I made a sample grading scheme using most (but not all!) of the criteria Kevin wrote down. I also made each one worth 1 point, though I have no clue if we want a point system or what. Please add to this, or change it, make it look nicer (i'm not the best with wikis...), or delete it!
http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards#Sample_Grading_Scheme -Adi On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Wesley Chen <[email protected]>wrote: > @Parker: You're right about the overlap. > @Adi: That's a great 3-step plan. > @Kevin: 15 or so schools to start off with is plenty. Thanks for > starting the wiki article. Let's set this thing on fire! > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely >> with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit >> either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with >> open.umich.edu. >> >> I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to >> get some thoughts down on this. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Wesley--heh, okay. >>> >>> Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) >>> easily get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into >>> researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly >>> popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's >>> top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't >>> be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which >>> I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more—it's just a matter of digging a >>> little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, >>> 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the >>> most efficient. >>> >>> -Adi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight—just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >>>> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >>>> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been >>>> relatively active in the Free Culture >>>> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a >>>> great point about creating >>>> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >>>> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >>>> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts >>>> there >>>> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >>>> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >>>> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>>>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>>>> >>>>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are >>>>> in the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would >>>>> have much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a >>>>> lower rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to >>>>> point >>>>> to as an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling >>>>> Seattle University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is >>>>> not >>>>> as effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same >>>>> budget >>>>> is ahead of us on this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>>>> Michigan >>>>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>>>> undergrad) >>>>> >>>>> -Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a >>>>>> basketful to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at >>>>>> first: Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get >>>>>> a lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this >>>>>>> idea off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to >>>>>>> enact >>>>>>> change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a >>>>>>> large survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>>>> suggested we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking >>>>>>> US >>>>>>> News' Top 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will >>>>>>> still force us to define the methodology and give us experience with the >>>>>>> research process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> this, it could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger >>>>>>> survey. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney <<[email protected]> >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight >>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the >>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment—using a scale of >>>>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > *...@christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak <<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]>[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that >>>>>>>> soon so >>>>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> > <<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]>[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>>>> Open >>>>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>>>> which we >>>>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>>>> index >>>>>>>> > schools, >>>>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when >>>>>>>> I was at >>>>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>> > while back. >>>>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> > should try to >>>>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>>>> clunky, >>>>>>>> > and the >>>>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about >>>>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>> > to identify >>>>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>> > and become its >>>>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > — W >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > > < <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]>>wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> > have a good >>>>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending >>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>> > that time >>>>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>>>> controversially >>>>>>>> > referred to >>>>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by >>>>>>>> the end >>>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>>>> press >>>>>>>> > release or >>>>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information> >>>>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < <http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected]<mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>> <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Brian Rowe >>>>> Juris Doctorate >>>>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>>>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>>>> >>>>> Public Knowledge >>>>> www.publicknowledge.org >>>>> >>>>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>>>> www.ATJWeb.org >>>>> >>>>> Freedom for IP >>>>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Donovan >> Georgetown '11: SFS >> 630.849.8285 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
