#Education Scholarship

[morganablenewsmedia]

Let Us Give Tinubu More Time – APGA Rep Nwabasi

Let Us Give Tinubu More Time – APGA Rep Nwabasi As He Urged Nigerians To Be More Patient Amidst hardship and economic downturn plaguing Nigeria, Rt, Hon. Joseph Nwobasi, a member representing Ezza North/Ishielu federal constituency at the National Assembly, has implored all Nigerians to be more patient with the President Bola Tinubu administration. The honourable, who is a member of All…

[smilewelfarefoundation]

[chiquilines]

Public garden study date!!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

MIT libraries are thriving without Elsevier

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Once you learn about the "collective action problem," you start seeing it everywhere. Democrats – including elected officials – all wanted Biden to step down, but none of them wanted to be the first one to take a firm stand, so for months, his campaign limped on: a collective action problem.

Patent trolls use bullshit patents to shake down small businesses, demanding "license fees" that are high, but much lower than the cost of challenging the patent and getting it revoked. Collectively, it would be much cheaper for all the victims to band together and hire a fancy law firm to invalidate the patent, but individually, it makes sense for them all to pay. A collective action problem:

https://locusmag.com/2013/11/cory-doctorow-collective-action/

Musicians get royally screwed by Spotify. Collectively, it would make sense for all of them to boycott the platform, which would bring it to its knees and either make it pay more or put it out of business. Individually, any musician who pulls out of Spotify disappears from the horizon of most music fans, so they all hang in – a collective action problem:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/#universally-loathed

Same goes for the businesses that get fucked out of 30% of their app revenues by Apple and Google's mobile business. Without all those apps, Apple and Google wouldn't have a business, but any single app that pulls out commits commercial suicide, so they all hang in there, paying a 30% vig:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/15/private-law/#thirty-percent-vig

That's also the case with Amazon sellers, who get rooked for 45-51 cents out of every dollar in platform junk fees, and whose prize for succeeding despite this is to have their product cloned by Amazon, which underprices them because it doesn't have to pay a 51% rake on every sale. Without third-party sellers there'd be no Amazon, but it's impossible to get millions of sellers to all pull out at once, so the Bezos crime family scoops up half of the ecommerce economy in bullshit fees:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

This is why one definition of "corruption" is a system with "concentrated gains and diffuse losses." The company that dumps toxic waste in your water supply reaps all the profits of externalizing its waste disposal costs. The people it poisons each bear a fraction of the cost of being poisoned. The environmental criminal has a fat warchest of ill-gotten gains to use to bribe officials and pay fancy lawyers to defend it in court. Its victims are each struggling with the health effects of the crimes, and even without that, they can't possibly match the polluter's resources. Eventually, the polluter spends enough money to convince the Supreme Court to overturn "Chevron deference" and makes it effectively impossible to win the right to clean water and air (or a planet that's not on fire):

https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/us-supreme-courts-chevron-deference-ruling-will-disrupt-climate-policy

Any time you encounter a shitty, outrageous racket that's stable over long timescales, chances are you're looking at a collective action problem. Certainly, that's the underlying pathology that preserves the scholarly publishing scam, which is one of the most grotesque, wasteful, disgusting frauds in our modern world (and that's saying something, because the field is crowded with many contenders).

Here's how the scholarly publishing scam works: academics do original scholarly research, funded by a mix of private grants, public funding, funding from their universities and other institutions, and private funds. These academics write up their funding and send it to a scholarly journal, usually one that's owned by a small number of firms that formed a scholarly publishing cartel by buying all the smaller publishers in a string of anticompetitive acquisitions. Then, other scholars review the submission, for free. More unpaid scholars do the work of editing the paper. The paper's author is sent a non-negotiable contract that requires them to permanently assign their copyright to the journal, again, for free. Finally, the paper is published, and the institution that paid the researcher to do the original research has to pay again – sometimes tens of thousands of dollars per year! – for the journal in which it appears.

The academic publishing cartel insists that the millions it extracts from academic institutions and the billions it reaps in profit are all in service to serving as neutral, rigorous gatekeepers who ensure that only the best scholarship makes it into print. This is flatly untrue. The "editorial process" the academic publishers take credit for is virtually nonexistent: almost everything they publish is virtually unchanged from the final submission format. They're not even typesetting the paper:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1

The vetting process for peer-review is a joke. Literally: an Australian academic managed to get his dog appointed to the editorial boards of seven journals:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/olivia-doll-predatory-journals

Far from guarding scientific publishing from scams and nonsense, the major journal publishers have stood up entire divisions devoted to pay-to-publish junk science. Elsevier – the largest scholarly publisher – operated a business unit that offered to publish fake journals full of unreveiwed "advertorial" papers written by pharma companies, packaged to look like a real journal:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090504075453/http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

Naturally, academics and their institutions hate this system. Not only is it purely parasitic on their labor, it also serves as a massive brake on scholarly progress, by excluding independent researchers, academics at small institutions, and scholars living in the global south from accessing the work of their peers. The publishers enforce this exclusion without mercy or proportion. Take Diego Gomez, a Colombian Masters candidate who faced eight years in prison for accessing a single paywalled academic paper:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/colombian-student-faces-prison-charges-sharing-academic-article-online

And of course, there's Aaron Swartz, the young activist and Harvard-affiliated computer scientist who was hounded to death after he accessed – but did not publish – papers from MIT's JSTOR library. Aaron had permission to access these papers, but JSTOR, MIT, and the prosecutors Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz argued that because he used a small computer program to access the papers (rather than clicking on each link by hand) he had committed 13 felonies. They threatened him with more than 30 years in prison, and drew out the proceedings until Aaron was out of funds. Aaron hanged himself in 2013:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

Academics know all this terrible stuff is going on, but they are trapped in a collective action problem. For an academic to advance in their field, they have to publish, and they have to get their work cited. Academics all try to publish in the big prestige journals – which also come with the highest price-tag for their institutions – because those are the journals other academics read, which means that getting published is top journal increases the likelihood that another academic will find and cite your work.

If academics could all agree to prioritize other journals for reading, then they could also prioritize other journals for submissions. If they could all prioritize other journals for submissions, they could all prioritize other journals for reading. Instead, they all hold one another hostage, through a wicked collective action problem that holds back science, starves their institutions of funding, and puts their colleagues at risk of imprisonment.

Despite this structural barrier, academics have fought tirelessly to escape the event horizon of scholarly publishing's monopoly black hole. They avidly supported "open access" publishers (most notably PLoS), and while these publishers carved out pockets for free-to-access, high quality work, the scholarly publishing cartel struck back with package deals that bundled their predatory "open access" journals in with their traditional journals. Academics had to pay twice for these journals: first, their institutions paid for the package that included them, then the scholars had to pay open access submission fees meant to cover the costs of editing, formatting, etc – all that stuff that basically doesn't exist.

Academics started putting "preprints" of their work on the web, and for a while, it looked like the big preprint archive sites could mount a credible challenge to the scholarly publishing cartel. So the cartel members bought the preprint sites, as when Elsevier bought out SSRN:

https://www.techdirt.com/2016/05/17/disappointing-elsevier-buys-open-access-academic-pre-publisher-ssrn/

Academics were elated in 2011, when Alexandra Elbakyan founded Sci-Hub, a shadow library that aims to make the entire corpus of scholarly work available without barrier, fear or favor:

https://sci-hub.ru/alexandra

Sci-Hub neutralized much of the collective action trap: once an article was available on Sci-Hub, it became much easier for other scholars to locate and cite, which reduced the case for paying for, or publishing in, the cartel's journals:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.14979

The scholarly publishing cartel fought back viciously, suing Elbakyan and Sci-Hub for tens of millions of dollars. Elsevier targeted prepress sites like academia.edu with copyright threats, ordering them to remove scholarly papers that linked to Sci-Hub:

https://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/

This was extremely (if darkly) funny, because Elsevier's own publications are full of citations to Sci-Hub:

https://eve.gd/2019/08/03/elsevier-threatens-others-for-linking-to-sci-hub-but-does-it-itself/

Meanwhile, scholars kept the pressure up. Tens of thousands of scholars pledged to stop submitting their work to Elsevier:

http://thecostofknowledge.com/

Academics at the very tops of their fields publicly resigned from the editorial board of leading Elsevier journals, and published editorials calling the Elsevier model unethical:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/may/16/system-profit-access-research

And the New Scientist called the racket "indefensible," decrying the it as an industry that made restricting access to knowledge "more profitable than oil":

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032052-900-time-to-break-academic-publishings-stranglehold-on-research/

But the real progress came when academics convinced their institutions, rather than one another, to do something about these predator publishers. First came funders, private and public, who announced that they would only fund open access work:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7

Winning over major funders cleared the way for open access advocates worked both the supply-side and the buy-side. In 2019, the entire University of California system announced it would be cutting all of its Elsevier subscriptions:

https://www.science.org/content/article/university-california-boycotts-publishing-giant-elsevier-over-journal-costs-and-open

Emboldened by the UC system's principled action, MIT followed suit in 2020, announcing that it would no longer send $2m every year to Elsevier:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/12/digital-feudalism/#nerdfight

It's been four years since MIT's decision to boycott Elsevier, and things are going great. The open access consortium SPARC just published a stocktaking of MIT libraries without Elsevier:

https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/mit-libraries/

How are MIT's academics getting by without Elsevier in the stacks? Just fine. If someone at MIT needs access to an Elsevier paper, they can usually access it by asking the researchers to email it to them, or by downloading it from the researcher's site or a prepress archive. When that fails, there's interlibrary loan, whereby other libraries will send articles to MIT's libraries within a day or two. For more pressing needs, the library buys access to individual papers through an on-demand service.

This is how things were predicted to go. The libraries used their own circulation data and the webservice Unsub to figure out what they were likely to lose by dropping Elsevier – it wasn't much!

https://unsub.org/

The MIT story shows how to break a collective action problem – through collective action! Individual scholarly boycotts did little to hurt Elsevier. Large-scale organized boycotts raised awareness, but Elsevier trundled on. Sci-Hub scared the shit out of Elsevier and raised awareness even further, but Elsevier had untold millions to spend on a campaign of legal terror against Sci-Hub and Elbakyan. But all of that, combined with high-profile defections, made it impossible for the big institutions to ignore the issue, and the funders joined the fight. Once the funders were on-side, the academic institutions could be dragged into the fight, too.

Now, Elsevier – and the cartel – is in serious danger. Automated tools – like the Authors Alliance termination of transfer tool – lets academics get the copyright to their papers back from the big journals so they can make them open access:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/26/take-it-back/

Unimaginably vast indices of all scholarly publishing serve as important adjuncts to direct access shadow libraries like Sci-Hub:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/28/clintons-ghost/#cornucopia-concordance

Collective action problems are never easy to solve, but they're impossible to address through atomized, individual action. It's only when we act as a collective that we can defeat the corruption – the concentrated gains and diffuse losses – that allow greedy, unscrupulous corporations to steal from us, wreck our lives and even imprison us.

Community voting for SXSW is live! If you wanna hear RIDA QADRI and me talk about how GIG WORKERS can DISENSHITTIFY their jobs with INTEROPERABILITY, VOTE FOR THIS ONE!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-the-elsevier

[chai-lemonade]

Small rant because I am PISSED at Collegeboard.

I’m transgender and was finally able to get my name changed (not legally, simply as a note in my records and my birth name made invisible to others) in my email and school system; which is connected to Collegeboard as I take numerous AP classes and the PSAT (and eventually an important SAT.) I received about 5 different emails congratulating me for being BrAvE eNoUgH to add a preferred name to their system, all of which used my deadname to congratulate me. On Changing My Name. It felt ironic, so I just laughed it off.

Than the problems began.

I take my PSAT a few months ago, and when scores come out, I’m unable to access it. Period. I went back and forth over the course of 20 emails, giving over my information and communicating just to be told at the end that it was never an issue they could help me with and that it was a “login issue” and that was somehow my fault. That maybe I was just misremembering my password despite the fact that I could get into my account.

I called, and was told the same thing. I was eventually able to get my guidance counselor to physically print out my scores because that was the best she could do for me (still couldn’t access them through my account!) I scored within the top ten percent in my state and have a 3.9 GPA, which qualified me for a recognition program that gives out important scholarships (which I need any I can get or else I’m not able to go to even an in-state part-time college) as a First Generation College student.

I got an email notifying me of this, and when I clicked the link, I was immediately blocked through my account from the page, saying i was never invited to confirm my eligibility. I try again, same thing. I meet the requirements, but it won’t even show me the page. Once again, I realize that making two minuscule changes that shouldn’t have affected anything have blocked me from ANOTHER important thing for college. It has been a year since I changed my name and I am still unable to access anything through Collegeboard and have received zero help for the numerous times I’ve reached out.

While it’s not explicit transphobia, it is still a BLARING issue of bias programming; for a company that set aside the time to make code to send an email when you change your name, I absolutely should not be experiencing such major issues that are continually blocking me from important opportunities due to changing my preferred name in the system. I don’t know who else this has happened to, but I don’t think I’m the only one.

Sort out your bugs and stop forcing trans kids to jump through a million hoops to access basic features on your website and still be excluded from important opportunities before sending out your automated emails for pride.

[bluejayscrying]

10 year old me really fucked up when she decided learning fractions wasn’t worth it

[7yrannic]

Hello. I hope you are very well. This is Sarah Abo Hwidi from Gaza. May I ask you to please check my recent post and consider boosting my campaign? I am campaigning to evacuate from Gaza and pursue my education in Ireland after I was awarded a scholarship as explained in my recent post titled. "From Gaza to Europe: A Young Girl's Dream Finally Coming True!" My campaign was vetted by association as explained in my post. Please spare a couple of minutes to check and reblog my post. Thank you! First Tumblr post >>> https://www.tumblr.com/sarah-abo-hwidi/766693234542002176/from-gaza-to-europe-a-young-girls-dream-is?source=share

My previous answers got a little more attention than anticipated, so let’s keep the train rolling.

This campaign has been verified, and I have reblogged her posts multiple times. Please visit her campaign and account, and do what you can!

[yellow-yarrow]

thinking about Steban's long commute to campus, of course he's not attending classes

[anaalnathrakhs]

love this part of my life where the things that are difficult but challenging and good for me are things i can stop and skip and halfass, but the things that are difficult and painful and pointless are the things i have to live with no matter what

[ahedderick]

Scholarships

It seems like the 'online scholarships' category is just as full of weird, scammy, predatory bullshit as . . every other financial things these days. Damn.

I don't know if I have the fortitude for this shit.

[odinsblog]

The George Floyd Memorial Scholarship offered at a college in Minnesota is facing a lawsuit after being accused of violating the Civil Rights Act.

According to a complaint filed by the conservative nonprofit Equal Protection Project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, the George Floyd Memorial Scholarship at North Central University in Minneapolis violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits “discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.”

According to the school’s website, applicants must “be a student who is Black or African American, that is, a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa” in order to be eligible. Applicants who don’t fall into that racial category are automatically disqualified from ineligibility for the scholarship.

At the time of the scholarship’s implementation in 2020, North Central President Scott Hagan said it was created to “invest like never before in a new generation of young black Americans, who are poised and ready to take leadership in our nation.”

(continue reading)

[agentfascinateur]

Calling academics to mentor Palestinian students

#staying educated

[enemy-to-the-state]

I Am Transsexual and Want An Education

Most of you know I am a transsexual. I do not hide it and I have never tried to.  

I am also a college student. Like many Americans, I cannot really afford to be there. Many trans people like me cannot afford higher education either.  

Transgender people don’t have the same kind of opportunities that cisgender people do. Either you live a lie and torture yourself because you know your family will forsake you if you say anything, you tell them everything and are kicked out, or you are lucky enough to get a neutral to positive response. Yes, neutral is lucky. 

The trans folks that say nothing and live in agony being unsupported and trapped can maybe go to college but know that if they say anything their tuition might be out the door, that their parents or family or guardians will throw them to the wolves. So they either suffer in silence or end up committing suicide. 

The trans folks that came out and were kicked out have basically no chance at ever going to college. You might be able to get government and private loans, but you’ll be drowning in debt by the end of it all. Debt you may never be able to pay off alone. 

The remaining lucky ones most likely still come from low to middle income families that can’t really afford college anyways. It is a borderline no-win scenario. 

How is this fair? Can’t everybody see this is cruel? This is a struggle faced by all queer people, but is intensified by the trans label. We are easy targets. 

I was once talking to a girl who was also queer, but not trans. I said, “Rae, in my state, it is illegal for me to use a public restroom. It is illegal for public institutions to give me my life saving medication. I have almost no rights. We are witnessing a modern-day segregation.” I live in Florida. 

She turned to me and said, “You know it’s hard for me too. There are like, no gay bars in my city. No fun ones anyway.” 

I felt like I had been slapped. I never really talked to her again.  

Of course, all queer people face oppression, but for her to dismiss the violent and dangerous actions that are being taken against my people in favor of her own problems highlights a deeper issue with the attitude towards trans people. 

We are an afterthought. 

We are different. 

Other people are so far removed from the plight of trans people that they do not recognize how privileged they are by comparison and damn it I refuse to be an afterthought for much longer. 

I do not want to live in quiet, secret moments anymore. I do not want to be in the shadows and behind closed doors. I want to feel comfortable out in the open. I shouldn’t have to hide. Let me wear what I want and be what I am. Let me hold my boyfriend’s hand in public. Let me be able to take off my binder or just not wear it at all. Let my people have healthcare and basic human decency. Let us get an education and let us use the goddamn bathroom. Let us. Let us. Let us. 

[koko2unite]

[hussyknee]

Over and over I am reminded that institutionalized academia is a pillar of white supremacy. Expertise built on the exclusion of the colonized and disabled for the purpose of propagating colonial, eugenicist structures and rationalizations. Decolonial academia has become just an excuse to study us like bugs under a microscope and speak over us, rather than treat us as experts of our own reality and oppressions.