Over There, I posted about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s college career, and whether or not it should be considered in his run for the presidency:

There are a lot of professional positions that do not require a college degree. Ultimately, most don’t, because if they did, they would go unfilled. There is also an argument to be made that a lot of jobs that do require college degrees probably shouldn’t, though no doubt Okeem would disagree with that.

To be sure, there are jobs where college degrees matter a great deal. If I’m going under a scalpel, I probably want the scalpel-wielder to have either an MD or a DO or its equivalent. Engineers should demonstrate formal training in engineering. With rare except, teachers and professors should have their appropriate degrees. There is nothing elitist or snobbish about saying so.

It is perhaps ironic that executive positions are not always among that. He mentions, but dismisses the Bill Gates example. But after becoming an entrepreneur, Bill Gates did represent a gargantuan enterprise. Nobody thought that Microsoft’s Board ought to have replaced him so that their company could be represented by someone with a degree. And if Bill Gates were to want to get back into the business world, he would be (and should be) judged entirely on what he accomplished in business. As far as hiring goes, the importance of a college degree is that it gives employers a greater degree of confidence that you can achieve. If you have already achieved, then it’s beside the point.

I’m honestly a little bit (but only a little bit) surprised by the number of people who really stick to “it matters” and believe that a college degree confers something in accord with experience.

I think it can matter as a brick in the wall of a larger argument, that he is intellectually dim, lacks knowledge really important to the presidency, or doesn’t follow through. To date, I don’t find any such arguments convincing. In large part because of what he has accomplished since college. That’s not an endorsement. You can look at what he’s accomplished and say “There is no way I am ever voting for the guy!” but he’s not a mayor of Wasilla and a governor who has barely gotten their feet wet. There’s a record to look at that, in my view, has to be far more illuminating than the decisions he made twenty years ago with regard to his college education.

There also seem to be people who really believe that Obama’s life and experience equipped him to be president more than Walker, including the part about Obama’s BA and JD but also because the Senate is a better launching pad to the presidency. We’ve had a strong bias towards governors for quite some time, and I think it’s quite possible that the pendulum has swung. I think the argument is actually quite solid that we’ve put too much stock in governorships. But I think four years as governor of a mid-size state is always going to trump two years as a senator, and there is little else in their background to strongly distinguish between the two.

Though this is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I do think we overloop cabinet appointees too often, particularly Secretaries of State and Defense, and maybe Attorney General. I’d add Treasury, but it would probably do a disservice to the position for it to be considered a launching pad to the presidency.

Anyway, lots of comments over there. Feel free to leave your thoughts here.

While law school grads are suffering, MBA values are expected to rise.

American exceptionalism at work! We are exceptional at creating fear and acting on said fear. And we can’t even blame the lawyers! They’re certainly not responsible for hospitals refusing to name New Years babies for fear of kidnapping.

Dave Schuler argues that we have no existential threats to the US… except ourselves.

The egalitarian in me agrees with this Kriston Capps article: Airline pre-check status is bull&@#$.

Kansas is the best state.

Noah Charney has cracked the sitcom code. Is this the medium perfected, or the reason why sitcoms have become stale and unpopular?

While they are cited as a reason for the reduced smoking rates, further cigarette taxes hikes are unlikely to lead to much improvement.

Vaclav Klaus, the Czech leader who is a hero to some libertarians, has gone rogue.

The strong stance by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC backfired. The increased risk was actually minimal, and the resulting behavior of people trying to avoid it was to engage in even riskier behavior.

When I created my abortion map a year or two ago, I was really surprised by Delaware’s astronomic abortion rate. It turns out, it’s the product of a really high number of unexpected pregnancies.

Nafeez Ahmed argues that solar power will destroy fossil fuels by 2030. Though I hope I’d lose, I would take the other side of that bet.

Waze is starting to piss off residents by directing drivers through residential zones. The great part (for drivers, not residents)… Waze can’t be gamed to prevent it.

What will falling oil prices mean for the Great State of Texas? According to Erica Grieder, less than one might think.

Bad news! Teddy Roosevelt never rode that moose. Also, that picture you may have seen of yesteryear’s economy (airplane) cabin is totally fake. Relatedly, if you’ve seen that image showing the alleged browning of earth from 1978 to 2012, very misleading.

There’s still one of these coin-operated kiddie rides at the local supermarket. I never got to ride on them when I was younger. I hope they stick around long enough for Lain to be able to ride one.

New links:

A new directive in Sweden is that police guarding synagogues need automatic weapons.

VoA looks at weapons in the animal kingdom and what they tell us about human weapons.

Big tobacco and “health experts” agree: Those ecigarette things are dangerous.

I was looking up whether we’re supposed to call the organization running rampant in Iraq by the name IS(IL/IS) or DAESH. The latter is a derogatory term from the region, and France and Australia have chosen to use it over IS/ISIL/ISIS on the basis that DAESH doesn’t get to “represent Islam.” I prefer Daesh for a couple of reasons. First, because it gives us a demonym (Daeshians). But mostly because they hate it and that works for me.

Anyway, this Guardian article reminded me of what I like about British English. I am not a fan of the superfluous ‘u’s, but there are a couple of things I really do like. For example, they drop the period on initials like Mr and Sr. You’ll notice that I tend to do the same, because I think periods should generally go at the end of a sentence. So I’ve adopted that, when I can. I also think some of their uses of “s” over “z” are better, and they don’t eliminate the “e” on judgment, which would be preferable (though not so much that I bother flouting our convention. Also, we switch “re” to “er” when their spelling is cooler (spectre is cooler than specter, and theatre to theater). Also, we eliminate duplicate “l” when we shouldn’t, like traveler vs traveller, or cancel vs cancelled.

Pertaining to the opening paragraph of this post, if an acronym is pronounced, they don’t use all-caps like we do. So the FBI is the FBI, but NASA is Nasa. I think this is better. Not the least of which because of the demonym thing for Daesh (Daeshians works better for me than DAESHians), but mostly it provides a cue as to whether it’s supposed to be pronounced or spelled out. The downside is that you don’t necessarily know when something is an acronym. But how much does etymology matter? And it’s something that can be clarified. I will honor our convention when it comes to Nasa, but not Daesh.

So what universities should call themselves is something I have strong opinions about. So when a conversation broke out on the subject last week, I knew that I would have to write a very long post on the subject. Now, I fear that universities will not actually take my advice here. Often, there’s a fair amount of history behind the name. In some cases, though (like UNLV and UN-Omaha) one proposed name or another (Nevada State or University of Omaha) has historical ties.

Franchise universities (University of State at City or SSU-City)

I’m not a big fan of the concept of franchising universities. University systems are fine, but the constant refrain of University of State at City gets to be pretty obnoxious when the only thing that the Universities of State often have in common is the name and a chancellor. Other than that, different location, different professors, different admission standards, and different reputations. I know that faculty at the franchise schools often like the association, but the benefits seem largely illusory to me. I’m not sure anybody confuses Colorado State University at Pueblo with the real Colorado State. The cost of which is that the sidekick school lacks identity. The University of Southern Colorado may be a regional state school, but it’s at least a school and not an appendage. For the flagship university, it dilutes the brand. Once the University of Texas becomes the University of Texas at Austin it is no longer the University of Texas. It is the best of many, but only one of many.

It gets even worse in states that have no flagship University of or even University of of note.. Seriously, Alaska? You have like three universities and all of them have to be University of Alaska? Alaska State University is available! University of Anchorage would be an improvement! I understand why Louisiana has more than one University of Louisiana with neither being a flagship, but that represents petty politics and a failure of the imagination more than anything. Other states of interest are Nevada and Nebraska.

There are exceptions to this, one of which was hit on in the post: California. The University of California system is what it is, and a school would be nuts to not want to be associated with that (assisted in great part by the willingness of UCLA to be a franchise school, albeit a premier one). The other exception is if you have a strong academic institution without much desire to be its own brand. Having a University of Texas at Dallas doesn’t particularly interfere with UT or UTD, because the latter can really succeed as an academically impressive satellite school and the former isn’t particularly diminished by having a satellite school of UTD’s caliber. The shorthand for this is that if a school doesn’t want its own mascot and its own sports teams, then maybe it doesn’t actually need its own name. Or put another way, being a franchise school is something you should grow out of – if you choose to – rather than something you grow into.

Bidirectionalism (DirectionDirection(ern) State University)

If there’s one thing that’s worse than the sidekickdom of being a franchise school, it’s being a bidirectional school. Then you don’t even have a name suggesting that you may represent up to half of the state, you’ve got a corner of it. The names are also invariably long and clunky.

And there are almost always better names available. Such things are subjective, of course, but if I’m wanting to tell people where I graduated from, all other things being equal I’d prefer a vast number of alternatives to University of State at City, and especially DirectionDirectionern State University.

Modifiers (State Modifier University)

Modifiers run the gamut from good to bad, though I generally place them above franchise and bidirectional, and often but not always below directional or city-based names. I list it first because it contains some of the best alternatives, even if they’re often not available, and some of the worst alternatives, which themselves need alternatives.

Ever since Pennsylvania had to figure out what to call it’s public university (with University of Pennsylvania being taken and all), State has become the default modifier. Mostly used for land grant schools (Oregon, Montana, North Carolina), sometimes used for HBCUs (South Carolina, Delaware, Alabama), and occasionally a regional university gets promoted to the name (ID, TX, MO). It’s a staple of university namage, which means that few are available (the exceptions being states with nigh-universal franchising). State is available for one of the Alaska schools. Also for UNLV, which could have changed its name from Nevada Southern to Nevada State without so much as changing its NSU initials. It’s a bit more complicated now, though, that there is a Nevada State College. And lastly, Nebraska State University is a more impressive sounding name to me than the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

It might have been preferable had more of the land grants either stayed A&M’s (like Texas A&M did) or gone with Tech, as they did in Virginia, leaving State open for other schools. Given the mission of land grants, it would make sense. Tech has also been used for mining schools (Montana, New Mexico), and some general purpose technical schools (Arkansas, Louisiana) or former technical schools (Texas). Some land grants, of course, still use the A&M name for their land grants (or, more commonly, their HBCU land grants). For those that have university missions that correspond with A&M or Tech, but need another name, the school known as University of Missouri-Rolla became Missouri S&T (Missouri University of Science and Technology), which is a good one.

As an exception to the California exception, though, I think UC-Davis – the state’s designated “ag school” could benefit from being called California A&M. That school is impressive enough that it could carry its own brand.

Nobody has done more modifier names than Florida. This is due in part to Florida being the largest state without any franchising whatsoever. It’s also a state with an unusually low number of (very large) universities. It has stretched the ability to use modifiers, thus leading to names like Florida International University and Florida Atlantic University, both of which we should consider alternatives for because their names make them sound like for-profit strip-mall schools. Okay, that’s going a little far, but for major schools – as those two seek to be and both of which have over 25,000 students – they should aim for something different.

So let’s explore the alternatives!

Directionalism (University of Direction(ern) State)

The bigger a state, the more appropriate directions in school names are. The existence of a Southern Connecticut State is kind of weird to me, and is not much more notable to me than West Rock University would be. On the other hand, Southern California! South Florida! North Texas! Northern Illinois! All of those make sense to me as representing a significant chunk of land, people, or both. This is particularly true in states that have natural divisions, which the larger states tend to.

The word “bigger” here is more direction at geographical size than population, though is some degree a reference to both. It was good of Idaho (geographically large, but not population large) to avoid regional markers even though the state does split into directions pretty cleanly. With few enough universities, though, you don’t need to go that route. Montana has a larger number of schools, and some of them servicing areas with little population, so throwing in Western and Northern is less of an issue and preferable to the franchising they ultimately did.

I tend to prefer hard directions over positional directions. South Florida being better than Southern Florida. Except in cases like California, where SoCal is referred to Southern California as a region and not just as a university. (The same can be said for Middle Tennessee, which I will mention shortly.)

Directionalism can often work for the bidirectional schools. It’s easier for Louisiana than it is for Missouri. Northwestern is mostly Western, Southeastern is mostly eastern, Northeastern is mostly Northern, and Southwestern is mostly Southern. And since Southwestern and Northeastern are UL-Lafayette and UL-Monroe, you could just go with South(ern) and North(ern) if you were so inclined (Louisiana Tech might object to Northern, though, as they consider themselves the college of NorLa, but it would allow Northwestern State U to at least keep their logo and LaTech might not be as threatened by Northwestern State as they sometimes act with regards to ULM. Two of Missouri’s four bidirectionals have also taken on new names (Missouri State and Truman State), so theoretically you have some versatility unifying the directions on those. Or you can use city designations. Oklahoma has multiple bidirectionals, most of which could be tacked with a unidirectional name (Southeast to South, Northeast to East, Panhandle State to West or something incorporating the Panhandle but not the State)

In the case of the Florida schools, there is one unused direction, so a consideration for Florida Atlantic would be East Florida University or the University of East Florida.

Exceptions, we have some. The University of Central Florida, for example, would probably do well to move down the list to a city designation (University of Orlando). Notably, UCF is one of those schools that asks to be referred to by its initials instead of its full name. That’s a sign of changing to something else is in order. Middle Tennessee State has allegedly been trying to change its name to the University of Middle Tennessee for years, without much success. University of Direction State is almost always better than Direction State State University, even if its a non-direction like middle. But it would be better if there were either a good modifier or a city designation for it to use. Unfortunately, it’s in a town called Murfreesboro, and that won’t do. The only possibility is to skip to the People Names section.

On the other hand, the non-directional name would still be an improvement for bidirectional states. Northwestern State in Louisiana, for example, is technically in Central Louisiana and UCL would be an improvement (albeit one that might jinx them for sports injuries).

City Designation (University of City, City/County University, City/County State University)

The larger the urban area, the better University of City works. If the city itself is less remarkable, City University also works. Sometimes that’s not available, though, City State University is a possibility (though not always the best one). (Where applicable, you can insert County instead of city.) No matter what you’re looking at, though, the more noteworthy the city, the more you want to identify with it. University of City is the tightest identification, followed by City University, followed by City State University. So if it’s Charlotte, you go with University of Charlotte. If it’s Greensboro, you go with Greensboro University. The only reason you would go with City State is if the lack of state is already taken (like San Diego) or if you’re bound and determined to try to keep some sort of association with State State University (see exception below).

Relatedly, I’m rather dumbfounded that Boise State University is still named Boise State University. Even if I’m glad they aren’t the University of Idaho at Boise.

University of City designations would work for Central Florida (U of Orlando), UNC-Charlotte (U of Charlotte). On the other hand, if you want to go with Boca Raton for FAU, Boca Raton University is probably better than the reverse, and Greensboro University is probably better than the University of Greensboro. For the same reason that Auburn University is better than the University of Auburn would be (though Alabama Tech would have been better than both). Miami State University is the solution to the FIU problem, in my opinion. The University of Miami is taken, as is Miami University. But Miami State University is available.

For the Missouri bidirectionals, Cape Girardeau University has a nice liberal arts university sound to it, though Maryville University is taken (by a university in Saint Louis, interestingly enough).

In the case of Nebraska-Omaha, I should point out that the university was originally called the Municipal University of Omaha, University of Omaha is the original name minus the word Municipal).

Exceptions, we have some. Fresno State may benefit from an association with San Diego State more than it would be helped by being Fresno University or the University of Fresno. Just as California is an exception for University of franchising, Going uniformly with City State University might be advantageous in that particular case. That would be Sacramento State University, though, and not CSU-Sacramento. (Likewise, Texas schools in the Texas A&M system might benefit from being Corpus Christi A&M instead of the University of Corpus Christi… maybe.) There is also a general exception if the city name doesn’t work. Murfreesboro is an example. Hattiesburg is probably another one.

People Names

Northeastern Missouri State changed its name to Truman State, and that was definitely an upgrade. James Madison University is a better name than any I can think of that’s left in the state of Virginia. Ditto George Mason. If you have a good president’s name to use, that might be something to consider. Tennessee has former presidents of significance in the form of Andrew Jackson and James Polk, so those would be possibilities. Both would be controversial, though, and neither are probably as good as even the mediocre Middle Tennessee name (if they could get the University of Middle Tennessee name, at any rate). It wouldn’t have to be presidential, so theoretically a school in Mississippi could use MLK if they were so inclined.

Other

It is my considered opinion that the University of Southwestern Louisiana should have given up its dream of being the University of Louisiana a long time ago, and accepted the University of Acadiana as its name. Acadiana is the name of the region that it’s in (in Trumanverse, it’s the name of an entire state). I can’t think of any other example, though.

God help me, I liked Michael Bolton when I was younger. It didn’t last long, but… yeah. Anyway, my respect for Bolton increased greatly with his participation in this song:

Freddie deBoer argues that “pedantic ridicule never convinced anybody of anything.” Ethan Gach made a good counterpoint that the “tactic is actually extremely effective against those who do share cultural affinities and social ambitions.” I’d bridge this gap by saying that the latter group will, at least, pretend to be convinced and argue it going forward. Which may amount to the same thing.

Uncle Steve argues that Hollywood may be less liberal and egalitarian than it thinks.

Strangely enough, as building commences, rent in DC has fallen more than most other major cities.

Purple City has a post about edge cities, looking at Chicago and Houston (which, by the way, is very large). An eye-opening tidbit in the second part, the reverse commute in Houston (people starting in town and driving to the suburbs for work) is worse than the traditional commute inside the city’s loop.

Rose Eveleth argues that free access to science research has its problems. BioMickWatson disagrees.

How the US oil industry is poised to come out a winner in collapsing oil prices, while Russia looks the loser. That might not be the easiest sell to North Dakotans if they get laid off.

A lot of elite investment firms and the like wouldn’t hire a Super Bowl hero.

The UK has given the go-ahead to DNA-spliced three-parent children.

In graphical form… how vaccines prevent measles outbreaks. It shows transmission rates at various vaccination rates. Pretty cool.

North Dakota has been invaded by monster-sized jackrabbits. I’d say that the University of North Dakota (formerly the Fighting Sioux) has their new mascot, but it’s already taken by South Dakota State.

H1B visas are supposed to go to jobs that can’t be filled by Americans, but some employees of Southern California Edison are irate because they’re having to train their H1B replacements.

This is one bad-arse archer.

Haruki Murakami has an advice column, and now there are English translations.

A doctor in Massachusetts is no longer accepting patients that are obese. Or any patients over 200 pounds, apparently.

I have no comparable item by someone else to link to. So… Megan McArdle gave the following Valentine’s Day advice to women who were waiting for their boyfriend’s to propose:

So here’s my message to those ladies: It’s time to let go. I know, I know — it feels catastrophic to think about ending a relationship that you’ve already invested several years in, when what you want most in the world is for that relationship to continue until one of you gets carried out feet first. But take it from me, it will feel even more catastrophic after you’ve invested several more years. If you’re in your 30s, both of you already pretty much know who you are. And after a couple of years, you also know whether this is someone you want to spend your life with. You’re not going to get any new information by sticking around — except “My God, I wasted five years on this man.”

As you may guess from the prior paragraph, I speak from personal experience. I invested almost four years in an almost-great relationship that ended with me, shattered and tear-stained, deciding to pick up and move to Washington. You can hear all about it in this NPR segment from a few months back, which they re-aired this morning. Or you can read about it in my book, where I delve into even more of the gory details and deftly weave it together with the sad saga of GM’s decline, which happened for much the same reasons that my failed relationship did.

“Seriously?” you’re asking. “Love is like … automobile manufacturing?” Well, no. But companies are composed of people. And people tend to make the same sort of mistakes over and over. This particular mistake is so common that economists have a name for it: the sunk cost fallacy.

I have myself been on the other side of that equation. Well, sort of. Most of my college years were spent dating Julia. The end result of over four years of dating was… heartbreak. The break up came tangentially over the question of marriage. It wasn’t quite of the cloth that McArdle refers to, but it dealt with similar issues of undercommitment and overcommitment. We’d been dating for over four years and it was time to enter the next phase. This was not the result of pressure on her part, but I did feel it was imminent. Dutifully, I started making plans to propose. And it was in the process of said preparations that I started feeling an grinding sense of dread. Which was odd, because as far as I knew I wasn’t unhappy. Why would I respond this way? It turned out that the answer was that even though I was happy, I was no longer emotionally committed. She, on the other hand, very much was. That much was evident.

I didn’t quite get to pick when to pull the pin on the grenade. Julia had made a comment that all but demanded words of commitment that I simply couldn’t deliver. In retrospect, that she said what she said at all was demonstrative that she knew there was something wrong. An inadvertent admission of insecurity, which I could do nothing but verify the validity of. It didn’t end right then and there. She begged, pleaded, and sent our mutual friend Tony to try to talk me out of the insanity. Instead, Tony went back to her and reported that whether discussions were ongoing or not, the relationship was over. That was what she needed to accept it, and gave up.

It turned out to be a happier ending for her than for myself. I involved myself with someone who was everything that Julia wasn’t and in all of the wrong ways. Julia, on the other hand, was embarked on a relationship with Tony within a month.

Her relationship with Tony also lasted four years and it followed the map that McArdle lays out a little more closely. Whereas between Julia and myself, it was not realistic to expect me to propose after a couple of years (we were 20!), it was around that time when she started waiting for the wedding ring. They were cohabitating by that point, and shared a dog. Tony was long getting over a divorce from his first wife and was disillusioned about the institution of marriage. Julia had nothing to do with that failed marriage, though, and in her mind was being penalized for it. Julia started pushing, he started pushing back. And everything fell apart when it became clear that he wasn’t going to marry her and she wasn’t going to be happy with that. he was ultimately the one who left, but only because he was the one who could see with clear eyes that the problems couldn’t be reconciled.

There are more stories I could tell, mostly following the same trajectory. My brother, my best friend from childhood. Years invested, and lost in that investment. Typically, he ends it either by walking away or doing something which all but forces her to do the same. Though I know the opposite is possible and am sure it does happen, the gender roles are actually pretty constant. To avoid reducing it to “him” and “her” I’ll go with OCP and UCP for overcommitted partner and undercommitted partner.

Sometimes, it’s precisely the Moment of Truth – the contemplation of marriation – wherein the distinction between levels of commitment start becoming more apparent. The UCP will often come up with excuses (to their partner, to themselves) for their hesitance. For my brother and I, it was about saving the money for a wedding ring. For Tony, it was about “the institution of marriage” (he was remarried – to his ex-wife, no less – within six months of his split with Julia). But as you contemplate it, and as the pressure increases, it can really grind away at you. In the comfort of a stable relationship, it can be easy to put it aside indefinitely until confronted with The Question (needing to ask it).

But once the asymmetrical commitment becomes apparent, if it’s not resolved quickly, I’m not sure I have ever seen it resolved in a happy manner. Or maybe I have, but only when it’s a very specific issue that needs to be confronted (such as whether to have children, or where to live) and the OCP bites the bullet. But it’s rare, and it’s fraught with peril. But the more that has been invested, the more difficult it can be to walk away. To admit failure. To absorb the sunk costs.

Which brings me to this next video:

In one sense, the video may come across as being on the opposite side as McArdle, if it’s tackling the same subject matter at all. The video advocates commitment-caution, whereas McArdle is talking about leaving due to insufficient commitment. Where the two tie together, though, is the degree of commitment prior to marriage. Taking on costs that, later, could be sunk. Erecting barriers to exit so that in the event that the relationship is not progressing as quickly as you need it to, you become reluctant to leave. Adding to the costs, both literal and opportunity. Sometimes money, always time.

It is often perceived that premarital cohabitation is a sensible intermediate step in between light courtship and marriage, but the statistics have never really bore that out. At best, controlling for as many factors as possible, it’s pretty much a wash. For every disastrous marriage averted by discovering the problems by living together or having a joint pet or joint bank account, there seems to be another case (or more than a case) of a couple who might have rightfully broken up but don’t because they’ve slid into the lock. Cohabitation seems to work not when it is used as a filter to marriage, but when it is between a couple that has already decided to get married and/or otherwise meet the criteria for a successful marriage (not too young, upbringing, etc.) And that doesn’t really account for cases like Julia and Tony, where perhaps divorce was averted but a significant amount of time was lost.

Every couple is different, of course. As the video points out, however, we can often back into commitments we don’t realize we’re making, or thinking that we’re making prudently because it’s Still Not Marriage. It’s an inconsistent caution.

Apart from the religious aspects, the legal aspects, and the romantic aspects, the crucial role I believe that marriage can play in our lives is forcing a degree of honesty about what our intentions are. Honesty with others, and honesty with ourselves. “Will you marry me?” may sound more romantic than “Are you willing to enter a formal entanglement that will make separation more difficult?” But the question is there whether we consciously dive in with a ring and an answer, or whether we go into the pool one step at a time until we are just about as wet.

Marriage or no marriage, it’s extremely important to recognize what, specifically, you are after in a relationship. If it’s just to have fun and bide your time until later in life when you’re ready to get married, that’s cool. But if it’s marriage you have in mind, or it’s marriage that your partner has in mind, it’s quite important in my view to keep your eye on the ball. To be able to ask yourself, and them, if it’s not happening why it is not happening. In terms of commitment, there’s no substitute for marriage. And in its unwelcome absence, that empty space should be scrutinized.

Are there aliens behind our currency?

Vice writes about how attempts to Uberize and Airbnb New Orleans is running into a cultural wall in New Orleans. Notably, a friend of mine who lives there and is a free marketeer in most respect hates Airbnb.

Mosaic writes about the precarious state of modern Judaism in the United States.

I don’t completely agree with the complaint here. If you want people to stop using your image for commercial purposes, you can do that. But failing to do that, it seems weird to say “We don’t mind people using our image for commercial purposes, as long as it’s not the people hosting our image.” This explanation helps a little, but not much. Still mulling it over.

Oilman or Cowboy? The oil boom is enticing more people to the former, creating a shortage of the latter. Or will the price cut solve the problem?

I’ve mentioned before that Texas is one of the few states even if you account for college cost inflation (Illinois and North Dakota being two others), that spend more on higher education than it did in 1987. Perhaps as a result, Texas A&M just swiped the University of Washington’s president.

Jailbreak! Some women in Brazil escape from prison by fooling guards into thinking that there is a mass orgy in their future.

Carnell Alexander has a warrant out for his arrest for being a deadbeat dad, for a child that isn’t his. Michigan does not have a paternity fraud (or mistaken paternity) law to protect non-fathers. The topic is up for debate in Washington state.

If you want the police to check up on a relative after they’ve had surgery, that might not be a good idea.

If you kill a classmate, taking a selfie with the corpse is a bad idea.

There’s something especially cool about buying a car with 900,000 miles on it.

Michael Booth argues that the Nordic nations are not utopias. They do stand to be the losers of the low oil prices.

Michael Brendan Dougherty takes on the role of mansplainer. {More}

Is political correctness a creativity-booster?

When I grew up, there were three giants of network news: Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. Each had held their job for over twenty years. I took for granted each election that I would turn on the television, and there they would be. When they stepped down (well, Jennings died), it was a pretty big deal about who would replace them. Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams.

Gibson retired in 2009, Couric left in 2011, and it looks like Brian Williams is out (even if it’s technically a suspension). Brian Williams always struck me as the most lightweight of the three, and I don’t understand how he got the job when Stone Phillips was available. But to me, only Gibson had the “it” that I thought the Big Three (and, for that matter, Ted Koppel) had. Diane Sawyer, who replaced Gibson and who is also now gone, also had it.

I haven’t seen Sawyer’s successor, or Couric’s, for that matter. With the proliferation of cable news, I suppose it just doesn’t matter as much as it used to.

I previously likened this to the big annual Disney release. When I was a kid, it was always a big event what movie Disney would do next. Then along came Pixar and and the proliferation of media, and Disney movies came and went and just didn’t matter so much.

And with the proliferation of news outlets, Brian Williams getting suspended for six months is eclipsed by the host of a comedy and new parody show leaving.

I don’t know if this says more about the evolving business of news, our current culture, or that at some point the nakedness of the emperor just became a bit more obvious.

Business Insider has a list of the most underrated colleges in America. It’s essentially a comparison of graduate wages beside USNWR ratings and looking at the outliers. It’s a crude methodology, but illuminating all of the same.

The most obvious thing is the frequent appearance of technical schools. The New Jersey Institute of Technology is #1, Missour S&T is #5, Louisiana Tech is #8, Illinois Institute of Technology is #12, and Michigan Tech is #15 (with privates Clarkston and Stephens also up there). This is unsurprising, given the givens. I’m a little surprised not to see South Dakota School of Mines on the list, given that not long ago their graduates were outearning Harvard’s. Colorado School of Mines is there, though.

Land Grant universities are also represented from Arizona, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Utah, and Idaho. Notably, there are no state flagship universities on the list, excluding those that are also the land grants.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville is #10. UAH comes up when we talk about athletics programs. They’re a notably good one that doesn’t have any football program to speak of. Maybe they wouldn’t be so unrecognized if they fielded a football team.

Some, like UAH, Texas Tech, and Houston are aided by their proximity to economically hot areas, but that doesn’t seem to help the Dakota schools. And Michigan Tech is on the list, so there are limits to that theory.