Test 2

Or misunderstood, at the very least. Apparently, most people don't realize that funding for higher education has generally been on the decline in recent years:

A majority of Americans mistakenly believe that government support for public higher education has increased or stayed the same over the past decade, according to survey results released on Monday.

The survey, conducted by American Public Media and The Hechinger Report, found that 27 percent of respondents thought “government funding” for public colleges had risen since 2009, and 32 percent said it had stayed the same. The survey question did not distinguish between local, state, or federal support.

Only 29 percent of respondents correctly answered that government support had dropped. In 2017 state support for public colleges over all was down by $9 billion compared with 2009, when adjusted for inflation.

While many states have increased annual support for several years now, buoyed by strong economies, in most cases the increases have not made up the ground lost to huge cuts in the years immediately after the Great Recession.

For another six months, at least.

Yeah. That's the face of a guy who got to leave the dermatologist's office this morning with all of his skin. And is also thrilled to be wearing a hospital gown.

For those who are new to following along, a little over two years ago I was at my annual skin-check-up with my (awesome) dermatologist. She found a spot on my left arm that "concerned" her. So we did this:


Gross.

She removed a quarter-sized piece of my skin that contained what she described as an "unusual" mole. After the results came back from the lab we found that it was indeed a melanoma. I had stage 0 skin cancer (side-note: I didn't know that here was a stage zero). Subsequent check-ups found that she had successfully removed everything. Now I go get my skin checked every six months.

All of this to say one thing: wear sunscreen. And a hat. I was lucky to have my doc catch this stuff very early before it turned really nasty.

Oh, and f**k cancer.

Where do we go from here, guys?

I love this stuff.

With Captain Marvel coming out in a couple of weeks, and Avengers: Endgame soon following in April, there is a lot of buzz about the direction that the Marvel Cinematic Universe will take in the coming years. Via ComicBook.com, Marvel chief Kevin Feige is being pretty tight-lipped about post-Endgame plans:

"As we've been doing for years, we aren't going to announce anything post Avengers: Endgame or Spider-Man [Far From Home] until post Endgame and Spider-Man," Feige told ComicBook.com at a press event for Captain Marvel. "As you know as a fan, there's a tremendous amount of potential and a tremendous amount of additional characters and storylines and groups of characters that we're going to keep playing with. And again, that's a testament to Marvel and to the amount of storylines and characters and amazing, amazing runs that have been in the Marvel comics."

As the catalog of Marvel characters which Feige can pull from is about to get a lot deeper with the Fox-owned X-Men characters heading over to Marvel Studios, the possibility of more than three movies per year becomes greater. "We've always said there are no mandates to make any more than two films a year," Feige explained. "But, as we've seen the last couple years, when it naturally happens, and when there are ideas and when there are teams ready to go, we're not going to hold something back."

As for whether fans should expect standalone films, team-ups, or all-out ensembles: "All of the above," Feige promises, holding back the deeper details of the landscape.

Like I said, I love this stuff.

There is an enormous slate of characters and storylines that Marvel can pull from, effectively giving them decades of material with which they can create movies. And when you throw in the Fox-owned properties (X-Men, Wolverine, Deadpool, the Fantastic Four, Alpha Flight, The Phoenix Force, and many, many more) the possibilities seem to be endless. It seems that me and my kids will be watching movies based on comic books that I read as a teenager for a long time.

I remember the early days of X-Men movies where I would have to wait two or three years between movies being released, and how impatient I would get. "I wanna know what happens next!" But if Feige and Marvel start doing three (or more!) films per year, and the films all have intertwining plots, Yours Truly will need to get a second job to pay for all of the movie tickets.

I'm not trying to brag but... yeah. I'm bragging.

10. Kills.

That's a new record. My previous was five.

And a Victory Royale to boot. DANG.

I'm intrigued by this trailer. It seems like this is going to be more of a 'buddy cop comedy' than the grittier 1971 blacksploitation film. That said, the mere fact that Richard Roundtree is in the flick is reason to see it. Add in Samuel L. Jackson, and I'm sold.

A colleague of mine pointed me to this article at StateCollege.com, written by Heather Ricker-Gilbert, an "independent college consultant" operating in central Pennsylvania. In it, she talks at length about the college admissions process, and early application process (i.e. early action or early decision) specifically.

Many college-bound students are applying two months ahead of the traditional January admissions deadlines through early action or early decision.

The trend toward early application has been expanding and many colleges and universities now often fill a third or possibly even half of their upcoming freshman classes through early action or decision, according to a recent article in the Washington Post aptly titled “Early Applications Surge at Prestigious Colleges. So Does Early Heartache.”

Okay. I'm with her so far. But then she brings Penn State into the conversation....

In 2018 Penn State also initiated an early action program and, like the University of Michigan last year, had so many early action applicants that it could not review them all by the published deadline and had to defer many perspective students until late January.

My emphasis there. First off, here are a couple of my observations:

1. There was no "published deadline". Penn State's early action (EA) deadline was November 1st, but we never made any promises about reviewing applications by that date. Rather, that is the date by which applicants needed to complete their application to Penn State. What we did do is tell students that if they completed their application by the EA deadline (again, November 1), they would have an admission decision by December 24th. By our own definition, an admission decision can be admit, deny, or defer.

2. It's prospective students, not perspective. That's a pet peeve of mine.

But, let's set those two trivial points aside and keep reading.

So what do you do if you are deferred?

Make contact. Be sure to inform the college that you are still interested, if you are, and that you want to remain on the list for reconsideration through the regular admissions process. Write a personal email or actual letter to any admissions staff who you have met, any coaches, or the admissions representative for your geographic region and tell them of your continued interest. If you can honestly say that you will attend their college, if accepted, let them know. If you have had an interview, email or call your interviewer about the status of your application. Ask your school counselor to update the college admissions office with your latest grades and keep your contacts informed about new accomplishments since you first applied to their college.

Have you received any awards, started a new volunteer activity, been elected to a leadership position? In other words, update the college where you have been deferred about what you will be able to contribute to their campus. If you think you can improve your scores, take the SAT or ACT again. Send a link to your updated resume and to your LinkedIn account. On that LinkedIn account you can feature your experiences and accomplishments along with photos and any videos to showcase your achievements.

Waiting to hear about where you will be going to college next fall is not easy. But remember, you can only control so much of the process. When you have done all that you can, realize that there are many colleges where you can be equally happy and successful.

Joel McHale gives you a slow clap.

Look, there are some salient points here:

Waiting ain't easy, but be patient. These things are beyond your control.

Indeed! And that point is what really deserves some applause. As of this writing, we have received 95,562 applications for the 2019-20 admission cycle at Penn State. The evaluation of your application and the rendering of an admission decision is not a process that happens overnight, or in a couple of days. In other words: our admissions operation needs time to sift through the applications and make admission decisions. A LOT of admission decisions.

Okay, maybe it is just one salient point. What about the rest...

Make contact, inform the college about how awesome you are.

Because you're awesome and you need to show us! Because that will get you an admission decision faster - and it will be the decision that you want!

This is the item that drives me CRAZY about this article - at least from the Penn State point-of-view.

Look, I used to work in admissions at several small, private, liberal arts colleges and completely recognize the value of the personal touch. In that environment (and, frankly, market), we were encouraged to be in touch with as many of our prospective students and applicants as possible. Personalized attention was clutch. I would take an individual student and their family out for dinner if I was in their area recruiting. And I did this - frequently. A banner year for my team was if we received over three thousand applications.

But, now I work at Penn State (see the previously mentioned application numbers). Our staff does not have the time to respond to emails and telephone calls about addendums to a student's application. If you are in the Mock Trial club, put that in your application. But, if you join the Mock Trial club mid-way through your senior year - that's great! - but we don't need the update. That won't change your admission decision.

Oh, and don't get me started on your LinkedIn account. We barely have time to review the applications that we receive - we certainly don't have time to review your social media presence.

Call your admissions staff. Call the coaches. Have your school counselor contact the college(s).

Strikes one, two, and three.

If you have legitimate questions, you can certainly call our admissions office(s). We are happy to help guide students through the process and explain application requirements as well as programmatic, and campus options at the University. But, if you're just calling to ask about the status of your application - and the status in your MyPennState account hasn't changed, then you are wasting both your time, and that of our staff.

If you are being recruited by a coach, that is great! But, coaches do not have access to, or information about the status of your application for admission. I would encourage you to reach out to coaches about sport-related questions. Not admissions.

And as for your school counselor - leave 'em be. With few exceptions, school counselors (especially at public high schools) are overworked and under-resourced. Many are responsible for not only assisting high school students with their college and career searches, but also have caseloads for actual counseling issues. They have way too much on their plates to take the time to call us about why your application was deferred.

Admittedly (see what I did there?), I'm approaching this from the viewpoint of someone who works at Penn State. This writing is solely from the perspective of a big school with limited human resources to respond to these types of requests. If every one of our more-than-95-thousand applicants called or emailed us to update us about a club that they have joined or a goal that they scored on the field, we would be completely overwhelmed. If you are a student that is looking to attend one of the many fantastic small schools around the country, then the points that Ricker-Gilbert makes are good ones.

Although I'm suspect because she confused prospective and perspective students...

My favorite* Walt Disney World theme park is going to be getting some much needed renovations. According to the Disney Parks Blog, in addition to the new Guardians of the Galaxy and Ratatouille attractions, there will be several upgrades in the next couple of years:

The ongoing evolution of Epcot includes plans for a play pavilion that’ll be unlike anything you’ve ever seen at the park. This new space will be devoted to playful fun and feature an innovative city that’ll come to life under the dome of the un-named pavilion previously known as Wonders of Life.
The pavilion’s city will be bursting with interactive experiences, your favorite Disney characters, hands-on activities and engaging entertainment when it opens just in time for the 50th anniversary of Walt Disney World Resort!

But it's not just pavilions that are getting an upgrade:

A redesigned entrance to the park

[C]hanges are coming to the Epcot main entrance, where the plaza will welcome guests with new pathways, sweeping green spaces and a newly reimagined fountain. This new design will pay homage to the original park entrance with fresh takes on classic elements.

As part of the new entry experience, Leave A Legacy photos will be moving into a beautiful setting just outside the park’s gateway. Additional significant redevelopment will begin between Spaceship Earth attraction and the World Showcase Promenade. More details about the transformation of this area will be announced at a later date.

The last few times that the family has traveled to Walt Disney World and visited Epcot, I have noticed that the entrance seems a bit dated. The "Leave A Legacy" portion of the entrance is not visually appealing, and I think poses a lackluster "first impression" as you walk into the park. Hopefully a new entryway will lead to a better park-entry experience - and the image above seems to indicate as much.

Now if they would only close the Journey Into Imagination with Figment ride...

[Images via Disney Parks Blog]

* NOTE: My current favorite is Epcot, followed very closely by Hollywood Studios. However, with all of the Star Wars enhancements that have been completed, and continue to be upgraded, my hunch is that Hollywood Studios may overtake Epcot for the mantel of my favorite park.

Oh, sorry Tony - didn't you know?

Avengers: Endgame will be Pepper Potts' swan song.

Pepper Potts actress Gwyneth Paltrow intends to retire the character following her role in Avengers: Endgame, though she hasn’t ruled out the possibility of making cameo appearances down the line.

In an interview with Variety, the 46-year-old star said “I mean, I’m a bit old to be in a suit and all that at this point. I feel very lucky that I did it, because I actually got talked into it. I was friends with [Iron Man director] Jon Favreau. It was such a wonderful experience making the first Iron Man and then to watch how important it has become to the fans.”

[...]

We already know Potts will play some sort of role in Endgame, as Tony Stark is seen recording a message for her as he is adrift in space in the film’s first trailer. She’s also tangentially tied to the upcoming Spider-Man: Far From Home, as her signature can be found on the oversized check seen at the beginning of its first trailer - this is likely just a small reference, and doesn’t suggest she’ll actually appear in the film.

Paltrow has portrayed Pepper Potts in seven MCU films: Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. Her last few appearances, however, have largely been cameo roles.

All good things must come to an end, and Paltrow has done a great job in the role of Potts.

I'm getting more and more pumped for Endgame though!

Over at IHE, Eric Sickler uses Valentine's Day to illustrate his suggestions for a strong recruitment plan:

Let’s start by channeling Maslow.

Humans want to feel the love. It’s right in the middle of that colorful pyramid. We all yearn to belong; we all want to feel wanted. Arguably, a young adult’s need for it is on overdrive.

Great recruiters routinely show love to their recruits by lavishing them with lots of attention, by sharing especially relevant and resonant information, and by making each one feel as though s/he is at the top of the prospective student V.I.P. list.

Technology now allows us to really pile on the love by sending “personalized” messages via every imaginable channel, each remarkably tailored to the recipient’s peculiar interests.

But the most influential of all “love gifts” that colleges and universities show prospective students comes in the form of scholarships and grants. Free money. Deep discounts. Great deals. All designed to help the recruits we love conquer what they view as the ridiculously high price of higher education.

[...]

Other than gift aid, what valuable symbols of affection can your institution offer students you want most? Here’s a handful of thought-starters:

• Priority/preferred registration.
• Priority/preferred housing or parking assignments.
• Athletic coach-like attention from music/theatre directors, student group leaders and sponsors, and other co-curricular personalities who are engaged in activities of interest to the prospective student.
• For new students with children, priority placement or discounted day care services.
• Assignment of a “career mentor” (an alumnus/a working in the student’s intended career field).
• Assignment of a “peer mentor” (college junior) who will be a senior when the prospective enrolls as a freshman.
• Assignment of a “peer family” (family of current student or recent grad) to provide unofficial, on-demand trusted counsel to incoming freshmen parents.
• Local host family assignment to offer first-year students a home-away-from-home.
• Academic advising/consulting during high school senior year.
• Multichannel outreach/attention (webinars, text messaging, social media initiatives, correspondence, event hosting, high school or home visits, etc.) by the student’s major professor or department chair.

Unorthodox thinking? Yes, by traditional recruitment standards. But to borrow (and butcher) an old saw, “Different times really do call for different measures.” It’s looking like that time is now.

Okay. So to start, dude used Maslow as an example (psychology/student affairs nerds like me will know what that means). Awesome.

But he's right; people want to feel loved. And, how else can we in the recruitment space show more love than to give students money to attend our institution.

However, I'm sure that I'm not the only admissions professional, nay, higher education professional that continues to see shrinking budgets and overzealous financial offices looking to scrutinize every penny that is spent. So, since offering students more money isn't an option, let's look at the "symbols of affection" that Mr. Sickler recommends.

While these ideas certainly are 'out of the box' thinking, I would want to be cautious. I have to take issue with the first two in particular. Offering a student priority registration or priority housing or parking could be a violation of the National Association for College Admission Counseling's Code of Ethics and Professional Practices (formerly known as the Statement of Principles & Good Practice or SPGP):

Colleges must not establish policies, engage in practices,
imply advantage, or offer incentives whose effect is to
circumvent NACAC’s Code of Ethics and Professional
Practices’ established deadlines. Incentives are allowed
when equally available to students who wait until the
established deadlines. Colleges will not guarantee
admission, specific college placement, or institutional
financial aid or scholarship awards prior to an application
being submitted, except when preexisting criteria are
stated in official publications.

...and offering incentives like parking, housing, or priority registration could be risky and put an institution out of compliance with NACAC's policies.

The other ideas, however, are more sound, if not for recruitment - for all students on campus. So long as you aren't playing favorites and providing the same services for everyone on campus, then the list that Sickler posits contains some great ideas.

The perennial MI6 agent with a license to kill is getting yet another new release date:

Bond 25 has been moved once again. This time it was pushed from February 14, 2020 to April 8, 2020.

So, if you were planning to take your Special Someone to see the next James Bond movie next Valentine's Day, it's back to flowers and candy for you. Or it's back to the Disney film that's supposed to be opening that day. Or it's back for another viewing of the DCEU's Birds of Prey.

This is just the latest date change for what is expected to be Daniel Craig's final movie as James Bond. Production was supposed to start in December 2018 with a release date of November 8, 2019 in the U.S. But some twists entered the story through director Danny Boyle quitting from creative differences. Cary Joji Fukunaga was hired as the new director, with production rescheduled to start on March 4, 2019 for a release date of Valentine's Day 2020. But that was just recently changed to April 8, 2020.

...and in the process, is getting something of a script re-write/overhaul as well:

According to The Playlist, [writer Scott Z. Burns] is coming in to give Bond 25 an "overhaul," since the powers that be aren't exactly happy with the way the project's shaping up. Burns has been courted by Bond producers in the past, but this is the first time the writer had time in his schedule to lend his talents to MI6. In addition to Bourne Ultimatum, Burns is best known for his Steven Soderbergh collaborations, like Side Effects and Contagion. His latest film, The Report, screened to much acclaim at Sundance.

Given the mixed reception to Spectre, it's understandable why EON would want to start over and revamp the Bond 25 script. With this being Craig's farewell tour, everyone involved wishes to see the actor ride off on a high note. While Craig himself has always delivered strong performances as 007, the films around him are of varying quality. The incredible heights of Casino Royale and Skyfall are dampened a bit by lackluster outings Quantum of Solace and Spectre. It would be a shame if audiences' last memory of Craig as Bond was another underwhelming installment. Especially after Mission: Impossible - Fallout, a case can be made Bond has fallen down the spy franchise hierarchy, and EON would like a massive hit to put their prized property back in viewers' good graces.

Cue the famous Monty Norman theme music....

DANG.

This year, THON ran from Feb. 15 to 17 as dancers stood for 46 hours without sleep at the Bryce Jordan Center.

The funds raised by THON are used to cover the treatment costs for pediatric cancer patients as well as supported cancer research.

Since 1977, THON has raised more than $157 million for Four Diamonds at Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital.

[image credit: Reagan Mulholland]

Come on Loki, no more sitting around! (screenshot: Disney/Marvel)

Over at iO9, details have emerged about the nature of the new Disney+ streaming service - and the show that will feature Thor's ne'er-do-well adopted brother Loki:

Michael Waldron, who worked on Community and now writes for the popular Adult Swim series Rick and Morty, has been hired by Disney to write the pilot and executive produce the upcoming streaming Marvel series starring Tom Hiddleston.

According to their sources, the show will “follow Loki as the trickster and shapeshifter pops up throughout human history as unlikely influencer on historical events.” Which makes sense since we assume he’s staying dead post Infinity War. But, also, sounds like a million other shows, doesn’t it? Still, it’s Hiddleston and Loki, so one would hope it would have a level of swagger and evil giving it a unique touch.

...and the writing by Waldron tells me that it will be funny (seriously, did you watch Community? GENIUS).

Meanwhile, the folks at Collider just BLEW MY MIND:

The show will reportedly revolve around how Hiddleston’s character pops up throughout human history as an unlikely influencer on historical events, which means it’ll probably be a prequel of sorts as opposed to reviving the character following his death at the hands of Thanos. Or perhaps time travel or alternate dimensions play a role in Endgame that paves the way for Loki to live on. Again, we don’t and won’t know until that film hits theaters in April, which is why Marvel is playing this so close to the chest.

The Disney+ Marvel shows will reportedly hail from Marvel Studios, not Marvel Television. Marvel Studios is behind all of the MCU films, while Marvel TV—headed up by Jeph Loeb—ran point on the Netflix shows and produces the other series like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Marvel’s Runaways. Which likely means that these Disney+ limited series will carry far bigger budgets and have bigger stars. In truth, these Disney+ shows will be the first Marvel TV shows produced with Kevin Feige in charge.

Other Disney+ Marvel shows in the works include The Vision and Scarlet Witchstarring Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany, which has Jac Schaeffer (Captain Marvel) as showrunner, and a team-up series for Falcon and Winter Soldier starring Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan, with Malcolm Spellman (Empire) writing and producing.

Would ya look at that list of shows and actors? I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Disney can just take my money. With this potential line-up - and that little show The Mandalorian on tap - I'm probably going to just cancel all of my other subscriptions.

It's a tricky act.

Small, private, liberal arts college F&M is looking to shore-up it's finances, while still providing a strong opportunity for need-based financial aid:

Franklin & Marshall has been highlighted for reallocating funds from non-need-based aid to need-based aid. Today, it advertises itself as basing financial aid solely on need, and it is a member of the American Talent Initiative, a group of colleges and universities seeking to expand college access for low- and moderate-income students. It is not, however, need blind in admissions.

In recent years, the college has been spending more and more on financial aid. In the fiscal year ending in June 2011, just before Porterfield’s inauguration, Franklin & Marshall recorded $99.5 million in tuition and fee revenue and spent $28.6 million in student financial aid, its audited financial statements show. In 2018, it took in $132.6 million in tuition and fees against $56.1 million in financial aid.

That means that although its tuition and fee revenue rose by almost $33.2 million on paper over the seven-year period, the college actually collected only $5.6 million more in net tuition and fee revenue in 2018 than it did in 2011.

[College president Barbara K. Altmann] has said that the current budget deficit was partly caused by increased financial aid. But it is not the primary driver of the deficit, she said in a telephone interview Wednesday. The college is not backing away from its commitment to using financial aid to bring in the best and brightest students, no matter their origin, she said.

[...]

A larger endowment would not be a panacea, of course. And Altmann acknowledged that other private colleges with larger endowments, like Oberlin College, have shown signs of financial pressures rocking the sector in recent years.

That would seem to raise serious questions about the long-term viability of the high-tuition, high-discount model -- particularly for institutions that award aid primarily based on need, instead of using non-need-based aid to chase students who may have less academic prowess but come from wealthy families and would generate more revenue for the colleges where they enroll. They are particularly explosive questions because they lie at the intersection of wealth, privilege, race and opportunity in higher education.

Not that there is anything going on with questions around race and opportunity in higher ed right now...

From the cats that brought us "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up", this is the trailer for Seth Rogen and Charlize Theron's latest film "Long Shot". The trailer dropped yesterday and I think that this flick looks awesome.

Looks like The Wife and I will have some good date-night fodder come early May.

The next chapter in the continuing saga of Harvard versus Students For Fair Admissions:

In short, he suggested that admissions officers had expressed an unconscious bias: “It doesn’t make them evil, it makes them human.” (In a recent court filing, Harvard’s lawyers said that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that admissions officers “bore unconscious bias.”)

Mortara contended that Harvard had not explained why black and Hispanic applicants tended to get higher personal ratings than did Asian-American applicants. He also questioned why Harvard had recently revamped its written guidelines to emphasize that admissions officers should not consider an applicant’s race when assigning personal ratings. In one of several references to the infamous equation in George Orwell’s 1984, Mortara said, “It’s 2+2=5. They’re saying, ‘Trust us, believe us.’”

As Mortara wrapped up his remarks, Judge Burroughs rested her chin on her fists. She asked him several specific questions. One was why the plaintiff had presented no witnesses who claimed that they had been unfairly denied admission to Harvard.

There was no requirement to do so, Mortara said: “Statistics alone can prove our case.”

‘Truly Remarkable’

Moments later, William F. Lee, a lawyer for Harvard, also noted the absence of testimony from unsuccessful applicants. “The plaintiff’s failure to produce a single individual who claims to have suffered discrimination,” he said, “is truly remarkable.”

Lee and Seth P. Waxman, another lawyer for Harvard, reiterated their arguments from last fall. They said that diversity is essential to the university’s mission. That admissions officers consider race as one factor among many. That the racial composition of the freshman class varies from year to year. That there are no viable race-neutral alternatives to its admissions process. And that the university’s admissions officers do not discriminate against any applicant.

I studied and wrote about this topic at length during my graduate school career. As someone who works in higher education, and admissions specifically, I have been following these affirmative action cases very closely.

I can't speak for others (disclaimer here), but my belief is that so long as an institution is making admission decisions based on a variety of factors and not focusing on one thing (e.g. an applicant's racial or ethnic background), then there shouldn't be any trouble.

It's when an institution starts looking at making quotas for any type of student group and making one factor the focal point of the application that problems arise.

Over at /Film, Peter Sciretta has fallen full-on into speculation mode about the title of the next Star Wars flick.

There are some things here that are evident. Star Wars titles love to be the “something of the something.” We’ve had three “something of the something” titles in the first two trilogies alone: Return of the Jedi, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith. But we’ve yet to get a “something of the something” title from this last trilogy. This has led a lot of fans to speculate that this last title could be something of that angle.

Here are some predictions:

• Rise of the Jedi: This would give us a “something of the something” title for this trilogy, and is an echo back to Return of the Jedi, a film that Abrams is likely emulating for this final chapter.
• Rise of the Resistance: Many fans are suggesting this title, but it’s already the title of one of the rides in Star Wars Galaxy’s Edge. I’m not sure I like it because it sounds more like a middle chapter, not a conclusion.
• Fall of the First Order: Seems a bit on the nose.

[...]

Admittedly, I tried to guess the title of Episode 8, and I was very, very wrong. So I wouldn’t listen to me when it comes to this…but here are some guesses at the title for Episode 9:

• A Last Hope: I like this idea the most as it would be a good bookend to A New Hope. Rey is the last hope in the Galaxy. From what I understand, Abrams is not just ending this trilogy with this film, but trying to bring the entire nine movie arc full circle. So this title could work for that. Jacob Hall, my editor, has suggested it could also be A Final Hope or The Last Hope, although I kind of doubt they would use the word “The” at the beginning of every one of the titles in the sequel trilogy.
• The Resistance Strikes Back: This feels like something George Lucas may have created, but not Abrams. Also, it’s another title that sounds like a middle chapter of a trilogy.
• The Final Order: A suggestion from weekend editor Brad Oman, who argues that The First Order will be the last order when they are defeated and also that it could have layers to it, like a final order from Kylo Ren to stand down, and maybe it’s also the last Jedi Rrder, too.
• A Title Hidden in One of the Previous Films: Adam Frazier speculates that just as The Last Jedi was hidden in the opening text crawl in The Force Awakens, maybe the title for Episode 9 is hidden somewhere in the previous two movies: THE DARKNESS RISING, A NEW ORDER, SON OF DARKNESS, THE LAST HOPE, A SPARK OF HOPE, THE REBELLION IS REBORN.
• Ashes of the Empire: One Reddit thread agrees with Frazier’s theory and thinks it could be these words that appear a couple of lines above The Last Jedi in that original Episode VII crawl (see the image above).
• Spark of Hope: This is another idea based on something from The Last Jedi, suggesting that the galaxy hearing about Jedi Master Luke Skywalker’s return would restore a spark of hope to the fight.
• The Knights of Ren: While I do think Abrams will follow-up on this angle from The Force Awakens, I don’t think the Knights of Ren are enough to make the title for the last and final chapter.

I'm honestly not sure I love an of these ideas outside of "A Final Hope."

My favorite suggestion though comes from the notion that there's a pattern - when you put all of the "new" movies together:


Heh. I'd buy that idea.

But this is the type of stuff that I can sink my nerd-teeth into really well. Now that filming has wrapped:

It feels impossible, but today wrapped photography on Episode IX. There is no adequate way to thank this truly magical crew and cast. I’m forever indebted to you all. pic.twitter.com/138AprtFuZ

— JJ Abrams (@jjabrams) February 15, 2019

...the excitement is expanding exponentially. The bottom line is that nobody has ANY idea what the title of Star Wars IX will be - and yet there are hundreds of articles on the web that are speculating just that. The other day I saw an article about the antenna array on the Millennium Falcon - and how it differs from the original trilogy, and even The Force Awakens. Really.

I don't know about you bu in the end I won't care what the film will be called. Disney/Abrams/Lucas already has my money.

Pomplamoose is simply brilliant. Well worth your ears.

Your education would be free, up front:

Instead of charging students tuition — which often requires them to take out thousands of dollars in loans — students go to school for free and are required to pay back a percentage of their income after graduation, but only if they get a job with a good salary.

The idea, known as an Income Share Agreement, or I.S.A., has been experimented with and talked about for years.

[...]

Whether this model can — or should — be applied to the larger education system remains an open question. It clearly improves the financial incentives for the school and the student. But, if expanded more widely, it could press programs to ignore a traditional liberal arts education, where the earning power is reduced. If a student dreamed of a major in Russian literature, she may struggle to find a school that sees a knowledge of Tolstoy to be particularly marketable.

It also means schools may not be willing to take a chance on a promising but higher-risk student.

I wouldn't completely discount the fundamental ideas presented here. However, the article talks about the Lambda School, which takes a whopping 17 percent of a graduate's salary as payment for their education:

At Lambda, students pay nothing upfront. But they are required to pay 17 percent of their salary to Lambda for two years if they get a job that pays more than $50,000. (Lambda says 83 percent of its students get a job with a median salary of $70,000 within six months of graduating.) If they don’t get a job, or their salary is lower, they pay nothing. Payments are capped at $30,000, so a highly paid student isn’t penalized for success, and if a student loses a job, the payments pause

I would also share the concern that programs in business, engineering, and similar "high demand" careers would be the focus and the humanities and arts would suffer greatly. I can't tell you how many conversations that I have had with parents of prospective students who both figuratively and literally scoff at the idea of their child enrolling in a program like Art History or Communication Arts & Sciences.

Whaaaaaaaaa?

I was chatting with the counseling team at a Dallas girls’ school a few years ago when the conversation turned to how we each handle students who become unglued during the school day.

“That,” said one of the counselors in a Texas twang, “is when I get out a glitter jar.” As I tried to conceal my immediate skepticism, she went off to retrieve one. While we waited for her to return, I sat there thinking that whatever she was bringing back, I hated it already.

First, as a parent with a neatness hang-up and kids who love art projects, I have come to loathe glitter. Second, if there was any psychology behind this, it seemed bound to be a little, well, poppy.

The counselor returned holding a clear jam jar. Its lid was glued on and it was filled with water plus a layer of sparkling purple glitter sitting at the bottom. “When a girl falls apart in my office, I do this,” she said, while shaking the jar fiercely, like an airport snow globe. Together we beheld the dazzling glitter storm that resulted. Then she placed the jar down on the table between us and continued, “After that I say to her, ‘Honey, this is your brain right now. So first … let’s settle your glitter.’”

Mesmerized, I watched the swirling glitter slowly fall to the bottom of the jar. Finally getting over myself, I was ready to acknowledge the brilliance behind this homemade device.

Sitting right there was an elegant model of the neurology of the distressed teenager. Early in adolescence, the brain gets remodeled to become more powerful and efficient, with this upgrade retracing the order of the original in utero development. The primitive regions, which are just above the back of the neck and house the emotion centers, are upgraded first — starting as early as age 10. The more sophisticated regions, located behind the forehead and giving us our ability to reason and maintain perspective, are redone last and may not reach full maturity until age 25.

While this process is underway, young people are put in a rather delicate position. Though they tend to be highly rational when calm, if they become upset, their new, high-octane emotional structures can overpower their yet-to-be upgraded reasoning capacities, crashing the entire system until it has a chance to reset.

I have enthusiastically recommended glitter jars to several parents and colleagues knowing that some teenagers will instantly benefit from having a concrete model of emotional distress. That said, I have come to appreciate that a glitter jar’s main utility is in the instructions it provides to those who are caring for the overwrought: Be patient and communicate your confidence that emotions almost always rise, swirl and settle all by themselves.

We are buying a glitter jar posthaste.

Something that every enrollment manager worries about is happening in the University of California system: applications are down:

For the first time in 15 years, the number of would-be freshmen applying to the University of California has dropped, the first sign that a national trend of declining college enrollment could be hitting the West Coast.

Applications for the coming school year dipped by 3% to 176,530, according to preliminary UC data released Tuesday. The drop could be a temporary blip, experts said. Among the system’s nine undergraduate campuses, only three — UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz — saw declines in freshman applications.

But while many attribute the downward trend in applications to shifting demographics in the United States, there could be another factor with the UC schools:

At L.A.’s Downtown Magnets High School, college counselor Lynda McGee speculated that students were increasingly discouraged from applying to UC because of the system’s low acceptance rates. Students think they’re not good enough, she said.

UCLA, for instance, is the most popular campus for applicants in the nation. For each of the last three years, it collected more than 110,000 applications for about 5,700 seats for freshmen. For the fall term, applications to the Westwood campus dipped slightly — by about 2% — but still numbered 111,266.

“The state schools are getting harder and harder to get into, and their financial aid is getting stingier and stingier,” McGee said. “I feel [that] for students who have done very well in school, private school and out-of-state public school is the answer.”

This is something that I've considered with regard to my own employer - particularly at the University Park campus.

As I've talked about recently, undergraduate applications at Penn State have exploded this year. The number of highly talented students that we decline admission to the University Park campus continues to grow, and at some point the word will get out that it's really competitive to be admitted at University Park. When that happens, will students just shrug their shoulders and say, 'Well, if it's that competitive I'm not even going to try'?

Where was this when I was in college?

The National Association of Collegiate Esports (NACE), the group that has seemingly emerged as the premiere governing body for “varsity”-level esports, has swelled to 128 members. It began in 2016 with six colleges and universities. The current slew of member colleges gave out just under $15 million in scholarships this academic year for students to strap on a headset, grab a mouse and keyboard, and enter the digital fray.

The esports allure for university executives is multifold but summed up succinctly for many institutions: enrollment boosts (although larger colleges and universities that are certainly not wanting for students also sponsor programs).

Granting scholarships to play video games, once perhaps just a Red Bull-fueled fantasy, attracts students -- especially men, who are in the minority in many undergraduate student bodies. And so officials have invested in pricey “arenas” for esports, spaces decked out with gigantic flat screens, slick computers and the best gaming accessories. One small private institution, New England College, with an enrollment of around 1,800 undergraduate students, and a prospective esports team of between 20 and 40 students, poured about $60,000 into its arena.

[...]

While industry representatives agree that a regulatory body will inevitably materialize, no one is clear how it will actually come about. NACE seems to dominate the market among colleges, with 94 percent of programs in the country signing on.

But Ohio State University, a major player in NCAA athletics, announced in October it would compete in a league commissioned by the Electronic Gaming Federation, which is separate from NACE. Ohio State also introduced undergraduate and graduate degrees in esports. Its team is not housed under athletics.

And so despite NACE, a subsidiary of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, no universally recognized entity exists to enforce rules or make sure programs are consistent across the country. For all the criticism heaped on the NCAA, it tries to ensure fairness in the collegiate athletics system with certain policies -- limits on numbers of practices, for example. There is no equivalent watchdog for esports.

Whether the NCAA will step in to remedy these inconsistencies remains unknown. Contorting the NCAA model and its stringent amateurism rules to fit esports makes it an unlikely, if not unachievable possibility. For instance: the NCAA maintains a hard line that athletes can’t be paid for their sports skills, but college esports players often participate in tournaments where they can rake in thousands of dollars in prize money. They are often paid for broadcasts on Twitch, an Amazon-owned service for live-streaming.

Here's a NACE promo, to give you a flavor of what they're doing:



So, if the NCAA steps into the Esports mix, how will that change the game (see what I did there)?

Seriously though, I'm shocked that the NCAA hasn't already entered this realm. The gaming industry is H U G E and collegiate Esports would surely be a big money-maker. And let's be honest: the NCAA is also a big money-maker. I would think that they would recognize the financial possibilities therein and get into the gaming mix.

This group text between Melissa, Fiona and I perfectly illustrates why I love my wife.

She helps to even me out.
She smoothes out my rough edges.
She bring balance to The Force that is my life.

This text was from this afternoon when my daughter wasn't feeling well and didn't want to take care of Molly. I (being the consummate skeptic) respond in the most 'me' way possible: "tough". Girl, you need to take care of the dog.

Melissa, on the other hand, is concerned and wants to know what is happening that Fiona doesn't feel well.

Why is she so great? Melissa is more caring and empathetic than I could ever dream to be. She balances out my cynicism with her compassion, and reminds me that sometimes the world is a bit different than I perceive it to be. She helps me to recognize that occasionally I need to give people (read: my daughter) some grace. For helping to provide that balance, I am eternally thankful.

Happy Valentine's Day to everyone - but especially my "lobster" Melissa.

I've mentioned my friend Nate before. The above is a recent press video that he produced with the help of some fine folks. You can download his most recent single "The Camera Chases" at any of your favorite digital music outlets (iTunes, Spotify, Prime).

And be sure to check out his music and show dates at NateWalkerMusic.com.

[video credits: filmed, directed and edited by Keith Pyatt, assistant DP - Leigh-Ann Ott]

Is it just me, or do Elsa's actions this look somewhat familiar?



As the good folks at IGN said on Twitter:

Elsa is essentially a superhero now and we're definitely ok with that.

Agreed. I think that it'll be another smash success for the House of Mouse. However, this has me wondering if Disney be able to replicate the hit musicality of the first film?

I got schooled by The Oatmeal.

No, really.

For the full comic, go here.

My takeaway is this: no matter how many facts that I have to back-up my argument, depending upon the listeners worldview, people may not listen to reason. Check out The Oatmeal, and read more about the "Backfire Effect". It's worth your time.

York College of Pennsylvania is facing some scrutiny for some creative photo editing:

The new billboard for York College of Pennsylvania features a typical headline for admissions marketing: "Envision the Possibilities at York College." Eight students smile. One is African American, one is Asian American and one woman (with her hair covered) appears to be Muslim.

But in the last week, the billboard turned from a source of pride to one of controversy. The original photograph shot for the billboard (above on left, with the billboard on right) featured two white students who were replaced with two students who reflected diversity. The original photo and the doctored one circulated on social media (with arrows noting the changes), and one of the students in the original photo shoot reached the photographer. She reported to a local news station what he said: “He was, like, yeah, they just wanted a more diverse billboard, so we had to get two other students, and we put them in there. When they went to show the person that had to approve the photo, it wasn’t approved, so they had to rush to fix the problem."

Hit the link for the actual photo comparisons.

Yikes. I'll bet the marketing folks at York College are sweating a lot.

Man, it looks like Hoth around here!

Yup. We were home from work and school today. I just finished clearing the driveway. Hopefully it won't re-freeze overnight...

[image: some nerd-group on Facebook]

Okay, so here's the deal gang... people are mean.

Alright - not everyone. But lately, it seems that everyone who calls the Undergraduate Admissions Office here at Penn State is just straight-up unpleasant.

This is the time of the year when we put out thousands of admission decisions. Literally. In the month of January alone, we released over 15,000 admission decisions. That's a lot. And as you can imagine, not every applicant is getting the decision that they want from us. Some students get admitted, others denied, and yet others are invited to our waitlist.

And then come the phone calls. And the emails. And the in-person appointments. Yes, we actually have families that get into a car and drive several hours to our office to talk about the "mistake" that we have made in their child's admission decision.

Please don't get me wrong: I don't mind that people who call and want to talk to us about their application, and the opportunities that they have at Penn State. What I do mind is the folks who call/email/show up and yell at our staff. Berate our staff. Call us "crazy". Tell us that we're "horrible".

I have no patience for the rude, obnoxious, and offensive phone calls and emails. And yet, we have to have patience because it is our job to work with students and families to help them find the best fit for the students' higher education.

This leads me to ask a seemingly dumb question: why is it that people who want something from us think that they will get what they want if they are aggressive and downright mean?

Let me give you an example.

Let's say that you think that you're awesome at your job. You would go to your boss and say, "I'm awesome at my job, could you please consider me for a promotion?", right? The way that many of these callers treat our staff is akin to throwing open your boss's door and screaming, "Hey there chief! I want more money. I think that you're an idiot for not already considering me for a raise. I'm going to go visit the president of the company and tell them how stupid you are, and demand more money in my paycheck."

Sounds crazy, right? This is what we deal with everyday, but even moreso this time of the year.

I think that there are a couple of issues at play here:

1. A lack of understanding. First and foremost, I don't think that people realize the volume of applications that we receive at Penn State. If we get 60 thousand applications and only enroll eight thousand students (at the University Park campus), then there will be a lot of very talented students that we are not able to admit. It's not an applicant problem, it's a space issue at our campus. Having moved to the Common Application this year has only exacerbated this situation (because we have seen a dramatic increase in applications). And it should be noted that none of this isn't unique to Penn State. 
2. A sense of entitlement. Many students and families think that if they have attended every home football game for the past ten years, they are entitled to being admitted to Penn State. This rationale is especially bad with applicants who have alumni in their family or who "know someone" (e.g. a local congress-person). Alumni will usually play the 'donor card' and say that they gave money to Penn State for their education, and then argue that this fact should essentially guarantee their son or daughter a place on campus. 
3. A mis-perception of what "customer service" is. One of the things that our operation prides itself on is working with students and families to provide good service. Personally, I don't even like to refer to what we do as "customer service" (I'd rather refer to it as "student service" or "building relationships"). But, in essence, that's what it is. The problem is that many callers treat our staff like they are talking to Verizon, and when they don't get what they want they think that they can talk to someone else who will oblige them. I hear stories every day about the father on the phone who isn't getting what he wants and says to one of our team, "I'd like to speak to someone higher up than you are." This is especially aggravating because the "higher up" person is going to tell that father the exact same thing that he's just heard. And then the cycle repeats itself. 

So, what is this rant all about? What am I asking YOU to do? Simple: be nice.

The Golden Rule applies everywhere you go folks, and that includes working with admissions staff at colleges and universities. When a caller has waited on hold for 35 minutes (because we get thousands of calls each month), and finally gets through to one of our staff, the conversation usually goes in one of two directions:

• "Wow! You guys must be super busy!" 

...or...

• "It is completely unacceptable that I have waited that long. I deserve (insert ridiculous demand here) for my time that you have wasted."

Needless to say, we prefer the former. AND, our staff is going to be much more accommodating and likely to help you if you are understanding and compassionate.

That quote is an old one and has been uttered in many different ways by many different people, but most of the attribution that I have found goes to American businessman John Templeton. However, for the purposes of this writing, and the argument that I'm making, the source is irrelevant.

What does matter is the notion that above all else you should treat people how you'd like to be treated. While you may have been waiting on hold for 27 minutes, the person that just picked up your call was likely getting screamed at by the previous caller. If you start into that person as well, then they are likely going to shut down and not be as likely to go the extra mile to help you.

Think of it this way: if you want to get help in resolving your issue, be nice. No matter how frustrated you are. Because the odds are that the individual that you get to help is more frustrated.

Bottom line: just be nice.

I was combing through some admissions-related articles and remembered hearing about this one. All I can say is wow:

According to a summary of her claims in the judge's ruling, the admissions officer asked Katchur about her race, and when she answered that she was white, the admissions officer asked "if plaintiff was sure and suggested that plaintiff obtain an expensive genetic test to see if she could qualify as Native American or American Indian to garner better chances of being accepted to Jefferson." The admissions officer also told Katchur, she said, "that she advised a past Caucasian applicant to obtain a genetic test, that the applicant learned that he was partially African American, and that he was accepted into Jefferson on account of his race." Black applicants have a better chance of admission, Katchur said she was told.

There are many things wrong with the situation - but chief among them is the fact that the admissions officer asked about the race of the prospective student. Then recommended taking a test to see if there were any traces of diversity in her background. Regardless of your opinion of affirmative action and consideration of race in admissions, these actions by the admissions officer are beyond what is appropriate.

Hot off of the presses, here's the 2019 "sizzle" video for Penn State. I'm proud to work here and call this place my home!

An interesting Bat-read at /film:

“It’s very much a point of view-driven, noir Batman tale,” Reeves says. “It’s told very squarely on his shoulders, and I hope it’s going to be a story that will be thrilling but also emotional. It’s more Batman in his detective mode than we’ve seen in the films. The comics have a history of that. He’s supposed to be the world’s greatest detective, and that’s not necessarily been a part of what the movies have been.”

Batman’s detective skills have mostly been overlooked in the movies, although Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy had few scenes here and there of Batman engaging in some minor detective work. The Batman will apparently take things even further. In regards to the detective aspect, Reeves adds: “I’d love this to be one where when we go on that journey of tracking down the criminals and trying to solve a crime, it’s going to allow his character to have an arc so that he can go through a transformation.”

The article also talks a lot about the variety of villains that will be in the story - not just one-at-a-time, a la the movies that we have seen thus far.

BUT, the most interesting thing for me is this tid-bit:

Beyond that, Reeves confirms that Warner Bros. is moving away from the shared universe idea, and is going to focus on one movie at a time. “Aquaman is going to be very different from the Todd Phillips Joker movie, and that’s going to be different from Shazam and Harley Quinn,” Reeves says. “Warners believes they don’t have to try to develop a giant slate that has to have all the plans for how it’s going to connect. What they need to try and do is make good movies with these characters.”


This all sounds promising, and I’d love to see Reeves knock this out of the park. When done right, Batman can be compelling as hell. When done wrong, well, then we end up with Justice League.

My emphasis. I have to say that I'm stoked for the Shazam flick (trailer here). Love me some Zachary Levi.

Aw geez guys, it wasn't that bad.

However, I'm surprised that Warner wants to move away from the "Cinematic Universe" format. Marvel (read: Disney) has demonstrated over and over again that the intertwined story-lines and characters in their films can be an enormous box-office success.

Back in the days of the original X-Men movies (over at 20th Century Fox), I was just overjoyed that Marvel characters were getting the big screen treatment. The idea of a larger universe for these characters - where everyone is aware of other characters - is what has become so appealing to me. Once Marvel got to the Avengers: Infinity War, and all of these epic comic book characters were sharing the screen together, it was simply thrilling.

SO, why is it that DC Comics/Warner Bros. cannot catch the same rainbow magic that Marvel has with the "cinematic universe" concept? According to Screenrant, it started with meddling from the Warner Bros. studio:

Concept artist Jay Oliva has confirmed that Snyder's original plan for the DCEU was for a five film arc. This story would be told in Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Justice League, Justice League 2, and likely Justice League 3 - with Superman, the rise of the Justice League, and Darkseid at the core. We've laid out his entire plan in the past, but Snyder only truly got to see his vision through on Man of Steel. Although the story and tonal decisions of Batman v Superman remained true to Snyder's original take, Warner Bros. still stepped in to cut down the 3 hour runtime that would eventually be released as the Ultimate Cut. Snyder's grander plans for the DCEU went off the rails after Batman v Superman received an even harsher reaction than his previous DC film and saw the studio get cold feet. They heavily reshot Suicide Squad to change the tone, and that was just the beginning of the studio meddling.

As a result of Batman v Superman's reception, Geoff Johns - then the freshly appointed head of DC Films - became more involved with Justice League. Reports surfaced that changes were being made to Snyder's original plan during production. After completing filming, Joss Whedon was hired to write scenes for the film's upcoming reshoots. His role became much larger after Snyder stepped away from the project in early 2017 due to the death of his daughter. With Snyder out of the picture, Warner Bros. and Whedon continued to change Justice League to better fit the vision of the studio, going as far as changing the ending as plans for Justice League 2 were distanced. Justice League still saw a tepid response upon its release and disappointed at the box office. It is the lowest grossing DCEU film to date worldwide, despite housing all of its stars.

I liked both "Batman Vs. Superman" and "Justice League" - though not as much as any of the Marvel universe movies.

Back to the original reason for this post: Batman.

Bruce Wayne has been one of my favorite DC characters for a long time. Ever since the Michael Keaton donned the black cowl back in the late 80s - my first real exposure to a good superhero film - I have been a fan. But, putting a different twist on the character is a good thing. We've all seen the Batman-as-a-vigilante superhero guy. What about a less superhero-y type of adventure for the caped crusader? Something more akin to Sherlock Holmes would be pretty sweet.