text:
American Independence Carret Core Plus Fund

Objectives & Strategy

The American Independence Carret Core Plus Fund’s (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide investors with a competitive total return.

The Fund invests primarily in intermediate-term, investment-grade bonds, and may also invest in International Fixed-Income securities amd High-Yield bonds.

Investor Profile

This Fund is intended for investors with a time horizon of at least 12 months, seeking total return from an intermediate term fixed-income fund.

Investment Approach

The Fund manager seeks to generate a high level of current income, from a conservative, core portfolio of investment grade bonds, as well as international and high- yield securities.

Broad Bond Market Diversification
Portfolio construction combines fundamental economic and credit research with duration management. The Fund’s average duration range may be +/- 20% of the benchmark.

Monthly Income at the ‘Right Price’
The strategy seeks to exploit spread relationships, and identify undervalued sectors and securities for investment, while maintaining a high-quality, liquid portfolio.

Tickers and CUSIPs

Share ClassTickerCUSIPFund Number

Portfolio Fundamentals
As of 03/31/2017

Number of Holdings94
Net Assets$50.5 Million
Duration3.8 years
Fund Inception DateJanuary 21, 1997

SEC Yields
As of 03/31/2017

Share ClassSubsidized 30-Day SEC YieldUnsubsidized 30-Day SEC Yield

Duration is a measure of a bond price’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Bond or bond funds with a higher duration generally have higher price volatility than those with lower durations.

30-Day SEC Yield and Unsubsidized SEC Yield: The SEC 30-Day Yield is computed under an SEC standardized formula and is based on the maximum offer price per share as of the date specified. The SEC 30-Day Yield on A Shares at NAV applies only to A Shares purchased at no-load pursuant to the Fund’s policy permitting waiver of the A Share load in certain specified circumstances. Subsidized yields reflect fee waivers in effect. Without such waivers, yields would be reduced. The unsubsidized 30-day SEC yield is calculated using the gross expenses of the fund. Gross expenses do not include any fee waivers or expense reimbursements.

Portfolio Management

The American Independence Carret Core Plus Fund is managed by RiskX Investments, LLC (formerly known as American Independence Financial Services, LLC). The Fund is sub-advised by Carret Asset Management, LLC (“Carret”).

Carret Asset Management, LLC (“Carret”) is an independent investment advisor headquartered in New York City offering active investment-grade fixed-income management, a long-term track record, and a team-based investment decision-making process. Founded in 1963, Carret manages in excess of $2.4 billion in assets for wealth mangers, financial advisors, corporate relationships, select institutions, mutual fund companies, non-profit organizations and high-net-worth individuals and families.

Fund Manager Logo Jason R. Graybill, CFA, has been a Senior Managing Director and Senior Portfolio Manager at Carret since May of 2008. From January 1995 through May 2008, he was a Managing Director and Senior Portfolio Manager at Abner, Herrman & Brock, LLC. Mr. Graybill graduated from Towson University in 1992, with a B.S. in Business Administration and from University of Baltimore with an M.S. in Finance in 1994. He has been a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA®) since 1998.

Neil D. Klein has been a Senior Managing Director and Senior Portfolio Manager of Carret since May of 2008. From July 2005 through May 2008, he was a Senior Portfolio Manager at Abner, Herrman & Brock, LLC. Mr. Klein graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1987, with a B.S. in AgriBusiness Management and received his M.B.A. from Temple University, Fox School of Business.

CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned by CFA Institute

General Information

RiskX Investments, LLC

(844) 747-5292

1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor,
New York, NY 10105

Fees & Distributions

Shareholder Fees
As of 03/31/2017

(fees paid directly from your investment)

Institutional Class SharesClass A Shares
Maximum Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Purchases (as a percentage of offering price)None4.25%
Maximum Deferred Sales Charge (Load) (as a percentage of the Net Asset Value purchase)NoneNone
Redemption FeeNoneNone

Annual Fund Operating Expenses
As of 03/31/2017

(expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)

Institutional Class SharesClass A Shares
Net Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waivers and Expense Reimbursements10.45%0.80%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses0.74%1.09%

1RiskX Investments, LLC (“RiskX Investments” or the “Adviser”) has contractually agreed to reduce the management fee and reimburse expenses until March 1, 2018 in order to keep the Net Annual Fund Operating Expenses at 0.45% and 0.80% of the Fund’s average net assets for the Institutional Class shares and Class A shares, respectively. The contractual expense limitation does not apply to any taxes, brokerage commissions, interest on borrowings, acquired fund fees, extraordinary expenses, or short sale dividend and interest expenses. The Adviser is permitted to seek reimbursement from the Fund, subject to limitations, for fees it waived and Fund expenses it paid in any fiscal year of the Fund over the following three fiscal years, as long as the reimbursement does not cause the Fund’s operating expenses to exceed the expense limitation. The expense limitation may be terminated only by approval of the Board.

Purchase Minimums

Institutional Class SharesClass A Shares
Initial Purchase$3,000,000.00$5,000.00
Subsequent Purchase$5,000.00$250.00

Distribution Schedule

Dividend FrequencyMonthly
Capital GainsAnnually

Capital Gains

(per share distribution)

Portfolio Statistics
As of 03/31/2017 | Trailing Five Years

Standard Deviation2.73%
Sharpe Ratio0.91

Month-end Performance
As of 03/31/2017

NameNAV1 MonthYTD1 Year3 Year5 Year10 YearSince Inception2
Institutional Class Shares$10.750.04%0.78%1.45%2.69%2.58%4.61%5.04%
Class A Shares (NAV)$10.830.01%0.69%1.20%2.34%2.23%4.35%4.83%
Class A Shares (w/ 4.25% max load)$11.31-4.23%-3.58%-3.12%0.86%1.36%3.90%4.61%
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index---0.05%0.82%0.44%2.68%2.34%4.27%--

Quarter-end Performance
As of 03/31/2017

NameQTRYTD1 Year3 Year5 Year10 YearSince Inception2
Institutional Class Shares0.78%0.78%1.45%2.69%2.58%4.61%5.04%
Class A Shares (NAV)0.69%0.69%1.20%2.34%2.23%4.35%4.83%
Class A Shares (w/ 4.25% max load)-3.58%-3.58%-3.12%0.86%1.36%3.90%4.61%
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index0.82%0.82%0.44%2.68%2.34%4.27%--

2Since January 21, 1997 Inception

During certain of the periods shown in the performance table above, the adviser waived a portion of its management fee and capped the total operating expenses of the Fund. Absent such expense cap and fee waiver, the Fund would have had a higher expense ratio and lower performance. The expense ratio is per the most recent prospectus dated March 1, 2017. The net expense ratio is net of a contractual expense cap of 0.45% for Institutional share and 0.80% for A share classes, through March 1, 2018.

Performance data quoted represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. To obtain performance information current to the most recent month-end, please call 866.410.2006 or visit the Product Performance pages of this website.

The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged index of investment-grade U.S. dollar-denominated fixed income securities of domestic issuers having a maturity greater than one year. The index does not incur fees and expenses and is not available for purchase.

Portfolio Statistics source: Zephyr StyleADVISOR.

Alpha measures a fund’s risk-adjusted performance independent of benchmark performance.

Beta is a measure of a fund’s volatility in comparison to a market benchmark: a Beta of less than 1 indicates a fund is less volatile than the market, while a Beta of greater than 1 indicates a fund is more volatile than the market.

R-Squared measures the portion of a fund’s movement that is explained by the broad market’s movements.

Standard Deviation measures a fund’s performance volatility based on the spread of its returns around its average return.

Sharpe Ratio measures risk-adjusted returns using excess return and standard deviation to determine a fund’s reward per unit of risk taken. A higher sharpe ratio indicates better historical risk-adjusted performance.

Sector Weightings
As of 03/31/2017

Corporate Bonds62.15%
U.S. Government Agency Pass-Through Securities26.86%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations3.83%
U.S. Treasury Obligations3.04%
Cash Equivalents2.48%
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities1.58%
Mortgage Derivatives - IO STRIPS0.06%

Credit Rating3
As of 03/31/2017

U.S. Treasury/ U.S. Government Agency29.90%
Not Rated3.40%

Top 10 Holdings
As of 03/31/2017

Freddie Mac Gold Pool,4.00%,11/01/454.16%
Fannie Mae Pool,3.00%,7/01/434.16%
Freddie Mac Gold Pool,3.50%,10/01/433.71%
Freddie Mac Gold Pool,3.50%,9/01/423.02%
Fannie Mae Pool,4.00%,11/01/452.83%
Fannie Mae Pool,3.50%,3/01/452.41%
DDR Corp.,7.88%,9/01/201.80%
WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust,4.31%,8/15/451.77%
Dollar Tree, Inc.,5.75%,3/01/231.74%
General Motors Co.,4.88%,10/02/231.69%
Percent in Top 1027.29%

Portfolio holdings are subject to change.

3The Credit Ratings shown are provided by a nationally recognized ratings organization (the lower of S&P, Moody's, or Fitch). Bond ratings of AAA to BBB- (Aaa to Baa3 as rated by Moody's) reflect investment grade quality. Bond ratings below BBB- / Baa3 are below-investment grade quality.

Important Disclosures

Information found on this site is directed to U.S. Investors.

Fixed Income Securities Risk. Some of the securities or other investment companies in which a Fund may invest are invested in a broad range of bonds or fixed-income securities. To the extent that a security or other investment company is so invested, the return on, and value of, an investment will fluctuate with changes in interest rates, credit rating and duration.

Foreign Securities Risks. Investments in foreign securities involve certain inherent risks, including the following:

Foreign Investment. A Fund that invests in foreign securities is subject to risks such as fluctuation in currency exchange rates, market illiquidity, price volatility, high trading costs, difficulties in settlement, regulations on stock exchanges, limits on foreign ownership, less stringent accounting, reporting and disclosure requirements, limited legal recourse and other considerations. In the past, equity and debt instruments of foreign markets have had more frequent and larger price changes than those of U.S. markets. The willingness and ability of sovereign issuers to pay principal and interest on government securities depends on various economic factors, including the issuers’ balance of payments, overall debt level, and cash flow from tax or other revenues.

Political and Economic Factors. Individual foreign economies of certain countries may differ favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in such respects as growth of gross national product, rate of inflation, capital reinvestment, resource self-sufficiency, diversification and balance of payments position. The internal politics of certain foreign countries may not be as stable as those of the U.S. Government. Certain foreign countries participate to a significant degree, through ownership interest or regulation, in their respective economies. Action by these governments could include restrictions on foreign investment, nationalization, expropriation of goods or imposition of taxes, and could have a significant effect on market prices of securities and payment of interest. The economies of many foreign countries are heavily dependent upon international trade and are accordingly affected by the trade policies and economic conditions of their trading partners. Enactment by these trading partners of protectionist trade legislation could have a significant adverse effect upon the securities markets of such countries.

Currency Fluctuations. A Fund may invest in securities denominated in foreign currencies. Accordingly, a change in the value of any such currency against the U.S. dollar will result in a corresponding change in the U.S. dollar value of the securities’ assets denominated in that currency. Such changes will also affect the securities’ income. The value of the security may also be affected significantly by currency restrictions and exchange control regulations enacted from time to time.

High-Yield Securities Risk. Lower rated securities are subject to greater risk of loss of income and principal than higher rated securities and may have a higher incidence of default than higher-rated securities. The prices of lower rated securities are likely to be more sensitive to adverse economic changes or individual corporate developments than higher rated securities.

For more complete information on the American Independence Funds, you can obtain a prospectus containing complete information for the Funds by calling 866.410.2006 or by downloading them from this web site. You should consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses carefully before you invest or send money. Information about these and other important subjects is in the Funds’ prospectus. The prospectus and, if available, the summary prospectus, should be read carefully before investing.

Shares of the American Independence Funds are distributed by Matrix 360 Distributors, LLC, which is not affiliated with RiskX Investments, LLC and Carret Asset Management, LLC.

RiskX Investments, LLC is a limited liability company.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Charles Conrad Abbott, Archaeologist and Naturalist

Charles Conrad Abbott
Charles Conrad Abbott (1843-1919) was educated at the Trenton Academy and obtained his medical degree at the University of Pennsylvania. He never practiced medicine, however, and instead engaged in archaeology and natural history.

Abbott made his home along the bluff overlooking the marshlands south of Trenton and it was here that he unearthed man-made implements in the "glacial gravels" of the marsh. In The Stone Age in New Jersey, published in 1872, and Primitive Industry: or, Illustrations of the Handiwork, in stone, bone and clay, of the Native Races of the Northern Atlantic Seaboard of America, published in 1881, he noted that a cache of stone axes had been unearthed during the excavation of the receiving vault at Riverview Cemetery in 1859 and elsewhere along the bluff about the same time.

As "assistant in the field" of Harvard University's Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, his collection of stone implements was placed in the museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and added to yearly until it reached some 20,000 specimens. The journal Science observed at the time that it was "one of the most important series of its kind ever brought together, and one which archaeologists will consult for all time to come."

During this tenure he put forth the theory that these gravels contained the archaeological evidence of human presence in North America during the Ice Age. This fueled scholarly debate among scientists, but the weight of subsequent archaeological and geological discoveries eventually disproved his hypothesis.

Boulder marking the grave of
Charles Conrad Abbott
Abbott was residing in Bristol, Pennsylvania, at the time of his death. He was interred in Section W, Lot 740, where his grave is marked by a small boulder monument to which a bronze plaque is attached. It reads "In this neighborhood Dr. Abbott discovered the existence of Paleolithic man in America."

The marshlands where he carried out much of his work are recognized as one of the most important prehistoric archaeological sites in the eastern United States, and the Abbott Farm was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1976.

No comments :

Post a Comment

A Google account is required to leave a comment. Please note that spam will be deleted, as will inappropriate or irrelevant comments.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-145-167-34.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-17
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Has John Yoo found the footnotes to the US Constitution that no one else bothered to read ?

David Kurtz congratulates Pamela Hess and Lara Jakes Jordan for finding a shocking fact in a footnote.

Memo justified warrantless surveillance

Secret Memo That Justified Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Comes to Light

AP News

Apr 02, 2008 19:20 EST

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

That view was expressed in a secret Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.
The 37-page memo is classified and has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Now I have been wondering about this secret Constitution business. Since OLC opinions are supposed to describe and interpret the Constitution and the laws, which are, you know, public, how can these memos be secret ?

If they are reasonable interpretations of the Constitution and the laws, they don't introduce anything which isn't there already. How can national security be damaged by our adversaries knowing what our Constitution means ? I mean it's not supposed to be a secret.

These memos are not like the discussion of the facts of a case by an attorney discussing and her client. They are more like judicial opinions except less authoritative and issued on request and not when there is an actual case or contestation.

I see no possible public interest in keeping them secret, and the costs so far have obviously been enormous.

Why is the Bush administration allowed to classify OLC memos ? Can congress forbid this (it will take two thirds of each house to over-ride a certain veto)

John Conyers can't understand how OLC memos can be classified either.

Second, in the March, 2003 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum publicly released on April 1, 2008, the contents of a secret October, 2001 OLC memorandum were partially disclosed. Specifically, the 2003 memorandum explains that in an October 23, 2001 memorandum, OLC “concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.”3 On two prior occasions – in letters of February 12 and February 20, 2008, – Chairman Conyers requested that the Administration publicly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum .4 The memorandum has not been received despite these specific requests.

Based on the title of the October 23, 2001 memorandum, and based on what has been disclosed and the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it is clear that a substantial portion of this memorandum provides a legal analysis and conclusions as to the nature and scope of the Presidential Commander in Chief power to accomplish specific acts within the United States. The people of the United States are entitled to know the Justice Department’s interpretation of the President’s constitutional powers to wage war in the United States. There can be no actual basis in national security for keeping secret the remainder of a legal memorandum that addresses this issue of Constitutional interpretation. The notion that the President can claim to operate under “secret” powers known only to the President and a select few subordinates is antithetical to the core principles of this democracy. We ask that you promptly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum.

No comments:


text:
Sunday, 9 September 2012

A Week in the Life

In this industry no two weeks are the same, but that is part of the enjoyment of the job.  This week has taken me from London to the middle of the River Medway via Hurstpierpoint in West Sussex!

Monday:  A small land survey for a client looking to extend an existing survey they had in Canterbury (one I priced and won for a previous employer by complete coincidence!).  The quote came in on the Friday, and we squeezed the work in on the Monday - so much for putting my feet up!

Tuesday: Up to Pfizers (Sandwich, Kent) for the day with Method Statement & Risk Assessment in hand, upon arrival the permits office gave me the news that no permit had been requested for the work.  However on discussion with the office I didn't need one, and the RAMS were not required as the work was on the public highway outside the site. Spent the rest of the day covering 10km of walking - you'd think taking in the scenery etc., but no it was over the same 200m of road walking up and down doing the survey!!

Wednesday:  Change of pace again down to Hurstpierpoint (West Sussex) to survey a 2.5acre garden for a potential extension to the existing property and garden landscaping.  This was combined with returning some hire kit to Opti-cal down near Gatwick airport.  The day started at 6, and finished at 6 for all those of you thinking I keep short hours!

Thursday: A more leisurely start setting out the ends of five gas pipes covered over by chalk fill at a local landfill which is in the process of being reclaimed.   Then from here I was off to an afternoon meeting with the CICES visiting the Hydrographic Office at Sheerness Docks, with a trip out on the Medway Surveyor to map a wreck just off the terminals for Grain LNG.  More pictures can be seen on our Facebook page, and eventually on the CICES website.  Fascinating to see Surveyors from other sectors at work for a change.

Friday: Hoping on a train up to London to carry out a measured internal survey for a property rental & future lease plan.  I was looking forward to nicely maintained property given the client, but found myself in the dark in a flat clearly not used for 20-30 years with ceilings falling part, a concrete floor covered in dust etc..  Of course on the plus side all the corners were easily accessible to carry out a quick survey, and give me time for a quick nephew cuddle (2 months old) on the way home.

So I've managed to clock up a ridiculous amount of miles in the car, on the train, and on foot.  It also means I now have a lot of data to process next week to issue the information out to the clients, although I did managed to process and issue work from Monday & Tuesday on the following day in an attempt to stay on top of my inbox.

Next week I'll be hitting Dover, Ashford & Upchurch at the moment, but that could easily be added to at any time.

For more information about the area we cover, and the work we do, please visit our website  To keep in touch we can be followed on FacebookLinkedIN, and through twitter (@RLSurveys), alternatively you can subscribe to our bi-annual newsletter through the link at the top right of this blog.

The next blog will (I hope) be entitled - Advertising & Trade Shows.

  1. Really interesting to read this Mike. Thanks

  2. Glad you're enjoying it, nice to get a bit of feed back.


text:
Sunday, 17 February 2013

Visiting the Wierd & Wonderful

Surveying is a very unique career in terms of the places you end up visiting & Surveying, so below is a list of some of the more unusual/unique places I've been, can you suggest anymore;

Sorry to the assistant on this one!
1) Port Lympne Zoo inside the Lion enclosure (they'd moved the Lions into their smaller side pen).  Still kept me on edge during the work just in case!  As you can see they still showed a lot of interest so the pogo remained at arms length - it is only wire after all!!!

2) Port Lympne Zoo inside the Rhino enclosure.

3) Central wicket at The Oval - setting out the boundary, a little add on to the main survey of the site.  How could we say no to that little request outside of the original spec for the work.

4) Aldwych Station (at night with failing torch!), now a disused station used for training everyone one from Surveyors with a new track trolley to the police armed response units, and some big budget films (I believe 007 in Die Another Day (although not 100%), and Sliding Doors).  It was under the guise of work, wandering off the end of the platforms to try out the then new Leica track trolley.

5) Roof Walk at Lincoln Cathedral, as a little bonus due to the work done for the on going spire monitoring.

6) Chelsea FC Training ground - yes those specs in the distance were the first team, and that is all they ever become just random people in the distance despite the hope of a misplaced football needing returning!!  - OK the picture is not of the training ground, but I was working close to the main stadium recently so this pic will have to do.

7) Camden Town Coroners Office - what was in the black bag?

8) Charing Crematorium - with behind the scenes tour, which was surprisingly interesting even if a little morbid.

There are many other locations I have been that most people in the general public don't have access to such as wandering down the runways of Heathrow & Stansted airports in the middle of the night (I was supposed to be there), inside the Tower of London carrying out a measured building survey, or walking along the tracks at the Eurotunnel terminal at Cheriton, even walking over the arches at Dover harbour - you know the ones at the ferry on ramps right at the waters edge.  They get very windy at the top!

Everyone has their stories, and in 13 years I have accumulated a fair few across five different Survey firms.  I'm sure the bigger the company the more obscure/prestigious the jobs - do you have anywhere different work has taken you?

For more information on the services R L Surveys offer please visit our website, or follow us through the wonders of social media Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIN.

Friday, 1 February 2013

Surveyors don't forget.......

A good assistant (or even a bad one but for totally different reasons!)

Since using one man kit I have started to really appreciate the benefits of a good assistant (and been glad of the freedom from some bad ones)!!!  So here is my personal tribute to the better assistants to have been honoured to be trained by me (I use the terms honoured & trained very loosely).  These are my top five in no particular order, but as a tradition ladies first:-

Alyson (Yogurt Spiller) Bell (2001).

One of the many work experience students who I have worked with, she spent the best part of four months working in our office being taught the 'proper' way to do things.  Not once was there a complaint, quick to learn, & eager to ask questions, perhaps a little to comfortable at the end making jokes about her Surveyor but I'll let that one slip.  Current where abouts unknown, but I'd love to find out.

Leanne (Far too short) Cochrane (2007-2012).

A full time trainee Surveyor graduating to a fully fledged Surveyor.  Beyond her height she gave as good as she got in a very male office, eager to learn & ask questions, and generally had her mind on the job.  Currently Surveyor/Geospatial Manager(!) with Dover Harbour Board

Chris (Pretty Boy) Holley (2005-2012).

Started with the same employer within a month of each other, and left within a matter of months.  Joined the company as a raw recruit, and left a fully paid member of the Surveying fraternity, now having moved on he is fulfilling the potential he was never allowed to explore before.  Best without a safety net, and prospering as a result.  Currently Survey Manager at Bovis Homes

Matt (What did your Mum feed you) Bolton (2002).

Another work experience student, far too tall for his own good and made me appreciate the problems of being vertically challenged when taking over the instrument work!  Current career and whereabouts unknown, but I'd love to find out.

Matt (Moaning) Morgan (2005 - 2010)

Similar to Chris started around the same time, but left a little earlier to following his calling to travel & become a holiday rep.  Arguably his dream job, but as a Surveyor he could have been very good if his mind stayed on the job and didn't rise to the banter hence his inclusion.  Currently repping in Southern Spain (I think?)

This little exercise got me thinking since I started Surveying at the end of the last Millenia(!) I have counted 35 separate Survey Assistants, and that doesn't include time when I used to work in teams of two Surveyors!  Survey Assistants are the life blood of Surveying, the future we all need to support and help grow - however the advent of modern technology and the ever increasing squeeze on costs means an Assistant is a luxury many of us can't afford.  The latest robotic equipment is amazing, but it doesn't afford the time to train new staff especially for the smaller firms.  University & college courses do provide a good foundation but there is no replacement for on the job training and apprenticeship schemes for Surveyors are few and far between, and during my quick browse no such schemes existed in the South East - the search continues........

Note from Beccy:  No Mike, it is NOT acceptable to do a similar blog naming and shaming the rubbish assistants!!


text:
Running for a Cause: Robert Morris University Running for a Cause | Robert Morris University

This April, three history majors and members of the RMU History Club – seniors Dan Blevins and Steven Noorlag, and junior Caleb Smith – took part in the American Odyssey Relay Run Adventure, a two-day, 200-mile relay race from Gettysburg to Washington D.C., which crosses various Civil War battlefields along the way.

The race benefits Hope Connections for Cancer Support, a cancer support services charity; and Team Red, White and Blue, which works to create a community of veterans, their families, and American citizens who can enjoy authentic social interaction and shared experiences through activities and events all across America.

“It was the experience of a lifetime,” says Blevins, president of RMU’s History Club, and, along with Noorlag, a member of RMU’s Three Rivers Battalion. “You start out in Gettysburg and run through the battlefield, passing all of the monuments. If that doesn’t motivate you, nothing will.”

Blevins served 10 years in the Army in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea as a Cavalry Scout before coming to RMU through the Yellow Ribbon program.

Around 150 teams of 12 ran non-stop during the two-day race, and Blevins says the streets were lined people cheering them on. “I have never seen such camaraderie in my entire life.”

>>Click here to visit RMU’s Flickr page and see photos from the race

Each runner on the team had three different legs to run over the course of the race, and each team had a van to provide support and transport the other runners during the race. Blevins says they were able to get about an hour of sleep per runner; they completed the course in 32 hours.

“It was physically exhausting,” he says, “but when you are racing for a good cause it is easy to find the energy to keep going.” ~

Written by Valentine J. Brkich


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Australian Left Review

Colin Jones

Most housing theories are concerned with housing finance. Few propose changes in social relationships. Colin Jones puts forward arguments for the development of a revolutionary housing theory.

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.


text:
Advanced Meta Tag Generator

Friday, April 12, 2013

In his study of the form that masochism takes in modern man, Theodor Reik puts forth an interesting view. Masochism is more widespread than we realize because it takes an attenuated form. The basic dynamism is as follows: a human being sees something bad which is coming as inevitable. There is no way he can halt the process; he is helpless. This sense of helplessness generates a need to gain some control over the impending pain--any kind of control will do. This makes sense; the subjective feeling of helplessness is more painful than the impending misery. So the person seizes control over the situation in the only way open to him: he connives to bring on the impending misery; he hastens it. This activity on his part promotes the false impression that he enjoys pain. Not so. It is simply that he cannot any longer endure the helplessness or the supposed helplessness. But in the process of gaining control over the inevitable misery he becomes, automatically, anhedonic (which means being unable or unwilling to enjoy pleasure). Anhedonia sets in stealthily. Over the years it takes control of him. For example, he learns to defer gratification; this is a step in the dismal process of anhedonia. In learning to defer gratification he experiences a sense of self-mastery; he has become stoic, disciplined; he does not give way to impulse. He has control. Control over himself in terms of his impulses and control over the external situation. He is a controlled and controlling person. Pretty soon he has branched out and is controlling other people, as part of the situation. He becomes a manipulator. Of course, he is not consciously aware of this; all he intends to do is lessen his own sense of impotence. But in his task of lessening this sense, he insidiously overpowers the freedom of others. Yet, he derives no pleasure from this, no positive psychological gain; all his gains are essentially negative.

(Philip K. Dick, Valis, 81-82)

Monday, April 08, 2013

I've had a long-held belief regarding the presence of a consciousness in all things, but I had a thought late last night that caused a slight shift in my understanding of it.

Assuming there are infinite universes and an infinite number of planes of existence, it occurred to me that the physical nature of those universes and planes truly may be just sensory information. That is, none of this may actually exist anywhere than in our shared consciousness.

Now that I'm on the subject, assuming a consciousness exists in all things, it seems that we exist in order to know experientially what our greater consciousness/god knows in itself. In other words, if physical existence in itself exists only in our shared consciousness, call this our shared manifestation of a different way of knowing. To me this fits nicely with the way a lot of our behavior works. The dichotomies of male/female, passive/assertive, etc. suggest that we long to experience these spectrums even if it's not through ourselves personally but rather through someone close to us.

There's literally no way to discuss this without sounding insane (or at least new agey), but it does occur to me that if a part of me that exists on another plane wanted to express itself in our world it wouldn't be able to do it to anyone who wasn't at least a little bit insane.


text:
Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Rid Tech Ultrasonic Pest Repeller Review

We have all had a problem with household pests at some point; mice, rats, spiders, roaches, mosquitos, ants or whatever it may have been. I was skeptical of this product at first. It seemed too easy, but I am not skeptical anymore, it seems to work. Rid Tech Ultrasonic Pest Repeller is a small box that you plug into a wall outlet, and it uses state of the art technology to drive pests away.It uses low frequency sound waves that are inaudible to humans and pets, but drive pests out of your home for good. The part I love about this the most is that it's humane. Nobody wants these pests in their home, but I don't want to hurt or kill any creature, so while this device drives them away, it doesn't hurt or kill them . It's safe and effective. It just creates an uncomfortable environment for them, so they leave on their own. One unit will take care of one advantage sized room, larger area may require more than one unit. This product is the answer to your pest problems. I have had no issues with any of the critters that we had previous to the use of this product. If you want to try it, you can find it on Amazon here.
I received this product for free for my honest review.

1 comment:

  1. I love that it is humane as well!! Please let us know how it works!!! Ive had spiders around recently and I hate them so much!!


text:
Sunday, January 28, 2007

International best selling phenomenon!!!

So… what to say about The Alchemist

I am not sure whether I should just like this book, or admit its obvious faults.

I have read this book two times already (side note to Jon—I have also read, and own: One Hundred Years of Solitude, Love in the Times of Cholera, Collected Stories , Chronicle of a Love Foretold and Of Love and Other Demons [response to your quote = “I'd wager that the market for Coelho and the market for García Márquez, vast as they both are, are also almost entirely distinct: i.e. that those who read the former hardly ever read the latter, or vice versa.”]), though to be fair, it is the only Coelho I have read. The first time I read it was in a hammock, in the rainforest in Guatemala with an overfed Spider monkey in my lap (long story but I assure you its true) and the second time while backpacking through Cambodia so, maybe it was due to context, or maybe I am just as cheezy as the book, but I really loved it. Ok, it’s not the most complicated read, but I don’t always have the mental energy to tackle a Pynchon and decipher between 600 or so characters. And no, Coelho’s no García Márquez, nor is he a Rushdie, but The Alchemist is an inspirational story that even an educated person can enjoy— despite eye-rolling lines like “a mysterious force begins to convince them that it will be impossible to realize their Personal Legend” (21).

Hard core lit-snobs can call me silly and throw books at me, but I think I am going to have the courage of my convictions and continue to enjoy this simple piece of literature that takes itself too seriously, just because it brings me joy. And because of that, I will not call it bad literature. It’s hard to remain objective when something is personal, and I am not ready to become cynical enough to dismiss the messages within the text. I may be too idealistic but I think that because of its inspirational quality, it has cultural worth. However, I am not ready to jump up and join Coelho’s nutty fan club, nor become some deranged Warrior of Light.
Also, it may be possible that the Portuguese version sounds more poetic and thus not as cheezy.

Gillian said...

That's cool that you read it while you were also travelling, I bet that would totally make a difference...I didn't like it very much, which made me sad becuase I've heard so many good things. I would like to comment on your last line, that it probably sounds less cheesy in Portugese...I tried to keep in mind that it is in translation when I was reading it, and I think it would make a huge difference...maybe it would be interesting to read a paragraph in Portugese then the same paragraph in English aloud in class to see if it sounds less cheesy...althoguh I suppose not understanding the Portugese words would make this an obviously flawed experiment. Maybe I'll propose it to Jon anyway.

Anonymous said...

I basically thought the exact same thing! It was quite obvious the flaws in terms of the obvious simplicity, and the fact that at times it was trying to be too "deep" and ended up being even more simple. However, I took the book (more or less) for what it was, and I actually really quite enjoyed reading it, especially since I identified with Santiago, and the Alchemist, etc.

Jon said...

For what it's worth, my understanding is that Coelho routinely hands in his manuscripts in Portuguese that still retain numerous errors (of grammar and spelling, for instance), and that he sometimes insists that these errors remain in the published version. By contrast, translators generally iron these flaws out.

Marina said...

ashea good call identifying that the text takes itself too seriously-well not the text but the author/fans thereafter- i couldnt quite put my finger on what irked me about it all, having enjoyed the book myself, and that's it: i wish it was what it was, a good story with an idealistic message but maybe one worth the reminder once in a while, instead of getting blown out of proportion as some sort of new age bible.... so thanks for articulating that thought for me! (and for sharing your many other good thoughts)

dacamili said...

i think a lot of people are simply not taking the book for what it is, but are labelling it a wanna-be-bible, or a self-help book... i see no reason to do this really. not once did this book appear to me as a self-help guide to life. it was just a nice little story with a message along the lines of :don't be greedy in life and the rewards will come on their own; don't live for the future, but live in the moment. yes, maybe we've all heard our share of this message, but the fact that so many enjoy this book seems to prove that we all forget it. and yes, we'll forget it again, but it's nice to be reminded. as simple as it really is.

Anonymous said...

I think it's great that despite the criticisms the book received in class you still stick to how you feel about it. I read it many years ago as well and I did thought it was inspirational. However, as I read it again, it has many faults but I agree with you that maybe this book shouldn't be taken so seriously.

Anonymous said...

I keep coming to this website[url=].[/url]Lots of good information here Do you pay attention towards your health?. Let me present you with one fact here. Recent Scientific Research displays that closely 70% of all United States grownups are either fat or overweight[url=].[/url] So if you're one of these individuals, you're not alone. Infact many among us need to lose 10 to 20 lbs once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? [url=]Quick weight loss[/url] is not like piece of cake. Some improvement in of daily activity can help us in losing weight quickly.

About me: I am author of [url=]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effective weight loss.


text:
Monday, November 7, 2011

Kelli Rae Powell: Live at Jalopy

Every now and again, we stray from the stomping grounds of the Lower East Side and head to Jalopy in the wilds of Red Hook, where you can drink beer out of Mason jars and pretend you're in O Brother Where Are Thou and get empanadas at Phil's Crummy Corner, the Dominican joint at the end of the block. Red Hook is special.

Y'know who else is special? Kelli Rae Powell. For serious. By day, the woman does music therapy for kids with cancer. And by night, she does this. The rest of us should just pack up and go home, because KRP might be the best person on the planet. And I love her dresses.


text:
Home > Resources > White Grubs

What are White Grubs?

White grubs are the larvae of European chafer, Japanese, and May & June beetles. These small, plump, white larvae live beneath the surface of the lawn and voraciously chew on grass roots. They are often found in their signature c-shaped position in the soil.

White Grub

Grub Damage

Grubs chew away at the roots of grass plants, causing the lawn to appear yellow in patches. Because the damage often looks similar to dryness or drought, many Rockford, IL Weed Man customers mistakenly assume that the lawn simply needs more water.

Additional detection tips:

  • Grub damaged turf will become spongy and roll back like a carpet, as the root system has been entirely eaten away.
  • Animals like skunks and raccoons may dig up the lawn looking for their next meal.
  • Birds often feed on a grub-infested lawn and leave behind pencil-sized holes.

Serious grub damage can occur in the spring, summer and fall. If the problem is ignored, the discolored patches will only get larger. The damaged areas will then die out or fill in with weeds and crabgrass. The best time to treat grubs is when they are very young, before you are faced with severe damage.

Life Cycle

To control an insect population we must understand its habits and life cycle. Some grubs complete their life cycle in one year. Others require three years to complete their life cycle. White grubs survive the winter as larvae in the soil. In the early spring the grubs begin to feed again. Later in the spring and summer, they enter a resting stage (pupae) then hatch into adult beetles. Rockford, IL Weed Man customers beware! Lots of beetles can mean a grub problem later (the beetles themselves do not damage lawns). Beetles lay their eggs which hatch into grub larvae.

Your Rockford, IL Weed Man is a trained specialist. He can recognize the difference between a simple drought problem and a serious white grub infestation. We use materials that are applied carefully and precisely at the correct time to be the most effective in controlling grubs.
Invite a Friend
And Earn Rewards


text:
Prospect Park Red-tailed Hawk eating a squirrel - January 13th, 2013

A friend and I happened upon this Red-tailed Hawk eating a squirrel as we were walking by Brooklyn's Prospect Park on January 13th, 2013.

It was pretty hilarious that I stumbled on this Hawk not five minutes after reaching this park.

The chorus of squirrels giving their Hawk warning cry in nearby trees tipped me off to the presence of the Hawk. I stopped in my tracks and looked up and all around but I could not see the Hawk the squirrels were carrying on about. I was looking in the trees and nearby building tops.

My friend spotted the Hawk on the ground right in front of us, already eating. The squirrel looked like it had been dead a while (rigor mortis seemed to have set in or it was at least a day old). Perhaps the body was leftovers the Hawk had stashed in advance (common practice for Hawks).

The Hawk could not be seen from the sidewalk unless you were standing right at the stone fence lining the park. This distance from the sidewalk was good in that it provided the Hawk enough cover to eat in relative peace.

At one point a runner passed the Hawk, completely unaware of its presence.

You can hear the squirrels sounding their alarm calls throughout the video.

I only had a more simple point and shoot camera with me at the time but thank goodness I did or else I would have missed the chance to record and share this footage.


text:
23 May 2015

Thanks for Reading

This blog is no longer being updated.

Thanks for reading, please enjoy the archives!

13 May 2015

Thoughts on the New Science Advisory Structure of the European Commission

Update 15 May: Science | Business has an interesting interview with Robert-Jan Smits, Director-General for Research and Innovation, on the new advisory mechanism.He explains that the new mechanism was in part to placate the fussy Brits, still smarting from the dismissal of Anne Glover as EC CSA. He also provides some more hints on how the structure might work.

Today, the European Commission released its new plans for science advice under Jean-Claude Juncker, the EC President. The new structure comes after Juncker terminated the office of the Chief Scientific Advisor, led by Anne Glover, which was put in place by his predecessor, Juan Manuel Barosso. The new structure is shown visually in the figure at the top of this post.

While there are many details of the plan still to be announced (here is the EC press release with a link to a presentation given earlier today), here are three quick reactions.

1. The 7-person super committee will likely be problematic

My first reaction is that this supra-committee -- called a "High Level Group of eminent scientists" and shown in a blue bubble above -- is a recipe for future problems.  This is for several reasons.

One is just math. The EU has 28 member states. You can do the political math. Another problem is one that dogs the EC, democracy. Who will the "eminent scientists" actually represent? They will not, as explained today, work for the EC. It is unlikely too that they will work for member states (such as a chief scientific advisor or EU or national government employee), as these individuals work for member governments with interests that may or may not coincide with those of the EU. That leaves industry, NGOs and academics. Appointing members from industry or NGOs seems impractical, leaving academics.

If this is correct, then the "eminent scientists" will probably look a bit like the group that Junker met with today, which included Nobel and other grand prize winners: Sir Paul Nurse, Jules Hoffmann, Serge Haroche, László Lovász, Jean Tirole and Edvard Ingjald Moser. I love Nobel Prize winners as much as anyone, but until they have a Nobel Prize in science policy, it is safe to say that this group probably does not have great knowledge of science advisory processes nor of the byzantine politics of the European Union, although some have relevant experience. A group of the "great and the good" is politically defensible, but may be practically problematic.

This, I question whether the "High Level" group is either necessary or desirable.

2. The model appears to confuse "science for policy" with "policy for science."

As I have written before, the EC already has a significant expert body within its ranks that stands ready to enhance science advice to the commission. There are undoubtedly considerable internal politics (Gambling? I am shocked, shocked!) within the EC between its Directorate for Research and Innovation and the Joint Research Centre, that I am utterly and blissfully unaware of.  That said, it is important to recognize that the support of science (which we might call "policy for science") is a different sort of beast that support of policy (which we might call "science for policy").

In fact, putting the same body in change of both functions could create some unhealthy potential for conflicts across roles, for the simple reason that DG RTD is in the business of advocating for science budgets. If advocating for the use of certain science is added to its portfolio, then these different missions could come into conflict. It is a little bit like putting an agricultural ministry in charge of advocating for farmers and for for healthy diets. You'd like to think that these two interests always go hand in hand, but experience shows that they sometimes don't. Experience shows that separating institutions that support science and those that support policy helps to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

In my opinion, the JRC is much better placed to negotiate the connections between the "demand" for science advice and the "supply" of science advice. Along those lines, see this paper by Dan Sarewitz and I a few years back which proposed a model for reconciling the supply of and demand for science (here in PDF). It is a notable positive that the EC proposal adopts the framing of "supply and demand" as this will highlight the significance of the interface between the two, and the need for expertise at that interface.

3. Roles and responsibilities have yet to be described

This is a point made by Corporate Observatory Europe (one of the groups which campaigned to have the EC CSA office terminated), and specifically that "independence" and "transparency" have yet to be defined. I agree. Much better than an "independence" framing might be a "conflict of interest" framing. This is another reason why coordinating the reconciliation of supply of and demand for science might be better done from inside the EC rather than by a body of supposedly heroic, independent super humans.

More broadly, the role of such a "science advisory mechanism" needs to be made clear. is is a science arbiter? An honest broker? Or what? How is demand to be identified? What products are to be produced? Other such questions might be raised as well.

To be fair, there is time to provide answers to these questions. But they should be answered. One of the problems with the EC CSA office is that its creation was seen by some as "mission accomplished" and it started with few resources or mechanisms (see the discussion in Wilsdon and Doubleday, here in PDF). It would be very easy for the EC to move on from today's announcement, to let the issue move into the background, only to reemerge sometime down the road in problematic fashion  as occurred with the CSA.

For anyone interested in improving connections of expertise and decision making, the EC stands at a significant fork in the road. Which route it takes will be significant. We should all keep paying attention.

08 May 2015

Evaluating UK Election Predictions

UPDATE: I have a piece up at the Guardian with draws upon and extends this analysis. See it here. Comments welcomed!

Back in March, I posted up a survey of thirteen various forecasts for the outcome of the UK election and promised to perform an evaluation when the results were in. Well the results are in. Let's jump right into the evaluation. After that, I'll offer some more general comments about predicting elections, data journalism and democracy.

Here are the forecasts that I am evaluating:
Many of these forecasts were dynamic, meaning that they changed over time based on updated information. The evaluation below is based on this snapshot of the forecasts from the end of March. But the results won't be particularly sensitive to the date of the forecast, give how badly wrong they were.

The methodology is a very simple one, and one that I have used frequently (e.g., to evaluate predictions of Olympic Medals, the World Cup, the NCAA tournament etc.) and is the basis of a chapter in my new book.

First, I identified a "naive baseline" forecast. In this case I chose to use the composition of the UK Parliament in March 2015. My expectation was that these numbers were (for the most part) determined in 2010, so any forecasters claiming to have skill really ought to improve upon those numbers. Let me emphasize that the March 2015 composition of the UK Parliament is an extremely low threshold for calculating skill.

Second, I calculate the improvement upon or degradation from the naive baseline. I do this by performing a very simple calculation. I (a) take the difference between the forecasted number of seats for a particular political party and the actual results, (b) square this number, (c) sum these squares across the political parties for each forecast, and then (d) take the square root of the resulting sum. The result is a measure of the total number of seats the forecast had in error.

Let's start with a look at the forecasts for the two biggest parties, the Tories and Labour, which were the only parties which had a realistic chance of forming a government. Here are those results, with RED indicating a worse performance than the naive baseline, and BLACK indicating an improvement (no, there is no black on this graph).
It is difficult to describe this graph as anything other than mass carnage for the forecasters. The predictions were off, and not by a small amount. Nate Silver visited the UK before the election to opine on the election explained to the British public, "What we know is that it’s highly likely you won’t have a majority.” Um, no.

Let's bring in the Liberal Democrats and see how that affected the results. (Note: Only 12 of the 13 forecasts included 3 parties.)
Here we have 2 of 12 forecasts outperforming the naive baseline. Stephen Fischer, who ran a great blog during the election at Elections, Etc. did the best as compared to the naive baseline, but this result is tempered a bit by the fact that their forecast degraded since the March prediction was made, with the election day forecast performing worse. The Naive Forecast, Fischer and Murr did pretty poorly overall, missing between 46-60 seats across the 3 parties.

The other forecast to outperform the naive baseline was produced by Andreas Murr at LSE and use a "wisdom of the crowds" approach. This method was based on asking people who they thought would win their constituency, not who they would vote for. The fact that this method outperformed every other approach, save one, is worth noting.

Overall, the track record of the forecasters for the three-party vote was also pretty dismal.

Let's bring in the SNP and UKIP. (Note: Only 8 of the 13 forecasts included SNP.)
With the SNP revolution occurring in Scotland, we would expect that this would improve the forecasts, since the naive baseline had only 6 SNP members in Parliament. (UKIP turns out to be mathematically irrelevant in this exercise.) Even so, adding in the SNP only raises two other forecasters above the naive baseline. It is worth noting that the worst performing forecast method (Stegmaier & Williams) had the very best prediction for the number of SNP seats.

Even with advance knowledge that the SNP would gain a large number of seats, that head start only led to 50% of the forecasters who predicted SNP seats to improve upon the naive baseline.

Overall, if we take the set of forecasts as an ensemble and ask how they did collectively (simply by summing their seat errors and dividing by the number of parties predicted), the picture remains pretty sorry:
  • Two-Party Forecasts (13): degraded from Naive Baseline by ~38 seats per party
  • Three-Party Forecasts (12): degraded from Naive Baseline by ~17 seats per party
  • Five-Party Forecasts (8): degraded from Naive Baseline by ~0.3 seats per party
So what lessons should we take from this exercise?

One lesson is that while predicting elections is interesting and fun from an academic perspective, it may not add much to our democratic practices. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, for better or worse, has become the face of poll-drive "horse-race journalism" in which the politics and policy choices are stripped out and numbers are pretty much all that matters. This is of course ironic, because Silver used to complain about punditry and horse-race journalism. Yet during his recent PR tour of the United Kingdom he was the ultimate pundit weighing in on the horse race. Not discussed by Silver were questions about subjects such as the future of the NHS, recharging UK productivity, or the desirability of Scottish independence or a possible EU referendum.

My criticism of election forecasts goes back a long way. Back in 2004 I wrote:
Rather than trying to see the future, political science might serve us better by helping citizens to create that future by clarifying the choices we face and their possible consequences for policy.
By simply predicting seats and treating politics like a sporting event, we diminish the partisanship, the choices, and the fundamental values that lie at the core of politics. Politics is about people and our collective future. I fear that data journalists have diminished our politics.

A second lesson is that we often forget our ignorance. Back in 2012 Nate Silver wrote very smartly:
Can political scientists “predict winners and losers with amazing accuracy long before the campaigns start”?

The answer to this question, at least since 1992, has been emphatically not. Some of their forecasts have been better than others, but their track record as a whole is very poor.
The 2015 UK General Election reminds of of this fact. Sure, it does seem possible to anticipate US elections, but this may say something about American exceptionalism (e.g., highly partisan with well-gerrymandered districts, a relatively simple electoral system that is overwhelmingly well-surveyed) rather than anything about the predictability of politics more generally.

I don't mean to pick on Nate Silver (disclaimer: I worked for him briefly in 2014, and admit to sometimes being seduced by horse-race journalism!) but at the same time, his overwhelming presence in the UK elections (and that of other forecasters) was influential enough to warrant critique. I have long had a lot of respect for Nate, not least because in the US at least, he figured out how to systematically integrate and evaluate polls, something that academic political scientists utterly failed to do.

At the same time, here is one example of the overwhelming influence of a dominant "narrative" in popular discourse. One pollster, Survation, conducted a survey before the election that proved remarkably accurate. But they chose not to publish. Why not?
We had flagged that we were conducting this poll to the Daily Mirror as something we might share as an interesting check on our online vs our telephone methodology, but the results seemed so “out of line” with all the polling conducted by ourselves and our peers – what poll commentators would term an “outlier” – that I “chickened out” of publishing the figures – something I’m sure I’ll always regret.
While Survation has to live with the decision not to release their poll, I can understand the pressures that exist not to contradict popular narratives expressed by loud and powerful media bodies. These pressures can mean narrow perspectives that exclude other, inconvenient expertise. Sometimes, the popular narrative is wrong.

The role of data journalists (and their close cousins, the explainer journalists) should not be to limit public discourse, either intentionally or unintentionally by weight of influence, but rather to open it. This means going beyond the numbers and into all the messiness of policy and politics. Data journalism, like our democracies, remains a work in progress.

05 May 2015

Handicapping the UK General Election

I am trained as a political scientist but I am in no way an expert in UK politics. With that out of the way, I thought it might be fun and educational (both for me) to have a go at making sense of the upcoming UK election. So please read on and comment if you'd like.

The UK parliament has 650 seats, which means that a majority is 326 seats. Presently, the UK is governed by a coalition of the Conservative party (holding 302 seats) and Liberal Democrats (holding 56 seats). The upcoming election is particularly interesting because there is a significant chance that the combined loss of Conservative and LibDem seats will total less than that needed to form a government.  The number actually needed to secure a majority is actually less than 326 because the Sinn Fein Party does not take its seats, due to a longstanding boycott of Westminster. A working majority is generally thought to be 323.

So here are the numbers to watch as the election results come in.

1. The total seats won by the current coalition.

The current (May 5) forecast by electionforecast.co.uk suggests that this total will fall in between 272 and 343 seats, with a forecast of 307 seats. If the coalition secures 323 seats or more, then odds would appear to strongly favor a continuation of the current coalition and David Cameron continuing on as Prime Minister. This scenario is the least complicated but also seems fairly unlikely.

Things get more complicated if the current coalition does not win a working parliamentary majority. It is of course also possible that if the Conservative-LibDem coalition gets close enough to a working majority that several smaller parties are added to the coalition to secure a working majority.

But what if such a majority is not possible? Let's break down some additional key numbers.

2. The total seats won by the Conservatives.

The current forecast by electionforecast.co.uk has Conservatives on 281 seats and Labour on 267. Another group of academics, Polling Observatory, has it at 274 Conservative and 272 Labour. May2015 has it at 274 Conservative and 269 Labour. Ladbrokes (betting market) has it 286.5 Conservative and 266.5 Labour.

What these various prediction suggest is an expectation that the Conservatives will win more seats than Labour, but not by much and with substantial uncertainty. So, let's consider each possibility in turn.

2a. Conservatives win more seats than Labour

If this occurs, we can expect David Cameron to quickly assert victory and claim a mandate for a second term. This mandate might be implemented via a Conservative-led minority government or a continuation of the Conservative-LibDem coalition as a minority government.

A big wild card here is what Ed Miliband and the Labour party decide to do. If the combined total of Labour and Scottish National Party seats (perhaps plus some other minority parties) totals 323 or more, then together they will have the votes to pass a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, which would force Cameron to step down.

Such a vote would almost certainly lead to a constitutional crisis as the UK would be in uncharted territory under the provisions of the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA). Catherine Haddon at the Institute for Government explains that "the Act substantially changes the rules of politics; and that nobody can yet tell exactly how these new rules will change the game." She gets into more detail:
If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.

So far, so clear. But from there we start to get into uncharted territory on two fronts. One is that some of the crucial mechanisms are not set out; the other is how the operation of the Act could affect political dynamics and party bargaining.
It is conceivable that the election winds up in the UK courts.

Thus, assuming that the Conservatives win more seats, but parliament is hung, then a first big decision will be Ed Miliband and Labour's decision whether to join with the SNP to pass a vote of no confidence. Of course, under a minority government such a vote of no confidence could occur at any time. Perhaps Miliband waits for the first big screw up by the minority government to force a new election in weeks or months time.

Of course, if Miliband cannot assemble 323+ no confidence votes, then the point is moot and the coalition continues to govern with David Cameron as PM, but with a continuing risk of the government falling.

2b. Labor wins more seats than the Conservatives

If this occurs it has potential to be a game changer. Under this scenario a first big decision shifts to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Do they then switch alliances from the Conservatives to Labour? Maybe so if David Cameron keeps as a "red line" and in/out vote on Europe. Clegg could then be known as the man who saved UK's role in Europe and perhaps the fate of the LimDems as a meaningful political party. Of course, if the UK public really values having this vote it could swing things the other way come the next election.

Under this scenario there would be essentially no risk of a constitutional crisis, as no conceivable combination of Conservatives and other parties would have the votes to pass a no confidence vote against a Labour government. A Labour-LibDem coalition may be a minority government, but with the SNP as backstop it might as well be majority. (For those unaware, Labour has ruled out a coalition with the SNP, and the SNP has ruled out supporting any scenario that includes a Conservative government.)

Bottom Line

My sense of the above is that Labour and Ed Miliband are in the drivers seat reagrdless of who is PM next week. While it is possible that the current coalition receives a mandate for another term, that seems unlikely. What seems more likely in order of my qualitative estimation is the following:

1. Cameron hangs on as PM over a minority government. It lasts somewhere between 2 weeks and 6 months before a second election of 2015.

2. Labour and the LibDems form a minority but new, stable coalition government.

3. The UK courts settle a constitutional crisis over the FTPA, as there is not enough votes to form a government or declare no confidence.

For those wanting to dive deeper, here is an analysis of seats to watch as results come in to get a sense of which way things are turning.

Whatever happens, it'll be fun to watch from Boulder, and a wonderful expression of modern democracy in action!

What do you think?

04 May 2015

Focus of Attention in 10 Years of Charlie Hebdo Covers

The graph above and accompanying analysis comes from  Jean-François Mignot and Céline Goffette writing the Le Monde last February.  The graph shows a content analysis of more than 10 years of Charlie Hebdo covers from 2005 to 2015. Of 523 covers, religion was the subject of 38, and of those 38, Islam was the subject of just 7.

Charlie Hebdo is in the news this week because its staff has been given Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award by the PEN American Center, which supports free expression. The award prompted a backlash by some PEN members and others, who think that the award is inappropriate.

Whatever your views on free expression, Charlie Hebdo or the PEN Award, the data shown above are an important part of understanding what Charlie Hebdo does - they are not a magazine obsessed by (or even focused on) religion or Islam.

On the PEN controversy, I think that The Economist gets it just about right:
Unfettered free speech is good for humanity. Charlie Hebdo was firebombed, and its journalists were threatened and attacked for what they wrote—yet they persisted. That they persisted in drawing crass, juvenile cartoons is beside the point. Defending free speech means defending speech you don’t like; otherwise it’s just partisanship, not principle.

28 April 2015

Earthquakes: Death Rates and Frequency of Big Events

The earthquake disaster in Nepal continues to unfold, now with more than 5,000 confirmed deaths, a number that is sure to rise.  Several excellent pieces on earthquakes (such as these by Brad Plumer at Vox and Andy Revkin at the NYT) have me thinking about long-term trends. So I have quickly put together some data, with some interesting results.

1. Are we, globally, doing better with respect to earthquakes?

The graph above shows data for 1900 through 2014 on global death rates, expressed as deaths per million global population. (Data: Our World in Data, Daniell et al. 2011 through 2010 with population estimated through 2014 and earthquake fatalities updated for 2012, 2013, 2014).

Since 1900 earthquake death rates have dropped by more than 80% (based on a linear trend, shown in red). This is extremely good news, and is suggestive that even as global population increased by a factor of more than 4, we collectively are doing much better with respect to earthquakes.

But let's zoom in to the most recent 25 years and take a closer look.
Since 1990, death rates have increased by a factor of about 3, based on a linear trend (red). What exactly  is going on here?

The answer appears to lie in a recent increase in the occurrence of large earthquakes, which I address next.

2. Have earthquakes become more common?

The graph above comes from my colleague here at CU-Boulder, Professor Roger Bilham, a world authority on earthquakes and central Asia in particular (Here is Bilham on the Nepal quake). That figure clearly shows a big gap in the incidence of magnitude 8.4 quakes and greater from the mid-1960s through the early 2000s. The swarm of big events in the 2000s coincides with the increased death rates over the same period shown above.

The pattern also shows up at slightly lower earthquake intensities. The figure below shows that same 1980s and 1990s "lull." The result is a pattern of an increasing incidence of strong quakes since 1990 which also shows up at magnitudes 8.0 and 7.5 (from Ben-Naim et al. 2013).
Another study concluded, "Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014" (here in PDF). So it seems clear that the world is in a recent period of increased earthquake activity. But does that mean that earthquakes are increasing? Or is it that we are having a run of bad luck?

The figure immediately above, showing long-term incidence back to 1900, provides a good sense of where experts presently are on these questions.  Here are conclusions from three recent papers that looked at these questions:
  • Parsons and Geist 2014 (PDF): "we cannot find a strong signal associated with global M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes that rises above the random fluctuations that are observed between regular 48 h periods; the largest rate increases we see are not associated with global main shock."
  • Ben-Naim et al. 2013: "in the magnitude threshold range 7.0≤Mmin≤8.3 which constitutes the vast majority of great earthquakes on record, the earthquake sequence does not exhibit significant deviations from a random set of events." (They do note the two clusters of >8.3 events, one mid-20th century and one during the past decade.)
  • Shearer and Stark (2012): "Global clustering of large earthquakes is not statistically significant: The data are statistically consistent with the hypothesis that these events arise from a homogeneous Poisson process."
None of the studies listed above rule the the possibility that earthquakes are becoming more common, they simply find no evidence to support such an assertion, given the historical occurrence of events (compare Dimer de Oliveira 2012). This has to do with both statistics (no evidence of a long-term trend) but also physics (no reason to expect such an increase beyond variability).

That is the science. But from a practical perspective, large earthquakes clearly have become more common since the 1990s. This is also reflected in death rates, which overall have improved since 1900, but at least some part of that improvement is an artifact of infrequent large earthquakes in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Bottom Line

The world is doing better overall with respect to earthquakes. But some of that improvement is based on some good fortune of the 1980s and 1990s. For whatever reason -- and the current consensus is just a random uptick in a variable geophysical process - strong earthquakes have become more common over the recent decade than they were in the two decades before that.

The recent devastation should provide a reminder that we still have a lot of work to do to reduce vulnerability to earthquakes. We can't control where, where or how strong, but we can exert a huge influence on the death and destruction that results.

27 April 2015

The "Sweet FA Prediction Model" and The UK General Election

[Warning: Electoral outcome spoilers ahead.]

The UK has a big election coming up. Here I'll be evaluating some of the pre-election predictions after the results come in. But it turns out, that may be a futile exercise, as it appears that the results are already in. Congratulations are in order for Ed Miliband, the next PM of the United Kingdom.

Let me explain.

Back in 2000, Roger Mortimore, director of political analysis for Ipsos MORI, discovered a remarkable predictive relationship for the outcome of UK general elections.

Elec.WinnerFA Cup holders (year of final)Shirt colour(s)Correct?
1997LabManchester U. (1996)REDY
1992ConTottenham H. (1991)WHITEY
1987ConCoventry City (1987)Sky BLUEY
1983ConManchester U. (1983)REDN*
1979ConIpswich Town (1978)BLUEY
O'74LabLiverpool (1974)REDY
F'74HungSunderland (1973)RED and WHITEY
1970ConChelsea (1970)BLUEY
1966LabLiverpool (1965)REDY
1964LabWest Ham U. (1964)RED ("Claret")Y
1959ConNott'm Forest (1959)REDN
1955ConNewcastle U. (1955)Black and WHITEY
1951ConNewcastle U. (1951)Black and WHITEY
1950LabWolves (1949)YELLOWY
* Would have been correct if Brighton & Hove Albion (BLUE) had not missed an open goal in the dying seconds of the FA Cup final, before losing the replay.
Mortimore explained:
All you have to do to predict which of the major parties will have an overall majority in the Commons following the election is to note the shirt colours usually worn by the current holders (on election day) of the FA Cup. If their shirts are predominantly in the Conservative colours of blue or white, a Conservative victory will ensue; on the other hand if the predominant colour is red or yellow, Labour will be successful. (Black stripes are ignored.)

The table shows that the Tories win an election held when the FA Cup is held by a club who play in predominantly Blue or White shirts; Labour wins when the cup holders wear a shade of Red or Yellow. A hung Parliament results when the Cup holders wear both parties' colours.
The FA Cup holders for the 2015 general election are Arsenal (as it should be, but I digress), who wear red, and sometimes yellow. This implies a Labor victory and thus Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

Now, to those skeptics of the "Sweet FA Prediction model" (as Mortimore calls it) may point out, rightly, that any fool with a spreadsheet can mine data to identify past spurious relationships. You can probably even write academic papers on such things. The real test, you might argue, is how an alleged relationship fares in an out-of-sample prediction context.

Well, lets see what happened since Mortimore first published his model in 2000.

Elec.WinnerFA Cup holders (year of final)Shirt colour(s)Correct?
2010 ConChelsea (2009)BLUEY
2005 LabManchester U. (2004)REDY
2001LabLiverpool (2001)REDY
1997LabManchester U. (1996)REDY
1992ConTottenham H. (1991)WHITEY
1987ConCoventry City (1987)SKY BLUEY
1983ConManchester U. (1983)REDN*
1979ConIpswich Town (1978)BLUEY
O'74LabLiverpool (1974)REDY
F'74IndecisiveSunderland (1973)RED & WHITEY
1970ConChelsea (1970)BLUEY
1966LabLiverpool (1965)REDY
1964LabWest Ham U. (1964)RED ("Claret")Y
1959ConNott'm Forest (1959)REDN
1955ConNewcastle U. (1955)BLACK & WHITEY
1951ConNewcastle U. (1951)BLACK & WHITEY
1950LabWolves (1949)YELLOW ("Old Gold")Y
* Would have been correct if Brighton & Hove Albion (BLUE) had not missed an open goal in the dying seconds of the FA Cup final, before losing the replay.

Dare I say ... BOOM?

The Sweet FA Cup Prediction model has gone 3-0 since it was first introduced. That is some fine predicting and clearly validates the model. Despite this remarkable success, Mortimore remains humble: "I must reluctantly point out that the Sweet FA Prediction model© is not entirely serious." Of course, Mortimore then applied the model to the London Mayoral elections with similar success.

It turns out that the FA Cup is a veritable treasure trove of oracle-like prognostication. After the championship game in Wembley late next month, I'll provide my updated analysis of expected US hurricane damage for 2015 based on the FA Cup final score.

Don't laugh. It anticipated Superstorm Sandy.

Predicting the future turns out to be pretty easy, if you just know where to look.

21 April 2015

PACITA Keynote: Technology Assessment as Political Myth?

Above is a talk I gave last week in February at the PACITA Conference on Technology Assessment in Berlin. My talk was titled "Technology Assessment as Political Myth?"

In the talk I discussed the phrase "basic research" and the so-called "Green Revolution" as examples of the stories that we tell ourselves about how innovation works. It turns out that the stories that we tell about innovation -- about science an technology in the economy and broader society-- are grounded in more than just the empirical.

This is work in progress, imperfect and incomplete, but indicative of where my future interests lie. Comments welcomed. Thanks again to my hosts at PACITA for the opportunity!

16 April 2015

I'm Giving a Talk Next Week

What peer-reviewed research motivated the White House science advisor to write a six-page screed about me and post it on the White House web site? Instigated a social and mainstream media campaign to have me fired from my job? And was the basis for a member of Congress to open an investigation of me?

Next Tuesday, April 21, I'll be giving a lecture here at CU-Boulder at noon in Ekeley W166, sponsored by the student group here on campus, the Forum on Science, Ethics and Policy, which I have titled "On Witch Burning and Other Incendiary Topics." The talk will intermix (a) a narrative of my experiences working on extreme events and climate change over more than 20 years, and (b) some of the actual research on the subject. In the talk there will be some drama and some science. It'll be fun.

It will not be webcast. If you are around, please come and say hi, Thanks!

08 April 2015

Science & Politics Lessons from Ernest Moniz in the Iran Talks

At The Guardian today I have an essay on the role of US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (pictured in one of the photos above) in the Iran nuclear talks, and what we can learn from it for thinking about "science advice." Here s an excerpt:
The good news is that beyond the few issues that occupy the attention of those fighting the latest science wars – over climate change or GMOs to name two of the most prominent partisan battlefields – science is well established in high level politics. That doesn’t mean that we cannot improve how we make use of experts in the political process, but we do have a track record of success to work from.
Head over there for the whole thing, and please feel welcome to return here and offer any comments.

06 April 2015

The Cost of College and the Price of Tuition

Writing in the New York Times yesterday, my University of Colorado colleague Paul Campos, a professor of law, makes the decidedly contrarian argument that decreasing state subsidies are not the primary factor in the increasing costs of tuition.

Campos writes:
Once upon a time in America, baby boomers paid for college with the money they made from their summer jobs. Then, over the course of the next few decades, public funding for higher education was slashed. These radical cuts forced universities to raise tuition year after year, which in turn forced the millennial generation to take on crushing educational debt loads, and everyone lived unhappily ever after.

This is the story college administrators like to tell when they’re asked to explain why, over the past 35 years, college tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled, to $9,139 in 2014 dollars. It is a fairy tale in the worst sense, in that it is not merely false, but rather almost the inverse of the truth.
Campos concludes:
What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut.
Campos, I am afraid is wrong. Badly wrong. His major error is to confuse the price of tuition with the costs of delivering a college education. Let me explain.

First, it is important to distinguish between the cost of delivering a college education and the price of tuition. At US public universities, the cost equals the price of tuition plus a state subsidy. Tuition is the price that the student of their family pays to attend college. So what has happened to state subsidies? They have gone down, almost everywhere.

The graph below, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, shows the deep cuts that have been made by state governments in terms of a per-student subsidy.

For a given cost, if the state subsidy goes down, then the tuition necessarily must go up to compensate. And the data shows this is exactly what has happened. Here is overall national data:
Tuition revenue more than doubled from 1987 to 2012. And here are the absolute numbers courtesy of the Economist:

But let's get more specific and look at costs, the state subsidy and tuition at the University of Colorado where Campos and I are both professors. Here is some specific data for the University of Colorado:
Here are the details (from this post):
So over the 10 years the price of tuition went up by 293% -- inflation only increased 27%. This is a big increase, and certainly increases the burden on those who pay the tuition. However, over that same period the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering that education went down by 14%. How can this be? The simple answer is that the state has cut its subsidy per student by 60% (closer to 70% after inflation), transferring a large portion of the costs of an education from the state to the student.

The University of Colorado became more efficient from 2001 to 2001 in that the overall cost-per-student of delivering an education dropped by about 15% per student. Maybe, as Campos alleges, there are more administrators with swanky salaries. Even so, the cost of delivery of an education went down. Perhaps that is not true at every university,

Yet, at the same time, tuition -- as seen by the student and their family -- almost tripled.

Campos is likely correct that overall public money to higher education has increased over recent decades (certainly true if R&D spending is included). But that is utterly irrelevant to the question why the price of tuition has increased. Tuition is a cost born by the individual student, and is a function or more variables than just the overall spending on higher education.

The data show clearly, and I think irrefutably, that the pull-back in state subsidies for students attending public universities has led to an increase in the price of tuition. No doubt there are also market factors at play (e.g., the salaries of professors and administrators) and institutional factors (e.g., infrastructure, operations, and yes, the size of administrative budgets). But as the University of Colorado example shows, the overall cost can be reduced, yet tuition can go up dramatically.

So when Campos concludes that "the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut.... flies in the case of facts," he is looking at the wrong facts in the wrong way.  The pull back in state funding is indeed a primary driver in the increased costs of tuition.

27 March 2015

Evaluating Predictions of the UK General Election

The United Kingdom is going to have a general election on May 7th, just over five weeks from now. There are high stakes and a lot of uncertainties, probably more so than usual. Yesterday, David Cameron (Conservative and Prime Minister) and Ed Miliband (Labor and party leader), squared off in parallel interviews with interviewer Jeremy Paxman in a broadcast watched by 12% of the UK TV audience.

These days, where there are elections there are also election forecasters. But political scientists have been doing this for a long while. Back in the early 1990s, when I was in graduate school in political science, I wrote a seminar paper on methodologies of election forecasting, which at that time I took a pretty dim view of (I still do!).

Where prediction is concerned, it is always worth evaluating our forecasts, lest we trick ourselves into thinking we know more than we actually do. So for fun, I am going to evaluate predictions of the upcoming UK elections.

Courtesy Will Jennings, a political scientist at the University of Southampton @drjennings, via Twitter, below is a summary of various predictions of the outcome of the upcoming election.
The 12 predictions span a huge range, +/-33 seats for the Conservatives and +/-25.5 for Labor. Six of the 12 forecast Labor holding more seats than the Conservatives, and 6 forecast less. With such a wide spread, it is mathematically safe to say that some predictions will be better than others.

I am going to evaluate 2 questions using this data after the results are in.

1. Which forecast showed the most skill?
2. Does the collection of forecasts demonstrate any skill?

To evaluate #1, I will use a naive baseline as the basis for calculating a simple skill score. The naive baseline I will use is just the composition of the current UK Parliament.

Liberal Democrat56
Democratic Unionist8
Scottish National6
Sinn Fein5
Plaid Cymru3
Social Democratic & Labour Party3
UK Independence Party2
Total number of seats650
Current working Government Majority73

It is important to note that there are, effectively, a limitless number of ways that a forecast evaluation might be structured, with different results as a consequence. Always beware post hoc forecast evaluations. I have no horse in this race, so I am producing a very simple evaluation, based on methods I have used before on many occasions. These choices could of course be made differently.

Some methodological details:

  • I am evaluating predictions of actual seats, not percentage gains or losses.
  • I am counting all seats equally.
  • I am not evaluating the prediction of specific seats, but overall parliamentary composition. Yes, this means that skill may occur for spurious reasons.
  • Yes, there are other, likely "better," naive baselines that could be used (e.g., using recent opinion poll results). Such a choice will reflect upon absolute skill, but not relative skill.

Given that there is a wide spread among multiple forecasts, we have to very careful about committing the logical fallacy of using the election outcomes to select among forecasts. This is of course a very common problem in science (which i described in this paper in PDF in the context of hurricane forecasts in reinsurance applications). I have described this problem as the hot hand fallacy meets the guaranteed winner scam. It is easy to confuse luck with skill.

So I will also be evaluating the forecast ensemble. I will do this in 2 ways. I will evaluate the average among forecasts and I will evaluate the distribution of forecasts, both against the naive forecast as well as the election outcome. We can expect to be able to conclude very little about the skill of a forecasting method (as compared to a specific forecast) because we are looking at only one election. So my post-election analysis will necessarily include the empirical and the metaphysical. But we'll cross those bridges when we get there.

This exercise is mainly for fun, but because my new book has a chapter on prediction (that I am in the midst of completing) it is also a useful way for me to re-engage some of the broader literature and data in the context of a significant upcoming election.

Comments, suggestions most welcomed from professionals and amateurs alike!

24 March 2015

The University of Colorado-Boulder's New "Degree in Three" Initiative

The University of Colorado-Boulder has started a new initiative, called "Degree in Three." The Daily Camera today has some background:
The University of Colorado is launching a new initiative for cost-conscious and decisive undergraduate students who want to finish their degree in three years.

Traditionally, students and parents have thought of college as a four-year experience, but that doesn't always need to be the case, said Michael Grant, CU-Boulder vice provost and associate vice chancellor for undergraduate education.

The goal of "Degree in Three" is to make students aware that it's possible to finish all the requirements for a bachelor's degree in three years, an effort that could save them money and help move them along to the next step in their life.
Over the past year, I have been working with Michael Grant, CU-Boulder vice provost and associate vice chancellor for undergraduate education, to roll out the initiative. From the Camera article:
Roger Pielke Jr., a faculty member who has been working with Grant on the initiative, said he thinks of it as an "experiment" to see what kind of demand exists.

"It seems that there's space for expanding the options that are available to students these days, with concern about the cost of college and the job market and so on," he said.

Though students may need to pay for additional courses during the summer, he estimated that finishing in three years could save a student 10 to 20 percent on the total cost of their degree—every little bit counts, he said.

Currently, undergraduate tuition in the College of Arts and Sciences is $9,048 for in-state students, $31,410 for out-of-state students and $32,910 for international students. Students in other colleges and schools pay different tuition rates.

Even if students take slightly longer than three years to finish, that's still a win for the campus.
It's also a win for students and their families. If you are interested in the initiative, please check out its new website - Degree in Three. And please feel free to email me with any questions.

20 March 2015

New Review of Disasters & Climate Change

The Weekly Standard has a positive review of Disasters & Climate Change, by Robert Bryce. Here is an excerpt:
In The Rightful Place of Science, Pielke acknowledges the massive challenges, and inherent conflicts, in the energy/climate debate—and in so doing, he reveals himself to be both rationalistic and humanistic. I’ll take those stances over religious zealotry every day of the week.
See the whole review here. Other reviews can be found here.

19 March 2015

My Review of Galileo's Middle Finger

In this week's Nature, I have a review of Galileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science, by Alice Dreger, a medical historian who has spent much of the past decade studying controversies in science.  My review can be found here and here in PDF.

The book is engaging and eye-opening. It chronicles series of issues, mainly related to the science of sexuality and gender, in which activists, a category which also includes academics, engage in professional and personal attacks of scholars whose work that they find to be inconvenient, unhelpful or just offensive to their sensibilities about how the world should work. Most academic work is like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, but every so often (and probably more often than many of us would like to think), scholarship becomes the focus of a political battle.

I should know. My review was completed and filed the week before I was targeted with an "investigation" by a member of Congress for the audacity of testifying before that august body with the results of peer reviewed, government-funded research, widely accepted as scientific consensus. But even before that, my own career has led me to be sympathetic to Dreger's arguments.

I have lots of experience with personal and professional attacks based on my research and advocacy. For instance, it was one year ago today that I published a piece at FiveThirtyEight on that same research, which prompted a social and mainstream media campaign to have me fired for voicing such heresies. The Guardian, New York Times, Slate, Salon and even the American Geophysical Union all joined the campaign. Unsurprisingly, FiveThirtyEight succumbed to the pressure, explaining "Reception to the article ran about 80 percent negative in the comments section and on social media. A reaction like that compels us to think carefully about the piece and our editorial process."

So, scientific consensus vs. Facebook likes - Guess who won?

The pressures on academics to conform (or not deviate) is very high. But Dreger is an example of the rare scholar willing to take the heat for taking a good hard look at the "wisdom" of the crowd. She shows that in some instances the crowd is just a mob, utterly indifferent to evidence and scholarship. Dreger has taken many lumps for her work, but I have little doubt that Galileo's Middle Finger will secure her role as a champion of the integrity of evidence, despite the various efforts to delegitimize her and her work, which will probably continue as well.

Here is an excerpt from my review:
Even as her “stomach hurt from the thought of the backlash”, Dreger published her findings (A. Dreger Arch. Sexual Behav. 37, 503–510; 2008). She faced online accusations and e-mails about her funding and politics; ethics charges were filed against her with her dean. Ultimately, however, she won a Guggenheim Fellowship to look at other conflicts involving scientists and activists.

Dreger ends this powerful book by calling for her fellow academics to counter the “stunningly lazy attitude toward precision and accuracy in many branches of academia”. In her view, chasing grants and churning out papers now take the place of quality and truth. It is a situation exacerbated by a media that can struggle when covering scientific controversies, and by strong pressures from activists with a stake in what the evidence might say.

She argues, “If you must criticize scholars whose work challenges yours, do so on the evidence, not by poisoning the land on which we all live.” There is a lot of poison in science these days. Dreger is right to demand better.
If you are interested in the politics of science in the 21st century and the challenges faced by scholars who do work deemed politically taboo, then you will benefit from Dreger's engaging writing and exploration of numerous cases. You'll also learn something about human sexuality and its many complexities. Galileo's Middle Finger will be on my fall syllabus in my graduate seminar in Science & Technology Policy.

Read my full review here in PDF.