text:
Integrity in higher education marketing and misleading claims in the university prospectus: what happened next…and is it enough?
John Bradley ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1043-85941
In 2013 this journal published the paper 'Integrity in Higher Education Marketing: A typology of misleading data-based claims in the university prospectus.' It argued that UK universities were using data and statistics in a misleading way in their advertising and proposed a nine-part typology to describe such claims. The present paper describes the subsequent responses in national media and academic writing. It then analyses recent developments in the regulation of university marketing in the UK, where the Advertising Standards Authority has publically rebuked universities and issued new guidance. Rulings against six UK universities are analysed and the paper considers the extent to which the new guidance addresses the nine types of misleading claims. The paper goes on to consider how issues such as this come to be addressed by regulators and what incentives will encourage universities to ensure the integrity of their marketing.
In 2013 this journal published the paper 'Integrity in Higher Education Marketing: A typology of misleading data-based claims in the university prospectus' (Bradley, 2013). The paper examined the misleading use of data and statistics by United Kingdom (UK) universities in their advertising and proposed a nine-part typology to describe such claims.
Type 1. Omission of material facts and selective reporting of data. This is a claim where the advertiser fails to disclose information or limiting conditions that are necessary for a correct interpretation of the claim.
Type 2. Misleading wording. These are claims where consumers may be misled by the use of confusing language which leads them to misunderstand the claim. It is described also as 'misleadingness due to semantic confusion'.
Type 3. Misleading inferences about an attribute. This is where a claim about an attribute leads to other, misleading, inferences about the same attribute.
Type 4. Misleading associations between attributes. This is where a claim about one attribute encourages a belief about another attribute. The inference occurs because readers believe (rightly or wrongly) that the two attributes are correlated.
Type 5. Misleading endorsements. This is where the advertiser appears to be presenting an endorsement or evidence from an independent source but the endorsement or evidence turns out not to be independent.
Type 6. Claim-fact discrepancy. This type of claim is one where, while literally accurate, some degree of qualification is required for it to be properly understood. Without such qualification the claim, while true, is misleading.
Type 7. Falsehoods. These are claims that are simply untrue.
Type 8. The carefully crafted comparison. Often, claims are about a university's performance in comparison with other institutions. By carefully selecting the terms of that comparison it is possible to present a more favourable picture in a way that may be misleading.
Type 9. Claims without a reference point. Many claims offer data without any reference point for comparison. This makes them very difficult to evaluate and potentially misleading.
In a sample of 8 UK prospectuses it found universities that:
claimed accolades they had never been given
recrafted league table data to put themselves at the top
failed to mention related unflattering data
used wording that was likely to be misleading
implied endorsements they had not been given
announced a department's 'excellence' based on a 19 year-old inspection report
told outright lies
quoted large figures for expenditure on resources or facilities but left readers unable to judge if these were exceptional or not.
The paper went on to suggest that 'the two bodies empowered to address this issue in the UK do not take a proactive approach and so it must fall to universities themselves to address the ethical challenges raised by misleading marketing.'
The present paper examines the immediate responses to the 2013 article in the UK media and subsequent academic contributions. It then considers recent developments in the approach of one of the UK regulatory bodies – the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It uses the 'typology' proposed in 2013 to assess the likely impact of these developments in regulation. The paper goes on to consider how issues such as this come to be addressed by regulators and what incentives will encourage universities to ensure the integrity of their marketing claims.
Times Higher Education, generally known simply as THE, is published weekly in London and reports on all aspects of international higher education. Following the publication of the 2013 paper, the author drew it to the attention of the editor of THE who then assigned a reporter to look at the story. The following week THE made the paper their lead article, featured on the front page and covered over two pages inside under the headline 'Rosy prospectuses 'misleading' students' (Mathews, 2014a). THE also publishes a weekly 'audio podcast' in which contributors discuss topics from the week's news. The 'misleading claims' paper was a lead item of the week's podcast. The back page of THE traditionally carries a satirical page written by a popular 'media academic' which describes events at the fictional 'University of Poppleton.' The subsequent edition of the University of Poppleton News described this establishment defending itself against accusations of misleading information in its prospectus and referenced the 'misleading claims' paper (Taylor, 2014).
Interestingly, THE chose to go further than the original paper. The paper had not named the universities in the research sample 'because any shortcomings identified in the integrity of these prospectuses are likely to be found more widely across the sector. As such, it seems unfair to name (and potentially shame) those institutions that were randomly selected for study.' However THE was able to match quotations in the paper to online prospectuses and thereby identify three of the universities in the sample. THE contacted the three universities to ask for a response. One explained that the misleading claim was 'an error of attribution' and would not be used again; one said that in future it would source all its data from the official Unistats website and one declined to comment on the grounds that '…the author recognised that it was unfair to name – and potentially shame – those institutions that were randomly selected.'
The following week THE again made the paper a lead story. This time they focussed on the author's suggestion that: 'The two bodies with regulatory responsibilities in the field, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, (QAA), do not take a proactive approach and have limited impact on the accuracy of university marketing materials.' Under the headline 'Are questionable marketing claims slipping past the watchdogs?' THE contacted the two regulators to seek their response to the suggestion (Mathews, 2014b).
A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority responded: 'The ASA relies largely on the public to bring misleading advertising to its attention. Although in areas such as gambling and alcohol advertising it proactively looks for problems without waiting for complaints, university marketing is not one of those priorities. We haven't, to date, received complaints about university prospectuses and complaint numbers about education marketing remain low.' However, she then provided THE with a list of 13 complaints the ASA had received about university marketing in a variety of media, 'which had been informally resolved with the university agreeing to amend or remove the claims instead of a full investigation being triggered and a ruling made.'
The Quality Assurance Agency responded through its Head of Standards who told THE that its guidance requires information for students to be 'fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy.' She went on to say that QAA 'scours information on websites, student induction packs and prospectuses.' Interestingly the QAA spokeswoman went on to suggest that 'while there is no excuse for being misleading in prospectuses, prospective students will read it knowing it is a marketing tool.' This is a different view to that taken by the author, who argued that 'marketing from universities is not viewed as being 'advertising' by its adolescent recipients. Universities may be seen to be a reliable source of information and the prospectus as a 'factual account' of what the institution can offer. As such, university marketing may bypass the filter of scepticism through which young people typically perceive other advertisements.'
The 2013 paper also received some attention in the mainstream press including the Daily Telegraph (Paton, 2014, Doughty, 2014), while The Guardian interviewed the author for a report on misleading university marketing (Young-Powell, 2014). Two student newspapers picked up the story (Hopkins, 2014; Sandbach, 2014), as did a number of education websites where news items are recirculated or simply plagiarised (Best Education News, 2014; Schools Improvement Net, 2014). Other non-academic appearances of the research included on the website of a company providing CRM (customer relationship management) software for student recruitment (Yeadon, 2014) and The Improving Dispute Resolution Advisory Service for Further and Higher Education (IDRAS, 2014). The Edge Foundation, an education charity, founded by former Secretary of State for Education Lord Baker, quoted the article as part of their manifesto arguing that too many young people are being encouraged in to higher education rather than pursuing potentially more rewarding routes to employment (Newton et al., 2017).
Academic response
In the academic literature Armstrong et al. (2014); Winter and Thompson-Whiteside (2015); Winter and Chapleo (2017); Simpson and Marinov (2016); Mogaji (2016); Rutter et al. (2017) all cited the paper but not in any attempt to pursue the question of misleading marketing. Five papers, however, did reference the research to take forward its key theme. Zapata and Tejeda (2016), drew on the study as part of a wide ranging review of misleading advertising by Chilean universities, arguing for greater state control, self-regulation and student empowerment. Almeida and Seixas (2016), in a Portuguese book, cited the research to make the point that fraud and plagiarism are not just matters to do with student and faculty behaviour, but are relevant to institutional behaviour as well. In a Russian study Makeyeva (2017) drew on the paper as part of her discourse analysis of the material for prospective students from 'unaccredited' Russian universities, concluding that in their communications 'advertising tactics' take precedence over useful information.
Interesting responses to the paper came from Gibbs (2014) and Gibbs and Aftab (2015). Gibbs has published a substantial body of work looking at questions of ethics and trust as they arise in the marketing of higher education (Gibbs, 2001, 2002;2004, 2007, 2012.) He has argued that there is an inherent contradiction in the notion of 'university marketing,' in that universities are expected to develop critical thinking while advertising seeks to manipulate rather than inform. 'In this sense it is the antithesis of education and acts as a counter to critical thought.' (Gibbs, 2007). In his 2014 paper Gibbs invoked the paper to question the use of data by universities – in particular the use of individual data analytics (data mining) which he suggested are employed to manipulate rather than inform students. In their 2015 paper Gibbs & Aftab argued that universities have adopted marketing strategies 'best suited to selling chocolate, aspirin and supermarket discounts.' They quoted the nine categories of misleading claims and argued that tactics such as these represent a serious breach of trust in the relationship between institution and student.
Anonymisation of the universities
The 2013 paper did not name the universities in the research sample 'because any shortcomings identified in the integrity of these prospectuses are likely to be found more widely across the sector. As such, it seems unfair to name (and potentially shame) those institutions that were randomly selected for study.' The same decision has been taken in regard to universities discussed in this paper. The purpose of the paper is not to further 'name and shame' institutions but to discuss ethically questionable behaviours that are likely to have also been committed by other institutions.
The advertising standards authority and committees of advertising practice
'The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media. We apply the Advertising Codes, which are written by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP)' (ASA/CAP website).
The 2014 claim by the ASA, in their statement to Times Higher Education, that 'we haven't, to date, received complaints about university prospectuses,' was surprising. In addition to the 13 complaints that ASA went on to list in their interview, this author had submitted complaints to the ASA. None of these had led to a full ASA investigation. It was therefore unexpected when a further complaint from the author in 2017 received the response from ASA:
'You may be interested to know, we have received several complaints about similar claims made about other universities. As we are already investigating other universities who are making similar claims and any findings would apply to all advertisers, we don't intend to investigate the [university newspaper advertisement] you are complaining about at this time.'
Things then moved quickly. In June 2017 several newspapers reported that University 1 had been instructed by ASA to stop using the claim that it is 'in the top 1% of world universities,' (Pells, 2017,Weale, 2017, Harris, 2017). There was no formal ruling published on the ASA website, the matter having been 'resolved informally,' However, from media reports it appears that the claim rested on the fact that they were ranked in the top 200 in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings. They then extrapolated from this that since there were believed to be more than 20,000 universities in the world, they must be within the top 1% in the world. ASA disagreed on the grounds that there was no assessment of all 20,000+ universities and as such the claim was 'not evidenced.' The university continued to defend their claim but agreed not to use it in the future. Their Head of Corporate Communications told The Guardian: 'We accept the ruling in relation to us but we've got scores of our competitors in UK and around the world who are making this claim. This has big implications for how UK universities are marketing themselves...we need a level playing field' (quoted in Weale, 2017.) Speaking to the Daily Mail he added, 'The ASA now needs to investigate every single other UK university which claims it is in the top one per cent in the world, rather than waiting for individual complaints to be made. It's odd if the ASA turns a blind eye to possible breaches of its own Code,' (Harris, 2017.)
In terms of the typology of misleading claims, this claim is probably best categorised under type 8 'the carefully crafted comparison.' In this category are claims where the university starts with legitimate data but then stretches it or crafts it to make a more impressive claim, less well supported by the evidence.
A few months later, in November 2017, several UK national news outlets reported that ASA was about to clamp down on misleading university advertising. 'Universities are going to face a crackdown on how they advertise and market courses to attract students', said the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), (Coughlan, 2017). 'Universities accused of misleading students are braced for a clampdown from the advertising watchdog' reported The Times (Geddes, 2017.) 'The ASA is launching a crackdown on deceptive claims by higher education institutions' warned the Daily Telegraph, (Turner, 2017.) Some of these reports also included the news that two other universities had already been rebuked by ASA for misleading advertisements:
'The watchdog says [University 2] faced a complaint about claiming to have 'gold standard' teaching quality' when the university held a 'silver' award in the new teaching excellence framework. [University 3] was challenged over its claim to be 'university of the year.' It won the title in this year's 'Educate North' (regional) awards.' (Coughlan, 2017).
Neither of these cases led to a formal published ruling by ASA. If complaints are 'resolved informally' the advertiser agrees not to repeat the claims and no details of the investigation are published by the ASA.
The advance reports of a forthcoming 'crackdown' were presumably prompted by news agencies having early notice of what was to come. As predicted, a week later ASA published rulings against six universities for misleading advertising (Harding, 2017, Sweney & Weale, 2017) These rulings were accompanied by a new set of guidance 'Universities: Comparative claims' (ASA/CAP, 2017a) and more informal suggestions on how to comply: 'Top tips for making comparative claims in the higher education sector,' (ASA/CAP, 2017b.)
The next section of this paper considers the six university advertisements judged to have fallen foul of advertising standards and the new ASA guidance. It describes the complaints and the ASA judgements and classifies these in terms of the nine part typology, in order to establish the scope of the new guidance.
The complaint
ASA received two complaints about a paid Facebook post in which the university described itself as 'a top1% world university.' The issue was similar to the claim by University 1 cited earlier.
The ruling
In this case there was debate between the ASA and the university as to how many universities existed in the world. In University 4's case there needed to be about 26,000 universities in the world for their position in the QS World Rankings to place them in the top 1%. In their ruling, the ASA 'did not consider the figure (of numbers of universities in the world) to be substantiated. In the absence of qualification about the basis of the claim and adequate substantiation, we considered the ad to have exaggerated the level of the university's relative standing worldwide, and therefore was likely to mislead.' (ASA, 2017f). The university was told to stop using the claim and agreed to do so.
ASA appear to have rejected University 4's assertion of being a 'top 1%' university on somewhat different grounds to their rejection of University 1's identical claim. ASA's grounds for rejection here are probably closer to type 7 'falsehoods' where the claim is judged to be simply untrue.
ASA received two complaints, ('one from an academic') regarding claims on their website and in their prospectus that they were "The UK's No.1 Arts University (for three years running) in The Sunday Times League Table 2017" and "The UK's number one Creative University in The Sunday Times League Table 2017, Guardian University Guide 2017 and Complete University Guide 2017". The complainants pointed out that there were other higher ranking universities offering creative and arts courses,
The university told ASA that their claims referred to a sub-set of five universities (including themselves) with a focus on the arts. ASA judged that there was no evidence that the sub-sets ' "Arts Universities" or "Creative Universities" had been publically defined and ranked by any of the university league tables. 'We also considered that other universities that were likely to be reputable for their art and creative courses were not included within this sub-group referred to by [University 5].' and 'we considered that these "No.1" rankings were generated through narrowing down the pool of competitors from the overall league tables which included all other institutions, and there did not appear to be separate groups of defined "Arts" or "Creative" universities in these league tables.' The university was told to stop using the claims and agreed to do so (ASA, 2017a).
This example demonstrates aspects of type 5 - 'misleading endorsements.' The university was claiming that it was endorsed as No.1 Arts or Creative University by a number of league tables. However their pre-eminence was in a league table they had created themselves. The author's 2013 research found 'many examples where claims appear to invoke an independent endorsement but which turn out to be based on the university's own manipulation of data.'
The University described itself as 'Top university in England for long-term graduate prospects. Government longitudinal outcomes data 2016.' A complainant challenged that claim, suggesting that the cited government data indicated that average earnings of Cambridge University graduates after 5 years were higher than those of graduates from University 6.
The university argued that their claim rested on Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data showing that 84.9% of their graduates were in employment or further study after 5 years. This was the highest figure for an English university, on that measure. ASA accepted this point but noted that on other measures in the same table – employment/study rates after 1 year and 3 years, University 6 was not at the top. ASA also noted other tables in the same HESA data set that looked at graduate earnings, where the university did not out-perform all other universities (ASA, 2017b).
This would seem to fit type 2 'Misleading wording' – described also as 'misleadingness due to semantic confusion' – claims where the use of confusing language leads readers to misunderstand the claim. In this case the potentially confusing wording was 'long term-graduate prospects.' As ASA remarked, many readers of that phrase might assume it included some measure of graduate earnings and not simply a measure of the percentage of graduates in employment or study at one particular audit point. ASA ruled that the university must not use the claim in future marketing.
'An academic' complained to ASA about the university's webpage titled "Physics" with a headline stating "We're ranked No.1 in the UK" and "The Department of Physics at [University 7] …has been rated number one in the UK for research in the REF 2014".
The ASA considered the average consumer would interpret the claim to mean the university had been ranked by the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as the top performing physics department in the UK for research. As the 2013 paper observed, 'for all its other shortcomings, the research assessment exercise did not actually 'rank' universities or departments by creating a hierarchical table of results.' That is left to the publishers of the various university league tables who apply their own calculations to the data to create 'league tables'. ASA commented that 'one could choose a number of different ways to 'rank' the listed universities depending on the chosen methodology.' They went on: 'We therefore considered that the ad should have made clear that the basis of the "No.1" claim was the ranking by the Times Higher Education rather than the REF 2014. Because the ad misleadingly implied the REF 2014 had ranked the university as the top performing physics department, we concluded that the ad was misleading' (ASA, 2017d).
This appears to be an example of type 5 - 'Misleading endorsements.' The 2013 paper commented: 'as Dean and Biswas (2001), have demonstrated, third party endorsements are a particularly persuasive strategy for increasing perceptions of 'quality'. As such, universities' strategies to present 'rankings' as if they were calculated as part of an independent, government mandated review, rather than by a newspaper, are potentially misleading.
ASA received a complaint after the university described itself as "Top 5 for student satisfaction (National Student Survey 2005-2016.)" The complainant did not believe this to be true.
The university explained that it had 'used an internal reporting tool to generate the statistic.' The university had re-worked the National Student Survey (NSS) data and removed universities that they did not consider to be 'mainstream.' They had also removed Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland universities, thereby creating their own league table of what they considered 'mainstream English universities.' ASA examined the data and concluded that even within this self-generated category, the university did not fall in the 'top 5' from 2005 to 2016, as claimed, being ranked 9th in 2016 (ASA, 2017c).
This appears to be an example of type 8, 'The carefully crafted comparison', of which the author's earlier research said: 'Many claims are about a university's performance in comparison with other institutions. By carefully selecting the terms of that comparison it is possible to present a more favourable picture in a way that may be misleading.'
The university claimed it had been "named as London's top modern university - and one of the top 10 in the UK - in the Guardian University Guide 2018". A complainant challenged whether this was true.
The university said that the claim was based on their ranking in the Guardian University Guide 2018, (in which they were positioned 58th.) They then identified what they regarded as the other 'modern' universities in the UK in the University Guide and deduced that they were ranked ninth overall within this, self-chosen, pool. As part of this strategy they had to remove four modern universities that they felt 'were different in character to the group,' having a history in art and teacher training. All these four were above the university in the rankings and so their removal lifted the university from 13th to 9th place.
ASA judged that while 'The university's claim was based on the results of the published Guardian University Guide 2018… it was [the university] that had concluded that it was in the top ten modern universities in the UK by narrowing the pool of other institutions based on their definition of a modern university. We therefore considered it was misleading (ASA, 2017e).
This appears to be another example of type 8, 'The carefully crafted comparison', where universities re-work legitimate data to eliminate some other institutions and inflate their own status.
New ASA/CAP guidance
On the same day that these six rulings were published ASA/CAP issued new guidance: 'Universities: Comparative Claims'(ASA/CAP, 2017a) and the more informal 'Top tips for making comparative claims in the university sector'(ASA/CAP, 2017b). The new guidance does not introduce any new 'rules' for advertisers but rather it spells out the implications of long-standing ASA/CAP regulations for university marketing claims. As can be seen from the titles, the focus is on 'comparative claims.' In brief, ASA/CAP told universities:
If a claim is likely to be interpreted as objective, you 'must hold robust evidence to substantiate it'
make the basis of the claim clear and include any necessary qualifications. Do not use ambiguous terms such as 'modern university' unless you clarify what you mean.
do not exaggerate or go further than the evidence you hold
only refer to categories or information contained in the relevant league table or report. Do not present claims with a further layer of your own analysis or categorisation of results
do set out the evidence for claims or signpost the reader to where they can verify the claim for themselves.
The new ASA/CAP guidance as a response to misleading university advertising
From the previous analysis we can see that the recent ASA rulings have dealt with misleading advertisements that can be regarded as fitting four of the typology's categories:
Type 2 Misleading wording, (University 6)
Type 5 Misleading endorsements, (Universities 5 and 7)
Type 7 Falsehoods (Universities 2, 3 and 4)
Type 8 The carefully crafted comparison, (Universities 1, 8 and 9)
It should be no surprise that an advertising regulator deals with 'falsehoods' but their rulings on misleading wording, misleading endorsements and carefully crafted comparisons demonstrates a more nuanced approach to what constitutes 'misleading.' Their guidance on 'the carefully crafted comparison' in particular, addresses an issue that the author's earlier paper suggested was common in the genre.
This leaves five of the typology's categories unrepresented in recent ASA/CAP developments. In order to explore whether these five other types of misleading advertisement are still to be found, the prospectus and website of each of the nine universities cited by ASA were examined. This search provided evidence that the 9 part typology still provides a useful lens through which to examine misleading university marketing.
Type 1. Omission of material facts and selective reporting of data
This is a claim where the advertiser fails to disclose information that is necessary for a correct interpretation of the claim.
Example: University 4's website has a section titled 'Facts, figures and rankings' which tells readers:
'Our teaching: 'We are proud to be renowned for our teaching, research and broadening access to higher education. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been introduced by the government to recognise and reward high quality teaching in higher education. The purpose of this new framework is to provide students with clear information about which of England's universities are providing good quality teaching.'
Strangely, for a section devoted to 'facts, figures and rankings,' the page does not go on to tell the reader about the university's grading in the TEF, (it was awarded 'Silver' the middle tier ranking.) Instead there is a statement from the President and Vice Chancellor, "We are committed to giving our graduates that extra dimension – a degree from a leading institution coupled with an inquisitiveness and sharpness of mind to ensure they continue to excel."
The university's claim 'Facts, figures and rankings…our teaching…we are proud to be renowned for our teaching…' followed as it is by a description of the TEF process, would logically lead to a mention of the university's grading in the TEF process. The omission of that information, and instead putting in a statement praising the universities qualities, seems to be an 'omission of material facts and selective reporting of data.'
Type 3. Misleading inferences about an attribute
This where a claim about an attribute leads to other, misleading, inferences about the same attribute.
Example: A University 2 webpage headed 'Award winning university' proclaims: 'both our academics and our professional support staff have won major awards for their work'. Lower down the page is a list of awards in chronological order, the most recent being for 2014. All three awards listed for 2014 were for university marketing and 13 of the university's 17 awards in the decade 2008–17 were for marketing or public relations activity.
A reader seeing that university claims the attribute 'award winning university,' might make the inference that these awards were for attributes relating to educational activity - teaching, learning or research. In part, that inference would be misleading.
Type 4. Misleading associations between attributes
Here, a claim about one attribute encourages a belief about another attribute. The inference occurs because readers believe (rightly or wrongly) that the two attributes are correlated.
Example: University 7 claims in their 2018 undergraduate prospectus that '11% OF ALL NOBEL PRIZES HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO SCOTSMEN.' To recognise the meaning of this (capitalised) claim we need to see it in context. The prospectus is encouraging young people to apply to the university. Their prospectus, like all others, is packed with claims about the facilities, teaching and research at the university. So readers are being invited to perceive a link between this claim and the university. In fact none of the 585 Nobel Prizes awarded between 1901 and 2017 were awarded to anyone with a link to University 7. Since it also appears that just 13 Nobel prizes have been awarded to Scotsmen – 2.2%, the claim not only creates 'a misleading association between attributes,' but is also untrue (Nobel Prize, 2018).
Type 6. Claim-fact discrepancy
This type of claim is one where, while in some sense accurate, a degree of qualification is required for it to be properly understood. Without such qualification the claim is misleading.
Example: University 3 claim in their 2018 undergraduate prospectus:
'In 1957 John Lennon joined [University 7's] School of Art and Design and it was to provide the springboard for so many influential aspects of his life.'
Since the university was not established until 1992, this seems unlikely. In fact he joined the local College of Art, and according to Spitz, (2005) he was 'thrown out of college before his final year' because of his disruptive behaviour. So a more accurate reference might be 'In 1957 John Lennon joined the local College of Art, 35 years before the founding of the university. However he was expelled before finishing his course.'
Type 9. Claims without a reference point
Many claims offer data without any reference point for comparison. This makes them very difficult to evaluate and potentially misleading. These claims seem to evade the ASA regulations on 'comparative claims' by not explicitly comparing their university to any other establishment. The impression that their data is in some way noteworthy is achieved by implication.
This type of claim still seems to be ubiquitous in the university prospectus.
Examples: '£4.6 million awarded annually in scholarships, prizes and hardship funds,' (University 3). Is that a larger than average amount for a university?
'We've invested over £270m in our town-centre campus,' (University 6). Over what period of time was the money spent? Is that a big annual investment?
'The Technology & Innovation Centre is over 25,000 square metres – equivalent of 100 tennis courts,' (University 7). Is that a big building or just average for its type?
'800,000+ volumes of books and journals' (University 8). Is that typical for a university or a particularly large collection?
'A library with over two kilometres of book shelving,' (University 9). Again, is that a lot of shelving? (And is it just the shelving or are there books?)
The recent ASA rulings, highly publicised as they were, provided a strong message to UK universities about ensuring the truthfulness of their marketing claims. The new ASA/CAP guidance further reinforced this and set out clear advice on what universities should and should not do.
However, the foregoing analysis suggests that there are some potentially misleading types of advertisement that may not be picked up by the new ASA/CAP approach. These generally seem to be the more 'subtle' examples of wording or formulation that while often technically true, have the possibility of misleading.
Reflections on 'misleading university marketing' as an example of identification and engagement with a 'social problem'
In her recent paper in this journal Downes (2017) looked at the impact of 'scandals' of different types on university reputation and discussed how universities should take steps to prevent these image-damaging events. The universities publically 'named and shamed' by the ASA in November 2017 probably suffered much more modest damage to their reputation than the universities involved in Downes' scandals. Nevertheless, having reports of your misleading marketing appear in the national press and the BBC can only raise public concerns about the integrity of universities. As Gibbs and Aftab (2015) argue, misleading marketing is a serious breach of trust in the relationship between institution and student.
Downes draws on social constructionist sociology to consider the process by which issues emerge as a 'problem' and come to be dealt with. This model of 'the construction of social problems', originally formulated by Spector and Kitsuse (2001) suggest that examples of improper behaviour are ubiquitous in society. For much of the time these are ignored or tolerated. Then at some point someone or a group acts to draw attention to the issue. If this 'whistleblowing' is then picked up and amplified, typically by the media, then institutions with power to do something are driven to act.
This model also seems to fit the issue of misleading university marketing. In the author's earlier paper (Bradley, 2013), the literature review identified numerous writers, over many years, who had expressed awareness of misleading marketing in the higher education sector. So this was not some secret, unknown issue. Rather it was an issue of educational integrity, of which there was widespread awareness in the sector. When the 'typology' paper was then picked up and amplified by commentators in the media – most notably in the THE, it became openly discussed, albeit briefly, as 'a problem.'
This 'problem' was then acknowledged by one of the organisations with the power to do something about it. In the run-up to the November 2017 ASA/CAP guidance it seems that ASA ensured that national media was aware that there was 'an issue' by revealing that they had already dealt 'informally' with three universities. As such they were priming the press and public to be aware that this was an issue of concern. Charles Heyman was Head of Corporate Communications at one of the universities at the time of the ASA enquiry in to their marketing but left shortly afterwards. Describing those events in his blog (Heyman, 2017), he says 'It was a fair cop and the only option was to hold our hands up and phase it out.' However, he goes on to describe the reaction of some of his peers in university marketing: 'my comments in the national media caused quite a stir with various irate competitors privately criticising us for opening Pandora's Box.' The 'Pandora's box' metaphor seems an apt one to describe the transition from 'a secret lots of people know about' to a publically debated social issue about the honesty of UK higher education in its dealing with potential students.
The ASA and CAP have taken measured and proportionate action to draw attention to misleading university marketing. By bringing nine examples to public attention and issuing guidance to the sector they have made clear what they believe universities can and cannot claim. They have also helpfully reframed the issue by emphasising that to decide what is potentially 'misleading' you need to think from the perspective of what a typical reader might understand by the message, not what the writer intended.
Against this backdrop of new guidance though, we must remember that there are more than 130 universities and many other higher education (HE) institutions in the UK. Each of these publishes advertising material through websites, social media, prospectuses, print and broadcast media. In the random sample for the author's 2013 paper there were an average of 116 data based claims per prospectus – this was without even looking at websites or social media. So we could be talking about more than 15,000 'data based claims' a year, just in the printed prospectuses of mainstream universities. It does not seem reasonable to expect an organisation such as ASA, with responsibilities across the whole range of consumer issues, to pro-actively police university marketing.
ASA/CAP have done what seems reasonable – rebuked some universities publically and published clear guidelines. It must be for others to ensure that university marketing demonstrates the level of honesty and integrity expected in other aspects of scholarly activity.
Universities themselves must take responsibility for monitoring the truthfulness of what their marketing departments are doing and saying on their behalf. In 2014, shortly after THE had published lead stories on the issue for two consecutive weeks, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) issued new draft guidance on university governance. This appeared to respond directly to concerns about misleading advertising and required that:
'The governing body should ensure the publication by the institution of accurate and honest information about its activities which avoid false or exaggerated claims. This is particularly important in relation to information for prospective students.' (Committee of University Chairs, 2014a).
Sadly, this very clear directive was removed after consultation with CUC members. In its place the final version contained the rather more general suggestion that governing bodies should:
'Receive assurance that its publications provide accurate and honest information about its activities.'(Committee of University Chairs, 2014b).
The reference to 'false or exaggerated claims' was removed, as was the reference to this being 'particularly important in relation to information for prospective students.' This is regrettable. It is really only universities themselves that are in a position to ensure honesty and integrity in their marketing. The marketing of universities was once a rather quiet activity, led by academics (Brockbank, 1996) but is now the territory of professional advertising and marketing staff (Steele, 2007). University senior managers, or failing that, governing bodies, are in a position to guide and monitor what is published on their behalf. It must be hoped that despite the less specific wording in their new code of governance, university governing bodies take the issue seriously and actively engage with the output of their marketing departments. The effectiveness, or otherwise, of the new CUC governance code could helpfully be the focus of future research.
On a more positive note, the engagement of students with the issue has been an encouraging development. Several student newspapers and websites picked up on the November 2017 ASA rulings. Typically they took a critical view of what universities had been doing. 'False advertising has real consequences' said Durham University's Gryphon newspaper. 'Universities have been rumbled for misleading ranking claims' reported International Student and 'Good! Universities to face fines over adverts that mislead students' was the headline on graduate student website Graduate Frog.
Probably the most impressive response in this field came from SCAN, the student newspaper at Lancaster University. Not only did they report the ASA rulings but they used them as a springboard to publish their own investigation in to misleading advertising by their university (Callender, 2017.)
This student engagement with the issue serves to remind us why this is important. Fees and living expenses at English universities mean that the average student will graduate with over £50,000 of debt (IFS, 2017.) The UK's successful moves to widen participation in HE mean that many new students come from backgrounds where there is limited knowledge of universities (Pugsley, 2004; Kintrea et al., 2011). As such, the information in prospectuses and on websites may be the principal source of evidence for many students' choices.
With this in mind we can see a number of reasons why universities should take misleading marketing seriously. At the most practical level, in the marketised university world, it is a matter of consumer law that universities tell the truth to young people about to spend a large sum of money with them. Indeed the UK Competition and Markets authority recently reminded universities that 'consumer protection law will generally apply to the relationship between HE providers and prospective and current students.' In the UK this means that 'the information (you provide) should be accurate, clear and unambiguous … and you should not omit important information.' (Competition & Markets Authority, 2015).
If complying with the law is not a sufficient motivation to avoid misleading advertising, then the damage to a university's reputation when found out and 'named and shamed' should be a powerful reason to discourage poor behaviour (Downes, 2017.)
One would hope of course, that universities would behave with integrity because they believed it was ethically the right thing to do. Gibbs and Murphy (2009), propose a model for higher education marketing based on ethical values. This requires that all those involved understand the ethical framework of their profession; that institutions articulate their values and principles and provide ethical codes to guide decision making and that the institution cultivates a culture where leaders make clear the moral as well as the academic and financial aims of the organisation. It may be that the UK's newly established Office for Students (OfS) will have a role to play in reminding university managers and governors of their duty of truthfulness.
Beach (2005) suggests that it is usually a mixture of instrumental reasons (bad publicity, fines, reputational damage) and normative reasons (recognising it is ethically the right thing to do) that drive institutions' compliance with regulations.
If neither consumer protection law, reputational risk nor ethical considerations are persuasive then Guy Parker, the Chief Executive of the ASA posted a tweet that nicely encapsulates one further line of reasoning. Commenting on his organisation's recent rulings he posted:
'Important message for unis: practice what you teach by making sure your ad claims are backed up.'
In their scholarly work, universities recognise the need for accuracy, evidence and the careful presentation of information. The same characteristics should be apparent in their marketing as well. At a time when notions of 'fake news' and 'alternative facts' have led some to speak of a 'post-truth era,' universities must continue to provide models of honesty and integrity.
ASA:
Committees of advertising practice
CUC:
Committee of University Chairs
HESA:
Higher education statistics agency
IDRAS:
Improving dispute resolution advisory service for further and higher education
IFS:
Institute for fiscal studies
NSS:
National student survey
OfS:
QAA:
Quality assurance agency for higher education
QS:
Quacquarelli symonds
RAE:
Research assessment exercise
TEF:
Teaching excellence framework
THE:
Almeida F, Seixas A (2016) Fraude e plágio na Universidade: a urgência de uma cultura de integridade no Ensino Superior:Fraud and Plagiarism at the University: The urgency of a culture of integrity in higher education. Coimbra University Press, Coimbra
Armstrong A, Johnson MA, Smith M, Thomas J (2014) Consumerism in higher education: pressures and faculty conformity. J Cross-Disciplinary Perspect Educ 7(3):1–9
ASA (2017a) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17–390070. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/falmouth-university-a17-390070.html
ASA (2017b) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17–395184. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/teesside-university-a17-395184.html
ASA (2017c) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17–390154. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/university-of-east-anglia-a17-390154.html
ASA (2017d) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17–390134. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/university-of-strathclyde-a17-390134.html
ASA (2017e) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17–393188. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/university-of-west-london-a17-393188.html
ASA (2017f) ASA Ruling on Complaint ref: A17–393534. Retrieved January 19th 2018 from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/university-of-leicester-a17-393534.html
ASA/CAP (2017a) Universities: comparative claims: advice. The advertising standards authority London UK Retrieved from https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/universities-comparative-claims.htm
ASA/CAP (2017b) Top tips for making comparative claims in the higher education sector. The advertising standards authority London UK Retrieved from https://www.asa.org.uk/news/top-tips-for-making-comparative-claims-in-the-higher-education-sector.html
Beach D (2005) Why governments comply: an integrative compliance model that bridges the gap between instrumental and normative models of compliance. J Eur Public Policy 12(1)
Best Education News (2014) Do university prospectuses mislead college students? Retrieved from http://www.besteducationnews.com on 6th June 2014.
Bradley J (2013) Integrity in higher education marketing? A typology of misleading data-based claims in the university prospectus. Int J Educ Integr 9(2):74–88 Retrieved from: https://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/894
Brockbank L (1996) Prospectus perspectives. Educ Market 5:16–18
Callender S (2017) The best in the UK? Questions over university marketing claims. In: SCAN Lancaster University Student Newspaper, (6th December)
Committee of University Chairs (2014a) Consultation: Higher Education Code of Governance 24th February 2014. Committee of University Chairs, Bristol
Committee of University Chairs (2014b) The Higher Education Code of Governance Committee of University. Chairs, Bristol
Competition & Markets Authority (2015) UK higher education providers – advice on consumer protection law. In: Helping you comply with your obligations, London
Coughlan S (2017) Universities to be warned over misleading adverts. BBC News Website, London
Doughty E (2014) University prospectuses: the pursuit of pretty pictures. In: The daily telegraph 21st January 2014 London
Downes M (2017) University scandal, reputation and governance. Int J Educ Integr 13(1):8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0019-0
Geddes D (2017) Universities warned not to bend the truth in their advertising. In: The Times 10th November 2017 London
Gibbs P (2001) Higher education as a market: a problem or solution? Stud High Educ 26(1)
Gibbs P (2002) From the invisible hand to the invisible handshake: marketing higher education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 7(3):325–338 https://doi.org/10.1080/13596740200200134
Gibbs P (2004) Trusting in the university: the contribution of temporality and trust to a praxis of higher learning. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
Gibbs P (2007) Does advertising pervert higher education? J Mark High Educ 17(1):3–11
Gibbs P (2012) The commoditization and standardization of higher education. In: Maringe F, Foskett N (eds) Globalization and internationalization in higher education: theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. Bloomsbury T & T Clark, London
Gibbs, P. (2014). Privacy, analytics and marketing higher education. In Meno M, D. G. Terkla, & P. Gibbs (Eds.), Using Data to Improve Higher Education. Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-6209-794-0
Gibbs P, Aftab D (2015) Do higher education institutes communicate trust well? J Mark High Educ 25(2)
Gibbs P, Murphy P (2009) Implementation of ethical higher education marketing. Tert Educ Manag 15(4):341–354 https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880903335472
Harding E (2017) Six university adverts that misled undergraduates about career prospects, rankings and student satisfaction are banned by watchdog. In: Daily mail, London UK 15th November 2017 Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5083489/Six-university-adverts-misled-undergraduates.html
Harris, S. (2017). UK universities "can"t say they're in the top 1%'. Daily Mail 9th June 2017. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4586880/UK-universities-t-say-1.html
Heyman, C. (2017). University branding needs a radical gear shift. Retrieved January 19, 2017, from http://wonkhe.com/blogs/university-branding-needs-a-radical-gear-shift/
Hopkins C (2014) University prospectus misinforms students. In: The Hullfire (University of Hull Student Newspaper) 4th February 2014
IDRAS (2014) Was the prospectus honest with you? In: Improving Dispute Resolution Advisory Service for Further and Higher Education Retrieved June 9, 2014, from http://www.idras.ac.uk/did-this-happen-to-you/student-stories/didnt-you-get-what-was-promised-in-the-course-advertisement/did-your-provider-break-promises-about-the-course/
IFS (2017) Higher Education Funding in England: Institute for Fiscal Studies Briefing note 211. Published by Institute for Fiscal Studies, London
Kintrea K, St Clair R et al (2011) The influence of parents, places and poverty on educational attitudes and aspirations. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK
Makeyeva SO (2017) Commercialized academic discourse - advertising practices of non-accredited universities. Педагогическое Образование В России Pedagogical Educ Russia 10:31–40 Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/akademicheskiy-reklamnyy-diskurs-obzor-publikatsiy-i-sotsialnaya-gran-reklama-vuzov-lishennyh-akkreditatsii
Mathews D (2014a) Rosy prospectuses "misleading" students. In: Times Higher Education, (January 16 2014) Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rosy-prospectuses-misleading-students/2010522.article
Mathews D (2014b) Are questionable marketing claims slipping past the watchdogs ? In: Times Higher Education, (January 23 2014)
Mogaji E. (2016). University website Design in International Student Recruitment: some reflections. In Wu T., Naidoo V. (eds) International Marketing of Higher Education. Palgrave
Newton, O., Laczik, A., & Percy, C. (2017). Our plan for Higher Education. The Edge Foundation, London UK retrieved from http://www.edge.co.uk/OurPlanforHE on January 19th 2017
Nobel Prize (2018) Nobel prize facts. Nobel Prize Organisation, Stockholm Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/
Paton G (2014) Universities bend the facts in dodgy student prospectuses. In: Daily Telegraph January 16 2014 Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10577237/Universities-bend-the-facts-in-dodgy-student-prospectuses.html
Pells R (2017) Reading university under fire after claiming to be in top 1% in the world. In: The independent 8th June 2017 London UK
Pugsley L (2004) The university challenge: Higher education markets and social stratification. Ashgate, Cardiff
Rutter R, Lettice F, Nadeau J (2017) Brand personality in higher education: anthropomorphized university marketing communications. J Mark High Educ 27(1):19–39 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1213346
Sandbach W (2014) Should you believe everything in a university's prospectus? In: Expose : The University of Exeter Student Newspaper 24th January 2014, pp 4–7
Schools Improvement Net. (2014). Do university prospectuses mislead students ? Retrieved June 7, 2014, from https://schoolsimprovement.net/do-university-prospectuses-mislead-students/?utm_sou
Simpson C, Marinov M (2016) University Autonomy in the Age of Marketization. In: Turcan RV, Reilly JE, Bugaian L (eds) (re)discovering university autonomy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p 73 Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137388728_5
Spector M, Kitsuse J (2001) Constructing social problems. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon
Spitz R (2005) The Beatles: A Biography. Little, Brown, London
Steele K (2007) Standing out on paper: Best practices in university viewbooks. In: Paper presented to Atlantica Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers, Fredericton. NB Canada
Sweney M, Weale S (2017) Six UK universities break advertising rules with pitches to students. In: The Guardian 15th November 2017 London
Taylor L (2014) Damn lies and prospectuses. In: Times Higher Education 23rd January 2014
Turner C (2017) Universities under investigation by advertising watchdog for misleading students. The Daily Telegraph 10th November 2017. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/11/10/universities-investigation-advertising-watchdog-misleading-students/ on 11th November 2017
Weale S (2017) Advertising watchdog forces reading university to ditch top 1 % claim. The Guardian 8th June 2017, pp. 8–10 Published by Guardian Media, London
Winter E, Chapleo C (2017) An exploration of the effect of servicescape on student institution choice in UK universities. J Furth High Educ 41(2):187–200 https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1070400
Winter E, Thompson-Whiteside H (2015) How the city works its magic: the contribution of location to the higher education servicescape. In Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference – the magic in marketing 7th July 2015 University of Limerick Retrieved from http://programme.exordo.com/am2015/delegates/presentation/176/ on 4th March 2018
Yeadon D (2014) Flattering prospectuses mislead students. Retrieved from http://www.student-crm.co.uk/blog-page-1/flattering-prospectuses-mislead-students
Young-Powell A (2014) Do university prospectuses mislead students? The Guardian 6th June 2014 London. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/do-university-prospectuses-mislead-students
Zapata G, Tejeda I (2016) Misleading advertising in higher education: definitions, regulations, and a review of written press advertising. Calidad En La Educación 44:197–242 https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-45652016000100008
The author is grateful to staff at the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) who provided helpful comments on an early draft of this paper.
The Mede, Moor Road, Ashover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
The author is the only person involved in producing this paper. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to John Bradley.
John Bradley has worked as an educational psychologist in England, Hong Kong and Brunei. He was Principal Educational Psychologist and Head of Social Inclusion for Nottinghamshire County Council in England, prior to his retirement. He completed his doctorate at the University of Nottingham as a (very) mature student, examining young people's ideas of 'going to university'. He now works part-time with university students with additional needs and undertakes independent research into university recruitment.
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Bradley, J. Integrity in higher education marketing and misleading claims in the university prospectus: what happened next…and is it enough?. Int J Educ Integr 14, 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0026-9
Marketisation
Advertising standards


text:
Ford GT40 Horsepower Specs
by Christopher Jackson
One of the most iconic racing cars ever, the Ford GT40 has enjoyed a much longer history than many of its contemporaries. Though the car was only actively campaigned from 1964 until 1969, the car that beat Ferrari at LeMans from 1966 until 1969 has seen several production continuations and updates over the years, including the fully modernized and re-imagined Ford GT produced from 2005 to 2006.
Original Production Run
The GT40 is a purpose-built road-race car, with a mid-engined semi-monococque chassis that measures forty inches high at the windshield, giving the car its name. Several versions of the original GT40 were built, powered by a variety of V8 engines. The GT40 Mk 1 used a 4.7 liter (289 cubic inch) based on that of the Ford Mustang. Exact numbers vary, but this engine made approximately 350 horsepower in race trim. In the road-going GT40 Mk III, the 4.7 V8 was detuned to 335 horsepower. The GT40 Mk II was powered by a big-block 7.0 liter (427 cubic inch) V8 borrowed from the Ford Galaxie. This engine made as much as 485 horsepower, depending on how it was tuned. A change in racing regulations in 1968 led to a reduction in maximum engine capacity to 5.0 liters. The GT40 was re-equipped with a 425-horsepower 4.9 liter V8 at this time. Four-speed manual transmissions were used until 1968, when a five-speed was introduced.
Superformance GT40
Superformance builds a faithful replica of the GT40. It's considered a "continuation" vehicle, as the company builds the cars to the original specifications. Parts are even interchangeable with the original GT40s. Engine choices include a Ford-based 427 cubic-inch V8 that produces 550 horsepower at 5600 rpm.
In 2005, Ford produced a modernized version of the GT40. This vehicle shares the GT40's styling but is larger and shares no components with the original. The mid-mounted 5.4 liter V8 is supercharged and produces 550 horsepower at 6500 rpm. 4038 Ford GTs were built during the car's two-year production run.
Superformance GT Specifications
Ford GT specifications--Ford Media Website
Ultimatecarpage.com Ford GT40 Specs
Ultimatecarpage.com Ford GT40 Mk II Specs
ford gt40 in gulf blue and orange image by Jorge Moro from Fotolia.com
The Specifications of a Hyundai Tiburon
Ford Cars Built From 1942 to 1945
Popular Cars in the 1930s
The History of the Chevy 402 Engine
Ford 302 Engine Specs
How to Fix Auto Paint That Is ...
How to Find an Auto Part Number
How to Tell If My Car Is a Real SS
How to Determine if a Car is Equipped ...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you've been looking for a great Mercedes Benz classic here's your chance. This 560 is in fantastic shape inside and out. They just don't make cars like this one anymore. For that reason, these cars have become more collectible!! This was the top dog back in the 80's and there was no better luxury sports car out there for the money. This is a ONE OWNER with ONLY 42,123 ORIGINAL MILES!! This SL is a fully original vehicle, that has never been restored or altered. It still has original wheels, tires, spare tire, top, interior and paint. You will have a hard time finding an SL that is as clean as this all original ONE OWNER 560SL. The Red/ Palamino color combo makes this car even more unique and desirable then most out there. Do not miss out on this beautiful SL, it is a vehicle that we can not replace when it is gone. On top of the excellent cosmetic condition, we just went through this beauty and addressed several things. This included Oil Service, Lower Control Arm Bushings, Hazard Switch, Air Filter, Fuel Filter, Power Antenna, Brake Flush, and a 4 wheel alignment. You must see this car in person to believe how nice it is!
This Stunning SL Comes with 1 Key and Books!!


A study printed last year in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation projected that the number of Americans with limb loss would more than double from 2005 to 2050, from 1.6 million to 3.6 million. The main cause of this sharp increase, unsurprisingly, is rising levels of diabetes mellitus. Unchecked, hundreds of thousands of lower-limb amputations will be the outcome of this disease in the coming decades.
How can amputations be prevented? First, we must start with the most significant causes of limb loss: Between 1988 and 1996, there was an average of 133,735 hospital discharges for amputation per year in the United States. Dysvascular amputations accounted for 82 percent, or about 110,000, of limb-loss discharges. Complications from diabetes account for at least 80,000 of dysvascular amputations annually.
Save for congenital limb difference, in most cases, means and methods exist to prevent and reduce the incidence of limb loss in the United States. What's lacking is a coherent effort to promulgate a consistent message that safety measures can be taken to prevent traumatic amputations and preventive care is available for those who need it.
The vast majority of remaining amputations occur because of trauma, mostly from motor vehicle accidents and workplace injuries. Most of these could be prevented through either following current laws and safety measures or implementing new ones.
Dr. John Giurini, podiatric foot and ankle specialist and a member of the American College of Foot & Ankle Surgeons, says that advances in vascular surgery techniques have made more people with diabetes candidates for reconstructive surgery, thus eliminating the need for amputation in those cases. However, he goes on to note that diabetes rates are on the rise, so "any gains that might have been seen in the reconstruction/limb salvage arena are being counterbalanced by the increased incidence of diabetes." Thus, emphasizing education and preventive care for people with diabetes is critical.
However, when education and preventive care don't succeed, Giurini says advances in surgical techniques at least offer patients with diabetes choices.
Dr. Giurini is right that preventive care would reduce the incidence of amputation from diabetes complications. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimates that between 45 and 85 percent of amputations among people with diabetes in the U.S. could be prevented through a comprehensive foot care program. A host of scholarly studies agree.
Dr. David Armstrong, DPM, PhD, director of the Southern Arizona Limb Salvage Alliance (SALSA) at the University of Arizona and a member of the ADA's professional practice committee, supports this contention.
Armstrong's team is already reducing the number of amputations in its area. In just its first 9 months of operation, SALSA has seen greater than a 50 percent reduction in high-level amputations – and this is in Pima County, an area with some of the highest rates of diabetes in the country. This success rate isn't from any medical breakthrough or miracle treatment.
The team approach conceived of by Armstrong's group ensures that the feet, foot wounds and circulation to the feet are attended to through a concerted, comprehensive effort that reduces cross-referrals and things that introduce inefficiencies in delivery of care.
More progress in the battle against diabetes shows in Armstrong's teamwork with professor Andrew J.M. Boulton and others to standardize the ADA's Comprehensive Diabetic Foot Exam program. The comprehensive diabetic foot exam is designed to screen people without obvious wounds. With standardization, foot exams and referral patterns are now consistent across specialties, which has helped forge cooperation among professional organizations.
"We did that last year and it's been a big success, endorsed by a whole host of different bodies," says Armstrong.
The success of the "Toe and Flow" program and the diabetic foot exam in turn has fostered inter-organizational initiatives.
Besides Armstrong's SALSA program at the University of Arizona, another has been started at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
"In a really positive way, we see a critical mass, and we feel like we are making a difference now," says Armstrong.
Other diseases account for a small percentage of amputations in the U.S. annually. In some cases, advances in medicine and surgical techniques can and do reduce the number of amputations resulting from those.
For instance, according to the National Meningitis Association, about 3,000 cases of meningococcal meningitis occur each year. Adolescents and young adults are at highest risk. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 10-12 percent of the cases are fatal (about 300 to 360). Approximately 20 percent of the survivors will suffer long-term consequences, including limb loss. But a vaccine is available that could prevent most of these outcomes. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has called for routine meningococcal disease immunization for adolescents and young adults. It has been supported in this by health organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College Health Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Cancer claims about 1,200 limbs in the U.S. each year. But from 1988 to 1996, the incidence of cancer-related limb loss decreased an estimated 42.6 percent. This reduction has been attributed to more effective chemotherapy regimens, improved imaging technology and advances in reconstructive surgery. Although some cases of malignant tumors in limbs will continue to require amputation, the number resulting from cancer will likely also continue to decrease. Continued improvements in medical techniques and introduction of technologies like the Repiphysis®, an expandable polymer prosthesis that can be implanted into a child's leg bone to replace cancerous parts, will no doubt see to that.
Amputations from trauma mostly result from motor vehicle accidents and workplace injuries. These cause about 30,000 amputations each year combined. Given the automobile industry's current struggles and the government's emphasis on fuel efficiency, it seems unlikely that vehicles are going to be armored to the degree necessary to prevent serious injuries.
While in the near term, it may not be possible to have motor vehicles designed more protectively, simply following current laws and safety practices would reduce the number of traffic accidents and, thus, amputations from accidents. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, which is supported in its work by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in collaboration with public and private partners and the CDC, found that enforcing laws such as required use of safety belts and child safety seats and enforcing laws against drinking and driving "could dramatically reduce" motor vehicle occupant injuries.
Strengthening some safety practices could significantly reduce the number of automobile crashes as well. For example, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that installing advance warning signs and other appropriate signage on roadways could reduce the number of crashes by as much as 35 percent.
(OSHA) has concluded that most amputations occur because of unguarded machinery, lack of adequate training and appropriate practices and procedures to safeguard employees from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment, and human error.
Also, state OSHA agencies are introducing programs to reduce workplace amputations. For example, in 2008, the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) implemented a special-emphasis program that focuses on amputations. This program is designed to identify and reduce workplace hazards that cause or are likely to cause amputations.
Farm work ranks in the top three industries as the most hazardous type of work in the United States. Amputations are 2.5 times more likely to occur in farming than in any other industry. As much as 11 percent of all agricultural injuries are amputations, which is about 2,400 amputations each year. Farmers who have suffered amputations from farm injuries say most often that getting in a hurry and not following safety rules cost them their limb. Adhering to strict safety precautions would greatly reduce the number of amputations among agricultural workers each year.
As with automobile and industrial accidents, simply following safety precautions would prevent most other types of amputations caused by accidents each year, such as those resulting from fireworks or lawn mowers. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 200,000 people were treated for lawn mower-related injuries in 2007, and more than 600 children undergo amputations annually because of these activities.
Save for congenital limb difference, in most cases, means and methods exist to prevent and reduce the incidence of limb loss in the United States. What's lacking is a coherent effort to get out a consistent message that safety measures can be taken to prevent traumatic amputations and preventive care is available for those who need it. In the coming years, the Amputee Coalition intends to change this. The Amputee Coalition will launch a national limb loss prevention campaign to raise awareness about limb loss risk factors and how to prevent and reduce amputations.
One of the first steps the coalition will take is to ask Congress to name April National Limb Loss Awareness Month. This will create a time of the year focused on the accomplishments and challenges of the amputee community, which will heighten awareness of the need to reduce and prevent limb loss. That will be only the beginning of the Amputee Coalition's awareness campaign, a campaign of which we hope you'll be a part. Together, we can work for a future in which amputation is rare indeed.


For everybody that doesn't like to read a lot of long, boring words, we got all of our terms and conditions in a clear language. Something we like ourselves as well, and we want to give you the most simple, but strongest service you can imagine.
Do you want to read more juridical texts? Of course we can provide you with that. Check out the long and boring terms and conditions here.
IDENTITY OF THE COMPANY - ARTICLE 2.
You want to get in contact with our company? We gathered all of our information, insights and more on this page.
1. We try our best to get your focus on our terms and conditions. It explains what we can do for you and what we except in return. If you have bought or if you are thinking of buying one of our products of course. Otherwise there is no use.
2. Sometimes we offer products on different terms. Even then, our standard terms and conditions are to be followed. If our terms do not match, you may choose the one that serves you best. Also see part 3.
3. We take the relaxed approach!
OUR OFFER - ARTICLE 4.
We will always tell you honestly what, when, and how you can buy one of our products, how much it costs en if you can trade it. Promise.
THE AGREEMENT - ARTICLE 5.
1. You are doing online business in a safe web shop. Our IT guys are making that happen day in day out.
2. If you order one of our products, you will receive a confirmation by E-mail.
3. We add all the information you need together with your order, however you will find most of it on our website. Besides that it would be smart to keep your digital receipt safe.
RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL - ARTICLE 6.
1. Did you try out the product and it turns out unsatisfactory? If that is the case you may send it back to us within 365 days of delivery. You have 365 days to apply for a return shipment after which you have 10 days to send it back. We will send you a new product, or you will receive the purchase amount back within 10 days, if your return request is within the terms and conditions.
2. Of course there are a couple of conditions applicable to a return order, which we can freely discuss.
Obligations during the cooling off period - Article 7.
During the cooling off period you may open the package but must refrain from using it. If you use the product beyond its 'showroom state', we may or may not refund the purchase amount.
SHIPPING COSTS IN CASE A RETURN SHIPMENT - ARTICLE 8.
There are no costs involved when sending a product back to us. Our freepost is, in fact, free.
OUR OBLIGATIONS IN CASE OF A RETURN SHIPMENT - ARTICLE 9.
-We will send you either a new product or you will receive the purchase amount back within 10 days.
EXCEPTIONS OF RETURN SHIPMENT - ARTICLE 10.
You probably already know you cannot send us the following packages.
THE PRICE - ARTICLE 11.
COMPLIANCE AND WARRANTY - ARTICLE 12.
2. You deserve a proper product, end of story. If somehow there is something wrong with it, we will solve it. We always follow the law.
DELIVERY AND EXECUTION - ARTICLE 13.
1. We try our best to serve you well. We might be a bit obsessive trying to make it perfect.
2. We are developing our logistic services. We send the product as fast as possible. Unless we made a different arrangement with you. If delivery turns out to take longer than expected, or if we cannot deliver on time, we will notify you as soon as possible.
3. If we cannot deliver an ordered product anymore we will give you a refund, or give you a proper alternative. You can always trade an alternative product. If a product is damaged or lost before it reaches you or a given delivery destination, it is our responsibility. We will look into the matter first, of course.
1. If we ask you to pay upfront, we will fix your order instantly after the payment has been received.
2. Payment details incorrect? Let us know!
1. You've got a complaint? Sorry to hear that!
2. We do everything to solve it. Of course we have a couple procedures to follow.
3. If you have a complaint, let us know as soon as possible! Explain your problem as detailed as possible so we can help and give you proper advice.
4. We will get back to you within 2 days. We will either help you directly or we will tell you how much time we need to solve it.
5. You can file a complaint about one of our products or services at the Dutch "Homeshopping organisation" at: www.thuiswinkel.org. But we would rather help you directly. See article 3.
What happens when we find ourselves in a situation we cannot solve? In that case you may decide to file your complaint within 3 months to the SGC (Geschillencommissie Thuiswinkel) at: www.sgc.nl. If you choose to do so we are very sorry to hear that but we understand your decision.
TRADE DISPUTES - ARTICLE 17.
1. We are connected to the Dutch "Homeshopping organisation". If the SGC decides you deserve compensation we guarantee you will receive it. This is true for compensation up to 10.000 euros.
2. If you want to make use of said settlement, you have to file a written complaint to the Dutch "Homeshopping Organisation". You will find the address hier.
ADDITINAL OR DIFFERENT TERMS- ARTICLE 18.
These were our terms and conditions. Pretty clear, right? If we make changes to our terms and conditions in the future, you will find it on our website. We ensure the changes will not have a negative influence on you.


text:
/*
 * Copyright (c) 2012, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
 *
 *     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
 *       this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 *     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *       documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 *     * Neither the name of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven nor the names of
 *       its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
 *       from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
 * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
 * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
 * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
 * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
 * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
 * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
 * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
 * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
 * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 */

package Backend;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Random;

import looci.osgi.serv.constants.EventTypes;
import looci.osgi.serv.constants.LoociManagementException;
import looci.osgi.serv.impl.LoociComponent;
import looci.osgi.serv.impl.property.PropertyByte;
import looci.osgi.serv.impl.property.PropertyInteger;
import looci.osgi.serv.util.ITimeListener;
import looci.osgi.serv.util.LoociTimer;

/**
 *
 *
 * @author
 * @version 1.0
 * @since 2012-01-01
 *
 */

public class AlarmComp extends LoociComponent  implements ITimeListener{

    /**
     * Holds the parent codebase
     */
    private AlarmBackend _parent;
    private LoociTimer timer;
    private PropertyByte delay;

	private Random rand;

	private Gui gui;

	private int[] password = {1,4};
	private int[] received = {0,0};

	/**
	 * LooCIComponent(<name>, <interfaces>, <receptacles>);
	 */
    public AlarmComp(AlarmBackend parent) {
        _parent = parent;
        delay = new PropertyByte((short) 1, "interval", (byte)10);
        timer = new LoociTimer(this, delay.getVal() * 1000, true);
        addProperty(delay);
        rand = new Random();
        gui = new Gui(this);
    }

    @Override
    public void receive(short event_id, byte[] payload) {
    	if(event_id == EventTypes.POTENTIO){
    		if(payload[0] == 0 && payload[1] == 112) {
    			System.out.println("Received potentio event 1");
    		} else if(payload[0] == 112 && payload[1] == 2) {
    			System.out.println("Received potentio event 2");
    		} else if(payload[0] == 2 && payload[1] == 88) {
    			System.out.println("Received potentio event 3");
    		} else if(payload[0] == 88 && payload[1] == 2) {
    			System.out.println("Received potentio event 4");
    		} else {
    			System.out.println("unknown bytes");
    			for (byte b : payload) {
    				System.out.println("payload: " + b);
    			}
    		}
		} else if(event_id == EventTypes.BUTTON_READING){
			System.out.println("received press event");
		} else if(event_id == EventTypes.PIR){
			System.out.println("received pir event");
			gui.activateMovement();
		} else{
			System.out.println("received invalid event");
		}
    }

    public void resetReceived() {
    	received[0] = 0;
    	received[1] = 0;
    }

    public void addToList(int i) {
    	if(received[0] == 0)
    		received[0] = i;
    	else if(received[1] == 0) {
    		received[1] = i;
    		if(received[0] == password[0] && received[1] == password[1])
    			gui.deactivateAlarm();
    		else
    			gui.activateAlarm();
    	}
    }

    public void changeAlarmStatus(byte value){
    	publish(EventTypes.ALARM, new byte[]{value});
    }

    @Override
    public void componentStart() {
       timer.startRunning();
    }

    @Override
    public void componentStop() {
    	timer.stopRunning();
    }

	@Override
	public void doOnTimeEvent(LoociTimer arg0) {
	}

	protected void componentAfterProperty(short propertyId) throws LoociManagementException{
		if(propertyId == delay.getPropertyId()){
			timer.updateInterval(delay.getVal() * 1000);
		}
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


He is the faither o Nobel laureate Kai Siegbahn.
Karl Manne Georg Siegbahn ForMemRS (3 December 1886 – 26 September 1978) wis a Swadish pheesicist wha wis awairdit the Nobel Prize in Pheesics in 1924 "for his discoveries an resairch in the field o X-ray spectroscopy".
↑ 1.0 1.1 Atterling, H. (1991). "Karl Manne Georg Siegbahn. 3 December 1886-24 September 1978". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 37: 428–426. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1991.0022.
↑ Shampo, M. A.; Kyle, R. A. (1998). "Manne Siegbahn--Nobel Prize for x-ray spectroscopy". Mayo Clinic proceedings. Mayo Clinic. 73 (3): 249. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(11)64468-6. PMID 9511784.
This page wis last eeditit on 9 Apryle 2017, at 00:22.


text:
You are here: Home / Archives for FBI
Ramapo tech scam: Monsey businessman once cited as a NYC slumlord
September 4, 2018 by Michael Castelluccio
Peretz Klein during 2016 FBI raid Photo/The Journal News
"A Monsey businessman charged in a $14 million scheme to rip off a federal program to provide computers to yeshivas was once cited as a New York City slumlord.
Peretz Klein, who ran the Bridgestone Group LLC, in 2012 and 2013 faced 144 infractions of the New York City health code for a 46-unit apartment building at 1645 Grand Ave. in the Bronx, according to the New York City Public Advocate's Office.
The company is no longer listed on the office's "NYC Worst Landlord Watchlist" for 2017. The company's corporate address is Klein's home at 44 Ellish Parkway. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Corruption, FBI, Monsey
FBI arrests bus company owner Richard Brega
January 26, 2017 by Michael Castelluccio
The owner of a Clarkstown transportation company who runs the Rockland County bus system was arrested Thursday morning on federal charges for allegedly taking payments for work on Rockland BOCES vehicles that was never done.
Richard Brega, 49, allegedly paid bribes to BOCES Transportation Director William Popkave and falsified documentation to indicate his company, Brega D.O.T. Maintenance Corp., had repaired and maintained school vehicles, prosecutors said in a news release announcing the five-count indictment.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the pair schemed to defraud BOCES then "tried to cover their tracks through fake invoices and deceptive money transactions." [Read more…]
Filed Under: FBI, Rockland Legislature
Since yeshiva raids in Ramapo, FBI school probe lingers
FBI Ramapo Education Technology Raids in March 2016 The Journal News
"On an unusually warm day in March, dozens of FBI agents and other law enforcement officers raided two dozen yeshivas and businesses that had tapped into a multi-million dollar federal program for financing computers and related technology at educational institutions.
More than 300 agents and officers descended on the ultra-Orthodox private schools and companies, seizing payment records, equipment and other documents as part of an investigation on whether the federal money had been misused. The agents hit additional religious schools in Orange County ultra-Orthodox community of Kiryas Joel and made at least one stop the same day in Brooklyn.
The FBI-led raids, which involved more than 22 separate search warrants in Ramapo, also included detectives with the Rockland District Attorney's Office and local police departments. [Read more…]
Filed Under: FBI, Political corruption
St. Lawrence corruption trial delayed until April
"The anticipated federal corruption trial against Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence and a former top economic development aide has been rescheduled for April, with the judge promising no more delays, court documents say.
St. Lawrence, a Democrat and the town's 16-year supervisor, and former deputy town attorney Aaron Troodler face charges of securities and wire fraud and conspiracy involving the financing of the town's baseball stadium and other projects developed through the Ramapo Local Development Corp. Troodler served as the quasi-government's executive director, while St. Lawrence chaired the agency's three-member board. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Aaron Troodler, Christopher St. Lawrence, FBI, SEC, St. Lawrence trial
Imprisoned Noramie Jasmin loses appeal of bribe-taking conviction
August 31, 2016 by Michael Castelluccio
Photo Ricky Flores/The Journal News
Former Spring Valley Mayor Noramie Jasmin is staying in prison after a federal appeals court denied an appeal of her bribe-taking conviction in April 2015.
Jasmin, a Democrat-elected Spring Valley official for more than a decade and mayor from 2008 to 2013, is serving a four-year sentence that started in February 2016 for corruption after selling her vote on a proposed community center and catering hall. [Read more…]
Filed Under: FBI, Noramie Jasmin
Federal court approves seizure of pensions of crooked politicians
Story by Joel Grossbarth posted in the Rockland County Times August 24, 2016
(The four Ramapo defendants facing federal charges have more to look forward to than fines, sanctions and prison time.)
A Federal Appeals Court has upheld the tactic of pension forfeiture in the fight against political corruption. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Aaron Troodler, Arrests, Christopher St. Lawrence, FBI, Michael Klein, Nathan Oberman, Political corruption
St. Lawrence, Troodler get Jan. 9 trial date on corruption charges
August 5, 2016 by Michael Castelluccio
Defense motions are due by Sept. 12, with the prosecution scheduled to respond by Sept. 25.
A federal judge on Thursday set a Jan. 9 trial date in the corruption case against Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence and former town lawyer Aaron Troodler.
Prosecutors estimated they would need to call more than 30 witnesses and the trial could take four to five weeks to complete. Attorneys for St. Lawrence and Troodler didn't comment on those estimates. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Aaron Troodler, Christopher St. Lawrence, FBI, Political corruption, SEC
How Ramapo N.Y. and its attorney are disputing SEC fraud charges
July 22, 2016 by Michael Castelluccio
This article by Jack Casey was posted by The Bond Buyer today:
WASHINGTON – The town of Ramapo, N.Y. and one of four individuals charged with securities fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading muni bond investors are disputing the charges and urging a federal judge to dismiss the case.
They are asking for a jury trial if the judge fails to dismiss the SEC's complaint.
Ramapo and town attorney Michael Klein detailed their defenses in recently filed separate answers to the SEC's April 14 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Christopher St. Lawrence, FBI, Political corruption, Town of Ramapo
Christopher St. Lawrence due in Federal Court today
The indicted Ramapo Supervisor, Christopher St. Lawrence, will be in the United States District Court in White Plains this afternoon to appear before Judge Cathy Seibel.
St. Lawrence and Aaron Troodler, the executive director of St. Lawrence's Ramapo Local Development Corporation (RLDC), are each charged with 8 counts of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; 13 counts of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Aaron Troodler, Christopher St. Lawrence, FBI, Political corruption
Possible subject in federal probe is also a Special Assistant to the DA
Rabbi Zalman Beck and Malcolm Smith
The photograph is from the FBI, and it's marked "Evidence". The caption as it appeared in The Journal News was Rabbi Zalman Beck and state Sen. Malcolm Smith outside L'chaim Manor in Monsey on April 26, 2012. They would be joined by FBI cooperator Moses Stern.
Malcolm Smith is currently serving a seven-year sentence in a Federal prison in Pennsylvania, and Moses Stern waits as the information he gathered against other suspects is still being balanced against his impending sentencing for his part in a $126 million fraud scheme against Citigroup.
That leaves Rabbi Zalman Beck whose role in this part of the federal investigation remains unclear. [Read more…]
Filed Under: FBI, Uncategorized


text:
Carriera
Venne selezionato dai Detroit Pistons al primo giro del Draft NBA 1981 (12ª scelta assoluta).

Palmarès
 NCAA AP All-America Third Team (1979)
 NBA All-Rookie First Team (1982)
 2 volte NBA All-Star (1982, 1984)

Collegamenti esterni

 Scheda su thedraftreview.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


By the end of this year there will be 28.6 million high-definition television sets in homes worldwide, according to HDTV, a new research report published today by Informa Telecoms & Media. By 2010 that number will be more than three times larger – at 106.2 million homes.
Zenobia Talati, the report's author, said: "High definition has found a mainstream market in the U.S. and Japan, and by 2010 we expect it to have made significant progress towards acceptance in Europe. Although set prices are falling, they remain relatively high and that means uptake over the next couple of years will be steady rather than spectacular".
At end-2005 the U.S. will have 16.5 million HDTV homes, giving it a 58% global share, followed by Japan with a 27% share. With an 85% share between them, the two represent by far the most dominant forces in the global HD market.
Importantly, of the 28.6 million HD households, just 9.8 million have the necessary settop box (or integrated HDTV set) to enable content to be viewed. i.e. they are actually viewing HD content, rather than simply having the potential to do so. This means that only a third of homes with an HDTV set are receiving HD content. By 2010, Informa expects HD programming to be much more readily available, and more than 75% of HDTV set homes will be receiving content - or 80 million homes.
The 100-page report HDTV is published by Informa Telecoms & Media, which produces several media business publications, including the TV International and New Media Markets newsletters. The report will be published in September 2005.


The most catchy feature of android 4.3 update from Sony is the introduction of new "Xperia" themes, for the first time Xperia Z1 and Z Ultra users are able to install custom themes on their device officially and Xperia Z, ZL, ZR, Tablet Z and SP users after they have got the update. UI of all new introduced Xperia themes is very attractive and for some even whiter then stock Xperia theme's UI.
At present Xperia themes are available from two providers "Knowit Mobile AB" and "The Green" and available from download via "Sony Select" app or you can directly install from Google Play Store also. New customized themes are available under both options paid as well as free ones. Let's see how many themes are available at present.
Find below the themes provided by Knowit Mobile AB.
Let's have a look how above themes appear on Xperia Z1 and Tablet Z.
5 Android 4.3 Xperia Themes from The Green are available so far out of which 2 are free themes. Find below the list.
Below theme package contain all themes which are available for FREE, no paid themes have been included.
How to Install Xperia Themes ?
#1 Go to Settings > Personalisation > Theme > Tap on the "+" icon on top right corner > Sony Select app opens, click on desired app to install.
#2 Click on above links given by us, they re-directs you to Google Play and then install directly on your phone.
What do Xperia Themes change ?
Lockscreen wallpaper, homescreen wallpaper, soft keys, status bar colors and inside UI changes as soon as theme is applied.
All above themes are good one as they also customize the inner UI of the firmware and some are awesome than the stock Xperia Themes.
We have listed all themes which are present till today, do let us know if you find any new theme added. Don't ask for direct apk we won't post them. Drop your comments lettings us know which is your favorite theme and why ?
Xperia™ theme – Rock on! Apk please !
We will not share the apks of any apps,kindly purchase it.!
Where can i found the wallpaper of christmas theme?
check the links, it is given.
only for Z1, ZU ( 4.3 ) as when ZR gets 4.3 it will be compatible.
I have installed the themes directly from Google Play into my Xperia Z1 but I can't seem to find the themes. Please Help!!!
New theme clean foggy available now.
I like themes 'noir' and 'foggy' except for the ugly green in foggy theme. Especially the dynamic color changing in foggy is great! Looking forward to install more themes with such dynamic changes.
When will release it for my Xperia c2305?
Just updated my Xperia M to 4.3. Play Store says that my device isn't compatible with these themes. How is that possible?
i am from iran and i want rock on theme.but i cant buy this theme from google play store..because because its banned for our country.so what should i do?


A healthier banana bread recipe that's really easy to make and even easier to adapt to your favourite flavours.
Preheat the oven to 165°c / 325°f / gas mark 3, and grease a loaf tin.
In a large bowl, beat the oil and honey together with a whisk. Add the eggs and beat well, then whisk in the vanilla extract, mashed bananas and milk.
Add the baking powder, salt and cinnamon, and whisk to blend. Lastly, switch to a big spoon and stir in the flour, just until combined. Some lumps are ok. Add the chopped pecan nuts at this stage, saving some for the top of the loaf.
Pour the batter into your greased loaf tin and sprinkle lightly with cinnamon and the reserved pecan nuts.
Bake for 55 to 60 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the centre comes out clean. Let the bread cool in the loaf tin for 10 minutes, then transfer it to a wire rack to cool for 20 minutes before slicing.
Try adding some of yor favourites ingredients to the mix such as chocolate chips, raisins, almonds or sultanas in place of the pecans. You can also up the spice level if you'd like.


text:
Vol. 51, Issue No. 46, 12 Nov, 2016
Updated on 10 November 2016
Pradip Phanjoubam
Neville Maxwell's 'Facts'and Silences
A rejoinder to Neville Maxwell's "Olaf Caroe's Fabrication of the 'McMahon Line'" (EPW, 6 August 2016) claims that there are many factual inconsistencies. The author also asserts that Maxwell deliberately silences alternate explanations to his claims.
Neville Maxwell's "Olaf Caroe's Fabrication of the 'McMahon Line' " (EPW, 6 August 2016) is well written and articulate, but there are too many factual inconsistencies and deliberate silencing of alternate explanations to his claims. Some of these have been deliberate and persistent in all of the author's writings spanning more than half a century. There is nothing that the author has written here, or the charges that he makes, which are different from what he has written 50 years ago. They have only been recycled to make them look current and relevant.
Without any qualification, Maxwell presumes Tibet was Chinese territory all throughout history, and has little use for what the Tibetans themselves think on the matter. China did always claim this, but as early as the closing decade of the 19th century Viceroy Lord Dufferin had come to the conclusion that China's claim of control over Tibet was fiction and that Tibetan issues should be pursued with Tibet directly. Dufferin came to this conclusion following China's inability to do anything to make Tibet honour two treaties the British signed with China in 1890 and 1893, the first on fixing the boundary of its protectorate state of Sikkim with Tibet and the second on regulation of trade between Tibet and India at Yatung in the Chumbi Valley.


What will Securex Kazakhstan 2019 present this spring?
WEATHERING FLAME RETARDANT SGK-3 FROM SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION ENTERPRICE (SPE) "SPETSENERGOTEHNIKA"
NEW LEVEL OF SAFETY: SYSTEM OF AUTOMATED STORAGE KEYS FROM THE GROUP OF COMPANIES "THREE A"
NEW PROTECTION EQUIPMENT FROM COMPANY "RHYTHM"
Security Systems Bureau.KZ Company will present innovative and high-tech equipment to guarantee your security.
Copyright © 2019 Securex Kazakhstan. All Rights Reserved.


A ruby red wine well balanced and full of flavour and freshness.
With its brilliant ruby colour, it moves gracefully in the glass. The bouquet is bur-sting with pleasant aromas of crisp marasca cherries, wild roses and hints of liquorice and pink pepper. On the palate, it is agile, well balanced, and full of flavour with a rich freshness, calling to be drunk again and again.
Corvina 50%, Corvinone 30%, Rondinella 20%. IT MAY CONTAINS SULPHITES. Abv 12.5%.
This wine is an easy-to-drink making it perfect for many occasions and dishes: from deli meats and cheese, to fresh pasta with meat sauce, not to mention grilled meats.