On Monday night, my wife had control of the remote and had the TV set on HGTV.  An episode of "Tiny House Hunters" (which is a misleading title - I keep expecting it to be about little people looking for homes that are height appropriate) was on.  I wasn't paying much attention until this ad came on:

Punch the porcelain??!?!?  Devil's Doughnuts??!?  What fresh hell was this?  I'm not sure I could ever buy the product, but I have to give credit to the actress, Sarah Kaidanow, who gives her all to the role.


I know nothing of her background, where she came from, her goals or aspirations.  I can only imagine when she decided to pursue a career in acting, this ad was not likely what she had in mind.  Yet, as Constantin Stanislavski remarked that "there are no small parts, only small actors."  Kaidanow carries that motto to precision.

Kris Dunn once advocated recruiting former Division III athletes as they pursued their passion despite the lack of financial support that DI athletes receive.   I'd apply the same approach to actresses like Sarah.  This role is hardly the stuff of dreams, but she embraced her part wholeheartedly.  My guess is she will bring the same dedication to her next gig.

So, here's to you, Sarah.  I hope this is the start of bigger and better roles for you.

As a professor, I am vigilant in examining my grading practices to ensure students are receiving a fair and deserved grade.  I want to ensure that the grade reflects the work and performance a student demonstrated over the course of a semester.  Last semester, I taught two sections of the same course - one section earned an average grade of 3.12 (on a 4.0 scale), the other a 2.67.

Unfortunately, grade inflation has been a major problem at many colleges and universities.  As Libby Nelson at Vox.com notes:

By 2007, 83 percent of all grades at a sample of 200 four-year colleges and universities were A's and B's. And research from a former Duke University professor found that A's have been the most commonly awarded grade at four-year colleges since the 1990s:

(Stuart Rojstaczer)

One school, Wellesley College, attempted to combat grade inflation by enforcing an average grade for an introductory class: a B+.  If a faculty member exceeded this grade, he or she had to explain, in writing, why the higher grade was justified.

What was the impact of such a policy shift?  Research by Kristin F. Butcher, Patrick J. McEwan, and Akila

found that results were immediate; average grades were brought down in previously high-grading departments.

Further, not only did it impact choice of major, but evaluation of teachers; with tougher grades, teachers received lower ratings...SHOCKING!

However, where HR should take note is how GPA is used for hiring decisions.  Wellesley students were obviously concerned that lower grades would impact hireability, particularly if they were the only college instituting such a change.   As Butcher, et al, note:

"They point to examples of web-based job application systems that will not let them proceed if their GPA is below a 3.5," the authors wrote. "The economist's answer that firms relying on poor information to hire are likely to fare poorly and to be poor employers in the long run proves remarkably uncomforting to undergraduates."

In the absence of other universities replicating Wellesley en masse, is using GPA as a criterion for hiring lazy HR?  Do firms have evidence that the higher GPA is not only necessary for the job being performed, but distinguishes good performers from poor performers?  Further, if all colleges (other than Wellesley) engage in grade inflation, is the GPA really meaningful for hiring purposes?

 

It was odd today (as a long-time Michigan State football fan) to read of Arkansas' hire of John L. Smith, as their interim head football coach.  Oy, this is painful....

Do they not recall his coaching gaffe (and subsequent rant) after MSU attempted a FG to go up 20-7 in Columbus in 2005 with seconds left in the 2nd quarter, only to have it blocked and returned for a defensive TD to make it 17-14 at the half.  "The kids are playing their tails off and the coaches are screwing it up!!!"


Do they not recall the slap he gave himself after his team gave up a 16 point lead in the fourth quarter to Notre Dame in 2006?



Do they not recall that he chose to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro, instead of being present at his own coaching camp, thereby alienating several potential MSU recruits? What kind of leader does that?

Do they not recall that he was hired at his alma mater, Weber State, 3.5 months ago, and just finished his first spring practice, leaving them high and dry?  Of course, you have the typical coach speak at the time of that hire at Weber State, "I have made it to big time. I truly believe that. I'm back and happy to be here. And thankful" as well as:

Our goal is to make Weber State a national champion in football. OK? We're going to spout it ... We're going to tell recruits about it (including those who signed in February?). Come here if you want to be national champ. Because that's what we're going to get done. That dream is there. That goal is there.

I guess that's true...until Arkansas calls.


Do they not recall how he was hired to MSU in the first place, where his players learned of his pending departure to Michigan State at halftime of Louisville's 38-15 loss to Marshall in the GMAC Bowl on Dec. 18, 2002?  What kind of leader does that?


And all of this is even more ridiculous in light of the recent strife between Wisconsin basketball coach Bo Ryan and former recruit Jarrod Uthoff. In short, Uthoff, unhappy with his time spent at Wisconsin, decided he wanted to transfer, only to find himself blocked from going to a number of schools because Ryan thought he might play that team in the near future.  Coaches get a free pass to come and go, while players are at the mercy of the system.  Oy.

It makes you want to stop following sports at times.

Would you take a chance on a guy like Smith?