While folk have been known to complain about the IPCC process, the US National Academy of Sciences evaluation of doctoral programs is in a world by itself. The 2006 National Academy of Sciences evaluation of research doctorate programs has appeared and the results are downloadable, although confusing. The evaluation was supposed to appear five years ago, but the methodology has been changed a couple of times, several of the panel have resigned, retired, and probably some have died. The elephant has indeed brought forward a mouse and the mouse is causing whining round the nation. Eli offers a prize to anyone who can explain their rating system.
If only MITCHELL HEISMAN, were still here... Perhaps this issue was the very bug in his bonnet, at the time of his sudden departure? It would be my suggestion that any man-made-system for such a program whould be by its very nature flawed. It should not be about filling in the right boxes & become a model student... does it? What kind of bunnies(hippy) have you all become anyway? As you said Eli, "The evaluation was supposed to appear five years ago, but the methodology has been changed a couple of times, several of the panel have resigned, retired, and probably some have died." With a track record like that, Freddie & Fannie, thrown in with a smile:) along with AGW... Are you sure your school will have enough money for this prize? If I were to win the contest what would the prize have been... you do not say:(
ReplyDeleteEye know, I flap too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx4yr0FFhMQ
ReplyDeleteThe throw-the-theses-down-the-stairs method of evaluation, of course.
ReplyDeleteWe're #1! We're #! We're #1!!! Goooooooo Scripps!!!!!
ReplyDelete(One star, two stars,
three stars,
a comet.
All for GMU stand up and vomit!)
--Disclaimer
I'm not a Scripps student,faculty member, or alum (but I did go to UCSD).
But it's nice to see one of my hometown institutions on top!!
-- caerbannog the anonybunny
http://www.nukefree.org/news/SagabehindtheShorehamnuclearplantretold
ReplyDeleteIn this region, there is a limit of 20% of installed capcity which can be wind backed by hydro (we have lotsa hydro). A recent plan which BPA is bound to follow puts combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) as the next more expensive option and after that nuclear and lastly coal burners. Being the Pacific Northwest, solar is not a viable option.
ReplyDeleteOk, once all the best wind sites are used up, then CCGTs will be built. Lots better than coal, but still CO2 emitters. So nuclear might be better.
Indeed, given that PNL is fairly close, it is no surprise that the local School of Mechancial and Materials Engineering has a growing component of studying materials for nuclear applications.
And maybe someday the region sole power producing reactor night be joined by a few others. Maybe.