Test 2

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.

Nate and I go back many years, to our high school days. Needless to say, I'm pumped for the release of this new single - and accompanying video! Available on all of your usual platforms (iTunes, Spotify, etc.) beginning tomorrow - February 1st. Hit up NateWalkerMusic.com for more about my brother-from-another-mother and his music.

Also worthy of your ears, his last single "Winter's Waiting" is an exceptional song as well.

[vid credit: David Ayllon]

Via DenOfGeek:

The story of The Boys depicts a bleak world filled with power-imbued superheroes who have become reckless, selfish and hedonistic, leaving citizens in danger. Thus, an angry, ultra-violent Englishman named Billy Butcher puts together his own team of ex-military personnel with black ops experience to watch the proverbial watchmen, calling themselves, you guessed it, the Boys.

Thus, in an extreme version of the Marvel Civil War scenario, the Boys run roughshod on corrupt costumers in a brutally sadistic manner. The comic series launched in 2006 under the DC-connected Wildstorm imprint, only to be quickly cancelled, purportedly due to its anti-superhero themes. Ennis would eventually continue the series with indie publisher Dynamite Entertainment, publishing the last series in the end of 2012.

A very cool plot, if you ask me. With all of the hub-bub about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and DC trying to get in on the game with their connected Justice League movies, it's nice to see a story that is more-than-somewhat anti-hero.

But what really caught my eye is the casting:

The Boys made a surprise addition to its cast at New York Comic Con. Simon Pegg (of the Star Trek, Mission: Impossible series, and more) crashed the show's panel to announce that he is joining the series. Pegg will play the father of Hughie (Jack Quaid), a role that gives a nod to Pegg being the original inspiration for the comics version of the Hughie character for artist, Darick Robertson.

[...]

Pegg joins a cast already headlined by Star Trek mate Karl Urban. Urban will be playing the role of Billy Butcher, the irate ringleader of the Boys team, whose surname was created to describe what he does to those who prey on the powerless, conventional criminals and otherwise. Billy is nursing a brutal secret agenda to change a world filled with corruption, where even its costumed superheroes need to be checked, recruiting a deadly array of highly-skilled people, dangling the proverbial carrot of vengeance.

I was sold at Karl Urban - but throw Simon Pegg into the mix and I can guarantee that I'll be ready to binge "The Boys" when it comes out on Amazon Prime.

Getting caught up on some of my reading and realized that I missed an interesting article at Inside Higher Education last week:

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued not only Harvard, but also the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The outcome of the UNC case could be as important as the one at Harvard. Critics of affirmative action hope to see the issue of college admissions return to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in multiple cases upheld the right of colleges to consider -- under certain circumstances -- race and ethnicity in admissions. One path to the Supreme Court is for the Harvard case, whatever its outcome, to be appealed.

Another path could depend on the UNC case. While it's impossible to know whether the Supreme Court will take up any issue, differing interpretations of the Constitution in different federal circuits tend to draw the Supreme Court's involvement. And that involvement worries supporters of affirmative action, since Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired, was a crucial vote for the right of colleges to consider race.

On Friday, both SFFA and UNC filed briefs in the case, outlining for the first time in detail their takes on the issues at Chapel Hill. Both sides want the court to rule in their favor without a full trial. Some of the issues are similar to those in the Harvard case. In short, SFFA argues that colleges like Harvard and UNC go beyond what the Supreme Court permits in considering race in admissions. UNC, like Harvard, argues that it evaluates all applicants as individuals -- through holistic admissions. UNC freely admits that it considers race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, but that it does so much more modestly than SFFA alleges.

In other ways, UNC is different from Harvard. Chapel Hill is a public institution in a state where the law bars public universities from admitting more than 18 percent of students from out of state. This means that the preference in admissions that is the most dramatic is based on state residency. The admit rate for undergraduate applications is 24 percent, making Carolina competitive but unlike Harvard, where single-digit admit rates have been the norm for years. But the 24 percent figure masks very different admit rates for those from the state (typically 41 to 43 percent) and from elsewhere (typically about 12 or 13 percent).

As a state institution, UNC also could consider approaches (such as plans that admit a set percentage of students from every high school) that haven't been embraced by elite private institutions. In this case, UNC offers evidence that it considered such a plan but that it wouldn't work. North Carolina also has different demographics than the nation. In the Tar Heel state, white people make up 71 percent of the population and black people make up 22 percent. Nationally, the population is more diverse (particularly among those of high school age), with Latino and Asian populations growing at fast rates.

...and UNC is defending itself by arguing that diversity is good for institutions of higher education:

In the end, the UNC brief makes the argument that has been crucial to past Supreme Court rulings on the issue -- that diversity has educational value for all students. "University professors report that diversity promotes discovery and innovation and expands fields of inquiry," the brief says. "A diverse student body also improves students’ capacity to work effectively with others: exposure to diversity breaks down stereotypes, creates common understandings, and encourages empathy."

Until the Supreme Court takes up these cases and makes some definitive decisions, Students for Fair Admissions will continue to file suits against colleges and universities.

[photo: screengrab from Time.com]

Via /Film:

Bo Peep is back and this time, she’s no delicate porcelain figure. She’s traded her hoop skirt for pantaloons and her bonnet for a cute side ribbon in our first look at the long-missing toy in the latest Toy Story 4 teaser. After being absent from Toy Story 3, Bo Peep is making her big return with a brand new look.

[...]

The long-lost friend (or maybe more) of Woody is returning in Toy Story 4, and she’s got an exciting new teaser and character poster to herald her comeback. But she is different than the delicate porcelain figure we last saw in Toy Story 2. Her exterior has become chipped and faded, but her attitude has not — “it turns out she’s an adventure-seeking free spirit who feels right at home on the road,” Disney writes. This free-spirited adventure reunites her with Woody “under unlikely circumstances” where they sadly realize they’ve “grown worlds apart when it comes to life as a toy.”

After that intense ending for Toy Story 3, I'll be interested to see where they go with the fourth installment.

Still, no matter how you slice it, Bo Peep is getting a pretty sweet treatment. Especially in the teaser poster that features her:

click to embiggen