Best collection of e-Learning articles, e-Learning concepts, e-Learning software, & resources.

Blog:  Higher Ed Gamma A now forgotten turn-of-the-20 th -century song, “Do You Believe Your Baby or Your Eyes?,”  apparently gave birth  to one of that century’s most famous witticisms.  If you are caught red-handed in an undeniably awkward, embarrassing, or illicit situation, one way out is to beg for trust. No need to confess or apologize or be humiliated.   Instead, be audacious.  Deny.  Ask rhetorically:  “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” Variations of that classic line can be found in the Marx Brothers’ nihilistic comedy  Duck Soup , a 1948 column by the syndicated advice giver Dorothy Dix, and more recently by Richard Pryor and Cher. Much of what people claim to know rests on trust and deference.  Most of us rely heavily on those who claim special expertise, whether the topic is COVID or climate change. But in our age of disinformation, photo, video, and audio manipulation, doxxing, and big lies, how can we possibly be sure that anything is unambiguo

One day after the massacre of 19 schoolchildren and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Tex., NBC News reporter Frank Thorp V posted on Twitter this summary of an exchange with former U.S. senator Heidi Heitkamp: Spotted @HeidiHeitkamp in the Capitol, asked her if she regretted her vote against the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill in 2013. HEITKAMP: “I no longer have to answer your questions.” *elevator doors close* — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) May 25, 2022 Heitkamp was right, of course. She no longer is required to answer a reporter’s question about her votes against gun control measures. But should she be required to directly answer mine? I am a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. Heitkamp is a member of the advisory board of the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics. In 2014, the University of Chicago issued its Chicago Principles, making clear its support for open dialogue and debate among membe

Blog:  Just Visiting In the aftermath of President Biden’s action on reducing the student loan debts of millions of Americans, like a lot of others, I’ve been wondering, what’s next? At this point, the question as to whether or not our debt-financed system of individuals financing their educations makes any sense is all over but the shoutin’. That shoutin’ is coming from those on the right who are demonizing the action for political purposes (often looking foolish in the process), along with folks like Obama administration economist Jason Furman and other centrists who want to argue that the aid is not well targeted to people who need it, blah blah blah, and of course someone is going to find a way to take it to a partisan Supreme Court, which won’t have a problem finding a rationale to strike it down should it want to. Putting aside that Sturm und Drang, something important has been made clear in this process: a system that requires individuals to take on debt for a benefi

Image:  The latest bill targeting wealthy colleges and universities would require those with endowments over $1 billion—around 136 public and private colleges nationwide—to cover a certain percentage of all students’ cost of attendance. The Changing Our Learning, Loans, Endowments, and Graduation Expectations (COLLEGE) Act was introduced in the Senate at the beginning of August by Republican senator Rick Scott from Florida. Under the bill, colleges with endowments that are $10 billion or greater, including Harvard University, the University of Texas and Yale and Stanford Universities, to name a few, would be required to cover 75 percent of students’ tuition, regardless of whether students are high or low income. Colleges with endowments between $5 billion and $10 billion would be required to cover 50 percent, and those with endowments between $1 billion and $5 billion would cover 25 percent. These colleges enroll many students who don’t need the money; many of their studen

Harford Community College Claudia Brown, mass communications John Donahue, sociology Ben Fisler, theater and performing arts Regina Johnson, English Cynthia Kelly, health and physical education AnnMarie Profili, paralegal studies University of Hawai‘i at West O‘ahu James C. Burrell, business administration Carina A. Chernisky, librarian II, academic support Veny Liu, mathematics Rebecca K. Romine, mathematics, natural and health sciences Megan C. Ross, mathematics, natural and health sciences Eli Tsukayama, business administration Editorial Tags:  Tenure list Is this diversity newsletter?:  Newsletter Order:  0 Disable left side advertisement?:  Is this Career Advice newsletter?:  Magazine treatment:  Trending:  Display Promo Box:  Live Updates:  liveupdates0 Most Popular:  3 In-Article Advertisement High:  6 In-Article related stories:  9 In-Article Advertisement Low:  12 from Insi

Image:  A group of five Black students at Brigham Young University, who call themselves the Black Menaces, started a TikTok account earlier this year where they post videos of themselves posing questions to their mostly white classmates about race and identity. Questions range from what Juneteenth commemorates to whether students have queer friends on campus and whether institutional racism exists. The answers range from thoughtful to painfully awkward. What started as a project by a small group of friends in February has since garnered more than 724,000 followers and 28 million likes, and the Black Menaces are ready to grow further. They announced plans to expand their operation to campuses across the country in a video this month. The goal is to have a chapter at every predominantly white university, where Black students use video interviews to similarly document their experiences and ask questions of their peers. Sebastian Stewart-Johnson, a junior at Brigham Young and

A controversial “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” survey issued to students and employees at Florida public universities elicited a remarkably low number of responses given its reach. Just over 2 percent of the 368,000 students who received the survey—or about 8,000 students—submitted a response. The response rate among employees was slightly higher: just over 9,000 out of 73,000, or about 12 percent. The survey was sent out in April after a judge refused to grant an emergency injunction against it. United Faculty of Florida, the state’s faculty union, encouraged students and professors to ignore the survey; the numbers suggest UFF’s campaign was successful. The student response rate varied among institutions but never exceeded 12.1 percent. Florida A&M University, a historically Black university in Tallahassee, had the lowest response rate—just 53 of its nearly 8,400 students responded, or about 0.6 percent. Of the students statewide who responded, the majori

Editor’s Note: This piece is a conversation between Rashné Jehangir, associate professor of higher education and founding director of the First Gen Institute at the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota, and Tai Do, a sixth-year doctoral student of educational psychology and a graduate research assistant with the institute. Their thoughts are in reaction to findings from the recent Student Voice survey of 1,073 first-generation undergraduate students , conducted by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse with support from Kaplan. For those of us whose work has been centered around students who are first in their family to go to college, this survey’s data reaffirm the complexity, nuances and assets of this new majority. As scholar-practitioners, we read the survey not only from the perspective of student voices but also how these voices hold a mirror to higher education as a whole and particular to different campuses. How much of our interpretation

Image:  With colleges and universities now starting their third pandemic-era fall term, COVID-19 safety precautions—and faculty members’ thoughts on them—are very much a mixed bag. Take two Pennsylvania institutions, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University, for instance. At Pitt, the faculty union and the administration reached an agreement that creates a new process by which professors can request adjustments to their working arrangements if they or anyone in their household are at high risk for COVID-19 complications. In exchange, the faculty union agreed to Pitt’s stance on face masks, which is to mandate them indoors only when community transmissions levels are high, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At Temple, meanwhile, the faculty union continues to ask the administration to break with Philadelphia’s mask-optional policy and mandate masks indoors, or at least allow individual professors to require them. A New Accommodations Process Pitt’s