Search

We show that the class of finitely generated virtually free groups is precisely the class of demonstrable subgroups for R. Thompson's group $V$. The class of demonstrable groups for $V$ consists of all groups which can embed into $V$ with a natural dynamical behaviour in their induced actions on the Cantor space $\mathfrak{C}_2 := \left\{0,1\right\}^\omega$. There are also connections with formal language theory, as the class of groups with context-free word problem is also the class of finitely generated virtually free groups, while R. Thompson's group $V$ is a candidate as a universal $co\mathcal{CF}$ group by Lehnert's conjecture, corresponding to the class of groups with context free co-word problem (as introduced by Holt, Rees, R\"over, and Thomas). Our main reults answers a question of Berns-Zieze, Fry, Gillings, Hoganson, and Matthews, and separately of Bleak and Salazar-D\'iaz, and it fits into the larger exploration of the class of $co\mathcal{CF}$ groups as it shows that all four of the known closure properties of the class of $co\mathcal{CF}$ groups hold for the set of finitely generated subgroups of $V.$, Comment: 13 pp, 6 figures

This paper estimates historical measures of equality in the distribution of education in the United States by age group and sex. Using educational attainment data for the population, the EduGini measure indicates that educational inequality in the U.S. declined significantly between 1950 and 2009. Reductions in educational inequality were more profound during the first three decades of the study than the last three, with the degree of inequality remaining relatively constant since the early 1990s. Educational inequality has historically been higher among males than females, but recently the gap has narrowed substantially. Older age groups have experienced greater declines in educational inequality compared to younger age groups. Research extensions of the data presented in this paper are discussed. Appended are: (1) Full Methodology; (2) EduGini by Year, Age Group; (3) Male EduGini by Year, Age Group; and (4) Female EduGini by Year, Age Group. (Contains 5 figures, 3 tables, 20 footnotes.)

Accreditation in higher education originated as a means of communicating useful information about the quality of various institutions of higher education. Yet, over the past half century accreditation has evolved into a system for determining eligibility for the receipt of funds from third parties, most notably the federal government, but also in many cases state governments or private philanthropies. The typical policy paper on accreditation does a fine job of detailing the history of the system and major issues that confront it today. It then usually concludes by sketching out some recommended reform. However, while it may point out a few areas in which the proposed reform would be an improvement over the current system, there is rarely any discussion about how such a reform is better than the alternatives, or what impact it would have in other areas. This paper takes a slightly different approach. While throughout the authors do discuss some of the historical role of accreditation, their main focus is on evaluating the performance of the current system and evaluating possible reforms. Part one presents their analysis of accreditation's performance. They identify four eras of accreditation in order to assess both its effectiveness and its changing role over time. Part two of the paper identifies the most commonly suggested reforms of, and replacements for, accreditation. The authors analyze the likely impact of each reform, and briefly discuss whether it would be appropriate given the goals as have been discussed. The third part of the paper builds off the conclusions of the first two parts to make the case for replacing the accreditation system. The final part lays out their recommendations. (Contains 17 tables and 208 notes.)

The Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) is an independent, nonprofit research center based in Washington, DC that is dedicated to researching public policy and economic issues relating to postsecondary education. CCAP aims to facilitate a broader dialogue that challenges conventional thinking about costs, efficiency and innovation in postsecondary education in the United States. This paper presents 25 ways to reduce college costs. The table of contents is presented as follows: Section One: Use Lower Cost Alternatives contains the following: (1) Encourage More Students to Attend Community College; (2) Promote Dual Enrollment Programs; (3) Reform Academic Employment Policies; (4) Offer three year Bachelor's Degrees; and (5) Outsource More Services. Section Two: Use Fewer Resources, contains: (6) Reduce Administrative Staff; (7) Cut Unnecessary Programs; (8) End the "Athletics Arms Race"; (9) Overhaul the FAFSA; (10) Eliminate Excessive Academic Research; (11) Streamline Redundant Programs at the State Level; and (12) Promote Collaborative Purchasing. Section Three: Efficiently Use Resources, continues with: (13) Improve Facility Utilization; (14) Increase Teaching Loads; and (15) Encourage Timely Degree Completion. Section Four: Exploit Technology to Reduce Costs, contains: (16) Move More Classes Online; (17) Reduce the Cost of Textbooks; (18) Digitize Academic Libraries; (19) Outsource Email Services; (20) Utilize Course Management Tools; (21) Ease the Transfer Process among Public Institutions; (22) Reform Financial Aid; (23) Reform Accreditation to Reduce Barriers to Entry; (24) Subsidize Students, not Schools; and (25) Promote Competition Based on Value, Not Reputation. (Contains 23 tables, 24 figures, and 643 footnotes.) [For the summary, "A Summary of: 25 Ways to Reduce the Cost of College," see ED536145.]

During the 2008-2009 academic year, there were nearly 1.8 million students enrolled at more than 2,800 for-profit institutions of higher learning in the United States. Students in for-profit colleges and universities accounted for over 9% of all students enrolled in postsecondary education. The numbers have continued to grow, and today (2010) the number is rapidly approaching two million, about 10 percent of total student enrollments. The recent growth of the for-profit education industry has aroused some criticism and concerns about the place of profit in an educational setting and practices within the industry. Critics argue that for-profit universities are simply diploma mills that push students through programs of dubious quality with the primary goal of increasing the firm's bottom line. Supporters of the industry assert that it provides educational opportunities to traditionally underserved students in areas of study that directly increase students' employability. While neither extreme view is likely to be completely accurate, there is no doubt that for-profit educational institutions are becoming a much more prominent part of the higher education landscape. The primary purposes of this report are to provide an objective overview of the industry and its students, to discuss operational differences between the traditional educational sector and for-profits, to assess the regulatory environment facing the industry, and to examine the economics of education as a profit-making enterprise. (Contains 21 figures, 2 tables, and 227 notes.)

Higher education is a labor-intensive industry whose primary service, instruction, is delivered by a lecturer, accompanied by administrative support and various other services. Growing student enrollment necessitates some additional staffing; however, one would think that the recent and ongoing technological boom would have lessened the labor burden at colleges, but a close examination of the data suggests otherwise. In fact, the data reveals that colleges have generally increased their staff relative to enrollment and the number of degrees awarded, especially in the back office. This report will analyze employment trends and labor productivity at institutions of higher education over the past 20 years. The author finds that colleges have altered the composition of their work force by steadily increasing the number of managerial positions and support/service staff, while at the same time disproportionately increasing the number of part-time staff that provides instruction. Meanwhile, employee productivity relative to enrollment and degrees awarded has been relatively flat in the midst of rising compensation. Appended are: (1) Glossary; and (2) Definition of Job Categories. (Contains 29 figures, 1 table, and 11 footnotes.)

The performance of the GlueX Forward Calorimeter was studied using a small version of the detector and a variable energy electron beam derived from the Hall B tagger at Jefferson Lab. For electron energies from 110 MeV to 260 MeV, which are near the lower-limits of the design sensitivity, the fractional energy resolution was measured to range from 20% to 14%, which meets the design goals. The use of custom 250 MHz flash ADCs for readout allowed precise measurements of signal arrival times. The detector achieved timing resolutions of 0.38 ns for a single 100 mV pulse, which will allow timing discrimination of photon beam bunches and out-of-time background during the operation of the GlueX detector., Comment: 8 pages, 11 figures, submitted to NIMA