The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Education]

So about that so-called "degree" you're sporting, son....

More than 3,000 students at the University of North Carolina -- nearly half of them athletes -- were enrolled in a "shadow curriculum" over a two-decade period that involved no-show classes and bogus grades, according to a report released by the school on Wednesday.

In other words the so-called "degree" documented exactly nothing -- and it was not limited to athletes either.

This of course means that for an employer the only thing you can do is treat all degrees from this place as worthless, until and unless they are all revoked, every person involved is identified, those who participated in any way are prosecuted for fraud (since said credentials were then used to defraud employers) and imprisoned.

None of which, by the way, is likely to ever happen.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You have to be kidding me...

They got most of their SAT questions right, but students at Harvard blew this lay-up posed by the college blog Campus Reform: Who is the bigger threat to world peace, ISIS or the U.S.?

Various students at the hallowed Ivy League school said they believe that America, not the Muslim fanatics who behead innocent people, is the biggest threat to world peace.

Raise your hand if you still think a Haarrrrrrvvvvaarrrrdd degree has a higher use than wiping your ass should an applicant for a position in your company present one.

That's what I thought.

PS: You're entitled to your opinion students -- and I'm entitled to mine, including my opinion of your so-called "education" and whether I want you working for me.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I love the closing line in this article:

Freund, in an email, said: "Unfortunately, neither the courts or high-priced plaintiff lawyers have much sympathy or deference for teachers or taxpayers."

There should be zero deference to jack-booted *******s like you, Freund.

This controversy arose because two girls in middle school wore a bracelet that said "I love boobiesas a means of raising awareness for breast cancer, a disease that they apparently care about.

The school tried to ban their bracelets as "sexually offensive."  The students sued and the school went all the way to the US Supreme Court in loss after loss, with the USSC finally sticking up the middle finger in refusing to hear the district's appeal.

Now here's the problem -- this case has been decided dozens of times in the past.  You do not leave your Constitutional Rights at the schoolhouse door, nor do you not have them as a student.  The standard for restricting speech by students is clear: You must show via something that can be reasonably considered evidentiary, that the speech is disruptive to the educational environment.

That you don't like it doesn't count.  It doesn't even matter if a lot of people don't like it.  Nor does it matter if you find the word "boobies" offensive.  It only becomes the subject of legitimate regulation if it has a substantial impact on the educational environment.

This isn't new.  It goes back to decisions dating to the Vietnam War, most-specifically Tinker .v. Des Moines (1969), which I remind you was some 50 years ago.  There was nothing novel or otherwise interesting about this case other than it being yet another in a long line of ******* administrators tried to play God through the mounting of excuse and outright lies related to the limits of their authority and the rights of people who they believe are their serfs.

In short this case was simply about a school district thinking, as most of them do, that they could put their boot on the necks of two students because they didn't like their opinion.  They knew good and ******n well they were violating the law and the Constitution in attempting to do so and didn't care.

Now they've subjected their residents to the cost of the litigation that they lost, and properly so.

The residents out to take it out of the hides of the administrators and teachers who attempted this crap and demand that they pay those funds personally back to the taxpayers.

They won't -- but they should.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-09-27 11:03 by Karl Denninger
in Education , 223 references
 

You have to wonder what sort of idiotic nonsense is in a prosecutor's head when he spouts off this sort of garbage:

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- The former Sparkman Middle student who has sued school officials alleging she was raped in  2010 during a botched "sting" attempt to catch another student, at a key moment told investigators she was not forced into sex.

The Madison County District Attorney's Office said Thursday charges were not filed in the case because when investigators interviewed the girl on Monday following the Friday incident, she said the boy did not force her or make any threats.

Maybe so.

But is not putting forward a minor for a sexual act pimping, and is not doing that some sort of felony in Alabama?

And yeah, I'm talking about charging the school officials because the girl was of insufficient age to be able to give consent to be used as "bait", as she was not a legal adult.

Secondarily, it appears there was physical evidence of forced penetration when the girl was examined.

Maybe the DA thinks he couldn't file charges against the boy, but I'd like to know on what planet the actions of the school officials involved didn't constitute multiple felonies and under exactly what reasoning he used to reach that conclusion, given that the use of a person as "bait" in a sexual sting when they cannot consent sure appears to me to violate a whole host of laws.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.