Click here to read the free whitepaper!  

Click here to read the free whitepaper!  

Would you guess recent college grads were more likely to find work last year as bartenders and waiters — or engineers and chemists?  Raise your hand if you guess bartenders and waiters.

According to the Huffington Post, waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers outnumbered the college grads who held positions of engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians.

The numbers? 100,000 compared to 90,000.

And it doesn’t stop there:

• 163,000 grads worked in office-type jobs such as receptionists and payroll clerks compared to 100,000 who held computer professional jobs.
• 125,000 found work as cashiers, retail clerks and customer service reps compared to the 80,000 engineers.

Obviously, the major a student picks is a big determining factor in what kind of job he or she lands.

Those who had the toughest time finding a job related to their field of study, majored in:

• zoology
• anthropology
• philosophy
• art history
• humanities

The most likely to find jobs in their field, went to college for:

• nursing
• teaching
• accounting
• computer science

So here’s the question: Should colleges play a role in giving incoming students a heads up about the majors that are likely to land them a job in their field? And if so, what happens to the less-skill-specific majors such as history, literature and art?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

When co-workers expressed concern that Mitchell had a firearm in his locker, administrators contacted the university’s police department. Mitchell granted permission to search his locker, but the police did not find any weapons. Mitchell then told officers that he had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed deadly weapon. He also told them he kept a firearm in his vehicle, which he parked on university property.

Possession Violated Policy
The university police then escorted Mitchell to his vehicle, where he showed them the pistol he kept there. The police took the weapon, and after an investigation Mitchell’s employment was terminated. The reason? He had violated a university policy that banned the possession of a deadly weapon while on university property or while conducting school business.

Mitchell responded by filing a lawsuit in which he alleged that the university terminated his employment in violation of public policy. Specifically, he said the termination was inconsistent with his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky statutory law.

A trial court ruled for the school, finding it had terminated Mitchell’s employment pursuant to a legally authorized policy. Mitchell filed an appeal.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the lower court’s ruling and issued a decision in Mitchell’s favor.

At-Will Rule Has Exception
The reviewing court explained that generally, at-will employees such as Mitchell can be discharged “for good cause, for no cause, or for a cause that some might view as morally indefensible.”

However, an exception to this rule applies when a termination violates public policy. For the public policy exception to apply, the termination must conflict with “a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law.”

Also, the policy must be evident in a constitutional or statutory provision. Finally, the question of whether a public policy is substantial enough to merit application of the exception to the at-will rule is a question that is to be decided by the court as opposed to a question that should be decided by a jury.

In this case, it was clear that the school had the authority under state law to govern and control the use of its property. The question was whether there was a fundamental and well-defined public policy that limited its authority to control the possession of deadly weapons on campus.

Ruling Favors Employee
The court answered the question in the affirmative.

A state statutory provision clearly provided that no person or organization could ban a person from keeping a deadly weapon in the glove compartment of a vehicle. Mitchell had a valid concealed carry license. Therefore, if he had the gun in his glove compartment, the university violated this provision of state law.

Another state statute gave universities the right to control the possession of deadly weapons on their property, the court noted. However, this right was limited by the provisions of the state law that banned any person or organization from barring legally carried firearms in the glove compartments of vehicles.

Yet another provision of state law again banned all people and organizations from prohibiting legal firearms in vehicles. This provision, however, stated that such possession in vehicles was to be consistent with the state law provision that gave schools the right to control possession of weapons on their property.

Decision Addresses Statutory ‘Circularity’
The court resolved what it called the “circularity” in the statutes in favor of Mitchell. It concluded that the state legislature’s intent was to support a right to bear arms. When it enacted the concealed carry licensing statute, the legislature explicitly said the statute was to be construed liberally in favor of the right to bear arms.

The court concluded that Mitchell proved his discharge was contrary to the fundamental, well-defined public policy favoring the right to bear arms.

The lower court’s decision in favor of the university was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Mitchell v. Univ. of Kentucky, No. 2010-SC-000762-TG, 2012 WL 1450283 (Ky. 4/26/12).

Student Advisor’s Top 100 Social Media Colleges list ranks Harvard University as the #1 school for its social media strategies, bumping Johns Hopkins University down to the #2 position.

Schools are judged by data such as Facebook fan counts, number and effectiveness of Twitter followers and other signs of social network engagement.

Examples: The University of Kentucky (#7) set up an admissions marketing campaign that heavily utilized social media to target prospective students, while students at St. Mary’s College (#81) used the class of 2015 Facebook page to find compatible roommates before setting foot on campus.

The top 10:

1. Harvard University (up 1)
2. Johns Hopkins University (down 1)
3. University of Notre Dame (unchanged)
4. Columbia University (up 1)
5. Stanford University (up 2)
6. Ohio State University-Main Campus (down 2)
7. University of Kentucky (down 1)
8. Louisiana State University (unchanged)
9. University of Washington-Seattle Campus (up 6)
10. United States Military Academy (down 1)

Check out the full list here, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Rouse says that when she reported the rape to the school, a school official issued a public statement downplaying the allegation and suggesting that whatever happened was her own fault. The statement was broadcast nationwide, and it was repeated in follow-up reports by the media.

Rouse said the school discredited her report because she was a white woman accusing a black man of rape at a time when Duke was mired in negative press regarding its handling of an earlier rape case.

Student Goes on Leave
After the February 2007 rape, Rouse took a weeklong leave from school to obtain treatment. She says that when she got back, the school declined to support her effort to return and fostered a hostile educational environment. Duke granted her request for a leave of absence, but Rouse claims it did not let her complete work from home. She also says that while she was on leave, Duke did not adequately investigate the rape.

Rouse returned to school in the fall of 2007, at which time the hostile environment allegedly continued to exist. She alleges she was not allowed to register for the courses she wanted. In November, she met with a dean to discuss the stress she was under. According to Rouse, the dean encouraged her to leave the school and told her to send an email stating her intent to transfer.

Rouse sent an email stating her intent to transfer for the spring 2008 semester. She says she did not mean to transfer permanently, but Duke told her the transfer request made her ineligible to return.

Rouse later sued the university and a school official, claiming negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, creation and maintenance of a hostile educational environment, and breach of contract. The defendants sought dismissal, arguing that Rouse’s claims were filed too late and that she did not state any claim for which relief could be granted.

The court found that Rouse’s negligence claims based on the official’s media statement were barred because they were filed more than three years after the statements were made. The only negligence claim that was allowed to proceed was the one based on a letter the school sent stating its position that Rouse had withdrawn from the school by transferring. This letter was sent within the three-year limitations period.

Several Claims Go Forward
The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, which was based on the charge that the school suggested Rouse was responsible for her own rape, was allowed to proceed. A breach of contract claim, based on the charge that the school breached its enrollment agreement by declaring Rouse ineligible for readmission, was also allowed to go forward.

As to the hostile educational environment claim, the court determined Rouse had made allegations sufficient to survive the dismissal motion. According to Rouse, she was subjected to harassment and humiliation on campus because she was a white woman who accused a black man of rape. She also said Duke officials made matters worse by falsely suggesting the rape was her fault and failing to investigate.

These allegations were sufficient to defeat the defense motion for dismissal, the court said.

The motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Rouse v. Duke Univ., No. 1:11-cv-549, 2012 WL 1150461 (M.D.N.C. 4/5/12).

We’ve mentioned schools that accidentally sent out acceptance letters – but this is the first time an entire student body (and some recent graduates) got dismissal notices meant for only 100 students!

That’s what happened at Eastern Michigan University, where an email message meant to inform failing students that they were being dismissed from the college went out to everyone:

“As a result of your Winter 2012 academic performance, you have been dismissed from Eastern Michigan University … Any enrollment for upcoming terms will be cancelled and you will be ineligible to register for classes.”

The source of the mistake: GradesFirst, an outside company the EMU uses for notifications.

EMU president Susan Martin quickly issued an email apology to students, saying, “This message was a terrible mistake and I regret the undue alarm and concern it caused.”

What can schools do to avoid tech goofs like this? Share your thoughts in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Today’s students and grads are suffering major stress from financial and healthcare uncertainty, finds a new survey from eHealthInsurance. But their post-college expectations may not be helping.

The 271 full-time students polled estimated they’d need an average salary of $81,600 a year after graduation to feel financially secure. The reality, based on answers from the 255 recent grads polled: First jobs out of college paid only $21,900 on average.

Health benefits are another area where expectations aren’t meeting reality. 82% believe their first job out of college is likely to offer health insurance. But 59% of recent grads reported their first job didn’t provide any.

Other healthcare findings:

• Only 31% of students and 22% of grads are currently covered under their parents’ health insurance
• 72% said they’d rather go without health insurance than default on their student loans, and
• About 50% said they didn’t know what health insurance costs.

Should schools do more to help students manage their post-college expectations? Let us know in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Click here to read the free whitepaper!  

Click here to read the free white paper!

Newspapers may be the newest addition to the “endangered species” list at many of the nation’s colleges and universities.  It’s no secret the days are long gone when a morning newspaper could have a jump on a story.

The Internet has impacted all of our lives — professionally and personally — and it’s certainly crushing anything underfoot that dares to stand in its path.

Here’s the latest status of some college newspapers, according to USA Today:

• At the University of Connecticut, the 116-year-old The Daily Campus may cease to print in two years. Reason? Loss of ad revenue.
• University of Illinois’ The Daily Illini (140 years old) is dealing with unpaid mortgage payments and $250,000 in back payments for printing.
• At the University of California-Berkeley, the 141-year-old The Daily Californian is looking at a budget deficit of $200,000.
• Not only is The Harbor Tides  at Los Angeles Harbor College facing elimination, but Journalism 101 is no longer offered at the school.

Yet some remain optimistic.

Jacob Demmitt, a junior at The University of Georgia, is editor-in-chief of The Red and Black, a student paper that’s been in business since 1893. Just this year, the paper went from five days a week to just once a week.

“We fancy ourselves as pioneers,” Demmitt told USA Today. “People keep talking about the impending death of newspapers. It’s not going to happen. People want their news, they want their information, and they’re going to be willing to pay for it in some way.”

Is Demmitt right — or is he shouting into the wind?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Robert Champion, a 26-year-old drum major at Florida A&M University, collapsed on a bus last year soon after his school’s football team had wrapped up a game against rival Bethune-Cookman University. Less than an hour later, Champion was dead.

The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide that was caused by blunt-force trauma.

Now, newly filed criminal charges suggest Champion died as a result of hazing. A total of 13 unnamed people have been charged; 11 face charges of felony hazing, while two face charges of misdemeanor hazing. The maximum sentence on the more serious charges: six years.

Why aren’t the charges more serious? That’s a question Champion’s parents are asking. “This won’t be accepted,” Champion’s mother told the Associated Press. “That word, hazing, just doesn’t fit it.”

UC Berkeley student Derek Low concocted a dorm-enhancement he dubbed BRAD, for Berkeley Ridiculously Automated Dorm. With about $200-$300 in off-the-shelf equipment, he added some special features to the room, including:

• Lights and stereo activated by the morning’s alarm clock
• Motion detectors
• Blinds that can be controlled by a smartphone or tablet
• Voice controls
• A “romantic mode” that pops on music and a soft-lit disco ball, and
• An emergency party button that…well, you should probably just check it out yourself.

Sounds pretty cool, right? Unfortunately, after the video went viral, the school called him in for a judicial hearing to review if BRAD breaks university housing policies.

On the upside, Low says the system is mobile, so he’ll be able to set it up when he moves to off-campus housing in the fall.

Should students have more control over their dorms? Let us know in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

About 65 Seattle University students were nabbed when federal law enforcement authorities intercepted a shipment of fake IDs that was headed to a student at an on-campus address.

After the Federal Bureau of Investigation notified school officials of the find, the school subjected the students to disciplinary hearings.

The students were charged with violating six parts of the school’s code of student conduct. Students were issued a sanction letter and fined $150. They were also put on academic probation until September 2012 and instructed to submit a written review of three journal articles that discuss identity theft and fraud on college campuses.

Was the punishment too harsh? Too lenient? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Yale University has been steadily growing its inventory of free online courses, adding new Open Course selections each April. This month the school has added six more for a current total of 42.

Each course includes class lectures available in downloadable video, audio-only and transcript formats, along with supplementary materials like syllabi, suggested readings, exams and problem sets. They’re non-credit programs, giving students of all stripes a  chance to essentially audit a Yale undergrad course.

The courses:

• African-American History: From Emancipation to the Present
• Financial Markets 2011
• Freshman Organic Chemistry II
• Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner
• Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature
• The Atmosphere, the Ocean and Environmental Change

How is your school utilizing online courses? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

At Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, CA, students who need some extra help can use the school’s Pirate Referral Program (PrOP) – a support program funded by tips from the on-campus restaurant and coffee shop.

The newly opened and student-run Eclectic Café has joined the Captain’s Table in donating to the program. Servers’ tips are pooled, and 25% of that goes to PrOP for immediate student needs such as lunch or transportation.

The service, run through the Student Health Center, also provides resources for students dealing with homelessness, domestic violence, mental illness, unemployment and other issues that aren’t covered by any of the school’s other student services departments.

How does your school provide services to students? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Check out this new study, which reveals surprising numbers regarding wait-listed students. 

In the good ol’ days, this was the time of year when students would run to their mailbox expecting to see either a thick envelope or a thin one.

Now, more students than ever are finding themselves in that hellish limbo called “the wait list.”

According to the National Association for College Admissions Counseling, the number of colleges using wait lists grew by nearly 10% — from 39% the year before to 48%.

But the more students who get wait listed, the fewer who finally get that fat envelope. From 2009 to 2010, the percentage of lucky students dropped from  34% to 28%.

Why the change?

Experts say it’s the increasing competitiveness of the college app process.

Students figure the more schools they apply to, the better chance they have of getting in somewhere.

And schools need to do something with this glut of applications — so, they wait list the students.

Looking at it from the colleges’ perspective, challenging economic times means students granted admission to a private (i.e. more expensive) school may opt to attend a public (i.e. less expensive) one at the last minute.

Schools want insurance that they’ll fill their classes come fall.

“It’s become a ping-pong game that both sides play with each other,” Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers told The Chicago Tribune. “And it’s totally gotten out of hand.”

Take a look at these stats:

• From 2007 to 2010, MIT had between 450 and 740 waitlisted students. In 2011, the number rose to 1,000. How many of those were accepted last year? Try 26.
• University of Chicago‘s waitlist At the University of Chicago, the list increased from 1,033 in 2009 to 3,000 in 2012. Back in 2003, there were 500 names on the list.
• It’s a different story at Northwestern. The list decreased from 3,500 in 2011 to 2,857 in 2012. But compared to six years ago, there’s an increase of 1,300 students. And in 2011, none of the waitlisted students was accepted.

Does your school have an extensive wait list? Let us know in the comments section below.

After receiving complaints from four students for “inappropriate speech and conduct,” Appalachian State University placed sociology professor Jammie Price on administrative leave. The issue stems from her airing of a film called “The Price of Pleasure” in her introductory sociology course.

The film is meant as a criticism of the porn industry and the businesses that make money off it. But Price failed to warn students that the material might be objectionable, leading to complaints that the content was “really inappropriate.”

But another letter addressed a different issue – the professor’s candor. Administrators received another complaint over Price’s remarks about student athletes, discussion of her personal life and political views, and her dissatisfaction over working at ASU.

Price explained to the vice provost that all the topics she covered in the course, including her personal life examples, were appropriate for an intro-level sociology class. That includes the movie on pornography, which is features scholarly interviews and was in fact available through the school.

She also asked the administration for a hearing on the charges but was denied, as she was put on administrative leave rather than disciplinary suspension.

But Price suspects there’s a reason the college is taking action against her. As she told the Chronicle of Higher Education, she believes she’s being punished for speaking out over the male-only poker club that includes admin and faculty.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Idaho State University used an email service called Mailman to create various email lists, including one called facultymemos.

Members of the university’s provisional faculty senate wanted to use facultymemos to circulate a draft constitution and put it to a vote.

The school said no. It wanted more time to review the draft, and it disagreed with some of what it said.

The faculty senate could have circulated the draft in other ways, such as by creating its own email list or posting it on a university-provided website. But it insisted on using the facultymemos list.

The school didn’t budge, so a faculty association sued. It said denying permission to use the facultymemos list to circulate the draft violated the First Amendment.

Not likely, the court said in denying a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The faculty members’ attempt to use the list to send the draft was a bid to talk about job-related matters. Because the messages they wanted to send could be viewed as reflecting the position of the university, the school had a right to make sure its message was “neither garbled nor distorted.”

Because the plaintiffs were not likely to prove a First Amendment violation, the court denied the request for an injunction.

Cite: Idaho State University Faculty Association for the Preservation of the First Amendment v. Idaho State University.

April 20 generally brings out crowds demonstrating for legalization of marijuana, and the University of Colorado has become host to one of the largest campus celebrations in the country – much to the school’s chagrin.

Last year’s rally brought out 10,000 attendees (including plenty of non-students), and along with them the property damage and disruption to faculty and students that has helped the school garner its dubious reputation as a top party school.

“We don’t consider this a protest,” university spokesman Bronson Hilliard said. “This is a gathering of people engaging in an illegal activity.”

In order to curb rally attendance this year, the school took multiple steps, including:

• Spreading foul-smelling fish fertilizer on the quad
• Closing the grounds to unauthorized visitors, and
• Scheduling a Wyclef Jean concert at the same time as the rally.

The overall result: a much smaller gathering than last year. A few hundred protesters, defying the crackdown, instead gathered on another field and lit up at 4:20 pm.

How does your school curb unwanted rallies? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

The long saga of a nursing student who was dismissed after posting an online entry about a patient on MySpace may finally be over, as a result of a new federal court ruling in the case.

Nina Yoder enrolled in a childbearing class while she was a  nursing student at the University of Louisville. As part of the class, she was assigned to find and follow an obstetric patient through the birthing process.

After Yoder found a patient to follow, both signed a consent form. The form said Yoder was not to provide information relating to the pregnancy to anyone other than her course instructor.

Yoder had also agreed via an honor pledge to “adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, accountability, confidentiality, and professionalism” and to keep confidential any information she obtained during the course of clinical rotations.

After watching the patient give birth, Yoder posted a long MySpace entry about the experience. In it, she referred to the patient’s newborn as “the new Creep” and described the child as “ugly as hell.”

When the school found out about the entry, it dismissed her for violating the honor code and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Yoder sued, claiming a violation of her right to free speech under the First Amendment.

A trial court initially ruled for Yoder, but an appeals court negated that ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings. Meanwhile, Yoder was for some reason readmitted, and she finished her studies.

The school tried to get the case thrown out because Yoder was gone, but the court said her claim for damages still needed to be addressed. It then ruled for the school, finding that Yoder broke her promise not to publicly talk about the birth mother.

The school had good reason to keep the information private: It understandably could be worried about the effect of such public discussion on its ability to get willing participants for future clinics, and the limitations it imposed were reasonable.

Cite: Yoder v. University of Louisville.

The Education Department is working to complete a standard format for financial aid award letters, in an effort to clear up a process that can be murky and confusing to many families.

Currently, the format for aid packages varies by school. Federal loans and grants may be lumped together with the school’s scholarships, and often the statements don’t include information on interest rates or “suggested” private loans.

The end result: Documents that give the family the feeling of “hidden costs,” or worse, that the school is being deceptive about the total price tag.

But some financial aid officers are opposing the move, believing it would give them less room to negotiate and match offers from other schools. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators even lobbied against the standard documents last March.

What’s your take on standard financial aid letters? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Everyone’s experienced state funding cuts. But this California school is taking drastic action and targeting its most popular classes.  Here’s the plan, according to the LA Times:

Santa Monica College in California will offer high-demand classes to the students who need them — at a higher price.

Core classes — English, math, etc. — current cost $36 per unit and will increase to $46 this summer. Under the new plan, the cost would be $200 per unit.

With 34,000 students, the community college has an extremely high transfer rate to four-year universities.

Under the new plan — considered the first of its kind in the country — students will be able to attend classes they need for transfer.

“Our classes are inundated with students begging to be enrolled after they’re full,” college president Chui L. Tsang told the Times.

“The alternative is that students can wait and try their luck next semester or go outside to a more expensive private or for-profit college.”

But many have questioned whether the plan is legal. And what about students who can’t afford the high price tag?

Those questions recently prompted Daniel Greenberg, a businessman, and his wife, attorney Susan Steinhauser, to donate $250,000 that will go toward scholarships for students who qualify.

Do you think the idea is unfair or a realistic way of dealing with funding cuts? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

In January 2008, Charnetta Gadling-Cole became employed as an adjunct professor at West Chester University. Gadling-Cole was assigned to the school’s Department of Social Work to teach a course called Human Behavior and the Social Environment.

Other Faculty Members: ‘Show Your Support’
When Gadling-Cole arrived, all five faculty members at the Department of Social Work were members, supporters and/or advocates of the school’s LGBTQ community. They openly expressed their support, and they asked Gadling-Cole to do the same.

Gadling-Cole is a Baptist whose religious beliefs conflict with an expression of such support. As a result, she declined the requests to do so.

According to Gadling-Cole, her refusal led to mistreatment. She says the other faculty members targeted her for discrimination, such as by criticizing her alleged lack of familiarity with the LGBTQ community, refusing to collaborate on projects with her, and excluding her from meetings.

Gadling-Cole also said she was denied a tenure-track post as an assistant professor because of her stance. The search committee for that position consisted of the five faculty members of the Department of Social Work. Gadling-Cole was one of two candidates selected to be interviewed – she said the other was a member and/or supporter of the LGBTQ community – but she was not offered the job. Instead, she said, she was met with hostility and sarcastic comments during the interview before being turned down.

From Bad to Worse
Things continued to get worse after she was denied the job, Gadling-Cole says. She claimed:
• she received emails from an LGBTQ student undermining her authority as a professor
• she was subjected to hostile behavior by LGBTQ students in her classes, and
• the Department of Social Work’s faculty members discouraged students from attending educational events she organized.

In February 2009, Gadling-Cole filed an internal complaint about the alleged discriminatory treatment. She says the school did not conduct an adequate investigation. In May 2009, Gadling-Cole stopped working at West Chester, claiming she was constructively discharged.

In a lawsuit she filed against the university and several individual defendants, Gadling-Cole accused the defendants of violating Title VII by discriminating against her on the basis of her religion. She also claimed the defendants violated her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

No Title VII Liability for Individual Defendants
First, the court dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants because individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII.

The university argued the remaining Title VII claims of religious discrimination should be dismissed because they were essentially claims based on sexual orientation discrimination. Since Title VII does not apply to claims of sexual orientation discrimination, they argued, the remaining Title VII claims could not proceed.

The court rejected this argument. Gadling-Cole alleged that she was targeted based on her religious belief that LGBTQ alternative lifestyles are morally wrong. She said she was subjected to harassment due to her religious beliefs, not due to her heterosexual orientation. Because she adequately alleged bias based on her bona fide religious beliefs, the court refused to dismiss Gadling-Cole’s remaining Title VII claims.

Next, the court granted the dismissal motion with respect to Gadling-Cole’s First Amendment claims. Those claims were based mostly on speech that constituted employment grievances.

As such, they were not protected by the First Amendment. Although one of Gadling-Cole’s complaints – which alleged racial bias – was not an employee grievance, her complaint did not state a claim for First Amendment retaliation based on that particular statement. Therefore, Gadling-Cole’s First Amendment claims were dismissed.

Equal Protection Claim Survives
Finally, the court refused to dismiss Gadling-Cole’s equal protection claims. She sufficiently alleged that the other applicant for the assistant professor position she sought did not share her religious beliefs and was treated more favorably than she was.

The dismissal motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Cite: Gadling-Cole v. West Chester Univ.

UCLA’s financial aid department sent out an email telling 894 high school seniors that they’d been admitted for the fall. Problem is, they were actually just on the waiting list.

The source of the mistake: Updated notices of provisional financial aid were sent out to thousands of admitted students along with the wait-listed hopefuls. But all the emails had this line:

“Once again congratulations on your admission to UCLA, we hope that this information will assist you in making your decision to join the Bruin Family in the fall.”

As a result, the school was flooded with phone calls from confused students who suddenly didn’t know if they’d been admitted or not. The financial aid office had to send out messages explaining the error to the 894 students.

It’s an unfortunate goof, but not unfamiliar. UC San Diego accidentally sent out admissions letters to about 28,000 rejected applicants in 2010; and most recently, Cambridge University had to apologize for mistakenly congratulating 400 students who didn’t make the cut.

How can schools avoid email slip-ups like this in the future? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

A New York court revived a claim that a college negligently caused a guest to fall in an on-campus apartment, finding the school might be liable for injuries caused by a defective showerhead.

Laura Anderson and a friend visited the campus at Skidmore College in July 2008 to participate in a reunion planning meeting. They were assigned to stay in an on-campus apartment at the school.

Anderson turned on the bathroom shower and left the room while waiting for the water to heat up. When she stepped back into the bathroom, she slipped and fell on the bathroom floor, breaking her wrist.

Inspection Reveals Clog
After she fell, Anderson and her friend inspected the showerhead in the bathroom. They said the showerhead had a clog that caused it to spray water over the top of the shower curtain and onto the floor. Anderson said it was the defective showerhead that led to the slippery floor and her fall. She also said the college made things worse by negligently applying a soap or polish to the surface of the floor.

When Anderson sued the college for negligence, a state court entered pretrial judgment against her. Anderson filed an appeal.

On appeal, Anderson argued that the college had not proven it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged overspray condition in the bathroom. The reviewing court found the college did meet its burden
of showing it did not have actual notice of the defective bathroom condition. However, it also determined that the college did not meet its burden of showing it additionally lacked constructive notice of the condition.

The college submitted an affidavit from its manager of custodial operations, who said the apartment where Anderson stayed was cleaned at the end of the school year. It was also clear that no one else lived there before Anderson arrived. The manager said his staff had a “custom and practice” of turning on showers to make sure they are working properly as part of an end-of-the-academic-year inspection. However, there was no evidence that this inspection was in fact performed.

Manager’s Testimony Not Good Enough
The manager’s testimony was not enough to show the college lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition, the court concluded. As a result, it revived Anderson’s negligence claim insofar as it alleged a defective overspray condition.

Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Anderson’s claim that the school made things worse by negligently applying some kind of soap or polish to the floor. The school showed that only disinfectant was used on bathroom floors when there was a change in occupancy at the apartments.

The order dismissing the case was reversed.

Cite: Anderson v. Skidmore College.

Pinterest, a virtual pinboard where users can collage and share images, videos and other interests, has become popular in a short period of time, recently being named the third most popular social media network in the country (behind Facebook and Twitter).

Now colleges just have to figure out how to use it to promote their admissions. Pinterest’s primary demographic is made up of ages 25-34, while college-age users make up only 17% and pre-college (12-17) only 4%.

Which means it’s a great way to connect to past, present and future students, but coming up with a strategy to target a specific audience may be tricky.

If your school wants to use Pinterest to draw attention, follow the lead of these colleges:

• Iowa’s Drake University created boards around themes including studying abroad, cooking for college students and exploring the Des Moines area – all of which give visitors a better sense of the school’s culture and community. Even Drake’s mascot – a bulldog – gets an image collection.
• Oberlin College uses Pinterest to tell the school’s story through the voices of its current and former students. Using other perspectives on the school can give a more personalized experience for prospective students than the “official” website.

Is your school using Pinterest? Tell us about your strategies, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

As part of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, colleges that participate in Title IV federal student aid programs have been required to post a net price calculator on their websites. The tool is meant to give prospective students a clear understanding of how much a college education costs, and how financial aid helps.

Now other organizations are providing their own tools to help give students the most accurate picture of the price tag that hangs on an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. Among them, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

As part of its “Know Before You Owe” program, the CFPB has launched an early version of its financial aid tool to compare up to three schools at a time and the prices of the various programs offered.

For each school, the tool lists:

• The overall sticker price
• The cost after average grant and scholarship money is subtracted
• Impact of potential GI Bill assistance for students who have served in the military
• How much students can expect to pay in loans each month over a 10-year period, and
• The price of the students’ chosen colleges in comparison to other public and private four-year schools in the United States.

What other tools can prospective students use to get a picture of college costs? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

Click here to read the free whitepaper!  

Click here to read the free whitepaper!  

Ever considered moving abroad? You might after looking at who’s earning the biggest paychecks.  Looking at 28 countries, this analysis from Inside Higher Ed includes monthly average salaries along with entry and top pay.

Here are the top 10 countries when it comes to monthly faculty paychecks:

1. Canada: $7,196
2. Italy: $6,955
3. South Africa: $6,531
4. India: $6,070
5. U.S.: $6,054
6. Saudi Arabia: $6,002
7. United Kingdom: $5,943
8. Australia: $5,713
9. Netherlands: $5,313
10. Germany: $5,141

And here are the bottom 10:

1. Armenia: $538
2. Russia: $617
3. China: $720
4. Ethiopia: $1,207
5. Kazakhstan: $1,553
6. Latvia: $1,785
7. Mexico: $1,941
8. Czech Republic: $2,495
9. Turkey: $2,597
10. Colombia: $2,702

Are these lists what you would’ve expected? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section  below.

Think: White male, married, 61-years-old with a doctorate, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The study was conducted by the American Council on Education, and it basically shows nothing has changed in the past 25 years except that college presidents have gotten older.

Hispanics are fewer in number on the presidential career path, with a total representation of less than 4% — showing the biggest drop among minority presidents in the past six years.

On the whole, racial and ethnic minorities represent 13% of college presidents, a decrease of 1% since 2006.

This is the first time in a quarter of a century that there’s been a drop in minority representation among college presidents.

Are you surprised? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

In 1996, California voters amended the state’s constitution by passing a measure that prohibits public schools from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

A group of high school and college students, joined by a nonprofit organization that promotes affirmative action, sued the state’s governor and the president of the state’s university system to challenge the ban. They said it violates the Equal Protection Clause and unfairly excludes African-American, Latino and Native American students.

Not so, said a federal appeals court. An earlier (1997) ruling by a different panel of the same court rejected the same claims that these plaintiffs raised, and this panel did not have the authority to decide the issue differently.

Cite: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown.

Evaluations of faculty aren’t anything new, but they are becoming increasingly common – many schools now require both mid- and end-of-term student evals, and websites like www.ratemyprofessor.com are popular.

But Boston University biomedical engineering professor Muhammad Zaman takes it one step further: he hands out a one-page form asking students to rate him and the course.

Students are also asked to answer four questions:

• “How can the professor improve your learning of the material?
• “Has he improved his teaching since the last evaluation? In particular, has he incorporated your suggestions?”
• “How can the material be altered to improve your understanding of the material?” and
• “Anything else you would like to convey to the professor?”

Dr. Zaman then graphs the results the day he collects them, emails the class telling the students about any fine-tuning he’s planning based on the responses, and discusses the feedback with them the following class period.

The data suggests it’s a winning strategy: When he started, he was averaging a three out of five. By the end of the semester, he was up to 4’s and 5’s.

How does your school use faculty evaluations? Tell us in the comments section, and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.

When Margo Roman tried to attend a lecture on the campus of Tufts College, she was turned away.

The lecture was about the dangers of feeding pets a raw diet. Roman, a veterinarian, believes raw diets for pets are a good thing.

But that’s not why she was shut out, according to the school. It said she was banned because she did not pay a bill she received after the school provided veterinary care to her horse.

Roman sued the college, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. But she lost.

The school’s restriction was reasonable and content neutral, the court explained. The college did not break any law when it told Roman she could not receive any campus-related services until she paid her bill.

Cite: Roman v. Trustees of Tufts College.