Page 8 - CROSSROADS - March, 1972
Of Courts
And
Colleges
YOU MAY BE LEGALLY
LIABLE
1. If you dismiss an instructor
without adhering to due process
procedures.
2. If you dismiss a student for
disciplinary reasons without
adhering to due process
procedures.
3. If you refuse to admit a
student to graduate school
because he did not make a
certain score on a national
examination.
4. If you require scores from a
national examination as a
determinant for an instructor’s-
teacher’s salary.
5. If a student is injured while
riding in your personal
automobile.
6. If you do not enforce the
regulations of your school-
college.
7. If you dismiss classes for
unjustifiable reasons.
8. If a student is injured in your
chemistry shop, physical
education, or driver education
class, e.g., due to improper
supervision.
9. If you, as advisor or chief
administrator, allow your
student editor to print libelous
statements in the school
newspaper.
10. If you, as teacher or
professor, make inconsistent use
of the “I”, “W,” “WP,” and - or
“WF” grades.
11. If you post, as public in
formation, any grade (test or
final) of any student.
12. If a member of your
athletic team sustains a
significant injury due to your
negligence, lack of supervision,
or improper instruction.
(THE SCHOOL LAW
NEWSLETTER, Vol. 2, No. 4,
January, 1972)
TREND IN
EDUCATION
HIGHER
Indiana University’s College of
Arts and Sciences announced it
has begun, on a two-year ex
perimental basis, an option for
students to apply for “academic
bankruptcy.” A student in the
college who for personal or
financial reasons has had a
disastrous semester may
petition the dean for bankruptcy.
If the petition is granted, the
semester’s work is eliminated in
terms of grades and credit
hours. The record of the
semester will stand on the of
ficial transcript, but none of the
courses will count toward
graduation credit and the grades
will not be computed in the
scholastic average.
“There are many legitimate
difficulties, personal and -or
financial, which can adversely
affect a semester’s per
formance,” said George W.
Wilson, dean of the college. “If
is unreasonable for the college
not to acknowledge these dif
ficulties and to continue to
penalize a student for the
remainder of his undergraduate
education.”
(HIGHER EDUCATION AND
NATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol. 21,
No. 5, February 4, 1972.)
FORD, FERTILITY AND THE
WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION
Control of human fertility is
increasingly recognized as an
international problem, requiring
the concerted efforts of teams of
scientists from both rich and
poor nations. Such a worldwide
effort is currently being mounted
by the World Health
Organization (WHO), with the
assistance of a new grant of
$900,000 from the Ford Foun
dation, contributions from In
ternational assistance agencies
in Norway, Canada, and Den
mark, and major support by the
Swedish International
Development Authority. The
program, which will consist of
research in human reproduction
and the development and testing
of contraceptives, will be con
ducted under an advisory group
of leading scientists from
Europe, the United States, and
the developing world.
The WHO effort, planned with
the assistance of an earlier
Foundation grant, has five
major components:
-Research and training cen
ters. Four or five of the world’s
most important reproductive
research institutions will be
designated as WHO centers and
given funds to expand their
research and training. The first
named is the Karolinska In
stitute in Stockholm. Three
others, in Latin America, the
U.S.S.R., and India are under
consideration.
-More than thirty
collaborating clinical centers
throughout the world, organized
into a network for rapid
evaluation of fertility-inhibiting
agents.
-Task forces for collaborative
research and development^ to
identify priority research and
promising methods of con
trolling fertility. Task forces
studying prostaglandins and
male contraceptives have
already been established.
Through the clinical centers
and the task forces the program
will emphasize projects likely to
lead to the development of
contraceptive products.
An International Documen
tation Center, at the Karolinska
Institute, to compile and
distribute published material
relating to human reproduction,
including papers produced by
the research and training and
clinical centers.
-Expansion of other WHO
activities, including research
grants, workshops in
reproductive biology, and the
distribution of spare parts for
scientific equipment in
laboratories in the developing
world.
Project Director:
Dr. Alexander Kessler, Chief of Human
Reproduction Unit, World Health
Organization, 1211 Geneva 27, Swit
zerland.
(Ford Foundation Letter, Vol. 3,
No. 1, January 15, 1972.)
3-Track
System
Thomas More College faculty
members have voted to im
plement a new academic
program that allows freshmen
to set their own educational
objectives, with assistance from
advisors, and from special
classes. A cluster system will
also be instituted by which
students may elect to take
courses of their own choosing
surrounding a particular theme.
While Thomas More expects to
begin its new academic program
in September, North Carolina
Weslyan College was expected to
begin its three-track system this
month. A student may earn a
traditional degree; he may, in
Track II, pursue a traditional
degree with a wider variety
of non-traditional studies; he
may in Track III, completely
design his own program of
studies under the supervision
and with the approval of faculty
associates. Both colleges un
dertook the new programs after
two-year studies of alternatives.
(REGIONAL SPOTLIGHT, Vol.
5, No. 5, January 1972.)
Credit-No Credit
System
’The students entering Florida
International University this
September, when the institution
first opens its doors, won’t have
to worry about grades. A credit-
no credit system with one level of
recognition above credit—
honors-will be used. The goals
and objectives of a course will be
described in performance terms,
and the students’ efforts gauged
by those.
(REGIONAL SPOTLIGHT,
Vol. 5, No. 5, January 1972.)
$90,000 TO RAISE TWO
CHILDREN
A staff study prepared for the
Commission on Population
Growth and the American
Future states that it cpsts an
American family about $90,000 to
raise two children and put them
through college.{OjiTibe r ^tudy,
prepared by staff, pcopomista,
said the figure is based on
current dollar values and
represents both the direct costs,
or actual monetary outlays of
raising and educating two
children, plus the “opportunity”
costs in lost earning power to the
mother were she to work in
stead at a full-time job outside
the home. The study made no
attempt to measure the non
monetary costs and pleasures
associated with having children.
Total costs of raising a first
child were estimated to run
about $60,000-$20,000 in direct
expenses and $40,000 in op
portunity costs. The combined
cost for each subsequent child
was pegged at $29,000.
The study said the differences
in direct costs are primarily due
to the income level of the family.
Parents with high incomes are
able to spend more on their
children than parents with low
incomes. Estimated direct costs
from birth to college graduation
ranged from $13,782 for a low-
income family to $20,354 for a
child of a moderate income
family. Regional differences in
costs were not found to be
significant nor was there much
difference in the cost of raising a
child on a farm or in the city.
Education emerged as the key
variable in opportunity costs, the
study said. Assuming a woman
would work full time in the ab
sence of children, the economists
said, the opportunity costs
associated with a first child for
a highly educated woman are
over three times the direct costs.
For all educational levels the
mother’s opportunity cost was
found to be larger than the direct
costs for a first child , while the
reverse was said to be true for
additional children. Opportunity
costs decline with additional
children since the mother is
already at home and another
child would only delay her re
entry into the labor force, if such
are her plans, by a couple of
years, the study said.
The Commission, headed by
John D. Rockefeller 3rd, was
established by Congress in
response to a proposal by
President Nixon to assess the
impact of population change
upon government services, the
economy, the environment and
natural resources and to make
recommendations later this
year.
(HIGHER EDUCATION AND
NATIONAL AFFAIRS, Voi. 21,
No. I, January 7, 1972).