Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

Why rounding some numbers is simply ludicrous

Earthquakes. The mere mention of one can send a person into shaking tremors. New York City and Washington DC experience a moderate earthquake and one would think Armageddon is upon us. Meanwhile, Sendei, Japan will require a decade or more to recover from their catastrophic 9.0Mg earthquake.

The Richter Scale is not a straight-line scale. The Richter Scale is logarithmic. In other words, a 4Mg earthquake is not twice as strong as a 2Mg earthquake. A 4Mg earthquake releases more than 60x's as much energy as a 2Mg earthquake.

I was watching and reading about coverage of the East Coast earthquake. People ranting about "earthquake preparedness." Newscasters mistakenly "rounding" the 5.9 earthquake to a 6.0. Preparing for an earthquake in DC makes about as much sense to me as having people in Montana prepare for a hurricane.

But, it did get me to wondering; "what is the difference in energy between a 5.9 and a 6.0 earthquake?"

Every 0.2 increase in earthquake magnitude corresponds to a doubling of energy released. Thus, a 5.9 earthquake releases TWICE the energy of a 5.7 earthquake.

Therefore, a magnitude cannot be "rounded up" or "rounded down."

Check out this web site "WolframAlpha" for an earthquake energy calculator.

Technorati Tags: earthquake,virginia,washington dc,usgs,richter scale

Put That Cell Phone AWAY!!

Why using a smartphone, netbook, or laptop in class can get you into real trouble.

A few years ago, I was at in-service training for part-time lecturers at a local community college. Our facilitator was going over the process of syllabus creation, what to include, etc. She said, “you can even go so far as to ban the use of cell phones in class.” One of my cohorts in the room, an elderly woman who looked like she would be right at home in a Catholic boarding school wielding a long and substantial ruler for whacking kids, stated, “I give my class one warning and then I take the phone away.”

At events such as these, I sit up front. Instructors are always telling students, “sit up front if you want to learn and earn a good grade.” I practice what I and most others teach. Funny, though, at academic meetings the back chairs seem to always fill first …

I whirled to address her, as I had something to say about her attitude. “If I could say something. First, set a precedent of decorum and etiquette for the class. Tell them, “You are an adult, now. High school is behind you. If you would like for me to treat you like a child, I will, but I would rather stand in front of a fellow adult. In fact, we are all adults here, and you should be expected to be treated as one. Conduct yourself accordingly.”

"I went on to state, “I have no problems with cell phone use in my classes, as I address my students as adults. I tell them I do not mind them having their cell phones out, as long as they are on silent. Many of my students truly are adults, with children, may be part-time First Responders for emergencies, may have a wife or girlfriend who is pregnant. It is unreasonable to place such onerous restrictions on such an important device. I tell them that if they get a call, to quietly leave and take the call outside. You would have to pry my phone from my cold dead fingers before I would give it up to you.”

Set the tone for use, and that eliminates 99.9% of problems. I did have one student Spring 2011 that sat in the front row and took a call, never getting up from her seat, in the middle of my lecture. I stopped my lecture, “Are you serious?! You’re going to sit right there and talk on the phone smack in the middle my lecture? Seriously, get out!” And, she looked at me like I was the one with the problem. Those types will never understand.

With this new school year opening, I have been reading syllabi dropped around campus by careless students. Many of these syllabi, in fact every single one (except mine), has a “Cell Phone / Smart Phone / Laptop / Netbook / Tablet / Wireless Electronic Device” policy. I think a student could literally use the Two-Cans-and-a-String social network and perhaps be safe.

These policies state: “If you have your {inset device type here} out and are using it during my lecture, I will take it. On the Second Violation, the device will remain confined for 24hrs within {insert academic office here}. On the Third Violation, the device will remain confined for X days within {insert academic office here}.

Wow! Really? I have heard of that in elementary school, but college? Can an instructor legally do that?

The answer is, Yes.

Most universities have policies these days that stipulate an instructor has the right to demand a student turnover electronic devices should said devices be used against stated class or university policies. These policies have been challenged in court (New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 340-341 (1985). Also, read “Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment” by Bernard James. Another very recent example is from Illinois State University, Education Law and Policy Journal, January 2011.

While these cases apply mostly to Secondary Education, there is no reason to suspect these cases cannot be used in Higher Education.

Furthermore, not only can an electronic device be confiscated, that device could also fall under “Warrantless Search” doctrine. The legal basis is this: a student has just been observed engaged in inappropriate behavior, using an electronic device against policy. Therefore, because of that one infraction, the administrator can legally assume other infractions have occurred. Then, the device itself can be opened, activated, and searched.

The student might cry that his or her Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure has just been violated. State Supreme Courts from New Jersey, Arkansas, Illinois, among others, have clearly sided with law enforcement on this issue. 

So, when an instructor issues the warning that all electronic devices should be turned off, placed in stand-by, and put away, the best idea is to do just that.

Unless, of course, you are a law student and you want to test your legal chops against the State.

Good luck.

Technorati Tags: cell phones,smart phones,confiscation,legal,law,fourth amendment,seizure,search,education,college,university

What Exactly Is A Syllabus?

School is upon us, and those on the front lines of educating the masses are preparing for the onslaught of people seeking to add value to their knowledge base. Some people are simply needing to create a knowledge base. Not only are educators concerned with the precise means of communicating knowledge, through lessons, but also in meeting the bureaucratic needs of the administration. One of those needs is a syllabus.

For decades, the syllabus has been an expected document, an anticipated document, a document that students greet with chagrin and consternation. What is a syllabus, though?

The word, "syllabus," arrives from the Latin, which was probably incorrectly interpreted from the Greek. In any event, "syllabus," means "list." Makes sense as a syllabus is really a list of policies, procedures, instructions, and other information pertaining to a course.

Thus, a syllabus is simply a set of policies, procedures, guidelines, and other course-related information.

Over the last couple years, I have heard many administrators referring to a syllabus as a "contract between you and your students." I have heard a few faculty describe a syllabus in this way, too. In fact, the other night, at an educators meeting, an administrator held a 14-page syllabus aloft, proclaiming the syllabus as, "a contract between you and your students."

Over the years of teaching, and as a student, I never made the leap that a syllabus was a contract, thinking that the contents of those pages merely outlined the details of the course. Students need to know, to some degree, what the course entails. As an educator, I need something to remind myself on occasion what the course entails.

These recent comments made me consider my understanding of what a syllabus actually is, though. I did some research, googling terms like "syllabus," and "contract," "legal document." What I found was an interesting and strange disconnect.

The court system does not view syllabi as legal documents. Syllabi are not contracts, and faculty are not legally bound by syllabi.

Of much concern to me is that institutions, i.e. administrators, are calling syllabi "contracts." Doing so creates a mistaken perception among faculty that have entered onto a contract with their students. Students mistakenly believe they can hold their faculty legally liable for holding to the language of the syllabus. Many, many school sites I visited on the Internet discuss the syllabus as a legal document.

Alternatively, the legal side says, No; syllabi do not fit the definition of a contract. As such, a faculty person is not bound to their syllabi. Students have no legal basis to sue if the course misses a day, if a chapter is omitted, if point values are modified, etc. A faculty person who engages in a behavior of considerable syllabus modification during the course of a semester may face angry blow-back from students, though. However, the courts have sided with faculty on these occasions.

The question becomes, who is correct? The answer is easy. U.S. Courts and the legal system, as it stands today, do not view syllabi as enforceable contract. An administrator holding a syllabus to the sky, as if those pages are the academic equivalent of the Ten Commandments, proclaiming the academic holiness of those pages as "your unbreakable covenant between you and your students," simply does not make the syllabus a contract. A professor who says, "my syllabus is a contract between me and you," is not creating a contract between himself or herself and the students in the classroom.

OK, so I say, “the syllabus is not a contract.” You should say, “But, why not?”

First, let me begin by saying I am not a lawyer, nor pretending to be one.

A contract has four parts (some ascribe as many as six parts http://bit.ly/qlS6t0): An Offer, Consideration, the Parties, and a Legal Objective. The syllabus cannot be a contract simply because the instructor is not offering anything. A syllabus is not an offer for the course. That offer was made by the university during the enrollment process. Part of the Offer is “acceptance.” Acknowledging the rule and policies of the course does not equivocate to accepting the offer of the course. The student is merely acknowledging the rules & policies of the course. Again, the offer of the course was tendered by the university, not the instructor.

The syllabus implies no “consideration.” Grades could be considered a “consideration,” something of value offered in return for something else of value. The student, though, is not required do anything. The student may fail the course, but the student made a choice that did not nullify or break a “contract” as there is no contract to enforce. While the instructor might be mandated by the university to perform duties for the course, the student is not required to do anything. In fact, the student could potentially absolve his or herself from any responsibility by dropping the course.

As for the Parties, the instructor engages in the creation of the syllabus with no input from the student or students. Therefore, acting alone, the instructor creates a syllabus outlining the details of the course, in accordance with the guidelines of the academic institution.

Finally, the question is then, “what is the legal objective of the syllabus?” Typically, contracts not only outline the duties of each party, consideration or compensation, but also provide for damages or penalties should the contract be broken or voided. The contract for the course is between the student and the university. The contract goes into effect when the student registers for the course. Should a student withdraw, the contract between the student and the university comes into play to determine the affects on financial aid, GPA, etc. The syllabus, being a document that outlines course material, objectives, rules, and policies, and part of the creative license afforded to faculty, has no legal objective, per se. The syllabus can, as I have found, and will cover in another article, contain elements of legal policies, such as the confiscation of cell phones, and other electronic devices. But, the syllabus is still not a contract.

Merely saying a syllabus is a contract does not make it one.

Over the decades Of experience I have in education, I have often heard students comments along the lines of, "She has to cover that. It is in her syllabus;" or, "it's not on the syllabus, so I don't have to do it;" and the "it's in the syllabus that way, so it cannot be changed."

The technically correct responses to the above are: "No, she doesn't" and "Yes, you do" and "Yes, it can." The reality is that faculty will often consider the effect of their choice in terms of student reaction. Faculty do not generally punish students, but will take measures to address concerns or inadequacies they see in classes or students. Those modifications might upset students. Ultimately, they are designed to help, not harm. Generally.

I author this entry for mostly to solidify the notion of what a syllabus is for my own benefit. additionally, maybe a search engine will pick this up and students and faculty can use this to educate themselves. I will provide links at some future date, to provide evidence.

ADDENDUM

I mentioned above I would provide some links.

This link http://bit.ly/nvXIhP (United States Jurisprudence) outlines a theoretical situation between a student and professor using historical court cases to arrive at a verdict.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece March 14th, 2008, that addresses such a topic. I cannot post that article here as the article was “premium” content. Briefly, the article essentially discusses what I have shared above, that is, while administrators would like to think that a syllabus is a contract between a faculty person and students, the courts do not side with that opinion.

The true contract exists between the university/college and the student. The university extends an offer of a course at a price. The student then can accept the conditions of that offer. As I stated above, calling a “syllabus” a “contract” does not make it such.

Administrators that continue calling syllabi contracts are perpetuating misinformation that, in my opinion, is detrimental to both faculty and students.

Technorati Tags: education,syllabus,legal document,legality,contract