, he was clearly the most qualified candidate. Gaskell then sued the university for religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But what is interesting is the reasons now being given to justify his treatment at the hands of UK's Scientific Inquisition.
According to the critics of Intelligent Design, ID is a religious position, not a scientific one. But if it is a religious position, then those who hold it cannot be discriminated against on the basis that they hold it under the Civil Rights Act. If ID is a religious position, then its advocates should not be allowed in university science departments. But if it is a religious position, then it is discrimination not to hire them on that basis.
Oooh. Not a good dilemma to be in. But the critics--on this blog anyway--just go on blindly ignoring the inconsistency.
Again, it is not clear that Gaskell holds to an Intelligent Design position. We're just granting it for the sake of argument here.
If Intelligent Design is a religious position, then Gaskell cannot be denied employment on the basis of holding believing it. And if it is scientific, then he should not be denied employment for holding it.
Go ahead Maniacs, tell me how you get out of this one.
They are claiming once again that Intelligent Design is a religious, rather than a scientific position. So far the claim has served them well. It allows them to simply dismiss it without actually doing any intellectual heavy lifting. They can simply raise their noses high, sniff audibly, and utter, in a dismissing tone, vague things about the integrity of science.
But the Gaskell affair at the University of Kentucky has got them all tied up in logical knots. Gaskell was the best qualified of seven candidates for the post of observatory director at UK until one member of the search committee got wind that he was a Christian, at which point some members of the committee--and apparently some faculty in the biology department--began a campaign to smear his reputation in order to deny him employment. They ended up hiring the third best candidate for the position rather than have a Christian on staff in one of their science departments.
It started when Sally Shafer, a UK staffer apparently in charge of keeping the university religion-free, Googled information on Gaskell and discovered he had given a lecture at UK in 1997 on science and religion, in which he went over the long list of Christian scientists in history and said that he adhered to the majority position in science that the universe--and the earth--were very old. He went on to say that, although he accepted natural selection, there were some unanswered questions about it.
Shafer, apparently appalled that Gaskell would discuss religion and science in the same lecture, and clearly disturbed that he had used the two words anywhere in the same vicinity, swung into action and reported Gaskell to the search committee as (brace yourself, this is strong language) a "potential evangelical."
Several other appalled committee members began calling him a "creationist" and "Intelligent Design" advocate, although the first is certainly untrue, and the second is not entirely clear from the record. In any case, the consequence was that he was passed over, even though, according to court documents, he was clearly the most qualified candidate. Gaskell then sued the university for religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But what is interesting is the reasons now being given to justify his treatment at the hands of UK's Scientific Inquisition.
According to the critics of Intelligent Design, ID is a religious position, not a scientific one. But if it is a religious position, then those who hold it cannot be discriminated against on the basis that they hold it under the Civil Rights Act. If ID is a religious position, then its advocates should not be allowed in university science departments. But if it is a religious position, then it is discrimination not to hire them on that basis.
Oooh. Not a good dilemma to be in. But the critics--on this blog anyway--just go on blindly ignoring the inconsistency.
Again, it is not clear that Gaskell holds to an Intelligent Design position. We're just granting it for the sake of argument here.
If Intelligent Design is a religious position, then Gaskell cannot be denied employment on the basis of holding believing it. And if it is scientific, then he should not be denied employment for holding it.
Go ahead Maniacs, tell me how you get out of this one.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The University of Kentucky's "Gaskell Affair": Further adventures in intellectual "Diversity" at UK
Expect anytime now to see the following lines chiseled in stone on the wall outside the University of Kentucky's Ministry of Truth building:
If you are a left-wing ideologue applying for a faculty position at the University of Kentucky, you have a comfortable and welcoming place awaiting you in the "Gender and Women's Studies" department. But if you have what the University of Kentucky thinks look suspiciously like, ... ahem, a religion, you might just be refused a job.
At the university that preaches "Diversity" at every available opportunity, a leading candidate was turned down for the position of Observatory Director at UK when, after seeing a discussion on a personal website, UK officials determined he was "potentially evangelical." The University was sued for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
UK denies it discriminated based on religion, but the judge points out that the "record contains substantial evidence," said the judge, "that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion (as Gaskell calls it) or his scientific position (as UK calls it) became an issue." And it is pretty clear, from the evidence, which of the two--religion or his scientific position--it is.
A paper he wrote religion and scientific issues and a similar talk he gave at UK started a discussion among search committee members about how his religious beliefs might affect his scientific views. Even though Gaskell nowhere indicates he is a creationist (and in fact gives indications that he at least believes the commonly accepted scientific evidence about the age of the earth), several committee members and other staff decided, on the mere basis of talking about science in the context of religion, decided he was.
Sally Shafer, one of the committee members sent colleagues a set of websites and links having to do with Gaskell, concluding, "clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with--but potentially evangelical." Several others admitted that it was factor or a "theme" in the decision, which is prohibited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, even the search committee chair was exercised over this. Here is the text of an e-mail sent by Professor Thomas Troland, to Professor Michael Cavagnero, the chair of UK's department of physics and astronomy, before the decision was made:
That's how "Diversity" works at the University of Kentucky. If has Gaskell had only had posts on his website about "Queer Theory" or "Black male-bodied drag queens" (a particular favorite down the road at the University of Louisville), he could have passed the Diversity test at UK.
Uniformity is Diversity
Favoritism is Equality
Bigotry is Tolerance
Favoritism is Equality
Bigotry is Tolerance
If you are a left-wing ideologue applying for a faculty position at the University of Kentucky, you have a comfortable and welcoming place awaiting you in the "Gender and Women's Studies" department. But if you have what the University of Kentucky thinks look suspiciously like, ... ahem, a religion, you might just be refused a job.
At the university that preaches "Diversity" at every available opportunity, a leading candidate was turned down for the position of Observatory Director at UK when, after seeing a discussion on a personal website, UK officials determined he was "potentially evangelical." The University was sued for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
UK denies it discriminated based on religion, but the judge points out that the "record contains substantial evidence," said the judge, "that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion (as Gaskell calls it) or his scientific position (as UK calls it) became an issue." And it is pretty clear, from the evidence, which of the two--religion or his scientific position--it is.
A paper he wrote religion and scientific issues and a similar talk he gave at UK started a discussion among search committee members about how his religious beliefs might affect his scientific views. Even though Gaskell nowhere indicates he is a creationist (and in fact gives indications that he at least believes the commonly accepted scientific evidence about the age of the earth), several committee members and other staff decided, on the mere basis of talking about science in the context of religion, decided he was.
Sally Shafer, one of the committee members sent colleagues a set of websites and links having to do with Gaskell, concluding, "clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with--but potentially evangelical." Several others admitted that it was factor or a "theme" in the decision, which is prohibited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, even the search committee chair was exercised over this. Here is the text of an e-mail sent by Professor Thomas Troland, to Professor Michael Cavagnero, the chair of UK's department of physics and astronomy, before the decision was made:
It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications which stand far above those of any other applicant. Other reasons will be given for this choice when we meet Tuesday. In the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties specified for this position ... If Martin were not so superbly qualified, so breathtakingly above the other applicants in background and experience, then our decision would be much simper. We could easily choose another applicant, and we could content ourselves with the idea that Martin's religious beliefs played little role in our decision. However, this is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin on any other basis than religious.The judge mentions that Troland "subsequently retracted these comments to some extent," although he doesn't explain in detail. But he does say that these comments "remain direct evidence if religious discrimination." And, anyway, the remaining evidence would probabloy be sufficient to prove it in court.
That's how "Diversity" works at the University of Kentucky. If has Gaskell had only had posts on his website about "Queer Theory" or "Black male-bodied drag queens" (a particular favorite down the road at the University of Louisville), he could have passed the Diversity test at UK.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Witch discovered at the University of Kentucky
Back in 2007, The Family Foundation of Kentucky brought public attention the lack of political diversity at the University of Kentucky. UK now has whole departments devoted to left-wing political and social activism with no balance in sight. So-called "Women's Studies" and "Queer Theory" now grace the supposedly "Diverse" curriculum of a university that wants the public to take it seriously--and the legislature to continue to give it taxpayer money.
Anyway, the Foundation published several publications that featured members of the UK staff. They recounted the university's own website rhetoric about their staff's involvement in Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and their cutting edge scholarship in faux academic disciplines. The publications were characterized in a Lexington Herald-Leader editorial as an "academic witch hunt."
Well, we are happy to report that a witch has been uncovered.
More precisely, one of the professor's featured as examples of left-wing political activists disguised as teachers was a man by the name of Robert S. Tannenbaum, director of the undergraduate research office in the University of Kentucky's undergraduate education office. At the time, Tannenbaum was a board member of the Kentucky ACLU and was teaching a course called "I Know My Rights," which was a course about civil rights law taught by a guy who apparently specialized in computer IT services and who holds an Ed.D.
What a gig.
Well, Tannenbaum may know his rights, but he apparently doesn't know his wrongs. He was charged last Tuesday with four counts of incest with an 8th grader.
No word yet from Lee Todd about whether incest too is covered under academic freedom.
Anyway, the Foundation published several publications that featured members of the UK staff. They recounted the university's own website rhetoric about their staff's involvement in Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and their cutting edge scholarship in faux academic disciplines. The publications were characterized in a Lexington Herald-Leader editorial as an "academic witch hunt."
Well, we are happy to report that a witch has been uncovered.
More precisely, one of the professor's featured as examples of left-wing political activists disguised as teachers was a man by the name of Robert S. Tannenbaum, director of the undergraduate research office in the University of Kentucky's undergraduate education office. At the time, Tannenbaum was a board member of the Kentucky ACLU and was teaching a course called "I Know My Rights," which was a course about civil rights law taught by a guy who apparently specialized in computer IT services and who holds an Ed.D.
What a gig.
Well, Tannenbaum may know his rights, but he apparently doesn't know his wrongs. He was charged last Tuesday with four counts of incest with an 8th grader.
No word yet from Lee Todd about whether incest too is covered under academic freedom.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
UK "Sex Week" sponsor promotes violence against women, group calls on UK to disassociate itself
For Immediate Release October 6, 2009
The sponsor of the University of Kentucky's "Sex Week" sells "Bondage Fantasy" sets and handcuffs on its website, a fact that has prompted a state family advocacy group to ask how this works into one of the week's main themes: protesting violence against women.
"We wonder how organizers of an event that's supposed to discourage violence against women justify promoting a group that considers handcuffs and whips 'bedroom accessories,'" said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky. "What's next from UK, demonstrations against racism sponsored by organizations that sell white hoods?"
"For just $29.95, you can get everything you need from the sponsor of UK's 'Sex Week' to pretend you are beating up and humiliating women. If there's something about this that discourages violence against women, we'd like to know what it is. UK needs to disassociate themselves from this as quickly as possible."
Among the many events at UK's "Sex Week"--which includes bellydancing lessons, "poetry slams" and Tupperware parties for sex toys--is a march down Lexington's Main Street that calls on male students at UK to wear women's heeled shoes as a way of protesting violence against women. "Maybe they should also wear the wrist and ankle restraints sold by the sponsor of their event," said Cothran. "That'll show 'em."
The primary sponsor of "Sex Week" is Pure Romance, Inc., which sells the "Beginner's Bondage Fantasy Set" ($29.95) , as well as a whip for $14.00, handcuffs for $15.00, and the "Vanilla Bondage Set" for $12.00, which features ties that have "a loop at each end so they can easily be threaded on or off arms or legs, and are long enough to reach the leg posts of your bed."
The sponsor of the University of Kentucky's "Sex Week" sells "Bondage Fantasy" sets and handcuffs on its website, a fact that has prompted a state family advocacy group to ask how this works into one of the week's main themes: protesting violence against women.
"We wonder how organizers of an event that's supposed to discourage violence against women justify promoting a group that considers handcuffs and whips 'bedroom accessories,'" said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky. "What's next from UK, demonstrations against racism sponsored by organizations that sell white hoods?"
"For just $29.95, you can get everything you need from the sponsor of UK's 'Sex Week' to pretend you are beating up and humiliating women. If there's something about this that discourages violence against women, we'd like to know what it is. UK needs to disassociate themselves from this as quickly as possible."
Among the many events at UK's "Sex Week"--which includes bellydancing lessons, "poetry slams" and Tupperware parties for sex toys--is a march down Lexington's Main Street that calls on male students at UK to wear women's heeled shoes as a way of protesting violence against women. "Maybe they should also wear the wrist and ankle restraints sold by the sponsor of their event," said Cothran. "That'll show 'em."
The primary sponsor of "Sex Week" is Pure Romance, Inc., which sells the "Beginner's Bondage Fantasy Set" ($29.95) , as well as a whip for $14.00, handcuffs for $15.00, and the "Vanilla Bondage Set" for $12.00, which features ties that have "a loop at each end so they can easily be threaded on or off arms or legs, and are long enough to reach the leg posts of your bed."
###
Thursday, August 28, 2008
How to avoid the real issue in an argument and talk about things that really don't matter instead
Well I never got to respond to several letters to the editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader in response to my column about the lack of ideological diversity at the University of Kentucky. Now let me just say that I love debates like this: ones in which the left has to literally abandon their own principles to defend their own principles.
On the one hand, they say they're in favor of diversity. On the other hand, they want to impose their own ideology, which is anything but diverse. And the latter always trumps the former.
On August 2, Jeff Sharp of Lexington and Robert Pohowsky used the usual litany of nonarguments that social liberals employ when they don't have real ones in their response to my opinion piece in the Herald-Leader last Monday about the lack of ideological diversity at the University of Kentucky.
Both of the articles attacked calls for ideological diversity at UK in the name of ideological diversity. In fact, he attacked my piece calling for ideological diversity and defended Penneybacker's piece where he came out against it and for UK's current policy of ideological uniformity.
Memo to Jeff Sharp: the best way to defend a position is not to attack the very position you are defending. Trust me on this.
Sharp even ends his letter in defense of ideological diversity (in which he attacks ideological diversity) with a little cheer for "progressive programs." And we all know what "progressive" means, don't we?
In the rest of the letter, Sharp does what social liberals commonly do when they don't have actual arguments to defend their positions: he changes the subject. The common way to change the subject is to charge your opponent with being concerned only with one issue--even when he may be involved in all kinds of issues. Of course there were several issues mentioned in my article, and The Family Foundation, which he apparently considers "unprogressive," deals with all kinds of issues, including economic issues affecting families, education, health care, and fiscal responsibility--or the lack thereof, if we're talking about bringing casinos into the state.
He also brings up the issue of the $11 million that was earmarked for Cumberland College and asks why The Family Foundation wasn't concerned about fiscal responsibility in that case. The answer for which, of course, was that the $11 million was going for a school of pharmacy, that would produce pharmacists. What does Sharp have against training pharmacists?
He apparently prefers training political ideologues--the specialty of the UK Gender and Women's Studies program.
But Sharp should have compared notes with the other letter writer, Robert Pohowsky. Pohowsky is apparently under the impression that I have taken a position on Intelligent Design:
Oops.
Pohowsky then proceeds to employ another diversionary technique: he argues against something I never actually said:
There shouldn't be any political or ideological litmus tests other than academic competence. That's the whole point.
Why am I not surprised they missed it?
On the one hand, they say they're in favor of diversity. On the other hand, they want to impose their own ideology, which is anything but diverse. And the latter always trumps the former.
On August 2, Jeff Sharp of Lexington and Robert Pohowsky used the usual litany of nonarguments that social liberals employ when they don't have real ones in their response to my opinion piece in the Herald-Leader last Monday about the lack of ideological diversity at the University of Kentucky.
Both of the articles attacked calls for ideological diversity at UK in the name of ideological diversity. In fact, he attacked my piece calling for ideological diversity and defended Penneybacker's piece where he came out against it and for UK's current policy of ideological uniformity.
Memo to Jeff Sharp: the best way to defend a position is not to attack the very position you are defending. Trust me on this.
Sharp even ends his letter in defense of ideological diversity (in which he attacks ideological diversity) with a little cheer for "progressive programs." And we all know what "progressive" means, don't we?
In the rest of the letter, Sharp does what social liberals commonly do when they don't have actual arguments to defend their positions: he changes the subject. The common way to change the subject is to charge your opponent with being concerned only with one issue--even when he may be involved in all kinds of issues. Of course there were several issues mentioned in my article, and The Family Foundation, which he apparently considers "unprogressive," deals with all kinds of issues, including economic issues affecting families, education, health care, and fiscal responsibility--or the lack thereof, if we're talking about bringing casinos into the state.
He also brings up the issue of the $11 million that was earmarked for Cumberland College and asks why The Family Foundation wasn't concerned about fiscal responsibility in that case. The answer for which, of course, was that the $11 million was going for a school of pharmacy, that would produce pharmacists. What does Sharp have against training pharmacists?
He apparently prefers training political ideologues--the specialty of the UK Gender and Women's Studies program.
But Sharp should have compared notes with the other letter writer, Robert Pohowsky. Pohowsky is apparently under the impression that I have taken a position on Intelligent Design:
Educated people see through the pseudo-scientific ploy of intelligent design, which is, fundamentally, another name for creationism. Likewise, taxpayers should see what lies behind the foundation's demand for what it calls diversity in academia.What this has to do with UK's ideological uniformity I don't know, but the relevant question is how it is possible that I could have a position on Intelligent Design at all if I'm a "one-issue gadfly," which he accuses me of being elsewhere in the piece?
Oops.
Pohowsky then proceeds to employ another diversionary technique: he argues against something I never actually said:
Diversifying UK's faculty by adding people approved by the foundation makes almost as much sense as diversifying the staff of Central Baptist Hospital by adding a team of tree surgeons.Uh, where did I say that the UK should add faculty we approve of? We asked for the university to start focusing on academics not politics. In fact, we are against the kind of political litmus tests that the Gender and Women's Studies program employs.
There shouldn't be any political or ideological litmus tests other than academic competence. That's the whole point.
Why am I not surprised they missed it?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
University of Kentucky drops in national ranking
The University of Kentucky dropped in U. S. News and World Report's national college rankings from 112th in 2007 to 122nd in the 2008 rankings and was near the bottom of top-tier schools in the percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students. This is one more indication that President Lee Todd and those running the university may not have their priorities in order.
When UK was challenged on its attempt to implement health benefits for the live-in partners of its staff last year, the university defended itself by saying that it needed such a program to pursue top-20 status, prompting The Family Foundation to point out other, more important factors such as class size and lagging faculty salaries that were being ignored in favor of special interest social policy.
Looks like UK needs to figure out whether it is there to serve students who have to foot rising tuition bills or whether it is going to continue dabbling in special interest politics through its employee benefits policies and its increasing emphasis on social and political activism in some of its departments. If it started putting first things first maybe it would begin rising in the rankings instead of falling.
The U. S. News and World Report College Rankings are the most well-known college rankings.
UPDATE: This information came across my Google Reader and I assumed it was new. In fact, thanks to a little sleuthing on the part of Art Jester at the Herald-Leader, we determined that the content is entirely accurate, but the report was originally issued in August of 2007. In fact, the 2009 rankings are going to be released this month.
When UK was challenged on its attempt to implement health benefits for the live-in partners of its staff last year, the university defended itself by saying that it needed such a program to pursue top-20 status, prompting The Family Foundation to point out other, more important factors such as class size and lagging faculty salaries that were being ignored in favor of special interest social policy.
Looks like UK needs to figure out whether it is there to serve students who have to foot rising tuition bills or whether it is going to continue dabbling in special interest politics through its employee benefits policies and its increasing emphasis on social and political activism in some of its departments. If it started putting first things first maybe it would begin rising in the rankings instead of falling.
The U. S. News and World Report College Rankings are the most well-known college rankings.
UPDATE: This information came across my Google Reader and I assumed it was new. In fact, thanks to a little sleuthing on the part of Art Jester at the Herald-Leader, we determined that the content is entirely accurate, but the report was originally issued in August of 2007. In fact, the 2009 rankings are going to be released this month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)