text:
Author Phil Hill, Blog January 15, 2020 /0 Comments/by Phil Hill
On Monday I shared a post "Purdue University's System-wide OPM Contract With Kaplan Higher Ed" that was based on a public records request. In the post, I described a list of questions I had for Purdue University. Similar to the handling of the post on Purdue Global's financial losses from the first year of operations, the university spokesperson provided welcome answers to the questions.
I am going to share Purdue's response in full and then provide some initial thoughts below.
Purdue University Response
In this section, the original questions are in blue italics, and Purdue's commentary is in quotation below each quote.
"The Kaplan agreement (the one for OPM services outside of PG) is significant. Can you describe how Kaplan was selected as your institution-wide partner? In other words, was there a competitive process, or was this tied to PG contract, or some other decision process?"
Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) was selected as a provider of basic services because it made sense to do business with a partner with whom we had a long-term relationship (via PG) and who had a shared interest in cultivating online offerings that would cater to different needs in a cohesive and logical fashion. One of the key reasons for acquiring Kaplan University in the first place was to obtain rapid and ready access to online support expertise, as opposed to trying to build it in-house. Since KHE has that expertise, they were a logical choice to turn to for similar functions on Purdue Online's behalf.
Even still, the agreement with KHE is not exclusive. KHE currently serves five non-PG online offerings for Purdue, but there are a greater number that are not being served by KHE, including legacy programs with other OPMs, programs that Purdue self-services or directly sells to a customer for workforce development, and small niche programs.
"Which university groups have been briefed on the agreement and its implications?"
All colleges are aware of the options available to them as they develop and grow online programs.
"I was surprised that the entire section on distribution waterfall was redacted. Can you describe how the mechanics are different than PG waterfall (don't need specific numbers like rates or rev share percentages)?"
The terms were developed through separate negotiations, but in general, the waterfall operates in a similar fashion: program revenue is distributed first to cover all program costs incurred by Purdue and KHE before any fee to KHE is paid. KHE is only paid a fee if all program costs of Purdue and KHE have been covered and if cash remains to pay KHE's fee. Any residual revenue after that accrues to Purdue. To the extent there are differences between the two agreements, they likely stem from the fact that online programs being developed by Purdue are more in their infancy stage and the potential benefits of an OPM to a new program are different than those of an established program.
"How many programs outside of PG are using Kaplan for OPM services now that the contract is a year old?"
Five with a few more in the works.
My Commentary
Like the response on Purdue Global finances, this response from Purdue is quite helpful in filling in gaps in the public record. Given the increasing importance of the OPM market, and given the importance of institution-wide online strategy, it is important that other schools (and even for-profit companies) understand what is happening with this high-profile initiative, and to understand it accurately. I will share additional thoughts on this contract and what it means for Purdue and for the OPM market in a future post. Below I will just add some initial thoughts on the specific answers provided.
The Purdue response on how Kaplan was selected as an OPM provider addressed why Purdue perceived the need for an outside provider vs. using in-house resources, and they mentioned the explicit connection with the Purdue Global agreement. But what this situation means is that no, there was not a competitive evaluation for an institution-wide OPM partner with 30-year contract term and "limited exclusive" status. That is remarkable to me – making this big of a decision without any market evaluation or competition involved.
Purdue's response mentions online programs not using Kaplan, but that somewhat misses the point. The contract listed named pre-existing exceptions to the agreement. Purdue has chosen to redact the information on the mechanics of how programs may end up using or not using Kaplan (section 4.1.1), but this is not a case where each program (or department, or college) can just pick who they want with no strings attached. This is an institution-wide strategy and approach with a "limited exclusive" partner.
Purdue's response also seems to confirm that the contract decision was made by a small group of people without broad campus involvement or even information-sharing before decisions were made. What I believe the answer "All colleges are aware of the options available to them as they develop and grow online programs" implies is that this fait accompli has been communicated to individual college leadership (deans and staff) for decisions moving forward. Essentially a notification rather than a discussion.
The Purdue response on the financial structure is useful and confirms the hybrid approach. First, pay direct costs from Purdue as well as fee-for-service due to Kaplan. Second, look at net revenue to determine if Kaplan also received a revenue-sharing percentage (what I believe is meant by "the fee"). Third, accrue residual revenue to Purdue. Much of the discussion on the OPM market refers to a false binary between revenue-sharing and fee-for-service without recognizing the significant trend of hybrid revenue structures such as used in the Kaplan contract.
Time permitting, I'll add some overall thoughts in a future post. For now, I'd like to thank Purdue University again for answering questions on this important topic.
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2020-01-15 20:24:542020-01-15 20:25:00Purdue University Answers Questions on Purdue-Kaplan OPM Contract
Purdue University made its big announcement in Spring 2017 about the agreement to acquire Kaplan University and turn it into what is now known as Purdue University Global. Purdue further made news one year ago by announcing a centralized office to coordinate all online activities of the system – Purdue Online. What has not been made public is that Purdue also signed a Master Services Agreement one year ago with Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) to make it effectively a system-wide Online Program Management (OPM) vendor for online programs across all four campuses.
Historically OPM partnerships were program-specific, made with little oversight in a period that has been called "deans gone wild". As online opportunities expanded and the OPM market grew, there were cases of multiple OPM contracts within the same institution, either a mix of OPM providers, multiple programs using the same OPM provider, or a mix. This trend towards centralization, or coordination, is now leading to institution-wide OPM contracts. This Purdue – Kaplan agreement represents perhaps the most significant case, while 2U's recent agreement with the University of North Carolina represents another. Thanks to a public records request, we can get a much better understanding of this new OPM model.
Continuation of a Vision
While this institution-wide OPM contract has not been made public before today, there have been hints that this move might happen, including Purdue president Mitch Daniels' presentation of the Purdue Global case to state officials in 2017.
The deal, Daniels contends, puts Purdue in line to get access to Kaplan's online infrastructure, allowing the university to leapfrog its virtual campus efforts much more quickly than if it had tried to develop one on its own.
If we jump forward to December 2018, Purdue officials received approval from the Purdue Board of Trustees to establish Purdue Online as a new organization. As described by Inside Higher Ed a year ago:
"It's a shift from a college-level strategy to a Purdue-level strategy," said Frank Dooley, Purdue's senior vice provost for teaching and learning. "We've kind of been drinking from a fire hose in the last year."
Purdue's vision for its online programs, according to administrators, preserves distinctions between traditional Purdue and its former for-profit extension while taking advantage of overlapping goals and complementary offerings. Online education observers will be tracking Purdue as a potential new collaborative model settles in. And Purdue's faculty — portions of which bristled at Purdue's handling of the Kaplan acquisition — will be watching closely and warily.
Not mentioned with the announcement of Purdue Online, however, was that the university signed a Master Services Agreement – dated January 1, 2019 – with Kaplan Higher Education. This contract gives Kaplan essentially the right of first refusal to be the OPM partner for online programs across the system.
The services to be provided are separated into basic and enhanced (pp 2-3), where basic is the minimum set of services to be provided and enhanced are optional services.
2.1.1 Basic Services. In general, at a minimum, KHE shall provide the services set forth on Exhibit A uniformly to each Purdue online Program that is the subject of a SOW hereunder (the "Basic Services").
2.1.2 Enhanced Services. In addition, for a given Program covered by a SOW, KHE may also provide: (a) any of the additional services set forth on Exhibit B hereto that are selected by Purdue and the relevant Purdue Unit, to apply to that Program, by mutual agreement, and (b) any other support services not specifically described on Exhibit B that the Parties may mutually agree to include with respect to that Program (collectively, the "Enhanced Services").
The Basic Services and the Enhanced Services are referred to herein collectively as the "KHE Managed Services".
Exhibits A shows the basic services that include program and portfolio strategy, student recruitment, and reporting and analytics.
Exhibit B shows the enhanced services that can include, well, almost anything to be done in an online program. Including teaching and delivery. Everything except application decision and admissions policy.
Kaplan is now the limited exclusive provider of program services for Purdue's online initiatives (p 5):
During the Term of this Agreement, KHE shall be the "limited exclusive provider" of Basic Services for all new online Programs developed and launched by Purdue Units during the Term, other than with respect to Program Exceptions.
This contract has reversed the dynamic of an OPM being selected for a program. KHE is now the provider for all online programs unless they are listed as an exception in the contract, or in the case that Purdue and Kaplan mutually agree to not work together on a program.
Exclusivity and Non-Competition
In section 6.2.1 on p 6, the contract specifies that for any new statement of work (SOW) governing a specific online program, Purdue may not use another vendor for similar services.
. . . KHE shall be deemed, in addition to its status described in Section 6.1, the "exclusive and sole provider" of the KHE Managed Services described in the SOW with respect to that Program, such that Purdue shall not enter into any agreement or arrangement with a third party to provide services similar to those covered by such SOW for the purpose of supporting the same Program offered by the same Purdue Unit via an alternative online channel or platform, unless KHE has elected to waive exclusivity in writing in such SOW.
Furthermore, Purdue has agreed to not allow programs to compete with each other (section 6.2.2 on p 6).
6.2.2 Additionally, once a SOW is entered into hereunder and remains in effect for a given Program, Purdue shall not do either of the following, unless, in either case, KHE has elected to waive the relevant restriction in writing in such SOW:
6.2.2.1 Enter into any agreement or arrangement with a third party to provide services similar to those covered by such SOW for a Purdue Unit's proposed offering of an online program that is the same as or Substantially Similar to the Program covered by such SOW, or
6.2.2.2 Directly undertake the development, launch or promotion of any online program that is the same as or Substantially Similar to the Program covered by such SOW.
For purposes of this Agreement, Program(s) are considered "Substantially Similar" if they (i) compete for the same student population, (ii) result in the same credential level or degree (e.g., AS, BS, MS, PhD or other), and (iii) have the same six digits of their CIP Codes (as defined in Exhibit D).
What is almost as interesting as what the contract says is what Purdue University chose to redact as part of the public records request.
One example is section 4.1.1 (p. 4), which describes Purdue's obligations on which programs that Kaplan has the exclusive right to bid upon and the mechanics of how this limited exclusive provider works out in practice. I am not sure how this is considered a trade secret or confidential information.
Another example of redactions is the mechanics of payments. It is perhaps not surprising, however, that Purdue chose to redact the entirety of Exhibit F, which describes the "distribution waterfall" of how Kaplan gets paid. In the case of Purdue Global, the waterfall is mix of fee-for-service and revenue sharing provisions, with defined priorities of which party gets paid first, second, etc based on program revenue. None of this information was shared in the response to the public records request. I could see redacting specific revenue sharing percentages, but the basics of the distribution waterfall should be a public Purdue issue, not a proprietary Kaplan issue.
Net Effect
The net effect is that Kaplan has an institution-wide OPM contract for almost all of the system's online offerings moving forward, with Kaplan provided exclusivity and non-competition status. I do not believe that any of this information has been competitively bid or shared with the university community, and it certainly has not been described publicly.
I have requests out to both Purdue University official channels and with several faculty member on the following. When I get answers from Purdue I will share an update.
The Master Services Agreement
I have further thoughts on this agreement, what it means for Purdue, and what it means for the OPM market. But I will leave this commentary for a future post while waiting to see if I can get answers on some of the questions above.
I appreciate Purdue University's timely response to the public records request. You can download the MSA here or view below.
REDACTED-TS-PURDUE-KHE-MSA-2019-Signed-Copy-2-5-19_Redacted-1
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2020-01-13 20:39:472020-01-13 20:39:54Purdue University's System-wide OPM Contract With Kaplan Higher Ed
Author Phil Hill, Blog January 7, 2020 /1 Comment/by Phil Hill
After my Sunday post "Purdue University Global Loses $43 million in First Full Year Since Kaplan Transfer", a spokesperson from Purdue University contacted me and provided commentary on several points made in the post. I welcome this clarification, especially as it helps explain the $90 million line item on non operating revenue and whether that is relevant to long-term Purdue Global financial viability. In short, that revenue is relevant, and therefore it is best to interpret the loss last year as $43 million and not $133 million.
I am going to share Purdue's response in full and then provide my thoughts below.
In this section, quotes from my original post are in blue italics, and Purdue's commentary is in quotation below each quote.
"Strictly speaking, the $43 million number is most relevant for this year, but this amount obscures the effect of one-time or short-term payments from Kaplan that were part of the initial agreement. In other words, the operating losses matter from a long-term viability perspective."
This is false. Payments from Kaplan have no impact on the profit and loss and even if they did, they occurred last fiscal year not this one.
Additionally, "operating losses" are constrained by some accounting rules and they are only one part of Purdue Global's financial picture. Due to accounting rules, virtually every university in the country reports an "operating loss" and so the reported number is an insufficient and misleading measure of "long-term viability."
However, you do raise an important question regarding what was in the $43 million number? That included a deliberate one-time, $28.5 million marketing investment as we launched a new university brand. It also included $9 million in accrued but unpaid KHE fee that won't need to be paid until the cash flow is positive. Only $5.5 million was a loss from operations.
"What is not entirely clear is the breakdown of $90 million in Non-Operating Revenues. Purdue University Global is a public institution, but it does not receive state funding. I believe this revenue includes $30 million in transfers from Kaplan's parent company, Graham Holdings, that was defined as part of the initial 2017 agreement."
This is false. The $90m is tuition and fee revenue from Pell grants plus a small amount of investment income and gift revenue. It's only classified as non-operating due to accounting rules. It's clearly revenue from student enrollments, not transfers from Kaplan.
"The Purdue – Kaplan deal was never popular among Purdue University faculty and last spring there was an interesting debate in a local paper between three faculty members …"
This is an overgeneralization, especially following our work on campus to dispel myths and to explain the opportunity. There will always be some vocal critics, but the University Senate is in a much different place than it was a few years ago in regard to Purdue Global. Over the last year, the Senate declined to take up a resolution critical of Purdue Global. A special ad hoc committee established by University Senate to study a variety of issues related to Purdue Global has effectively disbanded after concluding that any concerns had been addressed. In addition, faculty from at least four Purdue West Lafayette colleges are now engaged with Purdue Global to offer new educational offerings through the new online university.
"I am not sure the difference between the following numbers (around 29k) and the IPEDS numbers reported by Purdue (see above, around 36k), but nevertheless the following updated numbers indicate a new steady state of enrollment."
IPEDS has some unique requirements for Purdue Global since it's on a quarter system. The chart you chose is ours and was correct at the time and an easier way to look at the data. The most up-to-date, year-over year comparison looks even better with enrollment growth from 2018 to 2019.
source: Purdue University updates using October 2018 and October 2019 census dates
"… but for now it is not apparent that Purdue Global will be financially viable."
Purdue Global had $45 million cash on hand at the end of FY19. The deficit in FY19 was primarily driven by one-time strategic start-up investments, particularly brand marketing and the development of some new programs that align with Purdue's strengths and competitive advantages. For FY20, we have every expectation that Purdue Global will generate an operating surplus.
This response from Purdue is quite helpful in filling in gaps in the public record. Given the importance of Purdue Global, it is important that other schools (and even for-profit companies) understand what is happening with this high-profile initiative, and to understand it accurately.
In particular, the most important clarification is that the "$90m is tuition and fee revenue from Pell grants plus a small amount of investment income and gift revenue". Additionally, it is useful to see details on the "deliberate one-time, $28.5 million marketing investment" and "$9 million in accrued but unpaid KHE fee that won't need to be paid until the cash flow is positive".
In my opinion, the majority of the $90 million non operating revenue is relevant to operations, meaning that the $43 million loss (and not $133 million) is applicable. I disagree, however, with the statement that "only $5.5 million was a loss from operations".
The $28.5 million marketing investment does NOT imply that Purdue Global spent only that amount on marketing and will not need to in the future. What it means is that based on internal budgeting Purdue Global spent $28.5 million more than what they believe is a steady state marketing level, and that they believe they can go back down to steady state marketing in FY2020. For perspective see this Purdue Exponent article.
According to the May 2 SEC filing, Kaplan will assist PUG in areas including admissions support, technology support, marketing services and international and domestic student recruitment. The filing does not cite expected costs of those services, but according to a fact-finding team from the Higher Learning Commission, Purdue representatives estimated the cost of KHE's "back office services" to be about $200 million in addition to an estimated $100 million to be spent on marketing. The Higher Learning Commission's report was published earlier this year.
If accurate, this information indicates that Purdue Global likely spent more than $130 million on marketing in FY2019.
As the chart above and my original post showed, Purdue Global seems to have slowed down or even reversed the enrollment declines of Kaplan University (good for them), but the additional marketing spend was clearly a key part of this change. The total marketing spend, even the amount above steady state, is very relevant to operations.
Furthermore, the accrued but unpaid KHE fee of $9 million is also relevant. The liability has not gone away, it is part of annual operations, and (assuming PG becomes cash flow positive) due to Kaplan Higher Education in the future.
Purdue's claim about me overgeneralizing that the "deal was never popular among Purdue University faculty" is a fair point, but in the same way I challenge their brushing off of faculty complaints as "myths" and "some vocal critics". It would be interesting to survey the Purdue faculty on this question to get a better sense of support, but that is not in the cards (at least as public information).
All in all, this is a valuable update from Purdue University. Looking forward, the final statement Purdue provided is the one to watch – "For FY20, we have every expectation that Purdue Global will generate an operating surplus".
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2020-01-07 14:21:062020-01-07 14:21:12Postscript on Purdue University Global Post
Author Phil Hill, Blog January 5, 2020 /2 Comments/by Phil Hill
Update 7 Jan 2019: Purdue responded to this post and answered some questions raised below. See follow-up post "Postscript on Purdue University Global Post". I have adjusted the text below on the new information on non operating revenues.
One of the biggest stories in postsecondary online education in the past few years was the partnership between Purdue University and Kaplan University, where KU was transferred to Purdue and rebranded as Purdue University Global under a 30-year contract. The high-profile move, announced in March 2017 and finalized in April 2018, converted the 30k+ university from a for-profit into a public nonprofit under the Purdue brand while turning Kaplan Higher Education into a single-client Online Program Management (OPM) vendor.
Last year it was reported that Purdue Global was losing money, almost $16 million in the partial year (Purdue's fiscal year starts on July 1st), and now we have more recent data.
Based on the latest Purdue University Financial Report provided to the Board of Trustees in October 2019 and approved in December, Purdue University Global had $133 million in operating losses and $43 million in net position losses in its first full year of operation. Strictly speaking, the $43 million number is most relevant for this year, but this amount obscures the effect of one-time or short-term payments from Kaplan that were part of the initial agreement. In other words, the operating losses matter from a long-term viability perspective.
The financial report describes its separation of Operating Revenues and Non Operating Revenues as follows (p. 15):
Revenues are classified for financial reporting as either operating or nonoperating. Operating revenues are generated by providing goods and services to our students and other important constituents of the University and include tuition and fees, grants and contracts, and sales and services. Tuition and fees and housing revenue assessed to students are reported gross, with the related scholarship allowance presented separately. Nonoperating revenues are those received by the University without providing a corresponding good or service and include our state appropriations, investment income, and private gifts.
The July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 statement of activities (p. 77) shows the revenue and losses. The key numbers are in the Loss before Other Revenues line.
What is not entirely clear is the breakdown of $90 million in Non Operating Revenues. Purdue University Global is a public institution, but it does not receive state funding. I believe this revenue includes $30 million in transfers from Kaplan's parent company, Graham Holdings, that was defined as part of the initial 2017 agreement. But I have to admit that I'm not sure here, and I can find no public reporting to better explain the numbers.
Falling Enrollment
It should not be surprising that Purdue University Global is losing money, as Kaplan University was already losing enrollments like most of the for-profit sector. Looking at IPEDS data from Fall 2012 through 2018, I have combined all of Kaplan University and Purdue University Global campuses into one institution and showed on the same chart as other large online enrollment institutions. The data show a persistent drop in enrollment since 2014, although the losses may be slowing.
Administration Statements
The Purdue – Kaplan deal was never popular among Purdue University faculty, and last spring there was an interesting debate in a local paper between three faculty members and the Purdue CFO, Bill Sullivan (there is a good summary by Derek Newton in Forbes). In Sullivan's response to the faculty members' initial letter, he described the initial losses and expectations moving forward.
While it is true that, in its first year of operation, Purdue Global invested more in startup costs than it offset by revenues, this was a deliberate strategic choice and was, importantly, prefunded by Kaplan Higher Education through the assets it brought to Purdue at acquisition. It is important to note that Purdue Global had more than $66 million in cash at the end of 2018 – a far cry from "bleeding the system dry."
Another important consideration is that under the acquisition's terms, Purdue is guaranteed payments of $10 million a year for the first five years. These funds could be reinvested at Purdue Global or they could even be shifted to other areas of Purdue, potentially including the regional campuses. Again, that is a far cry from "bleeding the system dry."
But perhaps most important is the fact that Purdue has the first claim on any revenue Purdue Global takes in. Recall that Purdue owns and runs the university while Kaplan is reimbursed for its expenses in providing various back office support services as marketing, human resources, admissions and information technology. In the waterfall of cash flow, the last to get paid will always be Kaplan and the first will always be Purdue. That is, as money comes in, Purdue's side of the operating costs and its $10 million priority payment are paid first.
This is an important point because I expect elevated startup costs to continue into 2019 and more modestly in 2020.
There are signs, also from Board of Trustees report from October, that the enrollment has stabilized since Fall 2018. It is worth noting that Indiana offers a 45% tuition discount to state residents in undergraduate programs at Purdue Global, and that Purdue employees can attend for free. I am not sure the difference between the following numbers (around 29k) and the IPEDS numbers reported by Purdue (see above, around 36k), but nevertheless the following updated numbers indicate a new steady state of enrollment.
Kaplan Higher Education as OPM
Due to the Purdue deal, Kaplan Higher Education changed from a for-profit set of institutions into an OPM provider. In their most recent earnings release, the Kaplan Higher Education division of Graham Holdings showed $238 million in revenue in the first nine months of 2019 from Purdue University Global (I believe Purdue represents the vast majority of this division's activities), based on p. 28.
Extrapolating this number for a full 12 months, Kaplan HE as an OPM is likely making close to $315 million in revenue from the Purdue agreement, out of Purdue Global's roughly $437 million in operating expenses. While Kaplan's case is unique, that is still a large OPM operation, especially from just one client.
Note that the fiscal years of Purdue and Graham do not align, so use these numbers as a rough estimate.
Termination Clause
There is one other item worth mentioning here, in that the original Transition and Operations Support Agreement (TOSA) between Purdue and Kaplan had a clause for either side to terminate the contract based on financial losses. I am not suggesting that either side is considering this option based on the current losses, but it is worth remembering this option. From p. 26 of the TOSA:
Either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event that New University generates $25 million or more in annual Cash Operating Losses for three (3) consecutive Fiscal Years, or incurs, during any period of the Initial Term, aggregate Cash Operating Losses greater than $75 million (taking into account gains during such period) (either circumstance being called a "Triggering Loss
Where (p. 2 of Exhibit A):
"Cash Operating Losses", for any Fiscal Year, means the amount by which: (a) the sum of: (1) the Academic Costs plus the Support Costs incurred in such Fiscal Year, plus (2) $10 million for each of the first 60 months following the Effective Date, exceeds (b) the total Revenue earned by New University in such Fiscal Year.
I believe the "Cash Operating Losses" for any year refers primarily to $43 million. Essentially $43 million plus the annual $10 million priority payment, or $53 million for this year. Clearly this exceeds the clause (i) above for the first year.
Enrollment at Purdue Global appears to be improving, but at what cost? There are some real one-time revenue items obscuring the true financial state of Purdue Global, and the enrollment stabilization includes free or reduced tuition offers. I'd like to see details on the $90 million in nonoperating revenues as well as some breakdown of expenses, but for now it is not apparent that Purdue Global will be financially viable.
As it turns out, however, there is a lot more to the Purdue – Kaplan story beyond Purdue Global, as I'll share in an upcoming post.
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2020-01-05 12:00:412020-01-07 14:25:57Purdue University Global Loses $43 million in First Full Year Since Kaplan Transfer
Institutional Decisions on OPM Market: Upcoming discussions on complicated questions
Author Phil Hill, Blog October 31, 2019 /by Phil Hill
Following our recent webinar with WCET on the Online Program Management (OPM) market, I am excited to lead two sessions next week at one of my favorite events of the year – the #WCET19 conference in Denver. As background, see this post addressing the OPM market.
Wednesday, Nov 6th at 1:45pm MT in Penrose 2 – #WCETOPM Navigating the OPM Marketplace: Picking the Right Partners While Avoiding Market Chaos This will have some overlap with the webinar but will focus more on the choices and decision-making processes that academic institutions face when evaluating OPM vendors or even deciding whether to use an OPM partner.
Wednesday, Nov 6th at 4:30pm MT in Denver 1-2 – #WCETOPMUnconf OPM Unconference Session Our webinar from September is available online, and we had some great questions during the webinar but were restricted by time constraints on addressing them all. During this session we plan to focus on answer the webinar questions and new questions from attendees. Come for a discussion.
Some the topics that we plan to address in these sessions, partially based on webinar questions:
Ideas for bringing OPM providers and schools together for more transparency and research on program outcomes;
The relationship between the OPM (and broader Online Program Enablement, or OPE) market and all-too-common lack of institutional support/structures vs. demand/competition for online learning programs;
Whether OPM critics, analytics, scholars, company leaders, and schools can come together for a collegial discussion;
The increasing emphasis on quality course and curriculum design; and
Advice for schools to consider with regards to policy, practice, and regulation when entering into a partnership with an OPM/OPE.
I don't pretend to have simple answers for all questions – come, participate and expect a real discussion at the sessions.
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2019-10-31 11:56:452019-10-31 11:56:51Institutional Decisions on OPM Market: Upcoming discussions on complicated questions
Online Program Management: An updated view of the market landscape for 2019
Author Phil Hill, Blog September 27, 2019 /2 Comments/by Phil Hill
Yesterday I had the opportunity to share an updated view of the Online Program Management (OPM) market in a webinar with WCET. There were too many questions to fully address during the session, and we are planning a joint blog post to address additional questions over the next week.
You can view the recorded webinar at https://youtu.be/uMSa3lEn_4I or at the embed below the graphic.
We have a session planned for the annual WCET conference in Denver in early November. We'd love to see you there and continue the conversation in person.
Updates since 2018
As part of the webinar I released an updated graphic of the OPM landscape, taking a broader view of this growing but dynamic market. Since the last version shared a year ago, I added a new sub-category of vendors, for-profit conversions, to capture the Kaplan (Purdue Global) and Grand Canyon Education (GCU) with its recent Orbis acquisition. I expect this group to grow, as Bridgepoint Education (Walden U) is seeking approval to make similar changes.
Some other enhancements to note:
The business model axis makes it more clear that there is a range of options between Tuition Revenue Share and Fee for Service.
2U now shows its acquisitions of GetSmarter and Trilogy, while also add its investment and partnership with Keypath. I also am showing the entry into the bachelors degree market the London School of Economics and the more recent Institutional Suite.
Wiley shows its acquisition of Learning House.
I have adjusted the sampling of fee-for-service vendors based on market activity.
Fall 2019 Graphic
As before, please note that this view is intended to give a visual overview of the market landscape and is not comprehensive in terms of vendors represented. This is particularly true as you approach the bottom of the graphic.
The webinar covers additional context around this graphic.
(Source for video: https://youtu.be/uMSa3lEn_4I)
Expect more coverage soon on the OPM market and the broader world of online and hybrid education.
Update 9/28: Mentioned that 2U's entry into bachelors degree market started with London School of Economics, which pre-dated the Institutional Suite announcement.
https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png 0 0 Phil Hill https://philonedtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/philonedtechlogo200.png Phil Hill2019-09-27 03:54:432019-09-29 20:18:20Online Program Management: An updated view of the market landscape for 2019


Suburban Motel is a six play series by Canadian writer George F. Walker. All plays take place in a "slightly run-down motel on the outskirts of a large city". Tableau d'Hôte Theatre, an independent theatre company showed the play series at MainLine Theatre in Montreal. Keeping this in mind, I created six posters and a booklet with all information. The images and mood are inspired by the set and each shows an object in the room that starts the play.
22" x 30", 6" x 8.5"


by reflectionofdes September 22, 2017 November 11, 2017 Leave a Comment on In a Long Distance Relationship? Watch Video In Post!!
Hello, everyone, if you are in a long distance relationship then you will love the video in this post. I posted this video on YouTube months ago. I thought it would be a good idea to share it again. Make sure you check it out!! I give 4 long distance relationship problems.


text:
/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 4; c-basic-offset: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil -*- */
/*
 *     Copyright 2019 Couchbase, Inc
 *
 *   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 *   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 *   You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 *   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 *   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 *   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 *   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 *   limitations under the License.
 */

#pragma once

#include <memcached/server_document_iface.h>

/**
 * A class which wraps a given instance of the server document interface,
 * and "guards" calls to all methods of that instance by switching away from
 * the current thread's engine, calling the underlying guarded method, and then
 * switching back.
 *
 * This ensures that any memory allocations performed within any of the
 * interfaces' methods are correctly accounted (to the "Non Bucket").
 */
class ServerDocumentIfaceBorderGuard : public ServerDocumentIface {
public:
    explicit ServerDocumentIfaceBorderGuard(ServerDocumentIface& guarded);
    ENGINE_ERROR_CODE pre_link(gsl::not_null<const void*> cookie,
                               item_info& info) override;
    std::string pre_expiry(const item_info& itm_info) override;
    void audit_document_access(
            gsl::not_null<const void*> cookie,
            cb::audit::document::Operation operation) override;

protected:
    ServerDocumentIface& guarded;
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Andre Reed to Kick Off 'Read with Reed' Initiative in Buffalo
Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, 4:16pm
Buffalo Bills Hall of Fame wide receiver Andre Reed will return to Buffalo at 4:30 p.m. Friday, Sept. 8, to kick off his Read with Reed 83 Challenge at the Boys & Girls Club's Butler-Mitchell Clubhouse at 370 Massachusetts Ave.
"My reading program called READ 83 has really taken and will support Boys & Girls Clubs in NFL cities," Reed said. "I was a club kid who made it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Now I represent what they stand for and I know that through reading, every child can do the same. Reading is a way out!"
Team Read 83 is also excited to introduce this new collaboration with inner city literacy experts from iKnowABC. In partnership with the Andre Reed Foundation, Pro Athlete Community Engagement Manager Theresa Villano and Cindy Finelli Coleman, M.Ed., of Cindy and Co., have co-created the Read with Reed 83 program.
Produce a Limited-edition Andre Reed Print on a Vintage Printing Press at the Collectors' Expo
Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, 12:47pm
Teamwork and talent helped former Buffalo Bills wide receiver Andre Reed get into four straight Super Bowls and eventually the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And thanks to the teamwork and talent of a local artist and an artisan print shop, limited-edition Andre Reed prints will be available at the first ever Collectors' Expo taking place from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 9, at the Buffalo Irish Center. The Irish Center is located at 245 Abbott Road in Buffalo.
First Ever Collectors' Expo Coming Saturday to the Buffalo Irish Center
Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, 8:38am
Mark your calendars for Western New York's very first Collectors' Expo! Featuring more than 30 vendors and 50 tables of unique merchandise, the event will take place from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 9 in the historic Buffalo Irish Center, located at 245 Abbott Road in South Buffalo.
Vendor and artisan offerings will include sports memorabilia, locally made artwork and handcrafted products, collectible coins, music memorabilia and records, comic books, photography, political memorabilia, movie and theatre memorabilia, car and train memorabilia, jewelry, fossils and minerals, antiques and much more.
Buffalo Scholastic Rowing Association Plans Learn to Row Classes
Friday, July 21st, 2017, 8:22am
Interested in rowing in the heart of Buffalo and enjoying unique sites such as the grain elevators and Canalside from the water? Looking for a good workout, want to learn a new skill or just have some fun with a great bunch of people?
The Buffalo Scholastic Rowing Association (BSRA) will host six Learn to Row classes for adults from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Mondays and Thursdays and 8 to 10 a.m. Sundays from Aug. 13-24. Participants will meet at the BSRA boathouse at 405 Ohio St. in Buffalo, and the cost is $200 for the six sessions. For more information or to register for Learn to Row, please email bsramasters@gmail.com or contact Meg Lauerman at 697-0950 or meglauerman@msn.com.
Audubon's July 29 Wild 5K Run/Walk Part of Runner of the Year Series
Submitted by Audubon Community Nature Center
Tuesday, July 18th, 2017, 12:59pm
Jamestown, NY – Whatever your age, whether you like to run or if walking is more your speed, there's a spot for you at Audubon Community Nature Center's Wild 5K Run/Walk on Saturday, July 29.
Race day schedule is
8-8:45 a.m.: Same-day registration
9 a.m.: Race begins
10:30 a.m.: Award ceremony begins for those who have completed the race
Prizes will be awarded to the first three overall male and female walker and runner finishers. Age group awards will be given to the top three finishers in each for runners and top finisher in each for walkers. Age groups are 12 and under, 13-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+.
Thursday, May 18th, 2017, 5:59pm
Bases Loaded Sports Collectibles will host Charles Stabile, Northeast Regional Sales Manager from Beckett Grading Services, for a card and memorabilia grading event from noon to 6 p.m. Friday, June 9, and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, June 10, in the store, located at 794 French Road, Cheektowaga.
Beckett Grading Services provides collectors with the most thorough, consistent and accurate grading efforts available in the industry. Your BGS-graded cards will be returned in a unique, protective cardholder. Beckett uses an easy-to-understand one- to 10-point grading scale to rate sports cards, which are graded on four key categories: Centering, corners, edges and surface. Grades from each of these key categories will be considered in determining your card's final overall grade. Beckett also grades non-sports cards, magazines, pocket schedules and gaming cards. The cost is $15 per item, with 10-day service.
Bills, M&T Bank Honor Sweet Home Middle School Teacher with 'Touchdown for Teachers' Grand Prize
Submitted by Martin Davison Public Relations
Thursday, May 4th, 2017, 5:10pm
Four Finalists Also Honored for Exceptional Service to Schools, Communities
The Buffalo Bills and M&T Bank announced and honored the ninth annual M&T Bank Touchdown for Teachers program finalists and winner at a private Draft Party event on April 27, 2017 at the ADPRO Sports Training Center at New Era Field.
The annual M&T Bank Touchdown for Teachers program honors local educators for their outstanding service to their schools and communities. Honorees are chosen based on involvement in their school and community, its impact and their demonstrated commitment to education. Of the 470 nominations received, five educators were declared finalists:
July 20th: Buffalo Lock and Key Singles Party at Lockhouse...
Lockhouse Distillery

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Question: What are the measures of ecosystem?
What is measurement of ecosystem?
What are the measures to protect ecosystem?
What is a measure of an ecosystem stability?
Is a major measure of health of ecosystem?
What are the 4 ways to measure biodiversity?
What are the two measures of species diversity in an ecosystem?
What are the 7 pillars of ecosystem management?
What are the different types of ecosystem?
What is ecosystem and its types?
What are the two main categories of ecosystems?
How is biodiversity used as a measure of health of an ecosystem?
What are the factors affecting ecosystem?
What is ecosystem health monitoring?
How do you measure species abundance?
What are the main elements of a healthy ecosystem?
(i) Forest should be reserved and more and trees should be planted across the region especially in those areas where deforestation takes place. (ii) Wildlife must be protected by enacting laws and creating awareness among people. (iii) Starting various projects to save endangered species of plants and wildlife.
The measurement of ecosystem service units is an issue central to various issues in environmental policy. These include: government performance assessment, non-market or "green" welfare accounting, natural resource valuation, conservation planning and priorities, and trade in ecosystem services.
Ten Simple Things You Can Do to Help Protect the Earth
Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Cut down on what you throw away. …
Volunteer. Volunteer for cleanups in your community. …
Educate. …
Conserve water. …
Choose sustainable. …
Shop wisely. …
Use long-lasting light bulbs. …
Plant a tree.
IT IS AMAZING: Why is competition important in an ecosystem?
An ecosystem is said to possess ecological stability (or equilibrium) if it is capable of returning to its equilibrium state after a perturbation (a capacity known as resilience) or does not experience unexpected large changes in its characteristics across time.
Condition indicators tell us whether an ecosystem is in a good state. They include indicators of habitat, species and resources, such as water and carbon. … Resilience indicators measure the extent to which the health of ecosystems can be sustained under human and environmental pressures.
How Do Scientists Measure Biodiversity? Scientists use several methods to measure biodiversity. These include canopy fogging, quadrat sampling, transect sampling, and netting. The method used depends on the types of organisms ecologists are counting and on the habitat.
Biodiversity is defined and measured as an attribute that has two components — richness and evenness. Richness = The number of groups of genetically or functionally related individuals. In most vegetation surveys, richness is expressed as the number of species and is usually called species richness.
But in the definitions of ecosystem management, there are some new words—ecosystem and community sustainability, ecosystem health, ecosystem integrity, biological diversity, social values, social principles. The new words are where differences arise and it is from these words that I will develop the pillars.
The different types of the ecosystem include:
Terrestrial ecosystem.
Forest ecosystem.
Grassland ecosystem.
Desert ecosystem.
Tundra ecosystem.
Freshwater ecosystem.
Marine ecosystem.
IT IS AMAZING: Can metal knives and forks be recycled?
An ecosystem consists of all the living and non-living things in a specific natural setting. … Terrestrial ecosystems are land-based, while aquatic are water-based. The major types of ecosystems are forests, grasslands, deserts, tundra, freshwater and marine.
All types of ecosystems fall into one of two categories: terrestrial or aquatic. Terrestrial ecosystems are land-based, while aquatic are water-based. The major types of ecosystems are forests, grasslands, deserts, tundra, freshwater and marine.
Explanation: Biodiversity is a measurement of how many different types of organisms are found in an ecosystem. The higher the biodiversity means that the ecosystem can sustain (maintain) many different types of producers, consumers, and decomposers. This generally means that the area is healthy.
Biotic factors include plants, animals, and their interaction such as grazing, predation, invasive species, etc. Abiotic factors include light, temperature, pressure, humidity, earthquake, volcanic eruptions, etc. Pollution and destruction of natural habitat is the major influence due to human activities.
The Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) is a comprehensive and scientifically robust waterway monitoring program which provides a regional assessment of the health for each of South East Queensland's major catchments, river estuaries and Moreton Bay zones.
Relative species abundance is calculated by dividing the number of species from one group by the total number of species from all groups.
IT IS AMAZING: What is ecological sustainability why it is important to study ecological sustainability?
A healthy ecosystem consists of native plant and animal populations interacting in balance with each other and nonliving things (for example, water and rocks). Healthy ecosystems have an energy source, usually the sun. The sun provides radiant energy for producer (plant) growth.


text:
Browsing subject area: Jews -- South Africa -- Politics and government (Include extended shelves)
You can also browse an alphabetical list from this subject or from:
Jews -- South Africa -- Politics and government
See also what's at your library, or elsewhere.
Broader terms:
Jews -- South Africa
Jews -- Politics and government
South Africa -- Politics and government
Filed under: Jews -- South Africa -- Politics and government
Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, c2003), by Gideon Shimoni (PDF with commentary at Brandeis)
Items below (if any) are from related and broader terms.
Filed under: Jews -- South Africa -- History
Filed under: Zionism -- South Africa -- History
Filed under: Jews -- Politics and government
The Voice of Jerusalem (New York: Macmillan, 1921), by Israel Zangwill
The Cause of World Unrest (New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920), contrib. by H. A. Gwynne
The Voice of Jerusalem (London: W. Heinemann, 1920), by Israel Zangwill
Program for Survival: The Communist Position on the Jewish Question (New York: New Century Publishers, 1947), by Alex Bittelman, contrib. by Communist Party of the United States of America (PDF at flvc.org)
Das Wesen des Antisemitismus (in German; Berlin: S. Calvary und Co., 1901), by Heinrich Johann Maria Coudenhove-Kalergi
Great Red Dragon: or, London Money Power (Cincinnati: G. E. Stevens, 1890), by L. B. Woolfolk (multiple formats at archive.org)
The World Hoax (Asheville, NC: Pelley Publishers, 1938), by Ernest F. Elmhurst, contrib. by William Dudley Pelley
Nationalism, a Cause of Anti-Semitism (New York: Bloch Pub. Co., 1928), by Samuel Blitz (page images at HathiTrust)
De Republica Ebraeorum (in Latin; Leiden: J. Maire, 1641), by Bonaventure Corneille Bertram, ed. by Constantijn 1591-1648 L'Empereur (page images at HathiTrust)
The Jewish State: A Century Later , by Alan Dowty (HTML at UC Press)
Filed under: Jews -- Politics and government -- 1948- -- Periodicals
JCPA Agenda for Public Affairs , by Jewish Council for Public Affairs (partial serial archives)
Filed under: Jews -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
ZOA Report: A Publication of the Zionist Organization of America (reports online from 2008 onward), by Zionist Organization of America (partial serial archives)
Filed under: Jews -- United States -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
Filed under: Jews -- Politics and government -- Sources
With Firmness in the Right: American Diplomatic Action Affecting Jews, 1840-1945 (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1946), by Cyrus Adler and Aaron M. Margalith (page images at HathiTrust)
Filed under: Jews -- Politics and government -- To 70 A.D.
Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, With an Introductory Essay on Civil Society and Government (Philadelphia: Presbyterian board of publication, c1853), by E. C. Wines
Filed under: Jews -- Egypt -- Politics and government
The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of Modern Diaspora , by Joel Beinin (HTML at UC Press)
Filed under: Jews -- Great Britain -- Politics and government
The Fine Old Hebrew Gentleman (London: T. W. Laurie, ca. 1922), by T. W. H. Crosland (multiple formats at archive.org)
Filed under: Jews -- Israel -- Acre -- Politics and government
The Limits of Coexistence: Identity Politics in Israel (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, c2000), by Rebecca L. Torstrick (page images at HathiTrust)
Filed under: Jews -- Russia -- Politics and government
The Shield (New York: A. A. Knopf, c1917), ed. by Maksim Gorky, Leonid Andreyev, and Fyodor Sologub, trans. by Avrahm Yarmolinsky, contrib. by William English Walling (Gutenberg text)
Filed under: Jews -- Spain -- Barcelona -- Politics and government
Jews, Christian Society, and Royal Power in Medieval Barcelona (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, c2006), by Elka Klein (page images at HathiTrust)
Filed under: Jews -- United States -- Politics and government
Ambiguous Relations: The American Jewish Community and Germany Since 1945 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, c1999), by Shlomo Shafir (multiple formats with commentary at wayneopen.org)
Let Us Prove Strong: The American Jewish Committee, 1945-2006 (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, c2007), by Marianne Rachel Sanua, contrib. by Jonathan D. Sarna (PDF with commentary at Brandeis)
Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, c1999), by Naomi W. Cohen (PDF with commentary at Brandeis)
A Second Exodus: The American Movement to Free Soviet Jews (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, c1999), ed. by Murray Friedman and Albert D. Chernin (PDF at Brandeis)
Nazism, The Jews and American Zionism, 1933-1948 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, c1990), by Aaron Berman (multiple formats with commentary at Wayne Open)
No Haven for the Oppressed: United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1938-1945 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, c1973), by Saul S. Friedman (multiple formats with commentary at Wayne Open)
Filed under: Jews -- United States -- Politics and government -- 20th century
The Americanization of Zionism, 1897-1948 (Hanover, NH, and London: Brandeis University Press, University Press of New England, c2003), by Naomi W. Cohen (PDF at Brandeis)
Irreconcilable Differences? The Waning of the American Jewish Love Affair with Israel (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, c2001), by Steven T. Rosenthal (PDF with commentary at Brandeis)
Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics (1948), by Kermit Roosevelt (multiple formats at archive.org)
Filed under: Jews -- United States -- Politics and government -- Congresses
The Americanization of the Jews (New York and London: New York University Press, c1995), ed. by Robert M. Seltzer and Norman J. Cohen (HTML with commentary at NYU Press)
Filed under: South Africa -- Politics and government
Reinventing African Chieftaincy in the Age of AIDS, Gender, Governance, and Development (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2011), ed. by Donald Iain Ray, Tim Quinlan, Keshav Sharma, and Tacita Clarke (PDF files at University of Calgary)
Armies and Democracy in the New Africa: Lessons from Nigeria and South Africa (1996), by Kent Hughes Butts and Steven Metz (PDF with commentary at armywarcollege.edu)
Briton and Boer: Both Sides of the South African Question (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1900), contrib. by James Bryce, Sydney Brooks, F. V. Engelenburg, Karl Blind, Andrew Carnegie, Francis Charmes, Demetrius Charles Boulger, Max Simon Nordau, Hans Delbrück, Vladimir Gol'mstrem, Ė. Ė. Ukhtomskīĭ, and Edmund Gosse (multiple formats at archive.org)
The African Colony: Studies in the Reconstruction (Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1903), by John Buchan (Gutenberg text)
Rhodesia and its Government (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1898), by H. C. Thomson (multiple formats at archive.org)
Filed under: South Africa -- Politics and government -- 1836-1909
Impressions of South Africa (third edition; London: Macmillan and Co., 1899), by James Bryce (Gutenberg text, illustrated HTML, and page images)
The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects (London: J. Nisbet and Co., 1900), by J. A. Hobson (multiple formats at archive.org)
Closer Union: A Letter on the South African Union and the Principles of Government , by Olive Schreiner (HTML at Indiana)
The Political Situation , by Olive Schreiner and Samuel Cron Cronwright-Schreiner (HTML at Indiana)
The All African Convention: The Awakening of a People (first published 1950), by I. B. Tabata (HTML at sahistory.org.za)
The Union of South Africa (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1909), by Robert Henry Brand (multiple formats at archive.org)
Minutes of Proceedings with Annexures (Selected) of the South African national Convention, Held at Durban, Cape Town and Bloemfontein, 12th October, 1908, to 11th May, 1909 , by South African National Convention (1908-1909) (multiple formats at archive.org)
Notes on the Formation of South African Foreign Policy (Pasadena, CA: G. Dahlstrom, Castle Press, 1965), by Edwin S. Munger (PDF at Caltech)
The Rise of the South African Reich , by Brian Bunting (HTML at archive.org)
Select Speeches , by B. J. Vorster, ed. by O. Geyser (HTML at sahistory.org.za)
Filed under: South Africa -- Politics and government -- 1978-
A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), by Donald L. Horowitz (HTML at UC Press)
The Opening of the Apartheid Mind: Options for the New South Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), by Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley (HTML at UC Press)
More items available under broader and related terms at left.


Hummus is one of my go-to snacks and is also one of my go-to things to serve at a party! This Hummus Medley is lovely to serve at a party, and has three different and distinct flavors.
In food processor combine all ingredients and puree until creamy. If too thick, add a little water to get to desired consistency.
Transfer to serving bowl and garnish with olive oil, pomegranate seeds, thinly sliced radishes, and mint.
Serve with pita chips, whole radishes and carrots.
Transfer to serving bowl and garnish with fresh parsley, cilantro, or dill, and pine nuts.
3 medium beets cooled cooked – (Wrap beets in foil and cook at 425 degrees for 1 hour or until tender).
Transfer to serving bowl and garnish with sliced almonds, feta cheese, thinly sliced scallions, and sliced radishes.


As of August 10, 2018, there were 2,273,778 shares of the Registrant's common stock outstanding.
Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value, 5,000,000 authorized; no shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018.
Common stock, $0.0001 par value, 150,000,000 authorized; 1,181,179 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2017; 2,282,166 issued and outstanding at June 30, 2018.
During the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, Biocept, Inc., or the Company, financed insurance premiums of approximately $360,000 and $488,000, respectively, through third-party financings. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company cancelled insurance premiums previously financed through third-parties with an aggregate remaining principal balance outstanding of approximately $31,000.
Fixed assets purchased totaling approximately $166,000 and $104,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, respectively, were recorded as equipment financing obligations and were excluded from cash purchases in the Company's statements of cash flows (see Note 7).
The amount of unpaid fixed assets excluded from cash purchases in the Company's statements of cash flows increased from approximately $58,000 at December 31, 2016 to approximately $209,000 at June 30, 2017 and increased from approximately $31,000 at December 31, 2017 to approximately $35,000 at June 30, 2018.
Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, 954-605, Health Care Entities—Revenue Recognition, which required that four basic criteria must be met prior to recognition of revenue: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement existed; (2) delivery had occurred and title and the risks and rewards of ownership had been transferred to the client or services had been rendered; (3) the price was fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability was reasonably assured. Commencing on March 31, 2017, the Company recognized commercial revenue related to billings for assays delivered and billed to Medicare and other third-party payers on an accrual basis when amounts that will ultimately be realized can be estimated upon delivery, whereby prior to March 31, 2017, the Company recognized revenues for its commercial diagnostic services on a cash basis as collected because the amounts ultimately expected to be received could not be estimated upon delivery due to insufficient collection history experience. Commencing on January 1, 2018, the Company recognizes revenue in accordance with ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, or ASC 606, which requires that an entity recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. The Company adopted the provisions of ASC 606 using the modified retrospective application method applied to all contracts, which did not impact amounts previously reported by the Company, nor did it require a cumulative effect adjustment upon adoption, as the Company's method of recognizing revenue under ASC 606 was analogous to the method utilized immediately prior to adoption. Accordingly, there is no need for the Company to disclose the amount by which each financial statement line item was affected as a result of applying the new standard and an explanation of significant changes.
consideration for third-party payers, including direct patient bills, whereby the estimated reimbursement for services are established by payment histories on CPT codes for each payer, or similar payer types. When no payment history is available, the value of the account is estimated at Medicare rates, with additional other payer-specific reserves taken as appropriate. Collection periods for billings on commercial revenues range from less than 30 days to several months, depending on the contracted or non-contracted nature of the payer, among other variables. The estimates of amounts that will ultimately be realized from commercial diagnostic services for non-contracted payers require significant judgment by management.
The Company limits the amount of variable consideration included in the transaction price to the unconstrained portion of such consideration. Revenue is recognized up to the amount of variable consideration that is not subject to a significant reversal until additional information is obtained or the uncertainty associated with the additional payments or refunds is subsequently resolved. Differences between original estimates and subsequent revisions, including final settlements, represent changes in the estimate of variable consideration and are included in the period in which such revisions are made. The Company monitors its estimates of transaction price to depict conditions that exist at each reporting date. If the Company subsequently determines that it will collect more consideration than it originally estimated for a contract with a customer, it will account for the change as an increase in the estimate of the transaction price in the period identified as an increase to revenue. Similarly, if the Company subsequently determines that the amount it expects to collect from a customer is less than it originally estimated, it will generally account for the change as a decrease in the estimate of the transaction price as a decrease to revenue, provided that such downward adjustment does not result in a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized. Revenue recognized from changes in transaction prices was not significant during the three and six-months ended June 30, 2018.
The amount of nonrecurring net revenue recorded during the three and six-months ended June 30, 2017, had the Company commenced recognizing revenue for commercial diagnostic services upon delivery on or prior to December 31, 2016 instead of on March 31, 2017, was $134,915 and $1,012,242, respectively, and the corresponding decrease in net loss per common share was $0.15 and $1.25, respectively. The incremental net revenue and decrease in loss from operations as a result of recognizing revenue on an accrual basis commencing on March 31, 2017, or the total amount of net revenue recorded in excess of the amount of commercial cash collections, was $191,193 and $916,883 during the three and six-months ended June 30, 2017, respectively, and the corresponding decrease in net loss per common share was $0.21 and $1.14, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2018 all revenues were recognized on an accrual basis.
December 15, 2017. The Company adopted this guidance for the fiscal year beginning on January 1, 2018, which did not have a material impact on its financial statements or disclosures.
As of June 30, 2018, cash totaled $2.6 million and the Company had an accumulated deficit of $207.8 million whereas as of June 30, 2017, cash totaled $10.0 million and the Company had an accumulated deficit of $183.8 million. For the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, the Company incurred net losses of $10.1 million and $12.5 million, respectively. At June 30, 2018, the Company had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $2.4 million, of which $1.3 million was due within one year whereas at June 30, 2017, the Company had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $3.8 million, of which $2.6 million was due within one year in the absence of subjective acceleration of amounts due under a credit facility entered into in April 2014 with Oxford Finance LLC, or the April 2014 Credit Facility. Additionally, in February 2016, the Company signed a firm, non-cancelable, and unconditional commitment in an aggregate amount of $1,062,500 with a vendor to purchase certain inventory items, payable in minimum quarterly amounts of $62,500 through May 2020, under which $466,000 remained outstanding at June 30, 2018 (see Note 11). These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern for the one-year period following the date that these financial statements were issued. The accompanying financial statements and notes have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The accompanying financial statements and notes do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the possible inability of the Company to continue as a going concern.
On August 13, 2018, the Company completed its previously announced rights offering pursuant to its effective registration statement on Form S-1, as amended (Registration Statement No. 333-225147), previously filed with and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), and a prospectus filed with the SEC (the Rights Offering). Pursuant to the Rights Offering, the Company sold an aggregate of 11,587 units consisting of an aggregate of 11,587 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock and 2,549,140 warrants, with each warrant exercisable for one share of our common stock at an exercise price of $4.53 per share, resulting in net proceeds to the Company of approximately $10.4 million, after deducting expenses relating to the Rights Offering, including dealer-manager fees and expenses, and excluding any proceeds received upon exercise of any warrants.
In May 2018, the SEC declared effective a shelf registration statement filed by the Company, which expires in May 2021. The shelf registration statement allows the Company to issue any combination of its common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and warrants from time to time for an aggregate initial offering price of up to $50 million, subject to certain limitations for so long as its public float is less than $75 million. The Company has not effected any offerings under this shelf registration statement through the date that these unaudited condensed financial statements were available to be issued.
On October 19, 2016, the Company received net cash proceeds of approximately $9.0 million from of the closing of a follow-on public offering. Subsequent to the closing of this offering on October 19, 2016, the offering's underwriters exercised their overallotment option to purchase 20,904 option warrants for total proceeds of $564. Subsequent to the closing of this offering, approximately $7.5 million of additional cash proceeds had been received from the exercise of warrants sold in this offering, with approximately $3.2 million in gross warrant proceeds remaining outstanding and available to be exercised at $33.00 per share until their expiration in October 2021.
Pursuant to an exclusive placement agent agreement dated March 28, 2017 between the Company and Roth Capital Partners, LLC as lead placement agent, and WestPark Capital and Chardan Capital as co-placement agents, a securities purchase agreement for a second offering of 144,000 shares of the Company's common stock was effected under this registration statement at per share price of $64.50, which closed on March 31, 2017. In a concurrent private placement, the Company sold unregistered warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 72,000 shares of the Company's common stock that closed concurrently with the March 2017 offering of common stock sold pursuant the shelf registration statement. All warrants sold in this offering have a per share exercise price of $75.00, are exercisable beginning on the six-month anniversary of the date of issuance and expire five years from the date first exercisable. The estimated grant date fair value of these warrants of approximately $2.8 million was recorded as an offset to additional paid-in capital upon the closing of this offering (see Note 4). At the closing of these sales on March 31, 2017, the Company received, after deducting $0.7 million of costs directly associated with the offering that were recorded as an offset to additional paid-in capital under applicable accounting guidance, approximately $8.6 million of net cash proceeds. The specific terms of additional future offerings, if any, under this shelf registration statement would be established at the time of such offerings.
The estimated nonrecurring fair value measurements associated with fixed asset purchases recorded as equipment financing obligations totaling approximately $104,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2018 were based on information provided by vendors, which involved the use of significant unobservable Level 3 inputs.
The estimated fair value of the credit facility entered into with Oxford Finance LLC in April 2014, or the April 2014 Credit Facility, at June 30, 2018 approximated its carrying value, which was determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. The analysis considered interest rates of instruments with similar maturity dates, which involved the use of significant unobservable Level 3 inputs.
Non-financed equipment fixed assets with aggregate gross book values and corresponding accumulated depreciation amounts of approximately $209,000 were disposed of during the six months ended June 30, 2018. Depreciation expense for the six-month period ended June 30, 2017 was $226,015 and for the six-month period ended June 30, 2018 was $357,173. Depreciation expense for the three-month period ended June 30, 2017 was $109,859 and for the three-month period ended June 30, 2018 was $177,401.
The Company leases certain laboratory equipment under arrangements accounted for as capital leases and classified as equipment financings. The financed equipment is depreciated on a straight-line basis over periods ranging from approximately 3 to 7 years. The total gross value of fixed assets capitalized under such financing arrangements was approximately $2,295,000 and $2,356,000 at December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018, respectively. Total accumulated depreciation related to financed equipment was approximately $759,000 and $915,000 at December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018, respectively. Total depreciation expense related to financed equipment during the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018 was approximately $52,000 and $89,000, respectively, and was approximately $108,000 and $156,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
The aggregate weighted average effective annual interest rate associated with equipment financings was 13.51% and 12.53% at December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018, respectively, and the maturity dates on such outstanding arrangements range from February 2019 to September 2024. During the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, total interest expense related to equipment financings of approximately $38,000 and $52,000, respectively, was recorded to the Company's unaudited condensed statements of operations and comprehensive loss, and approximately $77,000 and $98,000 was recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, respectively. At June 30, 2018, the present value of minimum lease payments due within one year was approximately $489,000.
The Company maintains two equity incentive plans: The Amended and Restated 2013 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2013 Plan, and the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2007 Plan. The 2013 Plan includes a provision that shares available for grant under the Company's 2007 Plan become available for issuance under the 2013 Plan and are no longer available for issuance under the 2007 Plan. At the Company's annual meeting of stockholders held on June 28, 2018, the Company's stockholders approved amendments to the 2013 Plan, which included an increase in the number of non-inducement shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the 2013 Plan by 146,666 shares. As of June 30, 2018, 11,111 shares of the Company's common stock were authorized exclusively for the issuance of stock awards to employees who have not previously been an employee or director of the Company, except following a bona fide period of non-employment, as an inducement material to the individual's entering into employment with the Company, as defined under applicable Nasdaq Listing Rules. As of June 30, 2018, under all plans, a total of 264,098 non-inducement shares were authorized for issuance, 69,449 shares had been issued with 57,863 non-inducement stock options and restricted stock units, or RSUs, underlying outstanding awards, and 194,649 non-inducement shares were available for grant. As of June 30, 2018, 5,268 inducement shares had been issued under the 2013 Plan, with 4,434 inducement stock options and RSUs underlying outstanding awards and 5,844 inducement shares available for grant.
The intrinsic values of options outstanding, options exercisable, and options vested and unvested expected to vest at December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018 were each approximately zero.
2,500 performance stock options to be granted on July 31, 2017 to certain of the Company's employees pursuant to the 2013 Plan, of which 83 performance stock options were forfeited by December 31, 2017. Each performance stock option granted on July 31, 2017 had an exercise price of $41.70 per share and an estimated grant date fair value of $24.90 per share. The vesting of each of the performance stock options granted during the year ended December 31, 2017 was to be determined by the Company's Board of Directors or Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors upon the Company's achievement of specified corporate goals for 2017. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, none of the performance option awards granted during the year ended December 31, 2017 were declared vested by the Company's Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and the 20,750 shares underlying the remaining outstanding performance stock option awards at December 31, 2017 were forfeited.
At June 30, 2018, the intrinsic values of RSUs outstanding and RSUs unvested and expected to vest were each approximately $2,000. Of the 360 RSUs outstanding at June 30, 2018, all were fully vested.
On May 2, 2017, the Company's Board of Directors approved the issuance of an aggregate of 5,833 time-based RSUs and 5,833 performance RSUs to be granted on May 31, 2017 to certain of the Company's employees and all of its executive officers pursuant to the 2013 Plan, of which 1,666 time-based RSUs and 833 performance RSUs were granted to its CEO, and 833 time-based RSUs and 833 performance RSUs were granted to each of its CFO, Chief Scientific Officer, and Senior Medical Director. Each RSU granted on May 31, 2017 had a grant date fair value of $45.00 per share. Vesting of the time-based RSUs granted on May 31, 2017 occurred on the one-year anniversary of the vesting commencement date, or May 2, 2018, while vesting of the performance RSUs was to be determined by the Company's Board of Directors or its Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors upon the achievement of specified corporate goals for 2017. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, none of the performance RSUs granted on May 31, 2017 were declared vested by the Company's Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and the 1,666 shares underlying these awards were forfeited.
Stock-based compensation expense was recorded net of estimated forfeitures of 0% - 8% per annum during each of the three and six-months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018. As of June 30, 2018, total unrecognized share-based compensation expense related to unvested stock options and RSUs, adjusted for estimated forfeitures, was approximately $984,000 and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately 2.4 years.
All warrants outstanding at June 30, 2018 are exercisable, with an intrinsic value of zero. The exercise price of $4.53 per share associated with the 1,095,153 warrants issued on January 30, 2018 is subject to down round adjustment.
Basic and diluted net loss per common share is determined by dividing net loss applicable to common shareholders by the weighted-average common shares outstanding during the period. Because there is a net loss attributable to common shareholders for the three and six-months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, the outstanding RSUs, warrants, and common stock options have been excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per common share because their effect would be anti-dilutive. Therefore, the weighted-average shares used to calculate both basic and diluted loss per share are the same.
In February 2016, the Company signed a firm, non-cancelable, and unconditional commitment in an aggregate amount of $1,062,500 with a vendor to purchase certain inventory items, payable in minimum quarterly amounts of $62,500 through May 2020. At June 30, 2018, a balance of approximately $466,000 remained outstanding under this purchase commitment.
During the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, total expense recorded in the Company's unaudited condensed statements of operations and comprehensive loss for sales tax and maintenance obligations associated with equipment financing arrangements was approximately $21,000 and $27,000, respectively, with approximately $41,000 and $50,000 recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2018, respectively. At December 31, 2017 and June 30, 2018, approximately $46,000 and $60,000, respectively, of such sales tax and maintenance obligations incurred but not paid were recorded in accrued other liabilities in the Company's balance sheet (see Note 5). Future amounts totaling approximately $330,000 for sales tax and maintenance obligations associated with financed equipment were due under equipment financing arrangements at June 30, 2018, which will be expensed as incurred (see Note 7).
A member of the Company's management is the controlling person of Aegea Biotechnologies, Inc., or Aegea. On September 2, 2012, the Company entered into an Assignment and Exclusive Cross-License Agreement, or the Cross-License Agreement, with Aegea. The Company received a payment of approximately $15,000 during the year ended December 31, 2017, as well as a payment of approximately $19,000 during the three-months ended June 30, 2018, from Aegea as reimbursements for shared patent costs under the Cross-License Agreement.
Pursuant to a sublease agreement dated March 30, 2015, the Company subleased 9,849 square feet, plus free use of an additional area, of its San Diego facility to an entity affiliated with the Company's non-executive Chairman for $12,804 per month, with a refundable security deposit of $12,804 received from the subtenant. The initial term of the sublease expired on July 31, 2015 and was subject to renewal on a month-to-month basis thereafter. On February 1, 2017, the Company received notice from the subtenant terminating the sublease effective March 31, 2017. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the total amount of the $12,804 security deposit previously received from the subtenant was applied against approximately $16,000 in additional rents owed as a result of the subtenant continuing to occupy the subleased areas beyond March 31, 2017, and the balance of approximately $3,200 due to the Company was waived. A total of approximately $38,000 and $51,000 in rental income was recorded to other income/(expense) in the Company's statement of operations and comprehensive loss during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2017, respectively.


The below error is issued when trying to return a non-owned and non-consigned Kit component that was issued to a Production Order (PID) back into inventory.
Issue a part with attributes non-Owned and non-Consigned to a PID from a non-Owned Location (type: Production).
Negative issue this same part back into the same non-Owned Location.


What do omelettes, scrambles, frittatas, huevos rancheros, custards and pasta carbonara have in common? They are all immensely satisfying, delicious creations, equally able to lift you in the morning or send you off to a peaceful sleep in front of the telly.
They are also hatched from the same magical item: the egg. Imagine life without eggs. Horrible! Like a world without pillows or The Beatles back catalogue.
Although if we didn't have eggs, we would probably be treated to more cracking vegan dishes like the tofu scramble from Shannon Martinez included here.
These are the egg dishes chefs can't live without. The dishes they're loading with Tabasco to cure a hangover or serving as supper to someone they love. The dishes they're cooking on a Sunday afternoon to recalibrate and steady the senses.
Use the best eggs you can get your mitts on for these recipes (or rather the best tofu for the vegan scramble). Pasture-raised is best – a happy chicken lays happy eggs.
This is my Sunday morning go-to. A bit of work goes into the salsa, but it's easy and worth it. I feel the following is the best combination of eggy, toasted, fresh and spicy but feel free to play around with the flavours.
1. Fry eggs and ham (or bacon) in a frypan while toasting the corn tortillas over an open flame. You want the tortillas to become a little charred. Make sure the eggs are seasoned and sunny-side up, and the ham has a few crisp edges.
2. Fold the tortillas and casually arrange on a plate with the eggs, ham and sliced avocado. Top with heavy amounts of the salsa picante, sliced radishes, coriander and a squeeze from the lime wedge. Scatter the fruity serrano chilli for added kick.
1. Blacken the outside of the vegetables, including the garlic, preferably over an open flame, so they are soft yet slightly undercooked. Place in a bowl, cover with cling-wrap and leave for 20 minutes. While still warm, remove blackened skin from the vegetables plus the seeds from the peppers. Using a hand blender, pulse until a chunky puree is made. Add remaining ingredients to taste and set aside.
This reminds me of breakfast when I was a kid. It's pretty much the only dish Dad could prepare for us when Mum went out.
1. In a non-stick frypan, bring about three tablespoons of vegetable oil to a medium-high heat. Crack in an egg (or three or four, however many the pan can take) and fry it sunny-side up so that the white is nice and crisp but the yolk is still runny. Don't break the yolk, whatever you do.
2. When the white is cooked and before the yolk hardens, remove the egg. (Or you can do as my dad does and serve it in the pan.) Sprinkle with salt and pepper and add a dash of Maggi seasoning for an umami hit. Tear up a crispy banh mi or crunchy white baguette and dip it straight into the egg, soaking up the rich yolk and breaking off the crispy white edges. Eat. Enjoy.
I used to cook this dish with the whitebait from the lake near my hometown in Verona. We recently served it as a special at 10 William Street when some good local bianchetti became available.
1. Thoroughly wash 500g of very fresh whitebait (I like to use the smallest fish possible) in a fine colander with cold running water. Spread them on paper and dry well. Return the fish to the colander and dust them with one tablespoon of plain flour. Shake them to remove any excess flour.
2. Beat two large eggs and season with salt and pepper. Add the whitebait and a handful of chopped marjoram. Heat some olive oil in a non-stick pan and pour in the egg mixture, tilting the pan so the mixture covers the base. As the frittata sets, use a heatproof plastic spatula or flat-edged wooden spoon to gently lift and stir, tilting the pan so the uncooked egg runs underneath. Cook for one to two minutes or until golden and just set underneath. The top should still be slightly runny. Carefully slide onto a serving plate. Serve immediately.
Tip: I like to eat this with charred bread, fresh herbs on the side and just a little bit of grated parmesan.
I love eating eggs for breakfast, bubble-and-squeak-style. I usually smash them up and use the runny yolk as a sauce.
1. Combine corned beef in a large saucepan with cloves, garlic, bay leaves and half the onion, and cover generously with cold water. Bring to the boil over a high heat. Reduce to a medium heat and simmer until corned beef is tender (1¾-2 hours). Drain, then coarsely shred meat with two forks and set aside.
2. Meanwhile, preheat oven to 200C. Combine potato, carrot and fennel in a roasting pan, drizzle with two tablespoon oil and season to taste. Toss to combine and roast until vegetables are tender (30-40 minutes) then set aside.
3. Heat remaining oil in a large frying pan over a low heat. Add remaining onion and stir occasionally until caramelised. Increase heat to medium-high, add corned beef, roasted vegetables, cavolo nero and peas. Stir frequently until golden brown (five to six minutes) and season to taste.
4. Meanwhile, bring a saucepan of water to a gentle simmer, break in eggs, in batches, and poach until soft. Remove with a slotted spoon and keep warm. Divide bubble and squeak among six plates, top each with a poached egg and serve with HP or barbecue sauce.
Anyone who says they don't enjoy Bailey's Irish cream can go and sit in the corner, because they're a liar. Why eat your eggs when you can drink them? Get your priorities right this Easter. Put the craft activities down to make something you can properly enjoy. No one wants to blow a raw egg out of its shell through a hole the width of a sewing needle.
1. Combine all ingredients in a blender and blend at a low speed until smooth. Pour into clean bottles, cap tightly and store in the fridge. Copycat cream will keep up to one month.
A little left of centre, but aren't all obsessions? This dish has been slowly "finessed" through the years, starting as a two-minute noodles and margarine creation I discovered through desperately seeking sustenance in my primary school days. It reached its zenith recently while I was cooking egg noodles for my daughter, Luna, and there was a request for cheese on top. Bingo! Voila! Papa's cacio e pepe!
This omelette is best served as an intimate gesture as it takes a lot of care to make properly. You can substitute different ingredients to suit your taste.
1. Crack two to three eggs into a bowl and whisk until they become homogeneous and bubbles form in the mixture. (Don't season the omelette until the end – raw eggs and salt are not the best of friends.) Heat a non-stick pan on a medium-low heat, add a handful of chopped spring onions, a knob of butter and some chopped ham. When the onion is soft and some fat has rendered from the ham, add the eggs, constantly agitating the pan and pulling the coagulated eggs away from the sides until they are 90 per cent cooked.
2. Grate in some cheese (comte is best), add a pinch of salt and a few turns of black pepper. Your omelette should be soft and slightly wet, but not raw. (Avoid the theatrical pan-flip – it will result in overcooked eggs.) Roll up the omelette and slide it on to a plate. Serve to someone you care about.
Carbonara would have to be one of the most comforting of foods. It's simple, rich, and bloody delicious. The perfect "day-off" food. I use our house-made guanciale to up it a notch, and amazing eggs grown just up the road. Use the best eggs you can get for both the pasta and the sauce – they're the hero of this dish. You can use pancetta if you can't find guanciale.
1. For the pasta, make a firm dough from the flour, salt, and eggs. Knead for a few minutes until it comes together, then wrap in cling-wrap or a towel and rest for one hour. After resting, roll it through a pasta machine, until the pasta is firm, shiny and elastic. Roll it out, reducing the thickness until nice and thin, and then cut 25-centimetre-long sheets. Stack these on top of each other (dust with lots of semolina so they don't stick together) and use a sharp knife to cut pasta into strips of your desired width. I like tagliatelle or linguine for this, so around five millimetres wide.
2. Boil a large pot of salted water for the pasta. In a heavy-based frypan, cook the guanciale with the garlic clove until the pork is golden and lightly crisp. Discard the garlic clove.
3. Cook the pasta in boiling salted water until al dente and drain, reserving a couple of tablespoons of cooking water to make the sauce with.
4. Add the pasta to the guanciale pan, then add the egg mix, a splash of cooking water and half the cheese. Stir vigorously and then put the lid on and leave it to sit (off the heat) for two minutes. Remove the lid and stir well. The eggs should have thickened into a glossy sauce that coats the pasta. Most importantly, there should be no scrambling! Season with black pepper before serving topped with the remaining cheese.
You work with a big Latino community when you're a chef in New York City and there would always be homemade sauces, condiments and salsas coming into the kitchen. The salsa here is smoky, tomato-based and nicely spiced. Perfect for eggs.
1. Set oven to grill on the highest possible setting. On a baking tray, arrange tomatoes cut-side down with sliced onions, chillies and garlic. Grill for 20 minutes, or until the tomato and chilli skins are blackened and the garlic is nice and toasty, but don't let the onion burn. Remove from oven and cool to room temperature.
2. In a blender, combine with remaining ingredients and pulse, still leaving texture and a bit of chunk. Season liberally with salt.
1. Cook onion and garlic with oil in a medium saucepan until the onion becomes golden brown and starts to caramelise. Add beans from tin, liquid and all – the liquid will aid in the beans becoming creamy. Cook over a medium heat. Season with salt.
1. In my book, fried eggs do not include a runny yolk. Cook the daylights out of them. Crispy whites on the outside with thoroughly, but just cooked, yolk. As they're cooking, season with salt and dried chilli and when they're almost done, with lime juice and your favourite hot sauce such as Tabasco, Hartsyard Hot Sauce or Tapatio.
1. Only serve with fresh corn tortillas. White or yellow. You can cook them three ways – cover with a tea towel and whack in the microwave, heat them over the flame if you have a baking rack without a coating on it, or place them in a dry, hot pan.
2. Put beans on the plate, the fried eggs on top and serve the tortillas on the side. Top the eggs with your roasted tomato salsa and garnish with avocado and pickled jalapeno. (Hot tip – La Morena brand is the best pickled jalapeno in the world. We use the liquid in Bloody Marys.) If you can find queso fresco, smash it on too. Other cheese substitutes could be paneer or dried ricotta.
Forget what you know about tofu. Forget what you know about tofu scramble. This scramble is award-winning. And what award is that, you say? It's the one your stomachs will give if you try it. Slap it on toast, add your favourite veg to make it more omelettey, put it in a burrito or brekkie tacos, or eat it directly from the pan. Whatever way you choose, it's perfect, so enjoy it.
1. To make the sauce, combine the flour, yeast, spices and black salt (if using) in a medium-sized saucepan over medium heat. Slowly add the soy milk, whisking constantly until you have a smooth sauce. Add the mustard and butter and whisk until thick and creamy. Reduce the heat to as low as possible and simmer, whisking often, for five minutes. Remove from the heat and set aside while you make the scramble.
2. For the scramble, heat the butter and oil in a large non-stick frying pan over high heat. Add the onion and a pinch of salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until golden brown.
3. Toss in the garlic and jalapeno and cook for about 30 seconds.
4. Add the drained, crumbled tofu and gently stir to coat in the onion mixture. Without stirring, fry the tofu until it browns slightly on one side. If you find that your tofu is letting out too much liquid and it's starting to stew instead of fry, tilt the pan and remove the liquid with a spoon.
5. Add the reserved sauce and gently fold through the tofu. Be careful not to break up the tofu too much or you'll end up with some kind of weird eggy tofu soup. Finish with a scattering of your favourite herbs.
*Nutritional yeast is from health food stores, it is deactivated yeast that has a savoury, cheesey taste.
See video above for Savage's 63-degree egg method.
1. Heat oil in a large pot and sweat off onions, garlic, ginger and fennel. Deglaze with mirin and reduce by half. Add mushrooms, salted kombu, kelp, and vegetable stock. Bring to the boil and skim. Reduce heat to low and simmer for 90 minutes. Strain through a fine sieve.
2. Heat a pot of water to 63 degrees Celsius (regulated is best). Place eggs, in the shell, in the pot and cook for 65 minutes. Remove from water. Crack two eggs into a soup bowl. Add the garnishes and pour over hot broth.
1. Heat wok over high heat, add the tomatoes and allow to char, tossing only when the tomato surfaces are blackened. Remove and blitz in a blender with the remaining ingredients (except the kuzu starch) and taste for seasoning. As the sauce is the seasoning component to the dish, it should be seasoned more intensely than usual. Strain via a paper coffee filter. The liquid should be bright red and relatively clear. If it isn't, simply strain via a second filter.
2. Mix the kuzu starch with 15 millilitres of cold water to form a smooth slurry. Heat the strained tomato sauce and, once boiling, add small amounts of kuzu slurry to thicken the sauce, stirring constantly and stopping once a desired sauce consistency if achieved. Keep warm.
3. For the custard, set up a steamer and wait for it to come to a boil. Reduce the steam to a medium-low heat. Blend all ingredients together with a stick blender and strain. Skim foam, pour into four small ramekins and cover with cling-wrap. Steam for six to 12 minutes or until firm with a very slight wobble.
4. Spoon a generous amount of burnt tomato sauce over the steamed custard, dress with a few drops of shellfish or chilli oil and a few sprigs of shiso if using. Serve warm.


text:
Marvel's 616 - Season 1
The series explores Marvel's rich legacy of pioneering characters, creators and storytelling to reflect the world outside your window. Each documentary, helmed by a unique filmmaker, showcases the intersections of storytelling, pop culture, and fandom within the Marvel Universe. Episodes in this anthology series will cover topics including Marvel's world-spanning artists, the trailblazing women of Marvel Comics, discovering the "forgotten" characters of Marvel, and much more.
Actor: Donny Cates, Nicole Byer, Sana Amanat
Director: David Gelb
Duration: 50,60,71 min
Trailer: Marvel's 616 - Season 1