An Accreditation Issue? Really?

For those who have been under a rock, totally separated from any form of information provision for the last year, ugly things happened on and around the Penn State University Athletics Department (in particular the football program) under the care of former head coach Joe Paterno.  No, Joe Paterno did not do the ugly things, that was handled by Jerry Sandusky (as convicted by a jury in a court of law after a proper legal procedure).  But, my musing here is not to rehash who did what, when and where at Penn State, but to comment on the latest information I have read about this ugly event, namely that an accrediting organization is using this unfortunate situation as an excuse to issue an notice of jeopardy of the school's academic accreditation.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits colleges and universities in the Mid-Atlantic region.  Accrediting is the process created to supposedly maintain high academic standards for colleges and universities by having an outside agency decide if you are properly educating students.  What this generally means is that the accrediting agencies decide how you should write syllabi, lecture, what materials should be used, what types of courses should be taught--but of course the organizations claim that they are only doing what they have been asked to do by the schools, while the reality is that they are doing what the dept of education of the U.S. govt tells them to do.  Many opponents, myself included, believe that accrediting processes are designed to attempt to routinize education, so that academic liberty is at stake because eventually we will all use the same syllabus to teach the same material from the same books using the same lecture outline.  So, instead of building academic reputation based on the quality of the students you graduate, you now get an instant "reputation" as an accredited college or university based on inspection and report from the accrediting organization.  I'll stop griping about accreditation now.

So, here is my problem.  What did the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal have to do with the quality of academic life at Penn State University?  Under what reasoning is an accrediting agency throwing around its authority to ask Penn State University to submit reports by the end of September detailing the university's compliance with governmental requirements and the ability of the school to meet it's financial obligations stemming from the Freeh investigation and decisions of the NCAA (I may talk about this "august" body at some other time)?  As correctly noted by Blannie Bowen, vice provost for academic affairs at Penn State University, "This action has nothing to do with the quality of education our students receive." So, for my two cents the Middle States Commission on Higher Education needs to butt-out and go back to aggravating people with stupid requirements regarding wording of syllabi.

Cost of K-12 Education

I read an article this morning about the rising cost of sending your kid back to school (read it here).  I guess I went to schools that were "out of line" with other schools.  If you played sports you sold stuff to your neighbors and friends or your parents paid for your share of the athletic costs.  If you played in the band you provided your own instrument or you rented one from the school.  If you did extra-curricular anything, you paid for the cost of the program.

The article says that parents are required to pay for some classroom materials.  Well, we had to pay for our own pens, pencils, paper.  If you took an art class you had to pay for colored pens, pencils, chalks, paints, etc.  I guess I am not very sympathetic to the complaints.  If you want your kid to go to school, participate in extra-curricular activities, and have fun, you have to pay for it.  My parents paid for it, I pay for it with my kids sports activities, what is the big deal?  So what if I have to buy paper and pencils and pens for my kids to use in school? Quit whining, prioritize your spending habits, take care of your kids. 

By the way, in Grove City, PA we have kids that legitimately come from families that cannot afford to pay for extra-curricular activities and school supplies.  Two things come to mind.  One, life is generally tough and not very fair.  Two, many of our community make donations willingly to help those in need.  Just my two cents, but charity comes from people, not the government, regardless of the type of aid required by people who need assistance. 

Can Reporters Please Report Correctly

I am seriously getting tired of members of the news media incorrectly reporting about assault weapons and the 1994 "Gun Ban".  The items in question are what is an assault rifle, and just what was banned by the 1994 law that went out of enforcement in 2004?  So, let me give you my two cents on this matter.

To clarify what an assault rifle is for those, like most journalists, who do not understand much of anything about firearms, let me put some information on the table.  An assault rifle is a long-barreled (we generally take the term long-barreled to refer to any barrel over 10 inches in length) firearm designed for military and security (police, private security firms, etc.) forces.  We refer to them as assault rifles because they are used to "assault" enemy troops/defenses.  The major difference between assault rifles and other rifles is number of rounds that can be fired with one trigger pull and capacity of the magazine.  Of course, prior to design changes most assault rifles were lever action or bolt action, but in the contemporary world assault rifles are magazine fed and capable of automatic fire--which means more than one round is fired each time the trigger is pulled.  NOTE:  Many rifles exist which clone (look like) assault rifles but are not assault rifles because they do not fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger.  Because assault rifles are generally magazine fed, designers have spent much energy and research on developing magazines that have high capacity (high capacity is generally any magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition).

In 1994, the U.S. Congress determined that assault rifles should no longer be transferred from one private owner to another private owner or imported into the country for sale to a private owner.  Of course caveats to this decision existed.  One, if the rifle was made before and imported into the country before Jan 1, 1987 the rifle could be transferred using the approved system created in 1934.  Two, any rifle that looked like (cloned) an assault rifle or had certain features like a pistol grip was also included in this ban--with exceptions.  The exceptions to clones was that they had to have a certain number of parts from a list created by BATFE regulation that were manufactured in the U.S and the parts other than those which were U.S. manufacture were required to be manufactured prior to a certain date.  So, assault rifles were not banned, transfer of assault rifles to private owners was limited.  Dealers could still import for their businesses, but could not transfer those firearms to private citizens.  Private citizens could still purchase an assault rifle if it was already in the country prior to 1987.  And dealers and private citizens could make, sell, trade, etc. clones of assault rifles if they had the requisite number of approved U.S. manufactured parts from the required parts list.

What was banned?  What the 1994 law really banned was manufacture, import, sell of modern high capacity magazines.  U.S. based companies could not manufacture a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds of ammunition.  However, again if the magazines were already in the country, they could be sold, traded, etc.  The real intent of the 1994 law was to limit the number of rounds that could be easily fired at any one time from a firearm.  Of course, this law assumed that most users of firearms would not purchase several extra 10 round magazines and become proficient in their use, or that many firearms users would find high capacity magazines on the open market and purchase these magazines.

To illustrate my point I mention two rifles and one state's laws (California).  What is the difference between and AK-47 or AK-74 and an AKM?  An AKM is not capable of selective fire (that is to say that the AKM can only fire one round when the trigger is pulled).  Most of the bird brains in the press corps have not figured this out and incorrectly call every firearm that looks like an AK-47 an AK-47 (including the AK-74 which uses a different round and has some distinctives that trained eyes recognize).  What is the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 (or any variant thereof, like the M-4)?  The AR-15 is not capable of selective fire.  Now, both the AKM and the AR-15 can handle high capacity magazines, including some magazines that hold upto 100 rounds.  Most states do not keep owners from purchasing firearms that utilize high capacity magazines.  California does limit magazine capacity.  CA requires some types of weapons to have fixed magazines (magazines cannot be dropped and replaced rapidly) and limits capacity of even non-fixed magazines.  Has this made much difference in CA criminal use of firearms--well, you can check out those facts for yourself.

Again, for my two cents, I really wish the journalists would get things straight and call the firearm what the firearm really is and not what they want it to be or think it is without having made certain the information they are reporting to the general public.