I haven’t yet linked to the CCC Reinvention: The Truth blog in part because I haven’t been quite sure of it in a variety of ways (plus I knew that people could find it through the Truman Lounge if they really wanted to).
Still, I’ve been poking my head in now and again and gradually gained confidence that it is, at the least, an expression of the perspective of some CCC faculty (if not always mine). When I came across this post yesterday, I figured it was time to feature the post and the blog, just in case anyone out there hadn’t seen it yet.
The post is about the contrast in the data used for “The Case for Change” (and more saliently, the imprecision in the way that data is used and promulgated) and some other data collections that seem to be at odds with the much repeated numbers of “The Case for Change.”
I’d been wanting to post some sort of response to the “White Paper” on Reinvention (have you read it?), but the unnamed author put together way better work than I can muster at this point, and in multiple ways better than anything I could put together under good circumstances. In other words, it’s worth reading.
PS: I’m going to add it to the BlogRoll, too, since it is a faculty blog.