<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Wall Street Journal on liberal
arts</title></head><body>
<div><b>1st paragraph:</b><font face="Arial"> In the ongoing
debate about the role of higher learning in today's digital
economy, some critics question the value of a traditional liberal arts
education, especially when compared to skills learned through the STEM
disciplines - science, technology, engineering and math. In truth, a
good education should include <i>soft</i> as well
as <i>hard</i> competencies. Technical and business
skills can get graduates get in the door, but an ability to think
critically and communicate effectively can play an
equal, if not larger, role determining success.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><b>Concluding paragraph:</b><font face="Arial"> In the end,
it's all a matter of balance. As Lisa Dolling,
Manhattanville College Provost, recently wrote: "Among the
many false dichotomies fostered by the continuing debates surrounding
higher education, one that I find especially disconcerting is that
which pits the professional against the personal. While it is
expressed in a variety of ways, it boils down to this: Either you
believe the purpose of going to college is to be able to secure a
(preferably high-paying) job, or you think there is something more
intrinsically valuable to be gained from the years spent earning a
degree. My question is: When did these become mutually
exclusive?"</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2016/03/04/whats-the-value-of-a-liberal-art<span
></span>s-education-in-our-21st-century-digital-economy/</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-1"
color="#000000"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>-------<br>
"Šthe proportion of the land surface in extreme drought is
predicted to increase from 1% for the present day to 30% by the end of
the twenty-first century." <br>
<br>
Eleanor J. Burke et al. Modeling the Recent Evolution of Global
Drought and Projections for the Twenty-First Century with the Hadley
Centre Climate Model.<i> JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY</i> OCTOBER<b>
2006<br>
</b>--------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
"Under RCP8.5, droughts exceeding 40% of analyzed land area are
projected by nearly half of the simulations."<br>
<br>
Christel Prudhomme et al. Hydrological droughts in the 21st century,
hotspots and uncertainties from a global multimodel ensemble
experiment.<br>
<i>PNAS</i> vol. 111 no. 9 March 11,<b> 2014<br>
</b>doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222473110<br>
<u>http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3262.abstract</u></font></div>
<div><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-1"
color="#000000"><u><br></u></font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1"
color="#000000">--------------------------------------------------
1.5C
--------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000">"While
it is quite legitimate for the UNFCCC to ask the IPCC to evaluate the
implications of a 1.5 °C warming target, climate researchers and the
IPCC need to understand the political reasons for such a request. They
should be cautious and not naively be drawn into undertaking new
cycles of studies in the expectation that they will make a difference
to the world of politics (12-14).<br>
<br>
Nature Climate Change VOL 6 | MARCH 2016<br>
COMMENTARY:<br>
1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement<br>
Mike Hulme, Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Science and
Public Policy, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.<br>
<br>
References<br>
1.Climate Action Tracker (accessed January 2016);<br>
http://climateactiontracker.org<br>
2.Edenhofer, E. & Kowarsch, M. Environ. Sci. Pol. 51, 56-64
(2015).<br>
3.Carraro, C. et al. Science 350, 34-35 (2015).<br>
4.Hulme, M. & Mahony, M. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34, 705-718
(2010).<br>
5.Smith, P. et al. Nature Clim. Change 6, 42-50 (2016).<br>
6.Lee, H. Science 350, 1007 (2015).<br>
7.Future Earth (2016);
http://www.futureearth.org/projects</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000">8.Beck,
S. et al. GAiA 23/2, 80-87 (2014).<br>
9.Edenhofer, O. & Minx, J. Science 345, 37-38 (2014).<br>
10. Hulme, M. Nature 463, 730-731 (2010).<br>
11. Geden, O. Paris climate deal: the trouble with targetism.<br>
The Guardian (14 December 2015);
http://go.nature.com/q9TRFV</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000">12.
Geden, O. Nature 521, 27-28 (2015).<br>
13. Geden, O. & Beck, S. Nature Clim. Change 4, 747-748
(2014).</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000">14.
Anderson, K. Nature 528, 437 (2015).</font><br>
<font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
</body>
</html>