My Professor is Hot! Correlates of RateMyProfessors.com Ratings for Criminal Justice and Criminology Faculty Members

“RateMyProfessors.com” ratings of the easiness, helpfulness, clarity, overall quality, and “hotness” of 407 criminal justice and criminology faculty members from across the United States were collected. Data were analyzed to determine what faculty characteristics determined these ratings. Experience working in the criminal justice field predicted higher ratings, while years of teaching experience was predictive of lower ratings. After controlling for instructors easiness and “hotness” ratings, the instructors’ ascribed characteristics (such as race and sex) explained the greatest proportion of variance in clarity, helpfulness, and overall quality scores. Professional characteristics, such as years of experience, publication rate, and possession of a doctorate were less influential on Ratemyprofessors.com scores.     

Promise and peril

The size of the federal budget tells only one part of the tale of government's presence in the market economy. The enormous amounts of non-tax dollars government requires to be spent on regulation – estimated at $647 billion per year – powerfully argue for some sort of regulatory scorekeeping. Regulatory costs are equivalent to over one-third of the level of government spending. A regulatory budget can be an effective tool both for spurring reform and monitoring regulatory activity.At bottom, today's rulemaking process is plagued by the fact that agency bureaucrats are not accountable to voters. And Congress – though responsible for the underlying statutes that usually propel those unanswerable agencies – nevertheless can conveniently blame agencies for regulatory excesses. Indeed, Americans live under a regime of Regulation Without Representation.A regulatory budget could promote greater accountability by limiting the regulatory costs agencies could impose on the private sector. Congress could either specify a limit on compliance costs for each newly enacted law or reauthorization of existing law, or Congress could enact a more ambitious full-scale budget paralleling the fiscal budget, a riskier approach. A comprehensive budget would require Congress to divide to a total budget among agencies. Agencies' responsibility would be to rank hazards serially, from most to least severe, and address them within their budget constraint. In either version of a regulatory budget, any agency desiring to exceed its budget would need to seek congressional approval.Regulatory costs imposed on the private sector by federal agencies can never be precisely measured, and a budget cannot achieve absolute precision. Nonetheless, a regulatory budget is a valuable tool. The real innovation of regulatory budgeting is its potential to impose the consequences of regulatory decisionmaking on agencies rather than on the regulated parties alone. Agencies that today rarely admit a rule provides negligible benefit would be forced to compete for the right to regulate. While agencies would be free to regulate as unwisely as they do now, the consequences could be transfer of the squandered budgetary allocation to a rival agency that saves more lives.Budgeting could fundamentally change incentives. Under a budget, adopting a costly, but marginally beneficial, regulation will suddenly be irrational. Congress would weigh an agency's claimed benefits against alternative means of protecting public health and safety, giving agencies incentives to compete and expose one another's bogus benefits. Budgeting could encourage greater recognition of the fact that some risks are far more remote than those we undertake daily. In the long run, a regulatory budget would force agencies to compete with one another on the most important bottom line of all: that their least-effective rules save more lives per dollar spent (or correct some alleged market imperfection better) than those of other agencies.There are clear benefits to regulatory budgeting, but there are also pitfalls. For instance, under a budget, agencies have incentives to underestimate compliance costs while regulated parties have the opposite incentive. Self-correcting techniques that may force opposing cost calculations to converge are only at the thought- experiment stage. However, limitations on the delegation of regulatory power and enhancing congressional accountability can help.Certain principles and antecedents can help ensure that a regulatory budgeting effort succeeds. Explicitly recognizing that an agency's basic impulse is to overstate the benefits of its activities, a budget would relieve agencies of benefit calculation responsibilities altogether. Agencies would concentrate on properly assessing only the costs of their initiatives. Since an agency must try to maximize benefits within its budget constraint or risk losing its budget allocation, it would be rational for agencies to monitor benefits, but Congress need not require it.Other ways to promote the success of a budget are to: establish an incremental rather than total budget; collect and summarize annual report card data on the numbers of regulations in each agency; establish a regulatory cost freeze; implement a Regulatory Reduction Commission; employ separate budgets for economic and environmental/social regulation; and control indirect costs by limiting the regulatory methods that most often generate them.A regulatory budget is not a magic device alone capable of reducing the current $647 billion regulatory burden. Yet a cautious one deserve consideration. Having good information is an aid in grappling with the regulatory state just as compiling the federal fiscal budget is indispensable to any effort to plan and control government spending.     

Adolescent satanist: A sensible law enforcement approach

A considerable amount of attention has been given by the media to the perceived increase in the amount of juvenile Satanic involvement. However, there is very little evidence of a national epidemic of this type of criminal activity. This article discusses the types of actual adolescent involvement seen in the United States as well as the various points of view on this topic. It is hoped that this information will assist law enforcement in their understanding of this phenomenon and better prepare them to handle it. Dr. Gordon A. Crews is a member of the Criminal Justice faculty in the Social & Behavioral Sciences Department of Midlands Technical College in Colombia, South Carolina, where he teaches courses in police administration, corrections, criminology and ethics. He earned a Ph.D. in Elementary Education, a Graduate Certificate in Alcohol & Drug Studies and a Bachelor of Science and Masters degrees in Criminal Justice from the University of South Carolina. His dissertation examined historical perspectives of school disturbance in the United States. Prior to teaching, Dr. Crews worked in law enforcement as a bloodhound officer & trainer, field training officer and criminal investigatior; in corrections as a training and accreditation manager; and in insurance fraud as an investigator. His current research and academic interests include issues surrounding juvenile delinquency, school violence and juvenile arbitration. He has most recently co-authored a textbook entitledFaces of Violence in America, published by Simon & Schuster. Dr. Reid H. Montgomery, Jr., is an Associate Professor in the College of Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina and co-author of five books. He joined the USC faculty after service as a federal Probation officer with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under Chief Judge John J. Sirica. Prior to graduate study, he served on active duty with the 3rd Infantry (Old Guard) at Ft. Meyer, Virginia. He has a B.S., M.Ed., and Ph.D. from the University of South Carolina where his dissertation analyzed attitudes leading to prison riots. Named in 1984 as Educator of the Year by the Southern Association of Criminal Justice Educators, Dr. Montgomery has pursued post-doctoral study at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.     

Professional integrity in higher education: Behind the green curtain in the land of Oz

This article discusses concerns related to professional integrity in academics and to the use of collegiality as an informal criterion for employment and evaluation decisions. We question the nature of the educational enterprise and the academic environment within which both students and faculty operate. We use the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics to guide our examination of collegiality, and the three traditional areas of faculty evaluation (teaching, scholarship, and service), as they relate to professional integrity. We discuss potential pitfalls in situations involving integrity concerns, and suggest that the use of collegiality in professional decisions is more prevalent and potentially harmful than many realize.     

The Only Thing That Stops a Guy with a Bad Policy is a Guy with a Good Policy: An Examination of the NRA’s “National School Shield” Proposal

With the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT, the public and the government are looking for solutions to school violence. The National Rifle Association (NRA), a Second Amendment, pro-gun advocacy group, has proposed an “education and training emergency response program” called The National School Shield, which advocates the placement of armed security in schools. Although the program sounds provocative, serious questions complicate its plausibility, necessity, motive, and effectiveness. Furthermore, the potential policy and practical ramifications of encouraging armed security forces in U.S. schools are complex. The authors examined the proposal’s key elements from a public policy perspective and determined that the NRA program would be expensive in terms of both implementation and civil and/or criminal liability, would increase juvenile contact with the criminal justice system, would increase the potential for injuries and deaths from firearms, and would potentially only serve to increase profits for those invested in security industries. More potentially effective and safe policy alternatives are offered.     

美国远程教育的新法律——Teach法案的重要性及其意义

2002年10月4日,美国国会颁布了《技术、教育和版权协调法案》,即通常所指的“Teach法案”,本文主要概括了Teach法案规定的新的使用标准和使用要求,对法案条文通常以理解为主而不是原文引用。因此本文分别阐述了新法案可能带来的有利之处及各种各样的适用条件,以期能对教育机构以及其他希望理解和适用该法案的人有所帮助。本文还提出了一些战略性策略和实施方法的建议,以供教育机构参考。总而言之,本文将列举Teach法案的有利之处,对法案的适用条件按照学院或大学在实施时应负的义务分为三类:教育计划制订者应负的义务;信息技术人员应负的义务;教育机构工作人员或其他成员应负的义务。