text:
Warwick Institute for Employment Research
About IER
IER staff list
Honorary appointments
Professor Kate Purcell
Impact and public engagement
PhD and Advanced Study
PhD in Employment Research
Working Futures
Labour market research training
Kate Purcell returned to the IER on 1st September 2006, having spent seven years as Professor of Employment Studies and Director of the Employment Studies Research Unit at Bristol Business School, the University of the West of England. She had spent two previous periods as a researcher at the Institute, from 1986-89 and 1996-99, and remained an Associate Fellow for most of the intervening periods. She retired at the end of December 2012 but continues to work part-time at the Institute.
With a background in sociology, she specialises in investigating the interface between labour markets and organisations, with a focus on changing employment boundaries. At the core of her work is an interest in gender segmentation in employment and gender differences in career development, but increasingly, her research interests have been focused on change in occupational structure and in particular, the impact of higher education expansion on the labour market. She directed Futuretrack, the most ambitious investigation of the relationship between higher education and employment ever undertaken, sponsored by the Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HECSU): a longitudinal survey that tracked 2005 and 2006 UK higher education applicants from the point of applying for full-time courses, through their higher education experience and into employment. Her current research - the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded Precatious Pathways into Employment for Young People? - extends this interest in transitions between education and employment to encompass young people who have not proceed to higher education and, with colleagues, is examining the youth labour market in the Midlands from the perspectives of young people themselves, education and employment stakeholders, employers and policymakers. Her comparative internationalresearch work includes the recent ESRC-funded 'Pathfinder' project which assessed the impact of higher education expansion on economic restructuring, occupational change and access to opportunities in Brazil and India.
Kate has conducted a series of longitudinal studies of graduate transitions from higher education to employment and case study investigations of both graduates and employers, funded by a range of sponsors including HECSU, the ESRC, the Council for Industry and Higher Education and successive UK government departments responsible for employment, higher education and skills. She has published and lectured widely on her research, both nationally and internationally and served in a consultancy or advisory capacity to a range of labour market, research and higher educational stakeholder organisations.
Her main research interests are the impact of higher education expansion on the labour market in the UK, change in the occupational structure; gender segmentation in employment; gender differences in career development; employment flexibility and non standard work, and development of more effective mixed-methods research. Consequently, her current project (colloquially known as the Paths2Work project), is an appropriate final project, since it includes consideration of all these areas.
Degrees of Advantage? A longer-term investigation of the careers of UK graduates. With Peter Elias, Daria Luchinskaya, Wil Hunt and Gaby Atfield. Funded by: Nuffield Foundation. Project Start Date: 01/10/2017 - Project End Date: 31/03/2019 [details]
Purcell, K. and C.Tzanakou (2016) 'Life after Higher education: the diversity of opportunities and obstacles in a changing graduate labour market', in J.Cote and A.Furlong (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Higher Education . London: Routledge.
Purcell, K. and P. Elias 2015) Does Britain have too many graduates?, December http://theconversation.com/does-britain-have-too-many-graduates-46349
Koene, B. and K. Purcell (2013) 'The value of relationships in transactional labour markets: constructing a market for temporay employment', Revista Latinoamericana di Estudios del Trabajo. Issue 30.
Purcell, K,. Elias, P., Atfield, G., Behle, H., Ellison, R , Luchinskaya, D. (2013) 'Transitions into employment, further study and other outcomes, The Futuretrack stage 4 Report', Manchester/Coventry: HECSU/Warwick Institute for Employment Research.
Elias, P. and K Purcell (2012) ''Higher Education and Social Background' in Understanding Society Findings 2012, p.23 - 24,', Editors: Editors: Institute for Social and Economic Research.
Elias, P. and Pucell, K. (2012) 'Classifying graduate occupations for the knowledge society: SOC(HE) 2010', Futuretrack Working paper No. 5 Institute for Employment Research.
Atfield, G., Green, A., Purcell, K., Staniewicz, T., and Owen, D. (2011) 'The impact of student and migrant employment on opportunities for low skilled people', Evidence Report 32.
All conference presentations
Research Degrees Supervised
Graduates in UK small businesses: What is the extent of graduate skill utilisation? (Daria Luchinskaya) , Date of Completion: 2014
The Utilisation and Contribution of Graduate Returnees in China: A comparative study in state-owned and multi-national financial organizations (Di Zhang), Date of Completion: 2013
The early career paths of Greek doctoral graduates of science and engineering who have studied in Greece and UK and their integration in the Greek labour market (Charoula Tzanakou), Date of Completion: 2012
Inaugural Rosemary Crompton Memorial Lecture 2015 - Listen to Professor Kate Purcell talk about the life and work of Rosemary Crompton at the Inaugural lecture held at City University, London.
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Kate dot Purcell at warwick dot ac dot uk
Futuretrack Stage 4: transitions into employment, further study and other outcomes
Precarious pathways to employment for young people? Unpaid, temporary and involuntary part-time work in transitions from education to employment.
Download the Preliminary Report 'Present Tense, Future Imperfect' here
University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
Email: ier at warwick dot ac dot uk
Staff IntranetSitemap
Page contact: Kate Purcell
Last revised: Wed 6 Nov 2019


text:
Why a Campaign on Nashville 1864?
on Friday, October 06, 2017 in Osprey Publishing
Today on the blog we welcome back Mark Lardas, who discusses his latest book CAM 314: Nashville 1864, and dispels popular misconceptions about its link to the March to the Sea.
Why a Campaign on Nashville? Wasn't that part of the March to the Sea? It is a question which appeared when Osprey announced the book. That question was actually one of the reasons I wanted to write a Campaign about Nashville. Despite a popular misconception, Nashville really was independent of the March to the Sea.
It was fought at the same time as the March to the Sea, and many troops involved in both campaigns had fought in the Atlanta campaign which led up to both Nashville and the March to the Sea. The Confederate commander during the Nashville campaign, John Bell Hood, wanted them to be linked. He believed his invasion of Tennessee would force Sherman to abandon Atlanta and abandon any movement deeper into Georgia. It is easy to see why folks today believe the two are linked.
Yet they are not. Sherman made that decision when he decided to ignore Hood. Instead, he took what he believed were his best troops and marched south. Sherman gave the rest of his army to George Thomas, and dumped the problem of dealing with Hood into Thomas's hands. Sherman then marched out of the picture and on to glory and Savannah.
Fortunately Thomas's hands were capable ones. Thomas was left with a rag-tag collection of disparate troops. They included garrison troops, invalids from the Atlanta campaign, mostly-dismounted cavalry (Sherman took all the best horses), and Sherman's problem children. Chief problem child was John McAllister Schofield, one of the most difficult subordinate generals any commander could inherit. Schofield was a competent battlefield commander, but his true talents lay in army politicking. He spent more time sniping at Thomas, in an effort to replace him, than he did fighting the Confederate invaders.
The Southern command included two of the Confederacy's most fascinating commanders: John Bell Hood, and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Hood resembled the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He scattered bits and pieces of himself over several battlefields. By 1864 Hood had literally contributed an arm and a leg to the Confederate cause. Yet he was as pugnacious as ever, always seeking an opportunity to attack.
Bedford Forrest was equally pugnacious, but more measured in aggressiveness. A self-taught strategist, Forrest was possibly the best cavalry commander of the war. He never fought a stand-up frontal assault when a flank attack yielded better results. Forrest wanted to win – not prove his bravery.
Hood's 1864 invasion of Central Tennessee was the result of Hood's need to attack and always attack. His Army of Tennessee was too weak to attack Sherman's forces in Atlanta and Hood did not want to stand on the defensive. So Hood convinced Jefferson Davis to allow the Army of Tennessee to attack elsewhere. Central Tennessee was far enough from Sherman's Atlanta base that Hood could attack there.
Hood's plan was based on several misconceptions. He assumed Sherman would react by chasing after the Army of Tennessee. Instead Sherman completely ignored Hood. Hood also assumed Confederate sympathizers in Tennessee (and possibly even Kentucky) would flock to his army as he advanced, strengthening the Army of Tennessee. By 1864 every male in those states willing to fight for the Confederacy had already joined up. The only folks remaining were pro-Union or those who simply wished to be left alone. Finally, Hood assumed Confederate courage could substitute for logistics. His army lacked both supplies and the train to move supplies.
Davis was aware of these problems. He approved Hood's plan for one simple reason: it was a plan, and no other plan was offered. Despite the long odds against the Confederates, Hood's invasion of Central Tennessee offer perhaps the last opportunity for the South to win the Civil War, especially after Lincoln's reelection.
Hood's principal opponent, George Thomas, was as fascinating as Hood. A Virginian, he stayed loyal to the Union. He was possibly the most underrated Union commander of the Civil War. A quiet man, he had two outstanding talents: He was a tenacious defender and a powerful attacker. He saved the Union Army at Chickamauga and Chattanooga in 1863. His attack in the center of the Confederate line on Missionary Ridge shattered the Army of Tennessee on the third day at Chattanooga.
US gunboat General Grant, one of the many vessels carrying supplies and providing firepower on the Tennessee River
Thomas was never held in high favor by Grant. Thomas was methodical and deliberate, too methodical and deliberate for Grant's taste. Yet when Thomas did strike it was always with the effect of a sledgehammer striking a lathe screen.
Although Thomas's forces outnumbered Hood's army, Thomas had his army scattered from the Cumberland to the Tennessee Rivers. One of his corps was not yet in the theater when the campaign started, as it was en route on the Cumberland River. Thomas also had the challenge of facing Hood while simultaneously holding Nashville and Chattanooga, Tennessee.
I first became aware of the Nashville campaign while writing Warrior 114: African American Soldier in the Civil War. (Black troops played a significant part in the Union victory at Nashville and in the various holding actions which led up to that battle.) The more I read about this campaign, the more convinced I became that this was one of the most neglected and ignored campaigns of the American Civil War. It was the Confederacy's last chance – and the campaign where a neglected American hero, George Thomas, managed something Grant never achieved: destroying a Confederate army in the field.
Read the book, and tell me whether or not you agree with my assessment.
Mark's new book Nashville 1864 is now available to preorder from our website, you can do so by clicking here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Image Title: Tight Back Sofa Intended For Elaine Arctic Blue Sandy Wilson Home Decorations 11. Filename: tight-back-sofa-intended-for-elaine-arctic-blue-sandy-wilson-home-decorations-11.jpg. Image Dimension: 900 x 506 pixels. Images Format: jpg/jpeg. Publisher/Author: Mitchel O'Reilly. Uploaded Date: Wednesday - May 09th. 2018 01:09:19 AM. Category: Architecture. Image Source: houzz.com.
Tap The Thumbnail Bellow to See Related Gallery of "Tight Back Sofa Intended For Elaine Arctic Blue Sandy Wilson Home Decorations 11"


text:
Wilson Jone: Page 3
The city below Mount Royal
December 6, 2014 ET
There is an Olympic city, a city under strong old European influence and modern American architecture at the same time, where you can visit the largest underground complex in the world and explore its 500km of bike routes and paths. Interested? Bienvenue a Montreal in the Canadian province of Quebec.
Where the swan has a bear for a friend
The most northeast part of China, Heilongjiang Province, shaped as a swan, is the home of one of the most interesting Chinese cities. Welcome to "My God, it's cold!" city of Harbin.
Fort Lauderdale: The home of sea captains and Spring Break
October 4, 2014 ET
Fort Lauderdale, a city on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida, is dubbed as the Yachting Capital of the World but it is also a home town of a central event for all American students.
Sport, art, and great coffee Down Under
September 6, 2014 ET
If you like sports and art come with us Down Under to visit Melbourne, the capital and most populous city in the state of Victoria in Australia and the only city in the world to host both a Formula One Grand Prix and a tennis Grand Slam tournament, and one of the most famous horse races in the world, The Melbourne Cup.
<< < 1 2 3 4 > >>


Cobb salad is the quintessential main course salad of the United States and consists of lettuce topped with hard-boiled eggs, chicken, bacon, avocado, cheese and tomatoes. It is easy to make and perfect for a light, summer meal.
The origins of chicken cordon bleu are unclear but it is thought to be an American dish, not French, as the name implies. I baked the chicken to make the dish lighter, and added a creamy mushroom sauce to complete this rich, comforting (and guilt-free) meal.
Many variations of arroz con pollo can be found throughout Latin America and the Caribbean but some claim that it is the unofficial national dish of Puerto Rico. The dish, literally meaning "rice with chicken," is thought to have originated in Spain and has definite similarities with the popular Spanish dish, paella. The pimiento-stuffed green olives in this version are a signature addition from Puerto Rico.


text:
package com.github.mrvilkaman.presentationlayer.fragments.core;

import android.support.v7.widget.RecyclerView;
import android.view.View;

import java.util.Set;

import butterknife.ButterKnife;

/**
 * Created by Zahar on 08.04.16.
 */
public abstract class BaseVH<Type> extends RecyclerView.ViewHolder {

	public BaseVH(View view) {
		super(view);
		ButterKnife.bind(this, view);
	}

	@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
	public void setListeners(View view, ItemListener<Type> onClick,
							ItemListener<Type> onLongClick) {
		view.setOnClickListener(view1 -> {
			if (onClick != null) {
				onClick.click((Type) view.getTag());
			}
		});

		view.setOnLongClickListener(view1 -> {
			if (onLongClick != null) {
				onLongClick.click((Type) view.getTag());
				return true;
			}
			return false;
		});
	}

	public abstract void bind(Type item, int position, Set<String> payloads);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A complementary feed for horses. A Vitamin E + Selenium supplement for horses in regular/intensive exercise.
For the maintenance of healthy muscle function.
A complementary feed for horses. A Vitamin E + Selenium supplement for horses in regular/intensive exercise. For the maintenance of healthy muscle function & to protect cells from oxidative damage.
A 1kg bucket fed at a daily dose of 20 g is sufficient for about 50 days. (1 scoop = approx. 15 g) .
Replace the lid. Store in a dry place, at room temperature.
Crude protein 0.1%, Curde fat 0% , Crude fibre 0%, Crude ash 5.5%, Calcium 0.1 g, Sodium 2.2 g, Phosphorus 0 g .
VIT. E: all-rac-alfa-tocoferylacetate (3a700) 55.000 mg, Selenium - Se, Sodium selenite (E8) 15 mg.


Hydrogen leak detection systems may be required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) or may be installed as a means for enhancing safety of the operation. Leak detection can be achieved by providing hydrogen (or flammable gas) detectors in a room or enclosure, or by monitoring the internal piping pressures and/or flow rates for changes that would suggest a leak is present in the system. Other methods include providing detectors in close proximity to the exterior piping or locating hydrogen piping within another pipe and monitoring the annulus for leaks.
Regardless of the method used, leak detection systems should, at a minimum, incorporate automatic shutoff of the hydrogen source (and startup of a properly-configured active ventilation system, if present) when hydrogen is detected. For systems designed to monitor hydrogen concentrations in rooms or areas, the leak detection system should also warn personnel with visual and audible warnings when the environment is becoming unsafe. Remote notification should also be considered.
The design of a leak detection system must ensure that any leaking hydrogen would pass by the detector. Consider using a hood to route leakage across the detector.
The sensitivity of the detector to other gases and vapors should be considered in the selection of the detector and should be explained to personnel. Additionally, caution should be exercised when selecting and using detectors that may themselves be ignition sources.
A good practice is to set the detectors to alarm at 1% hydrogen by volume in air, which is 25% of the lower flammability limit (LFL). If automatic shutdown is incorporated into the system, manual reset should be required to restart the system.
Maintenance and recalibration of leak detectors should be performed every 3-6 months and recorded in facility records or manufacturer's instructions.


Our backyard. The reason we bought an ugly house and are remodeling. On the sound of the Gulf of Mexico.
Zillow picture from long ago.
I would like to design a full circle drive for my property. The street entrance (in a cul de sac) is on the left of the house as is the garage. This creates a curb appeal problem as the front of the house is not visible from the road. I am hoping that my guests could enter the top of the property and circle around, bringing them more in front of the house. The existing driveway pulls directly into the garage which is NOT attractive. LOL. My main question is how small can the radius of the circle be to accommodate cars? I have 5 children who all have cars and visit frequently. And my 88 year old parents are living with me and my dad is still driving so his car is here as well. Not to mention mine and my husband's cars. YIKES. That's a lot of cars without any visitors who are here daily. I have googled circle drive radius but not finding anything definitive. Thank you in advance for any help you can give!
From the front "stoop" to the front fence I have about 53 feet. And from side to side about 67 feet.
The radius of the center circle of a circle drive is 25' or a 50' diameter. This radius allows cars (not all trucks)to circle. Small delivery trucks like UPS are OK. The width of the driveway at least by the house needs to be 18', so cars can pass one another. You want a driveway without a bottleneck. Can you pull some parking off of the circle? It sounds like you have a small space to accommodate a number of cars. Can you relocate the fence to give you more room by the house?


text:
IRS needs more money
By Florence Olsen
Corporate e-filing
The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board has taken the unusual step of submitting its own IRS budget to Congress. In asking for $500 million more than the Bush administration requested in its fiscal 2005 budget for the agency, the board included greater spending increases for information technology.
Members of the board, an independent group that advises the agency on taxpayer service, said the additional money would keep the IRS' modernization project on track and fund efforts to enforce tax payments.
In its fiscal 2005 budget for the IRS, the administration requested $1.9 billion for IT. That included $1.6 billion for information systems, a 3.8 percent increase from fiscal 2004, and $285 million for the modernization, a 26.5 percent decrease from fiscal 2004.
The oversight board's budget, however, seeks $2.1 billion for IT, including $1.7 billion for information systems, an 8 percent increase from fiscal 2004, and $400 million for the modernization, a 3.1 percent increase from fiscal 2004.
Nancy Killefer, the board's chairwoman, told lawmakers that not spending the money necessary to strengthen the IRS at a time when noncompliance has created what is estimated to be a $311 billion tax gap would be shortsighted. That is the amount of taxes officials believe Americans owe the IRS, Killefer said in her testimony last month before the House Ways and Means Committee's Oversight Subcommittee.
"Now is a critical time for our tax system to be strengthened, not merely maintained at current levels," she said. Service to taxpayers has improved in the five years since the board was created, she said, thanks in large part to a growing number of self-service Web applications and online services for tax practitioners.
Compared with Bush's proposed budget, the board's proposal for systems modernization is not punitive but instead "sets the foundation for genuine progress for the program in fiscal 2005," Killefer said.
But Subcommittee Chairman Amo Houghton (R-N.Y.) said the president's budget request for the IRS was already generous compared with amounts requested for other civilian agencies. "You have
$10.7 billion," he said. "Why can't you work something that you think is important within that overall figure?"
James White, director of tax issues at the General Accounting Office, told subcommittee members that in addition to hiring more enforcement officers, achieving greater payment compliance is closely linked to modernizing IRS tax-processing systems and expanding electronic filing.
White suggested that modernizing systems and promoting e-filing would eventually improve operational efficiency enough to pay for service improvements and enhanced enforcement efforts without significant budget increases.


text:
NewsCovering Kern County
Authorities release name of girl, man killed by DUI driver
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — Authorities released the name of the girl and 19-year-old pedestrians who were killed by a DUI driver.
Caylee Maile Brown, 9, of Bakersfield, was killed along with Jeffrey James Malone, 19, of Bakersfield, on while walking on a sidewalk at about 1:16 p.m. Wednesday in the 1400 block of Panama Lane, according to the Kern County Sheriff's Department. The name of the man hasn't been released yet.
"Greenfield Union School District is saddened by the tragic loss of Granite Pointe student, Caylee Brown. Caylee was a 5th-grade student who was described as soft-spoken and reserved, yet very bright and intelligent. The district has grief counselors and other support staff available for students, staff, and parents. These services will be available this week and next week as needed. Our thoughts and prayers are with Caylee's family during this difficult time."
Greenfield Union School District in a statement
It wasn't the first DUI, but her second, where according to the Bakersfield Police Department, 46-year-old Lisa Core drove under the influence of a controlled substance–causing the death of a 10-year-old girl and 19-year-old man in South Bakersfield.
Core was arrested and charged on suspicion of two counts of murder, two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of drugs, and driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license due to DUI conviction in Caylee's and the 19-year-old man's deaths. Core has an arraignment hearing set for Friday afternoon.
The Bakersfield Police Department said this is an ongoing investigation. 23ABC will continue to bring more information as soon as it comes into the newsroom.
*CORRECTION: It was previously mentioned that Core had four DUI convictions but BPD released an official investigation showing that Core was not charged as a 4th time DUI offender.


text:
Selman Keleş
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of June 4, 2018
Cartoonist arrested for "insulting the president," paroled Turkish authorities on June 5 released on parole Nuri Kurtcebe, a veteran political cartoonist, who was sent to prison on June 3 after a high court rejected his appeal, according to the daily Evrensel and Kurtcebe's lawyer, Erdem Akyüz, who spoke to the news website OdaTV.
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of January 15
Journalists in custody Police the southeastern city of Diyarbakır on January 12 detained Selman Keleş, a former reporter for the shuttered, pro-Kurdish Dihaber News Agency, and released him the next day on order of a local court, online newspaper Gazete Karınca reported.
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of November 19, 2017
November 22, 2017 1:02 PM EST
Journalists sentenced An Ankara court on November 22 sentenced Ayşenur Parıldak, a former court reporter for the shuttered daily Zaman, seven years and six months in prison for "being a member of an armed terrorist organization," the online newspaper Diken reported.
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of April 16, 2017
April 19, 2017 10:56 AM EDT
Wire reporter jailed The Supreme Court of Appeals on April 14 upheld the Second Mardin Court for Serious Crimes' November 2016 sentence of two years and four months in prison against Meltem Oktay on charges of "making propaganda for a terrorist organization," the news website Dihaber reported yesterday.
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of March 19, 2017
March 20, 2017 9:37 AM EDT
Security forces detain reporter in southeastern Turkey Security forces in the southeastern province of Mardin today detained Dihaber reporter Murat Verim, the news agency reported. Dihaber said the arrest was part of an ongoing terrorism investigation.
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of August 7, 2016
Police detain 42 employees of state broadcaster The official Anatolia News Agency reported today that police detained 42 employees of state broadcaster TRT on suspicion of affiliation with the Hizment movement, which the Turkish government alleges orchestrated a July 15 failed military coup. Anatolia did not named the detainees or their positions at TRT but…
Turkey Crackdown Chronicle: Week of July 31
Court indicts 12 media workers on terrorism charges An Istanbul court last night indicted 12 journalists on charges of being a member of a terrorist organization — the Hizmet movement, which the Turkish government classes as a terrorist group and alleges orchestrated a failed military coup on July 15 – Turkey's official Anatolia news agency…


text:
900 F. 2d 936 - Cowan v. University of Louisville School of Medicine
900 F2d 936 Cowan v. University of Louisville School of Medicine
59 Ed. Law Rep. 1021
Jonathan COWAN, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; Leah
Dickstein, M.D.; Donald Kmetz, M.D.; and Other
Unknown Persons, Defendants-Appellees.
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 23, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc denied May 24, 1990.
Philip C. Kimball (argued) and J. Leonard Rosenberg, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.
Holland N. McTyeire (argued), Robert F. Matthews, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Thomas H. Lyons, University Counsel, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky., for defendants-appellees.
David A. Harris, Louisville, Ky., for defendant, Darrell Franks, M.D.
Before WELLFORD and GUY, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.
RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff, Jonathan D. Cowan, appeals entry of summary judgment in his suit alleging unlawful dismissal from the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Because plaintiff's claims against the University of Louisville are barred by the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution, and all federal claims against defendants Leah Dickstein and Donald Kmetz are without merit, we affirm the district court's disposition of the case.
Cowan's record of academic accomplishment before entering the University of Louisville School of Medicine is impressive. After receiving B.S. and B.A. degrees from Brown University in 1970, Cowan held Danforth and Woodrow Wilson Fellowships while earning a Ph.D. in comparative pharmacology and toxicology from the University of California Medical Center. Plaintiff appears to have carried his academic success over to the study of medicine for the first few semesters in which he was enrolled at the University of Louisville. In fact, during this time, plaintiff was ranked in the top one quarter of his class. Things began to change, however, toward the beginning of 1982.
On February 11, 1982, Associate Dean for Student Affairs Leah Dickstein received a telephone call from a woman identifying herself as Phyllis Noe who indicated that she had recently ended a relationship with the plaintiff, and that since that time he had been harassing her. Three days later, Dickstein called Cowan's roommate to inquire into Cowan's psychological state. On February 15, 1982, Dr. Joseph LeRoy, the Director of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry, wrote Dickstein to express his concern with the plaintiff's clinical performance in a recently completed psychiatry clerkship rotation. Dr. LeRoy noted that plaintiff's performance was "in the doubtful to unsatisfactory range," particularly due to his inability to relate to either the patients or the nursing staff. On February 22, Dickstein received a letter from Steven Lippmann, M.D., Cowan's clinical supervisor during his psychiatry rotation. Lippmann requested that Dickstein contact the plaintiff to "remediate several apparent deficiencies," including Cowan's failure to practice medicine "within his expertise level," "[i]nadequate attention to, detail in, and performance of histories and physicals," and "difficulty maintaining productive patient, staff and peer relationships." That same day, Dickstein wrote Cowan to inform him that his reported behavior was "not in keeping with the standards of the University of Louisville nor of the medical profession at large." Dickstein requested that Cowan meet with her to discuss the matter further. At the meeting, Dickstein suggested to Cowan that he see one of several psychiatrists at the school to aid him in resolving his personal difficulties. Cowan chose to see Dr. Darrell Franks.
On March 12, 1982, Christopher Shields, M.D., wrote Dickstein to relate an incident in which Cowan exhibited behavior "totally inappropriate for a medical student." Cowan apparently had incorrectly informed the parents of a child with a malignant brain tumor that the child was receiving improper treatment, causing the parents a great deal of distress. Dickstein received yet another letter complaining about Cowan on April 21, 1982. Dr. Ennu Surrender, a resident in psychiatry, wrote that the plaintiff had seen patients after being advised not to, and had followed improper procedures leading to incorrect diagnoses.
After examining Cowan during five office visits, Dr. Franks wrote to Dickstein on April 10 that he considered the plaintiff's condition "to be very ominous." The letter continues as follows:
I have serious doubts, in my professional opinion, as [to] the ability of this person to conform his conduct to that required by either the University o[r] the greater medical profession. In my opinion, he is a seriously disturbed person, and potentially dangerous to patients. I have serious reservations regarding his continuing in medical education.
Franks also expressed concern for Dickstein's personal safety, noting "strong reservations" regarding Dickstein seeing Cowan alone.
Dickstein showed Franks' letter to Dr. Donald Kmetz, the Dean of the School of Medicine. Kmetz then met with Cowan on April 21 and arranged for him to take a leave of absence until his personal and academic difficulties could be reviewed by the Medical School Student Affairs Committee.
The Student Affairs Committee (SAC), chaired by Dr. Bernard Weisskopf, met on April 29 to determine whether Cowan should take a medical leave of absence from the school. The SAC considered, among other things, the letters received by Dr. Dickstein, including the letter from Franks. Cowan appeared personally before the committee and presented a defense of his behavior. The SAC recommended to Dean Kmetz that Cowan be reinstated pending his submission to two independent psychiatric examinations to determine whether he was suffering from serious behavioral or emotional problems. Kmetz accepted the committee's recommendation and reinstated Cowan immediately. Cowan thereupon saw a psychiatrist and a psychologist, both of whom indicated that he had no "serious pathology." Cowan was present at the next meeting of the SAC on June 4, in which he again presented an explanation of his behavior. The committee also heard testimony from Dr. Martin Raff who presented material relating to Cowan's relationship with Phyllis Noe. The SAC notified Dr. Raff that this information was irrelevant to Cowan's competence to proceed with his medical studies and agreed to ignore the information. At the conclusion of the second meeting, the SAC took "no specific action against Dr Cowan" who requested that any disposition of the matter be delayed until he returned from a summer in California. The SAC never discussed the Cowan matter again, and Cowan was never disciplined for any aspect of his conduct.
From August 16, 1982, to October 15, 1982, plaintiff was enrolled in the clinical course of junior medicine, a part of the core curriculum required of all medical students at the University. Cowan received a failing grade in the course which was relayed to the Committee on Student Promotions (CSP) according to routine University procedure. The CSP recommended that Cowan not be dismissed immediately from the school but instead be allowed to repeat junior medicine and be placed on academic probation.
By letter dated October 28, Kmetz notified Cowan that he was upholding the recommendation of the CSP, but that further failure could result in Cowan's dismissal from the medical school as provided in the University catalog. The letter provides, in pertinent part:
Because of your failure in a core course, you will be on academic probation throughout the 1982-83 academic year. Failure to pass all your courses within this year could result in dismissal from school....
Plaintiff's next rotation, from October 18 through December 17, 1982, was in junior surgery, another core course required for graduation. On January 6, 1983, plaintiff received a failing grade in junior surgery. Dr. Neal Garrison, the course director, testified that a student could fail junior surgery in any one of three ways: (i) by obtaining a failing score on the final examination; (ii) by failing the ward work component of the course; or (iii) by obtaining an average on the final examination and the ward work of less than 65%. This grading procedure was explained to all students at the beginning of the junior surgery class. Cowan failed the ward work with an extraordinarily low score, and also obtained a combined average of less than 65%. On January 6, two resident assistants who had been heavily involved in determining Cowan's ward grade wrote to Dr. Garrison explaining why they felt that Cowan's performance in the ward work component of junior surgery was unsatisfactory. The letter notes that Cowan's work was deficient in five separate respects: (i) he was unable to apply material taught in the classroom to the care of patients; (ii) he refused or was unable to accept responsibility; (iii) he was absent from the hospital while on call in direct contravention of a resident's request; (iv) he constantly complained of physical and mental fatigue; and (v) he resisted attending surgery for patients under his care. In addition, the letter notes that Cowan was unable to communicate with others "in a manner required for participation as a member of the medical community."
The letter goes on to explain that one of the residents met with Cowan two weeks into the rotation and delineated his specific areas of weakness, explaining that his performance was, at that time, "marginal at best" and that improvement was expected. These same admonitions were repeated to Cowan in a meeting with the chief and two junior residents one week later. At this time, Cowan was notified that "his performance was failing and marked improvement would be needed for a passing score." Because no improvement was noted, the letter explains, Cowan received a failing mark.
The plaintiff requested and received several meetings to discuss his failing grade in junior surgery with Dr. Garrison, and with Dr. Hiram Polk, Chairman of the Department of Surgery.
The CSP met again on February 8, 1983, to discuss Cowan's second failure. Cowan was presented with notice of the hearing and given an opportunity to present extenuating circumstances to the committee. This time the CSP recommended, unanimously, with one abstention, that Cowan be dismissed from the medical school.
Contemporaneous with the CSP review, Polk and Garrison requested an independent evaluation of Cowan's junior surgery charts and notes from Dr. Phil Harbrecht, the Chief of Surgery at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Louisville. In a February 14 letter to Garrison, Harbrecht noted, inter alia, the following:
In clarity, content, and assessment of the problems his notes are below average. For about half the patients reviewed they are too few. His written work therefore, cannot improve his evaluation if he was otherwise deficient.
Dr. Garrison also reviewed Cowan's written ward work and determined that it was inadequate and merited a failing grade. On February 22, the Department of Surgery held a faculty meeting at which Cowan's failure in junior surgery was reaffirmed.
After receiving the recommendation of the CSP and the faculty of the Department of Surgery, Kmetz independently reviewed Cowan's academic record and decided to affirm the recommendation for dismissal. Kmetz gave the following five reasons for his decision: (i) the recommendation of the CSP had been unanimous in favor of dismissal; (ii) both of Cowan's failures were in very important core clinical courses; (iii) the review of Cowan's clinical performance from prior rotations, as evidenced by the letters from Lippmann, LeRoy, Surrender, and Shields, showed that his clinical work was marginal at best; (iv) Cowan's clinical evaluations in junior surgery were the lowest that he had ever seen; and (v) Cowan's cumulative grade was below that necessary to pass junior surgery.
The record is clear that the personal incidents culminating in Cowan's appearances before the SAC were not considered by either the CSP, the Department of Surgery, or Dr. Kmetz in the decision to dismiss Cowan. Dr. Kmetz responded to plaintiff's inquiries regarding the relationship of the SAC meetings to the final decision to dismiss as follows:
My decision for dismissal had nothing to do with behavior, it had to do with performance as a medical student.
... [I] tried to take the Student Affairs issue and put it aside. I thought it had been addressed, and I tried to put it aside, not to mean that the Dr. LeRoy letter and the other letters that were generated as a result of academic performance, they should be taken into consideration. But those that were not related to his academic performance, in my personal judgment I tried to put those aside.... [My] best judgment is that I would have acted with the same decision had there been no issue of Student Affairs matters.
After his dismissal from the School of Medicine, Cowan filed eight grievances with the Student Academic Grievance Committee of the School of Medicine. The committee met on May 23, 1983, and June 1, 1983, to hear testimony in support of Cowan's complaints. Two closed sessions were held in which committee members discussed the evidence presented at the hearings. In its final report, the committee found insufficient evidence to support Cowan's allegations that his dismissal was unwarranted. Pursuant to these findings, Dean Kmetz reaffirmed his earlier decision to dismiss Cowan from the school.
On April 19, 1983, Cowan filed a complaint in a Kentucky circuit court against the University of Louisville School of Medicine and Dr. Darrell Franks. Cowan alleged that he was dismissed from the University based on communications from Franks, in "violation of his constitutionally vested student rights and civil rights and in derogation of his rights to procedural and substantive due process of law." Cowan also asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of school rules, and negligence.
On November 14, 1984, plaintiff instituted a second action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky based on the allegations set forth in his state court complaint. Cowan added Dr. Donald Kmetz and Dr. Leah Dickstein as defendants and narrowed his federal statutory claims to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1985(3). He requested that the court hear all the aforementioned state law claims and an additional claim of conspiracy under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. The federal complaint also alleges that Cowan was required by the University to "submit to such administrative procedure and deprived of a property right without benefit of an opportunity to confront witnesses, to know the nature of the evidence against him [and] without assistance of counsel." Plaintiff demanded compensatory and punitive damages against the University, Kmetz, and Dickstein in a sum totaling $3,500,000 each. He did not request equitable relief.
Plaintiff's first action was removed to federal court and consolidated with the second by order dated December 31, 1986. The University of Louisville, Kmetz, and Dickstein subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment raising the defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity. By order dated May 1, 1989, the court granted the motion for summary judgment for the reasons set forth in an accompanying memorandum opinion.
The district court found plaintiff's action against the University of Louisville to be barred by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution as applied to the University of Louisville in our opinion in Martin v. University of Louisville, 541 F.2d 1171 (6th Cir.1976). The court then determined that Kmetz and Dickstein were entitled to the protection of qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The court concluded its opinion with the following paragraph:
Having found that the University is protected by sovereign immunity and that Dickstein and Kmetz have qualified immunity, the Court, for reasons of judicial economy[,] will not address other arguments raised by the plaintiff.
The court thereupon entered an order granting defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on eleventh amendment and qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiff also argues that the district court incorrectly failed to consider his state law claims. We address each of these arguments separately below.
A. Claims Against the University of Louisville
It is well established that "a suit in federal court by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1143, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); see also Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Only where Congress has explicitly abrogated a state's immunity to suit on the face of a statute, see Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3147, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), or where the state itself has consented to suit, see Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1360, will a federal court have jurisdiction over a state defendant.
In Martin v. University of Louisville, 541 F.2d at 1174-77, this court explicitly determined that suits for money damages against the University of Louisville or its officers acting in their official capacities were barred by the eleventh amendment. The plaintiff does not contest the fact that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity to suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Quern, 440 U.S. at 341, 99 S.Ct. at 1145. He maintains, however, that Kentucky has consented to such suits against the University through a state statute providing for the purchase of insurance for University officials.
In Dunlap v. University of Kentucky Student Health, 716 S.W.2d 219, 220 (Ky.1986), the Kentucky Supreme Court found that a Kentucky statute providing for the establishment of a special fund "to assure itself that health care malpractice claims or judgments against itself, or its agents will be satisfied," and providing that, "[s]uch purpose is hereby declared to be a public purpose for which public funds may be expended," Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.939, effected a limited waiver of the state's sovereign immunity to suits for recovery from the fund. Plaintiff claims that a similar waiver has been effected with regard to suits against University personnel by Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.2871. Plaintiff quotes the following language from that statute in his brief on appeal:
The governing board of each state institution of higher education [is] authorized to purchase liability insurance for the protection of the individual members of the governing board, faculty, and staff of such institutions from liability for acts [and] omissions committed in the course and scope of the individual's employment or service. Each institution may purchase the type and amount of liability coverage deemed to best serve the interest of such institution.
(Appellant's Brief at 45) (emphasis added). What plaintiff fails to quote is the following 1988 amendment to the statute:
[T]he purchase of liability insurance for members of governing boards, faculty and staff of institutions of higher education in this state shall not be construed to be a waiver of sovereign immunity or any other immunity or privilege.
Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 164.2871(3) (emphasis supplied). This statute is hardly what the Supreme Court envisioned when it wrote "we will find waiver only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.' " Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. at 1361 (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 464, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909)). Needless to say, we find plaintiff's argument that Kentucky has consented to this suit unconvincing.
Because the eleventh amendment is an "explicit limitation on federal judicial power," Edelman, 415 U.S. at 678, 94 S.Ct. at 1363 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treas. of Indiana, 323 U.S 459, 467, 65 S.Ct. 347, 352, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945)), a federal court is without jurisdiction to hear a claim against an unconsenting state absent congressional abrogation. See Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2277, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 242, 105 S.Ct. at 3147. All plaintiff's claims against the University of Louisville and its officers acting in their official capacities were, therefore, properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam) (ordering dismissal of state defendant sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 because "the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies"). Id. at 781, 98 S.Ct. at 3057.1B. Federal Law Claims Against Dickstein and Kmetz In Their Individual Capacities
Cowan alleges that Dickstein and Kmetz violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and hence that they are liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his reputation when Dickstein and Kmetz disclosed the letter written by Franks to the SAC. He then asserts that he was deprived of a "property interest in his continuing enrollment in medical school." (Appellant's Brief at 35).
Due process concerns are clearly not implicated in Dickstein's and Kmetz's actions with regard to the letter from Franks. In the case of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that a plaintiff claiming to have suffered damage to his reputation due to the actions of a state official had failed to state a claim for deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause. The Court set forth its decision in the following passage which we find dispositive of Cowan's claim here:
Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation which has been altered as a result of petitioners' actions. Rather his interest in reputation is simply one of a number which the state may protect against injury by virtue of its tort law, providing a forum for vindication of those interests by means of damages actions. And any harm or injury to that interest, even where as here inflicted by an officer of the State, does not result in a deprivation of any "liberty" or "property" recognized by state or federal law, nor has it worked any change of respondent's status as theretofore recognized under the State's laws. For these reasons we hold that the interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither "liberty" nor "property" guaranteed against state deprivation without due process of law.
424 U.S. at 711-12, 96 S.Ct. at 1165.
The gravamen of plaintiff's argument that he was deprived of property without due process is that Dickstein and Kmetz engineered his dismissal from the School of Medicine because of a personal vendetta they were carrying on against him. Cowan alleges that both defendants, together with many other "agents" of the University of Louisville, conspired to have him dismissed because of their own irrational fears of him, and in order to placate Dr. LeRoy who, Cowan alleges, was a rival for Noe's affections. When this plot failed, Cowan maintains, the defendants and other "unnamed agents of the University of Louisville," proceeded to "fake" Cowan's academic failure in junior surgery. The facts surrounding plaintiff's dismissal from the School of Medicine are as we have set them out above; we find no support there for plaintiff's fanciful conspiracy theory.
In Rice v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 887 F.2d 716, 719 (6th Cir.1989), we declared our unwillingness to allow a plaintiff to circumvent Congress' intent that states not be sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 " 'by a mere pleading device.' " (Quoting Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989)). In Rice, we stated that:
[T]he record does not suggest in any way that the defendants' actions were somehow unofficial. The capacity in which the individual defendants were in fact acting is what matters, not the capacity in which they were sued....
887 F.2d at 719. In the case before us, we see no evidence whatsoever that either Dickstein or Kmetz were acting in anything other than their official capacities, and therefore are unwilling to engage in a review of the process accorded plaintiff in his dismissal from medical school. To do so would be to, in effect, entertain plaintiff's claim against the University of Louisville--a task which the eleventh amendment, and the principles of sovereign immunity it implies, removes from our jurisdiction.
C. State Law Claims
After granting summary judgment on plaintiff's federal constitutional and statutory claims, the district court ignored plaintiff's state law claims, writing "for reasons of judicial economy [the court] will not address other arguments raised by the plaintiff." We find it unclear from this statement whether the court intended that the state law claims be remanded to state court. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Since we are uncertain, we feel that the most appropriate resolution of this question is to remand to the district court so that the district judge can indicate whether the state claims should be remanded or kept for disposition.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. However, the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to clarify its ruling relative to the pendent state claims.DP1AFFIRMED with state law claims previously removed to be remanded in accordance with this opinion.
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur with most of Judge Guy's thoughtful discussion of the issues in this case. I am fully in accord with Part IIA and C and the rationale with respect to the claims against the University of Louisville and the state law claims. I agree also with the statement in Part IIB that "[d]ue process concerns are clearly not implicated in Dickstein's and Kmetz's actions with regard to the letter from Franks." I agree further that there is "no support ... for plaintiff's fanciful conspiracy theory."
I find no necessity, however, to adopt the statement quoted from Rice v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 887 F.2d 716, 719 (6th Cir.1989), which may be interpreted to mean that the doctrine of Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), somehow bars suits under Sec. 1983 against state officials when those officials are being sued in their individual capacities. I do not view Will as barring Sec. 1983 suits against state officials whenever the suits concern actions taken in their official capacities. Instead, I believe that Will bars suits against state officials only when those officials are sued in their official capacities.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the district court that under the facts of this case defendants Dickstein and Kmetz enjoy qualified immunity.
We note that insofar as plaintiff asserts federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the University of Louisville, his complaint can fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted above, Martin v. University of Louisville, 541 F.2d at 1174-75, held that the University of Louisville is a Kentucky state agency. The Supreme Court has held that such a state agency is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2311, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). With regard to plaintiff's FERPA claim, he concedes that "no private right of action exists within the FERPA itself." Plaintiff claims only that the University of Louisville's failure to comply with FERPA provides him with a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our disposition of plaintiff's section 1983 claim, as barred by the eleventh amendment, and the Supreme Court's holding in Will therefore disposes of the FERPA claim as well


Young and old are coming for care to the dispensary in Cuyamel, Omoa, Honduras. I'm trying to see the girl's constitution which will be helpful in the prescribing. It was another good day. Every day brings new and different health problems for us to work with. So there is lots of learning as well. I'm thoroughly enjoying working with Kate. Yay for her picking up this kind of work so quickly!!!


The particular Oracle 1Z0-051 official certifications will offer the actual authorized owner a distinct appeal. The particular 1Z0-051 authorized skilled provides testified to your value of this particular official certifications. The particular 1Z0-051 official certifications usually are useful field established credentials that your verified volume of awareness and capability with the authorized owner. Just about every advanced level in this 1Z0-051 Oracle gives the revolutionary standard regarding benchmark knowledge and capability with the authorized owner. It will help the actual choice to achieve the great chances and great pay back on the That group.
Which object privileges can be granted on a view?
Explanation: Object privilege on VIEW is DELETE, INSERT, REFERENCES, SELECT and UPDATE.
You need to display the first names of all customers from the CUSTOMERS table that contain the character 'e' and have the character 'a' in the second last position.
Which query would give the required output?
The position at which the first character of the returned string begins.
When position is 0 (zero), then it is treated as 1.
When position is negative, then the function counts backward from the end of string.
SUBSTR2 uses UCS2 code points. SUBSTR4 uses UCS4 code points.
PROMO_BEGIN_DATE is stored in the default date format, dd-mon-rr.
You need to produce a report that provides the name, cost, and start date of all promos in the POST category that were launched before January 1, 2000.
Which SQL statement would you use?
Which is the valid CREATE [TABLE statement?
object with a quoted identifier or a nonquoted identifier.
you refer to that object.
Nonquoted identifiers cannot be Oracle Database reserved words (ANSWER D). Quoted identifiers can be reserved words, although this is not recommended. Depending on the Oracle product you plan to use to access a database object, names might be further restricted by other product-specific reserved words. The Oracle SQL language contains other words that have special meanings. These words include datatypes, schema names, function names, the dummy system table DUAL, and keywords (the uppercase words in SQL statements, such as DIMENSION, SEGMENT, ALLOCATE, DISABLE, and so forth). These words are not reserved. However, Oracle uses them internally in specific ways. Therefore, if you use these words as names for objects and object parts, then your SQL statements may be more difficult to read and may lead to unpredictable results. In particular, do not use words beginning with SYS_ as schema object names, and do not use the names of SQL built-in functions for the names of schema objects or user-defined functions. You should use ASCII characters in database names, global database names, and database link names, because ASCII characters provide optimal compatibility across different platforms and operating systems. Nonquoted identifiers must begin with an alphabetic character (ANSWER B - begins with 9) from your database character set. Quoted identifiers can begin with any character. Nonquoted identifiers can contain only alphanumeric characters from your database character set and the underscore (_), dollar sign ($), and pound sign (#). Database links can also contain periods (.) and "at" signs (@). Oracle strongly discourages you from using $ and # in nonquoted identifiers. Quoted identifiers can contain any characters and punctuations marks as well as spaces. However, neither quoted nor nonquoted identifiers can contain double quotation marks or the null character (\0). Within a namespace, no two objects can have the same name. Nonquoted identifiers are not case sensitive. Oracle interprets them as uppercase. Quoted identifiers are case sensitive. By enclosing names in double quotation marks, you can give the following names to different objects in the same namespace: employees "employees" "Employees" "EMPLOYEES"
Note that Oracle interprets the following names the same, so they cannot be used for different objects in the same namespace: employees EMPLOYEES "EMPLOYEES" Columns in the same table or view cannot have the same name. However, columns in different tables or views can have the same name. Procedures or functions contained in the same package can have the same name, if their arguments are not of the same number and datatypes. Creating multiple procedures or functions with the same name in the same package with different arguments is called overloading the procedure or function.
On the EMPLOYEES table, EMPLOYEE_ID is the primary key. MGR_ID is the ID managers and refers to the EMPLOYEE_ID.
On the DEPARTMENTS table DEPARTMENT_ID is the primary key.
What happens when the statement is executed?
A. The statement executes successfully, leaves the manager ID as the existing value, and changes the salary to 4000 for the employees with ID 103 and 105.
B. The statement executes successfully, changes the manager ID to NULL, and changes the salary to 4000 for the employees with ID 103 and 105.
C. The statement executes successfully, changes the manager ID to NULL, and changes the salary to 3000 for the employees with ID 103 and 105.
D. The statement fails because there is more than one row matching the employee name Smith.
E. The statement fails because there is more than one row matching the IT_ADMIN job ID in the EMPLOYEES table.
F. The statement fails because there is no 'Administration' department in the DEPARTMENTS table.
'=' is use in the statement and sub query will return more than one row.
Employees table has 2 row matching the employee name Smith.
The update statement will fail.
A. The Update statement will fail no update was done.
B. The update statement will fail no update was done.
C. The update statement will fail no update was done.
Which statements are true regarding the WHERE and HAVING clauses in a SELECT statement?
A. The HAVING clause can be used with aggregate functions in subqueries.
B. The WHERE clause can be used to exclude rows after dividing them into groups.
C. The WHERE clause can be used to exclude rows before dividing them into groups.
D. The aggregate functions and columns used in the HAVING clause must be specified in the SELECT list of the query.
E. The WHERE and HAVING clauses can be used in the same statement only if they are applied to different columns in the table.
View the Exhibit and examine the structure of the CUSTOMERS table .Which statement would display the highest credit limit available in each income level in each city in the CUSTOMERS table?
A. A WHERE clause can be used to restrict both rows and groups.
B. A WHERE clause can be used to restrict rows only.
C. A HAVING clause can be used to restrict both rows and groups.
D. A HAVING clause can be used to restrict groups only.
E. A WHERE clause CANNOT be used in a query of the query uses a HAVING clause.
F. A HAVING clause CANNOT be used in sub queries.
WHERE clause cannot be use when there is group functions.
D: A HAVING clause can only e used to restrict GROUPS.
the group that match the criteria in the Having clause are displayed.
C. A HAVING clause can only e used to restrict GROUPS.
E. WHERE clause cannot be use when there is group function, instead HAVING is to be use.
F. There is no constraint to use HAVING clause in a sub queries.


text:
[Unfinished] Working Toward a Refutation of Skepticism
As I continue my journey in refuting skepticism I continually come to realize to a higher and higher degree the dire epistemic condition we all face. After going through so many responses, we must recognize that we must either find some way to garner non-epistemically circular justification, epistemically circular justification, or abandon justification altogether. If we could find some justification that was not epistemically circular and not infinitely regressive, then we would arrive at a certain type of foundationalism.[1] I believe Michael Huemer has outlined this version of foundationalism within his book Knowledge, Reality, and Value in such a way that it can resist skepticism, but only architecturally. By "architecturally," all I mean is the pure skeleton of foundationalism he presents, the bare concepts of foundational belief-forming methods, foundational justification, foundational beliefs, etc., can resist skepticism. Let us quickly go through it.
Huemer's Foundationalism
For Huemer (2021), foundational justification is, "by definition, justification that does not rest on reasons" (p. 105). Foundational knowledge is, for him, "knowledge whose justification is foundational" (p. 105). Foundational methods are "the belief-forming methods that generate foundational knowledge" (p. 109). Huemer holds that "if you're using a foundational method, then you do not need to first verify that it is reliable. You just get to rely on it, unless and until you acquire specific reasons for doubting that it is reliable" (p. 109). Huemer explains that the idea you can just rely on foundation belief-forming methods is the case simply because "this [idea] just follows from the core tenet of foundationalism. If some method M generates foundational beliefs, then by definition [emphasis mine], the person using M does not need to gather any other evidence in order for M-generated beliefs to be justified. That's just what 'foundational' means [emphasis mine]" (p. 109). This I believe, definitionally, gets around the skeptic and their demand for (meta-)justification. But, the reason why I said it resists skepticism in a purely architectural manner above is because of the fact that it resists it definitionally. In other words, foundationalism resists skepticism by its very design (its architecture), i.e., by definition, as was just shown.
The problem for foundationalists of the Huemerian type arises with the question "What belief-forming methods are foundational?" Once one tries to answer this it seems that they will have to use some basic doxastic practices which they consider foundational in order to prove that those basic doxastic practices are foundational. To be clear, what I am saying is that in trying to vindicate their idea that some belief-forming methods are foundational, they themselves will have to use those belief-forming methods, for if they do not then they aren't foundational. This will only lead the foundationalist to epistemic circularity. Again, remember what Huemer said, "if [emphasis mine] you're using a foundational method, then you do not need to first verify that it is reliable" (2021, p. 109). As I've said, the question then becomes how do we know if are using foundation belief-forming methods? The answer to this question seems to entail epistemic circularity on the part of the foundationalist.
I recently interviewed Michael Huemer and he did not disagree that this "problem" arose for the foundationalist. His response is just that it arises for all theories of justification for if one did not use their theory of justification in the question of its justification they would be abandoning the theory. Huemer seems to not really care for the question of meta-justification as explicitly stated and implicitly stated as well. For example, in Seemings and Justification, he says, "At some point, we must reject the demand for evidence of the reliability of our cognition. And if we are to reject that demand at some point, we might as well reject it right at the beginning and allow appearances to justify beliefs by default" (Huemer, 2013, p. 349).
Before moving on to epistemic circularity, I will note that there seems to be another response that comes to just reject the demand for meta-justification as Huemer does. This response comes from James Pryor and he raises it in regard to skepticism about his dogmatism. To me it seems that Pryor is simply confused about the meaning of justification. When BonJour speaks of the meta-justification requirement, Pryor holds that BonJour is trying to hold us to something more demanding than just providing justification. Pryor self-admittedly holds a more "liberal" conception of justification. I feel that Pryor, then, has not actually gotten around the demand for meta-justification by rejecting it. Rather, he is just confused about the concepts at hand.
Epistemic Circularity 1
I believe that, in the face of this, we must evaluate epistemic circularity and if it can provide justification. Just because it seems that it prima facie cannot provide justification does not mean we should not begin an investigation into if it can. So let's conduct this investigation now.
I say that we should start with Michael Bergmann's original defense of epistemic circularity found in his book Justification without Awareness and then go to his defense of epistemic circularity he greatly explicated in his recent book Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition. From there, we will turn to other accounts and consider them. So, let us start now with chapter seven, "Epistemic Circularity," of Bergmann's Justification without Awareness.
First, his argument that he puts forward for those that believe in non-inferentially justified beliefs obviously only has force for those that believe in non-inferentially justified beliefs. As (meta-)skeptics, we have no such commitment and so his first argument doesn't really do anything for us. As he says, "The first argument in support of epistemic circularity … concluded that all who support the foundationalist thesis, F, are committed to approving of epistemic circularity" (Bergmann, 2006, p. 193). Again, we, as skeptics, hold no support for F, therefore meaning that the argument he provides has no compelling force to believe that epistemic circularity is not epistemic inappropriate. Second, his argument that attacks all the alternatives to epistemic circularity only has force for those that propose an alternative to epistemic circularity. Again, as skeptics, we are agnostic as of right now and even if we have showed how all the arguments for epistemic circularity really have no force we will still suspend our judgment on whether or not epistemic circularity can confer justification. Let's move on to what I believe to be a more interesting proposal from Bergmann (at least, compared to the last two arguments).
Bergmann, after going over the last two arguments that have no rational force for us, he takes as his goal to "explain why it (misleadingly) seems that epistemic circularity is, in itself, a bad thing" (2006, p. 197). Bergmann first explains that "[t]he sort of belief that can get infected with epistemic circularity is a belief such as that one's belief source, X, is trustworthy or that one's belief, B, wasn't formed in an unreliable way" (2006, p. 198). Bergmann then makes a distinction between "two kinds of situation[s] in which a person can form EC-infected beliefs [beliefs infected with epistemic circularity] about a source X or a belief B" (2006, p. 198). There are first "QD-[S]ituations" (2006, p. 198). QD-Situations are "[s]ituations where, prior to EC-belief's [the epistemically circular belief's] formation, the subject is or should be seriously questioning or doubting the trustworthiness of X or the reliability of B's formation" (2006, p. 198). Second, there are "Non-QD-Situations" (2006, p. 198). Non-QD-Situations are "[s]ituations where, prior to the EC-belief's formation, the subject neither is nor should be seriously questioning or doubting the trustworthiness of X or the reliability of B's formation" (2006, p. 198). Bergmann basically then goes on to say that in QD-Situations, epistemic circularity should be rejected because there is doubt, but in non-QD-Situations, epistemic circularity shouldn't be rejected because there is no doubt. This doesn't seem like a very stronger argument as it seems to suppose certain norms regarding belief that themselves would have to be justified. I believe Bergmann's best move is his recourse to Thomas Reid because it seems to me that if epistemic circularity can confer justification the Common Sense Tradition is going to realize that (but more on this later). Let us move on to Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition now.
I believe Bergmann's move in Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition to focus on the role of epistemic intuition is great. What I want to focus on is the fourth section of chapter nine, "Intuitions in Defense of Epistemic Circularity." This section is important because "it isn't only arguments that support certain instances of epistemic circularity. Intuitions about certain cases also lend direct support the possibility of appropriate epistemic circularity" (Bergmann, 2021, p. 182). Bergmann gives us a case of epistemic circularity which he holds is not intuitively problematic:
Tom has never had any questions or doubts at all about the trustworthiness of his sense perception. In fact, he has never explicitly considered whether his sense perception is reliable, though he relies on it all the time. Suppose Tom is talking with a friend, Becky, who wants to slyly lead him to see that a number of his beliefs inductively imply that his perception is reliable. Becky catches Tom in a cooperative mood and explains to him how inductive arguments for the reliability of an information source work. Tom understands the idea very well and is able to inductively infer that a metal detector is reliable by checking to see that it repeatedly indicates that metal is nearby whenever he brings metal near it, and not otherwise. The next day Becky gets Tom to recall that on many occasions in the past he was in the presence of objects he could perceive, in conditions that were good for perceiving them, and that whenever he formed beliefs on those occasions (on the basis of his perception) about whether such objects were present, he believed that those objects were present. Tom agrees that these things about his past are true. Becky then reminds Tom about the inductive method they discussed the previous day, something that Tom hadn't yet been thinking about at all so far on this day. And Becky suggests to him that the things he has just acknowledged, about his past perceptual beliefs concerning objects around him, inductively imply that his perception is reliable. Tom hand't thought about this before, but he agrees that the repeated accuracy of his past perceptual beliefs does inductively imply that his perception is reliable. And he now believes for the first time that his perception is reliable (a reliability claim he hadn't considered before) on the basis of this inductive inference. Moreover, he is using inductive inference in just the sort of way he competently used it the previous day when he concluded that the metal detector was reliable. (2021, pp. 183–184)
This case has to do with the track record of perception. "The track record argument" is something that I may deal with later on.[2] It seems that the rest of what Bergmann has to say deals with epistemic intuitions. I've said in the past that the vindication of epistemic intuitions leads to a meta-regress. However, if we were to pose a faculty out of which the epistemic intuition came to judge that faculty itself and did not rely on another singular epistemic intuition to vindicate the epistemic intuition we just had then we would escape the meta-regress but also be caught up in a case of epistemic circularity that may be problematic. I believe that to figure out if it is problematic we must move beyond Bergmann for he only presents a bind (to Keither DeRose) concerning the rejection of epistemic circularity regarding epistemic intuition(s). Let us move on from Bergmann now.
Back to Huemer
Before we dive much, much deeper into the issue of epistemic circularity, as we have only covered the most recent defense of it (which, for a skeptic, seems to have no rational force), I want to go back to Huemer's foundationalism as it is a possible candidate as we have gone over. As we know, a foundational-belief forming method are ones that generate foundational knowledge and one, by definition, does not have to give a reason for why these methods generate foundational knowledge. The problem I proposed for the Huemerian foundationalist had to do with how one would know that they had a foundational-belief forming method or had justification for their belief that they had a foundational-belief forming method. Let us take K to be the collection of all foundational belief-forming methods. If we do not use K to know and/or justify our belief that belief-forming method M is foundational, then we would enter into circularity or an infinite regress because we did not use K. But, if we use K to then vindicate M's supposed foundational status which will be a part of K, then a problem can arise. So, let's assume that M really is foundational and in fact is the only foundational belief-forming method. Operating off this assumption, M is K. Thus, in this case, if I were to use K to then vindicate M's supposed foundational status, then I will have entered into a case of epistemic circularity. Is there any response to this? Could there be a way out of this epistemic circularity?
In the comment section of one of Huemer's blog posts, Huemer is asked,
valuating wheter a proposition is foundational depends on whether it has "justification that does not depend upon one's having justification for any other beliefs." Wouldn't this require a belief in the correctness of some account of justification, making all such beliefs non-foundational? If you don't have to justify what justification is, the door to arbitrariness is open, even if no foundationalists have chose to walk through.
Huemer replies,
This sounds like what Alston calls a "level confusion", a confusion between (in this case) the conditions for being justified in believing P and the conditions for being justified in believing that one is justified in believing P.
We will come to the idea of a level confusion in the next section, but I still nonetheless want to note here that I do not find what Huemer has had to say to be a good reason to not keep running with skepticism because it seems to me that the idea of a level confusion is predicated on completely nominal distinctions (I'm not a nominalist). So, let us turn to Huemer's essay "We Can Know" found in the book Problems in Epistemology and Metaphysics.
In his essay "We Can Know," Michael Huemer asserts that all regresses of reasons terminate at appearances. He takes it to be the case that appearances non-inferentially justify basic beliefs. However, he takes reasons to be a type of belief. Instead, if we simply take a reason to be something that points in favor of the likelihood of something being true, then we must ask how appearances do this. It certainly appears that my appearance that my hands are in front of me points in favor of my belief that my hands are in front of me, however, how can we know that it really does point in favor of my belief? I think Aaran Burns puts the question nicely in "Agrippa's Trilemma": "Why believe that its' seeming to you that P makes it even so much as probable that P?" (2020, p. 80). Huemer holds that this just "appears to beg the question once again" (2003, "Arbitrary Foundations?," p. 146). Let's see why this would be question begging according to Huemer.
Huemer holds that the skeptics main argument against foundationalism is this:
P1: "If one lacks reasons for believing P, then P is arbitrary."
P2: "Arbitrary propositions are not justified."
C1: "If one lacks reasons for P, then P is unjustified." (2021, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, p. 106)
Under my view of reasons, the argument would just be this:
P1: If one lacks reasons for believing P, then one has nothing that points in favor of it likely being true that P.
P2: Having nothing that points in favor of a belief being true renders one without justification.
C1: If one lacks reasons for P, then P is unjustified.
But would this not just be to say: If one lacks reasons for P, then one has nothing that points in favor of it likely being true that P? Would this not then beg the question? Yes, but that is not at all what we are saying. We must modify C1 to embody our semantic intention.
C1: If one lacks reasons for P, then one is rendered unjustified in holding P to be true.
This would just be to say: If one lacks reasons for P, then one's holding of P to be true is rendered not likely true. It certainly can be the case that there is something that points in favor of P being true. It certainly can be the case that P is justified. However, what the skeptic is dealing with in the context of dialectical exchange is you and you're beliefs. Nonetheless, I think that Huemer is wrong when he says, "it is unclear why anyone at all tempted by foundationalism would be moved to accept [my argument]" (2003, p. 147). I think this because, under my understanding of reasons, they do have a reason for thinking that certain propositions are arbitrary and others aren't. No where do I care for arbitrariness. Unless arbitrariness entails being unjustified, I see no reason why they are mutual exclusive. Nonetheless, foundationalists have appearances regarding which of the two propositions, "1+1=2" and "Unicorns are on Mars," are foundational. Appearances in my view are reasons in that, for the foundationalist of the Huemerian type, point in favor of their belief likely being true.
Huemer does try to respond to us by saying that all we are saying is that "In order for S to be justified in believing that P, S must have a reason for believing that S is justified in believing that P" (2003, p. 147). He says that this "is only plausible if one accepts [that] … [i]n order for S to be justified in believing that P, S must be justified in believing that S is justified in believing that P" (2003, p. 147). He then says that "[n]o clearer example of a level could be desired [than this]" (2003, p. 147). Thus, for our response to be a good one, we must dispel this notion of a level confusion. Though, I must say that if one really is a phenomenal conservatism or some other kind of foundationalist, please do ask yourself if it really seems to be the case that one can be justified in believing something without having anything that points in favor of that something being true. That really just seems absurd.
Before we move on to level confusions, I want to suggest one last move we can make. Simply dispensing with the language of justification. All we must is that what we mean by justified is having something pointing in favor of it being true. It seems that even Huemer meets this in that he says that foundational beliefs rest on foundational belief-forming methods and the fact that they rest on such is what makes them foundational which by definition is what points in favor of them being true. So, if Huemer just wants to say that he takes justification to mean having a seeming that P, then fine, but this is just a semantic move that does not actually meet the demands of what the skeptic is asking for.
Level Confusions
It seems that what those who bring up level confusions are objecting to is the idea that "no belief in a justification standard is epistemically justified" entails that "no belief is epistemically justified" (Sanger, 2000, p. 145). To parallel the view of Lydia and Timothy McGrew, this argument from Huemer, the level confusion argument, depends crucially on the presupposition that "there are no significant level connections left" when the JJ thesis, the view that one must be justified in their belief that they are justified, "has been rejected" (McGrew, 1997, "Level Connections in Epistemology," p. 85).
[1]: I believe that the decisive question to raise to infinitists is "Why does an infinite chain of non-repeating beliefs confer justification?" To this question, they must either give an infinite chain of non-repeating beliefs or provide something other than an infinite chain of non-repeating beliefs. If they do the former move, it seems they have entered into a circularity (whether it be epistemic or logical circularity is not important). If they do the latter move, then they have abandoned infinitism. This is important because what it shows is that the demand for meta-justification cannot actually be met by infinitists as has been supposed by many such as Peter Klein. This is why I believe we will either have to turn to some case of epistemic circularity or a case of non-circularity (which, as just shown, infinitism cannot achieve). I must also note that I have brought up a case of a meta-regress against proponents of epistemic circularity (e.g., Michael Bergmann). I still think this objection holds some weight but only because Bergmann et al. use singular epistemic intuitions to judge those facilities they see as foundational-belief forming methods. The problem with this is then that one must have an epistemic intuition about the intuition they just had and so on. This problem, in my view, can possibly be solved by either bringing up William Alston's idea of "level confusions" or one could argue that the epistemic intuition vindicates itself, so we would not need to move to another one. The former response may be stronger than the latter but only because of the limitations of the latter response, not because the former response has some particular strength to it (Timothy and Lydia McGrew have written a paper critiquing William Alston's use of the idea of "level confusions"). The issue that may arise with the latter response is its seeming incoherence with how we introspectively observe our intuitions and then judgments arise. What I mean by this is that when I consider certain epistemic intuitions it does not seem to be the case that the intuition I am considering supports itself, rather I have a separate epistemic intuition judging it. So, even if, there is a case of epistemic circularity that seems intuitively non-problematic, an infinite regress regarding intuitive "judgments" will arise leading to a meta-regress, in that, the regress brings us to a higher and higher epistemic level each time a regression occurs. (When I come back to epistemic circularity later on in this paper I will attempt to address this objection of mine.)
[2]: If I don't then see Lawrence Sanger's dissertation "Epistemic Circularity."
More from Evan Jack
romi mahajan
Beaches of Death
Saja Fendél
The World Is The Animated Expression of Consciousness
Andrew Sisco
The Dialectics of Lust and War in 'Troilus and Cressida'
J.J. González
Lessons From: Aristotle's System of Logic
Riccardo Martorana
c_oo_g
The first two E's
Eric Sentell
The Apeiron Blog
20 Pandemic Memories Kids Won't Believe in 20 Years
The Logocentric Predicament and Its Solution by way of Second-Order Private Justification
Why Will You Die?


St Davids (Welsh: Tyddewi. "David's house") is a city (full name St David's and the Cathedral Close) lying on the River Alun. St Davids is the United Kingdom's smallest city in terms of both size and population. Being the final resting place of Saint David, Wales's patron saint, it is the de facto ecclesiastical capital of Wales. St Davids was given city status in the 16th century because of St David's Cathedral, but it was was lost in 1888. At the request of Queen Elizabeth II, the City status was restored in 1994.
In mediaeval times St. David's Cathedral became a pilgrimage centre of considerable significance and was the centre of Celtic Christianity. Its great Cathedral and the ruins of the Bishop's Palace bear testimony to its importance in an age when two pilgrimages to St. Davids equalled one to Rome.
St David is said to have been born around the year 520 and to have taken place on the cliffs in a wild thunderstorm near the city that is now named after him.
St Non's Chapel is said to lie on the spot where David was born and was dedicated to his mother, Non. The ruins overlook the dramatic Pembrokeshire coastline.
Near to the chapel is St Non's Holy Well which is said to have healing properties, so visitors often throw in a coin for good luck.
About the year 550, St David is said to have founded a monastery close to the place where he was born. Here, he and his fellow monks lived a simple life, drinking only water and eating only bread and herbs. Meat and beer were forbidden and David became known as Dewi Dyfrwr (David the water drinker).
The monks farmed the land, but David insisted that they pull the plough and carry their tools without the help of animals. They spent the evenings in prayer, reading and writing, and weren't allowed any personal possessions.
Next to the Cathedral is the Bishop's Palace built mainly in the 1300s. In contrast to the frugal life of St David and his monks, the bishops lived in the grand palace where they feasted and entertained nobles and kings.
St David's Day is celebrated on March 1 every year, marking Wales' national day.


text:
The Columbia and Augusta Railroad was begun in 1854 by Col. James Guignard Gibbes, 1829–1903, but was not completed until after the American Civil War of 1861–1865.

The company was originally chartered in South Carolina as the Columbia and Hamburg Railroad. But its name was changed to Columbia and Augusta Railroad in December 1863 before any track was laid on the route, as the importance of Hamburg, South Carolina, as an economic center was already on the decline. In 1869, it was merged with the Charlotte and South Carolina Railroad to form the Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad.

See also

 Wilmington, Columbia and Augusta Railroad

References

 Who Burnt Columbia? James Guiguard Gibbes. Publisher: Newberry, S.C.: E.H. Aull Co., 1902. Edition/Format:eBook: Database:WorldCat

Defunct South Carolina railroads
Defunct North Carolina railroads
Railway companies established in 1854
Railway companies disestablished in 1869
5 ft gauge railways in the United States
1854 establishments in South Carolina
1869 disestablishments in South Carolina
1869 disestablishments in North Carolina

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Das Bistum Trenton (lat.: Dioecesis Trentonensis, engl.: Diocese of Trenton) ist eine in den Vereinigten Staaten gelegene römisch-katholische Diözese mit Sitz in Trenton, New Jersey.

Geschichte
Das Bistum Trenton wurde am 2. August 1881 durch Papst Leo XIII. aus Gebietsabtretungen des Bistums Newark errichtet. Am 9. Dezember 1937 gab das Bistum Trenton Teile seines Territoriums zur Gründung des Bistums Camden ab. Eine weitere Gebietsabtretung erfolgte am 19. November 1981 zur Gründung des Bistums Metuchen.

Das Bistum Trenton ist dem Erzbistum Newark als Suffraganbistum unterstellt.

Territorium
Das Bistum Trenton umfasst die im Bundesstaat New Jersey gelegenen Gebiete Burlington County, Mercer County, Monmouth County und Ocean County.

Bischöfe von Trenton
 Michael Joseph O'Farrell, 1881–1894
 James Augustine McFaul, 1894–1917
 Thomas Joseph Walsh, 1918–1928, dann Bischof von Newark
 John Joseph McMahon, 1928–1932
 Moses Elias Kiley, 1934–1940, dann Erzbischof von Milwaukee
 William Aloysius Griffin, 1940–1950
 George William Ahr, 1950–1979
 John Charles Reiss, 1980–1997
 John Mortimer Fourette Smith, 1997–2010
 David Michael O'Connell CM, seit 2010

Siehe auch
 Liste der römisch-katholischen Diözesen
 Römisch-katholische Kirche in den Vereinigten Staaten

Weblinks
 Homepage des Bistums Trenton (englisch)
  (englisch)

Trenton
Organisation (Trenton, New Jersey)
Christentum (New Jersey)
Gegründet 1881


Living at the Summit at Avent Ferry has been great for my family and I in this past week that we've been here. We just recommend a constant fumigation for spiders and mosquitos around the apartments though.
The apartment was great and lady who showed us was helpful. Thanks so much. I'm looking forward to renting from you in the near future after you let me see the apartment.
Love living here. Quiet, clean staff is down to earth and helpful. Great neighbors. I honestly have no complaints. Right by lake Johnson... what more!
Living at The Summit has provided good value while maintaining a quality living. The close proximity to surrounding amenities and being walking distance to Lake Johnson are great features.
I like the location and the rent was a great value when I moved in. I worry, though, that this push for amenities is going to drive up the rent too much and I won't be able to afford to live here anymore. I'd rather have an affordable place to live than bells and whistles I don't use. Maintenance staff are awesome, but sometimes it seems like there aren't enough of them.
For the most part life at the Summit is good, but recently it's seemed like management has been a little more forceful about things -such as requiring fixes within a short time on things that we didn't know were issues, and thus didn't know to request maintenance for. During the last year the maintenance staff has also been less helpful. Instead of actually fixing problems, we've had multiple occasions were two pipes were simply duct taped together with no confirmation that they would be replaced in the near future, a fix I could do myself and not bother calling someone to do. It seems lately like we aren't focused on keeping the apartments in good condition, and rather just focused on saving money by not fixing things when they are small.
It's a quiet community and it is kept very clean. The maintenance staff does a wonderful job taking care of things in a timely manner. The office staff is friendly and engaging.
Management has increased prices and established more restrictions on tenants than previous owners without clear rationale. Enters apartment too often for "checks." Neighborhood is in a good location, but I will have to leave soon due to price increases. Maintenance is competent when they respond, but can be uncomfortable and response is iffy.
I love the location and the proximity to the lake this apartment offers. The neighborhood is relatively nice, and the apartments are decently kept. I wish more was done to keep the grassy areas clean of glass, food scraps, and dog poo. I also wish that the apartment complex was quicker about taking care of maintenance requests.
Place is ok. It is close to my work so i dont have to worry about driving far. They have maintenance almost every month, the only thing is i dont understand the random extra charges thats not charged to my automatic payment and they give me letters for it saying i need to pay it which they could have just taken out on the automatic payment.
have had no serious problems so far. i very much appreciate the dog park, but wish it could be remulched; it gets quite muddy during rainy weeks. additionally, our fire alarm goes off every time we run the dryer (unless we take it off the wall).
Taylor Love P., thank you for your kind review; we are happy to pass along your comments to the team here at Summit Avent Ferry! If you ever need anything else from us, please feel free to give us a call or stop by. Have an awesome day!
Apartment continues to be good because of the maintenance and updates WE have done to it. Maintenance has not been into the apartment for as long back as we can remember. Not hating on anyone but it's the truth. We took a look at the air conditioning unit yesterday, and it is in extremely poor condition. The wires are hanging on for dear life. No one has come in change the air filter since we moved in over a year ago. We asked for one and they put it outside the door for us to install ourself, and it turned out to be the wrong size.
I absolutely love living here. I love the community I've built at the dog park, and the location couldn't be better. My one bedroom is super roomy, and I don't plan on movin our any time soon!
Hannah Rose G., thank you for your kind words and this wonderful review! Thank you so much again for your feedback! We hope you have a great day!
I've enjoyed living so far and because the location is close to my job I love it that much more. Repairs seem to happen fast and the grounds are always nice.
Apartment quality is decent. The community is good an the noise levels are respectable. Only real issue are the hiccups from staff/maintenance when it comes to following up on certain things but they eventually get around to them.
We appreciate your positive review about your recent experience with us! If you have any further questions, please give us a call. We're always happy to help!
Christopher Michael P., we are so happy to read such a great review about Summit Avent Ferry!
Provide a lot of activities for residents even though unfortunately most are during the day which makes it hard if you work. Often have maintenance issues and old appliances.
The apartments are well kept, the management is friendly and responsive to service request and questions that you may have. I gotta say one of the best management I've delt with.
Joshua Cole M., thank you for your kind words and this wonderful review! If you ever need anything else from us, please feel free to give us a call or stop by. Have an awesome day!
Really tranquil nice place, nice to see we'll behaved dogs all around, love it. The gym and pool have nice security features and I love the Amazon hub feature coming in!
Hi Jennifer Kassandra C., we are very happy to have provided you with such a positive experience! If you ever need anything else from us, please feel free to give us a call or stop by. Have an awesome day!
i really like it here!! 6 years so far! I love the new amenities and changes for the better here!! I just wish people would quit speeding through here!!
Hi Joseph B., thank you so much for your positive comments about Summit Avent Ferry! We hope to see you soon!