This cannot stand!

I have now been accused by two people (one verbally, one written) of following the Olympics by posting this. I'd like to clear up some misconceptions, since linking to an article with a funny headline apparently is equal to reading about the Olympics to people.

I read the Drudge Report numerous times a day. Why? If you have to ask, you've never checked it out. It's a great site for news links, from big stories to silly and weird stories to opinion pieces.

Yesterday I went to Drudge and he put up a link to the Phelps story where he just copied the headline to his site. Here it is again:

Rise of the human dolphin

There was a picture of Phelps above it. The headline immediately made me think of the South Park episode, to which I linked a snippet. I didn't even read the article, because I DON'T CARE.

So, let's go back over this, since being a math major in college clear doesn't confer upon people reason and logic:

I saw a headline, then linked to the story to show that I was not making it up. I then wrote that the headline reminded me of a South Park episode.

How again does that mean that I am following the Olympics?

Title IX is coming to college science departments

Read this to learn more. If you like what this application of Title IX did to athletic departments, you'll love this.

On the other hand, if you majored in one of the hard sciences or are concerned about watering them down, be very scared.

Loyola's ranking in the newest from US News and World Report

#112. Not too bad, as they edged out such august institutions as Kentucky, Arkansas, and Samford.

Too much money for college

I am fascinated by the way our post-secondary education system works, and have been ever since I read Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education in college (for fun, of course, not for a class assignment). Adam Creighton has a column on The American Spectator's website making a very convincing case that too many people go to college and government funds too much of it.

One point he hits is that far too many people go there not as serious students, but to waste time before moving on to the labor force. Liberal arts majors, avert your eyes:

BUT DOES THE OLD public benefit argument apply equally to college education? In my experience, university students fall into two broad camps, the studious and the typical. The former go to increase their own earning potential and study diligently, often in vocational fields like law, medicine, engineering, or accounting. They don't need any subsidy. The latter go to enjoy themselves and delay finding a job, often stumbling through alcohol-fueled semesters in search of the next party or conquest, and reading the occasional book on the side.

Maybe the studious deserve a subsidy for their determined efforts and higher future tax payments. But frankly, where is the public benefit of middle and upper-class children writing their desultory, unoriginal thoughts down twice a term, and drinking themselves silly for four years (and let's not kid ourselves about the demographic whose children make up the bulk of typical college enrollments)? The only public dividend these students provide flows directly from alcohol and nightclub companies to private stockholders. Yet public money is poured into the education and maintenance of both...

ACADEMIC TRADITIONALISTS might take issue with my apparent disdain for non-vocational fields, such as classics, history and philosophy. But far from heralding their demise, a withdrawal of public subsidies would reduce enrollment in these fields, leaving only the keen and bright. Academic standards would recover, and their pejorative, public dismissal as "soft-options" would fade.

That final point is exactly right, I think. There's all kinds of good stuff in this column, so if this interests you I recommend it heartily.