I'm curious if they'd have the same issue if the student were a senior in high school? If they view it acceptable for a senior, I'd say, take the class then. If they don't want a senior in high school reading books with swear words, I'd ask what about as a freshman in college? And really, is it only about the language, and not the content? Would Oedipus Rex be OK, depending on what precise words the translator used?

Indeed, unless the student is exceptional, AP English Lit is probably not suitable for a 9th grader. I'd ask how many kids overall in the school take the AP English Lit test, and what the grade distribution is. If no one in the class bothers to take the test, or if they do, and no one is getting a 3 or higher, perhaps it isn't really an AP class. Here's a list of literature referenced by the test since 1971. Note that students aren't expected to have read any of these titles (they are expected, though, to be able to read them), but note that (from my quick perusal), the works are the level that you would expect: http://www.eaprep.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_132773/File/APLitBookList.pdf

Presumably they do. Maybe they don't. Does anyone know what the syllabus of a freshman high school engineering course in Texas looks like? Is it just a newly-renamed shop class?

So much fail. The engineering teacher seems to recognize that it is a clock, but warns him not to show it to anyone. Then the English teacher confiscates the clock when it beeps in class AND KEEPS IT WITH HER. If she thought it might in any way be a bomb, would she keep it in her classroom for the rest of the day? Then, the principal calls the cops, and suspends him for three days, but the original engineering teacher doesn't have the integrity to step in and say "Hey, this kid isn't doing anything wrong".

What can I say -- I still don't like "party" as a verb, but I might be the only one.

Cannibals?

But, I think the above would be very unusual for undergraduate classes, especially the first couple of years. Many colleges have a policy where there needs to be a minimum number of students enrolled in an undergraduate class for it to "make", or else it is cancelled.

Let's say your ds has 4 classes in a semester, each taught by a full professor. Assume that each professor has 100 students total s/he teaches across all the sections they teach. In each class, your student would consume 1% of the teaching cost, for a total of 4% of one professor. However, a research professor is generally not paid to teach undergrads 100% of their time -- they need to supervise graduate students, and do their own funded research. Undergraduate tuition may go to fund instructional labs, but research labs are generally paid from federal grants. As far as the rest of the costs -- buildings and libraries and grounds and IT and all the other stuff, I have no idea how to estimate those.

I can't imagine how to even begin to come up with this number -- how did you do it?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking: is it: do public universities spend more money (per pupil?) than private schools? I assume we can ignore the for-profit schools, so basically, the non-profits schools should have expenditures which roughly equal their tuition + aid + endowments. Or is it "is my student's portion of the tuition bill likely to be higher or lower at a private or public school"? If the former, this is going to depend so much on the type of school -- a tiny private liberal arts school, where there are no TAs or adjuncts, and no enormous lecture classes is going to be much more expensive to run than a community college, with lots of low-paid adjuncts. And, any online classes are going to be much, much cheaper to offer, which is probably why so many schools are offering them. Comparing the price structure of, say, Sweet Briar College, with say, UT-Austin just isn't going to make much sense -- there are more significant differences than their public/private status. If the latter, again, it really depends. The tippy-top private schools tend to have endowments the size of the GDP of a small nation. Harvard can easily fully fund the tuition of all its students with the interest from the endowment alone. If, somehow, you can get into one of these schools, it may be the least expensive option.

Maybe I'm being overly picky, but I'd be really annoyed by the disclaimer at the bottom of this calendar: "Dates are subject to change at any time by the Board of Regents" Sure, calendars that are far off in the future may change, but at some point, the administration has to say "this calendar is firm", and (emergencies notwithstanding), here is our first day of classes. Otherwise, what about foreign students who are flying in, or professors planning schedules, or even the custodial staff who need to keep the grounds and buildings ready to go.

I feel like the primary motivation by colleges in this area is to reduce their legal liability, not necessarily to reduce excessive drinking or the harm caused by it.

My only concern is if you are taking a route that doesn't fly very often. If there is only one Spirit flight a day between your destinations, and there is a mechanical problem with the plane, the Spirit won't re-ticket you on another carrier's airplane -- you may have to wait a day or more to get to your destination. And don't expect them to pay for a hotel while you wait.

I think that neither the NLE nor the NGE has the option to directly send scores to colleges. As I recall, the scores just come back to the teacher/school on one piece of paper. I think both the NLE and the NGE would count as a "standardized test", but now that I think about it, I'm not quite sure what, precisely, defines any given test as "standardized".

Given that ancient Greek is almost completely phonetic, why bother with "phonograms"? I'm not even sure what a Greek phonogram would be -- one per letter + the dipthongs? English needs it because it is such a mongrel language. Also, I'm curious what you consider the "basic structure of the language", and how much can be understood by young children. My experience is that even pretty basic grammatical concepts like indirect objects are difficult concepts for young ones.

Huh? As I type this, the event happened almost exactly 24 hours ago, 10am EDT on Friday. The story isn't even one day old yet. Already, I've seen it on the front page of the printed Saturday New York times, and we've been linking to web sites that covered it hours after it happened.

Does the OP mean "Memoria Press", not "Advanced Placement"?

I find if I let them keep the change for themselves, all of of sudden, there is an increased interest in math...

I think there are a couple of things going on. A few decades ago, if you were frugal, and had a good job, you could pay for college by working part time during the school year and full time during the summers. Maybe that job caused you to take a semester or year longer, but as long as you weren't going into debt, not a big deal. Today, however, it is almost impossible to work your way through college in four years. (Yes, there are exceptions, like high-paying engineering internships, but they remain exceptions). Given that earnings from a job are going to put such a small dent in your expenses, I think it makes more financial sense to put 100% of your effort into classwork, and trying to finish in four years with good grades. Obviously, jobs which might further a career or learning, like internships would be a different case. Also, I think these recommendations are for incoming freshmen, who don't yet have a good idea of how much time their studies will actually need. A lot of freshman don't internalize how much time out of class each in-class hour requires to thrive at college. Starting out by recommending working hours on the low end of a spectrum seems prudent.

The last time we talked about this, of all the colleges in the United States, we found only one that doesn't accept Latin for admissions, the Air Force Academy.

Enough for what? Enough that you can, in good conscience, grant a high school diploma? Sure. Enough for admission to cc or other less competitive school? Sure. Enough to help prove "mommy grades", and help with admissions decisions? Absolutely. Enough for admission to big state schools, or other somewhat more competitive schools? I wouldn't bet on it. Enough to test out of an FL requirement once admitted? Doubtful.

I don't know about what would be open when, but Frankfurt has a fantastic local transit system. As I recall, it is about 10 minutes by train from the airport (where there is a train station) to the main train station downtown, or other major train stops where you'll have all kinds of food options.

I'm surprised that the article is talking as if there are only two choices. Obviously, different Universities have different policies and setup, but at my big state U, the options were (at least): o) Live in the school's dorms, "on campus". (but could be quite a hike to the other side of campus) o) Live in a private dorm, technically, not "on campus", but pretty darn close, and almost as walkable to everything on campus as the school dorms. o) Live in a co-op, again, pretty close to campus o) Live in private housing, which could be almost as close to campus as the dorms, or far enough away that you need to drive. With enough roommates, this could get pretty darn inexpensive. o) Live with your parents, wherever they might be. All of these present a wide range of costs and benefits, and I'm not quite sure exactly what "on-campus" means in this context.

This just reinforces my perception that formal teacher education programs are more about classroom management and discipline than education proper. But the teacher who was fired claimed she spent months building up the trust of one particular student, and was worried about losing his trust. I wonder how much actual learning happened in those months building up trust (one third? one half? of the school year), only to need to repeat the process next year with a new teacher.

I'm afraid this isn't correct. Most romance languages that I'm familiar with, and their derivatives, such as Latin, Greek, German, Spanish and English have several different tenses of the infinitive. You are right in that they are not conjugated with respect to person or number, but they are different infinitives for different tenses and sometimes voices. We don't use the perfect infinitive much in English, but if you say "I like to have cleaned", instead of "I like to clean", "to have cleaned" is the perfect infinitive. While the perfect infinitive is made from a participle, it still is an infinitive unto itself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive#Marking_for_tense.2C_aspect_and_voice