Cuba shuts down movie theaters

Cuba has ordered the immediate closure of dozens of privately-run cinemas and video-game salons.

The government said they were never authorized, and that it needed to bring “order” to the management of independent businesses, reports the BBC.

“The Communist island recently relaxed restrictions on the private sector. But some Cuban entrepreneurs had used restaurant and other types of business licences to operate backroom movie and entertainment parlours.

“Cinematic exhibition (including 3D rooms) and computer games will cease immediately in whatever kind of private business activity,” read a government announcement in the state-run newspaper Granma. It warned of decisive action against any violations of the law, and defended its decision to instil “discipline” in the private sector, adding that this was not “a step backward”. “Quite the contrary, we will continue to decidedly advance in the updating of our economic model.”

“President Raul Castro, who replaced his brother Fidel in 2008, has relaxed some economic restrictions on the set-up of private businesses in the communist island, where the state still employs 79% of the five million-strong labour force. He opened up retail services to “self employment” in the form of nearly 200 licensed activities such as seamstresses, taxis and small restaurants. But some residents had used these categories to operate cinema and video-game parlours. The closure is a huge blow to those entrepreneurial Cubans who invested heavily, especially in 3D cinemas, importing equipment at considerable cost from abroad, says the BBC correspondent in Havana, Sarah Rainsford. There had been hints this crackdown was coming. Cuban Culture Ministry officials talked of the “banality” and “frivolity” of films on offer, mostly produced in America, and out of line, they complained, with the cultural policy of the revolution. Still, our correspondent adds, the hope was that the booming sector would be regulated, not closed down.”

 

More at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24790569

 

Flipping about flipping

Go ahead and postpone the conversation about the backlash against the flipped classroom model. Supporters and skeptics alike — and even the researchers behind a seemingly critical new report — say the discussion continues to be positive. Or is it?images-1

Flipping the classroom — the practice of giving students access to lectures before they come to class and using class time for more engaging activities — hasn’t been nearly as divisive as many other ed tech trends, such as massive open online courses or outsourcing digital services. So when USA Today last week reported on an experiment at Harvey Mudd College that had failed to improve student outcomes, it provided a rare contrast.

InsideHigherEd says that “Some students “said they felt the flipped classroom had a heavier workload,” and professors “had to spend considerably more time making and editing … videos and crafting engaging, hands-on sessions for their classes.” A comparison between the flipped classrooms and their traditional counterparts found “no demonstrable difference” in student outcomes. The researchers, the newspaper wrote, “have bad news for advocates of the trend: it might not make any difference.”

“The study could have fit into a growing body of research calling the science behind flipping the classroom into question. Days later, however, the researchers behind the study said their results and words had been misinterpreted.

Yes, the article did point out that the results were preliminary — twice in one sentence, even — but the headline (“ ‘Flipped classrooms’ may not have any impact on learning”) and hook drew too many conclusions about a study that is set to continue for another three years, they said. Continue reading “Flipping about flipping”

Broad public misunderstanding of ENDA

Half of Americans support a law banning job discrimination against gays and lesbians, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll found that even more Americans falsely believe it’s already illegal nationally to fire somebody for being gay, reports HuffPost

“The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, will come up for a vote in the Senate on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has announced. The bill currently has the support of every single Senate Democrat and two Republicans.

“According to the new poll, 50 percent of Americans favor a law banning workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians, while 42 percent oppose one.

“Democrats in the poll supported a law like ENDA by a 61 percent to 35 percent margin, while independents were also more likely to favor than oppose one, 47 percent to 41 percent. A majority of Republicans, on the other hand, said they were opposed, by a 51 percent to 41 percent margin.

“The poll also found that few Americans are even aware that federal law doesn’t bar employers from firing people for being gay. Only 13 percent said they believe such discrimination is legal, while 69 percent said they think it’s illegal.

“While 21 states have passed laws protecting gay people from workplace discrimination, there are no federal protections in place. Federal law does bar employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, nationality, religion, age or disability.

“Republicans in the new poll, who were least likely to say that they supported banning job discrimination against gays and lesbians, were also the most likely to say they thought firing someone for being gay is already illegal nationally. Seventy-four percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents said they thought it was already illegal to fire somebody for being gay”.

 

More at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/enda-poll_n_4183384.html

 

Interdisciplinary losers

Everyone, it seems, loves the idea of scholars interdisciplinary work. But does academe reward those — particular young scholars — who actually do it?images

A new study, based on data from all people who earned Ph.D.s in 2010, suggests the opposite, reports InsideHigherEd

“In the year after earning their doctorates, those in the cohort who did interdisciplinary dissertations earned, on average, $1,700 less than those who completed dissertations in a single field. The study was conducted by Kevin M. Kniffin and Andrew S. Hanks, two postdoctoral fellows at Cornell University, and has been released by the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.

“Kniffin and Hanks used data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, and focused on the more than 26,000 people who earned doctorates that year who are U.S. citizens. The income of new Ph.D.s, of course, varies by such factors as discipline, whether postdoctoral employment is within academe or outside it, and whether the first job after the Ph.D. is a postdoctoral fellowship. Kniffin and Hanks came up with their $1,700 gap by controlling for discipline, age, gender and ethnicity. They reasoned that because some disciplines are more likely than others to produce new doctorates who seek employment outside academe, they could address various differences in post-graduation patterns of various new doctorate holders.

“The Survey of Earned Doctorates specifically asks if new Ph.D.s did a multidisciplinary dissertation, so that information was readily available for the study. Continue reading “Interdisciplinary losers”