Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Yale-Harvard-Princeton-Stanford-Oxford-Cambridge

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters.

leave a comment »

Post title with shortlink, started Feb. 17, 2018, published March 4:

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters. (shortlink ending “-8F5”)   Post is short (about 6,100 words — can you believe it?!)

Subtitle: Some Historic Problems Design Flaws — or Inherent Design Genius, depending on one’s perspective — with The American University System.


Post Viewing/Navigation: Images which may extend beyond the right margin are probably part of an image gallery.  Click on any one and use the navigation keys.  Unless otherwise notated in a caption and unless your viewing device does this better (as might an iPad or cell phone with touch/swipe functions), outside the galleries, click individual images to enlarge. Content notes: I show some images or sets of images in more than one section of this post.  Related links: This post came from “Where ‘First Five Years’ and the Manic Push for  ever more: Universal Preschool/EARLY Head Start meets the National Fatherhood Initiative’s purposes within TANF …” (a LONG post) and a separate SHORT”preface” page “Understanding University Models…”. Those references will be posted again as they come up in their context.

Here, I discuss where “Colleges of Human Ecology and the intent to “develop” human beings from the start,” based on theories from high-profile psychologists such as the late Urie Bronfenbrenner (whom Cornell University’s center named in his honor credits for having founded, or inspired the massive “Head Start” programming itself), funded through their faculty positions meets “the imported university models” meets the “current US size and tax system” (university financing).


Tags:  I added labels (“tags”) for topics in this post, and included this one — though it’s not discussed below — because the post discussing it is related: “FAF Financial Accounting Foundation (estab. by AICPA ca.1971 Norwalk CT set up GASB+FASB who set the guidelines=acctg rules)(see also “CAFRs”)


Regardless of one’s perspective, the American universities both private and public still have a basic design. That design for each has been historically based on a certain model espoused by their founders, reflecting their values and what kind of economic infrastructure those founders wanted for the country.

MORRILL LAND-GRANT ACTS

(Reference added March 5, 2018): Why the Morrill Act Still Matters, July 16, 2012 by Christopher P. Loss in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Added here because it’s a short narrative and for the 19 comments below arguing pro/con the whole situation.  The comments are generally well-written and interesting.

Basics: Please read (for review, or if it’s not review) Wikipedia on the Morrill Land-Grant Acts.  These involved federal lands to establish state college right about the time of the Civil War (!) and after the Confederate states had seceded (although they later got theirs, too).  On that article, Cornell’s situation is in paragraphs 7 and 10.  Paras. 6, 7 and 10 quoted here.  Relates to Cornell and MIT.

Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, “No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act,” in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the contemporaneously raging American Civil War.

After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state’s land grant, the state was issued “scrip” which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[7] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[8]p. 9 The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[8]p. 10 Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8]p. 8

…With a few exceptions (including Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), nearly all of the land-grant colleges are public. (Cornell University, while private, administers several state-supported contract colleges that fulfill its public land-grant mission to the state of New York.)

To maintain their status as land-grant colleges, a number of programs are required to be maintained by the college. These include programs in agriculture and engineering, as well as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program

This situation, as Wikipedia tells it, also supplanted a more egalitarian (among the states) and earlier “Turner Act,” giving preference for the then more populous eastern states.  Overall, the federal lands represent land grabs from Native Americans originally, anyhow, so a case could be made that the entire situation is based on theft and land-grabs.  Anyhow….
Read the rest of this entry »

Still Caught up in DV/Custody Drama? For 2016, What about Catching up on OVW Discretionary Grants (2013) and these SIX, ah, “Groups”?

leave a comment »

FYI: This post has several sections, and puts the post title in a larger framework, which  means some of those sections have a lot of quotes.  This post is also: conversational (more than “developmentally edited”), informative, and almost 15,800 words (not including this “FYI”), which seemed like a good place to put a lid on it!

Feedback pro/con welcome (Comments available at bottom of post.  Comments with links to other relevant information are particularly welcome. If you are sharing experientially and it’s OK, a geography (at least what state if it’s re: a custody experience) might be helpful to reference.  Feel also free to argue (=/= namecall; bring something to the table to argue with!) — I may argue back (that’s my style, and it’s also a process), but if I’ve got my facts wrong, I do want to be corrected — with links, quotes, or cites on what basis.  Also, feel free to use those “DONATE” buttons on the sidebar — this blog is a one-woman operation!   Thanks…//LGH

“DV” in this context, of course, means simply “domestic violence,” which alternately goes by any other number of names, depending on the speakers and the speakers’ intentions to highlight the violence, or frame it as a relationship disease.

  • My next intended post (split off this one for length!), through multiple quotations, treats the rest of us to collegial discussions on Batterer Typology with a view towards future research on screening instruments to bring low-income, situationally-violent couples into psycho-educational interventions, with of course a heavy sprinkling of impressive (or what ought to impress) terms such as multi-variate, bi-modal, and implications for — of course — “future research.” In at least a few of the speakers’ cases, I have already posted some cheating on tax-returns and falsifying how much federal money actually came their way (OR, HHS falsifed it — but the reports don’t match, so both cannot be concurrently true!)  and seeking “fees for friends” while being employed by the state.  As well as a few more overtly AFCC professionals and professors.

I wrote this post as part of an ongoing, I hope, dialogue about some of the groups which I already know, but bet most blog readers don’t, are serving to standardize and internationally align common practice in the courts whether or not it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or state law, or citizens’ individual rights as residents in a specific state.

  • “Dialogue” — There are always comments fields, and I will be re-posting a feedback form soon. But more important than individual discussing this with just me, I hope this information will continue to inject some startling, but significant truths into other discussions already taking places about distressing realities, or outrageous injustice when it comes to handling of parents and children in the courts.

Rather than violent, revolutionary overthrow (of government), around the time of the World Wars and particularly World War II, a progression of paradigm switches, systems changes and plans to undermine jurisdictional boundaries, including national sovereignty, was set up to take place incrementally, by stages:  “plan the work, work the plan” for decades (at least) now.  Principles were involved, some of which include regionalization, privatization / functionalism, and within the USA at least the Congressional authorization of “Reorganization Act” special procedures for the President.  (See also two pages I have on this, on sidebar).

In addition, setting up networks among universities, and at times privately funded “centers,” within them.  Such centers are not bad “per se” but as parts of an otherwise coordinated system with the intent to change justice systems — and doing this below the radar for anyone who doesn’t happen to be tracking the universities and their various centers — it’s not exactly open, transparent, and, well, “American.”

Over all of this, a system of taxation which while promising a levelling of the field, in fact does the opposite. This system also tends to “separate the men from the boys,” meaning, those who know accounting –including government accounting — from those who do not, and those who comprehend the scope and operations of government, conceptually — from those who are clueless.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: