The Arizona Desert Lamp

Regent supports more focus on three-year degrees?

Posted in Uncategorized by Evan Lisull on 22 October 2009
An example of how to advertise three-year programs (via Mount St. Mary's University, in Maryland)

An example of how to advertise three-year programs (via Mount St. Mary's University, Maryland)

Lamar Alexander, one of the few U.S. Senators with a modicum of respectability, penned an op-ed in Newsweek advocating for greater use of three-year degree programs:

Just as a hybrid car is not for every driver, a three-year degree is not for every student. Expanding the three-year option or year-round schedules may be difficult, but it may be more palatable than asking Congress for additional bailout money, asking legislators for more state support, or asking students for even higher tuition payments. Campuses willing to adopt convenient schedules along with more-focused, less-expensive degrees may find that they have a competitive advantage in attracting bright, motivated students. As George Romney might have put it, these sorts of innovations can help American universities, long the example to the world, avoid the perils of success.

It’s an unfortunate, Friedman-esque metaphor, but that shouldn’t get in the way of a thought-out piece by an elected official, as rare a bird as the vermillion flycatcher. This article caught the eye of Twittertific Regent Ernest Calderon, who sent out this most pithy of enigmas:

RT @silveredu: Senator Lamar Alexander promotes a 3 year degree solution: http://www.newsweek.com/id/… EC: Can do!

“Can do!” what, exactly? No noise has been made about three-year degrees since this summer, when ASU floated the idea of a “network of three-year colleges.” Such a proposal, while novel, ignores the fact that institutions have certain built-in advantages of reputation (a loose term, in light of the school up north) that keep them coming back like Kevin Bacon after each new tuition beating, and that students won’t through away the prestige factor for a mere tuition discount. Far better to simply implement “Graduate in Three” programs within the university, a simpler and (in all likelihood) cheaper process than starting a school from scratch.

That tweet was followed up today with a link to a Newsweek symposium on college education and three-year degrees, featuring none other than ASU’s own Michael Crow. Along with Dr. Robert Zemsky of UPenn, he argues for the three-year degree. Unfortunately, it’s not the most sound of arguments:

CROW: Let’s just assume that the students are prepared to do university-level work. The thing that we’re working on here at a very large public university is not allowing some historic factor of time to dominate. Thomas Jefferson didn’t go to college for four years. It may be that students attain multiple degrees. It may be that some are three years, some are four years, some are six years. It would depend on what they are attempting to achieve.

His overall point stands, but “Thomas Jefferson didn’t need it” is not exactly a compelling point. These quibbles aside, it’s great to see that there is a genuine push in favor of these degrees. It’s also rather disappointing to see Robert Shelton and the entire transformation process sitting on their hands, and Advising Center Director Roxie Catts openly advocating against the idea.

Some further elaboration on the sorts of things that could be looked at, now, within the current existing universities, to make three-year degrees a legitimate possibility:

Add a “Graduate in Three!” section to Honors Advising webpage. This would do nothing to change policy, but would make students aware that this is a policy that the University supports. Rather than making students prod advisers for the three-year degree, advisers should make such a program no more difficult to access than a “graduate in four” plan.

Offer three-year scholarships with more money per year. In other words, $75,000 over the course of three years, rather than $80,000 over four. This provides a direct financial incentive to graduate in three, and saves money for the university’s scholarship fund. Students could still continue to attend after three years will be permitted to do so, just as students on four-year scholarships are allowed to attend if they stay on for a fifth year.

Send out “Graduate in Three” information to those enrolled in pre-professional majors and minors. These are the kinds of students who benefit the most financially from graduating in three years, and who are rather unlikely to simply stop their intellectual exploration.

Offer fee waivers for students taking AP, IB, CLEP, and other placement tests. This is especially pertinent for graduating seniors who may not be inclined to take that extra AP test (senioritis, and what not). It may seem minor, but transfer credit represents a pure infusion to the University, which loses nothing from more students testing out of more classes.

More online classes during the summer/winter. The school already does a good job of having offerings outside of the normal semesters, but streamlining this process and adding more opportunities simply makes things better.

Presidents Nagata and Talenfeld: Get REAL

Posted in Campus, Culture, Politics by Evan Lisull on 22 October 2009
Perhaps Sen. Weingartner's bottle initiative could pay for a few of these?

Perhaps Sen. Weingartner's bottle initiative could pay for a few of these?

Apparently, it’s National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week. Yet even if the need for “awareness” is somewhat dubious, the Choose Responsibility folks have used the opportunity to launch a new initiative, Get REAL, aimed at student governments around the country:

In conjunction with National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week 2009, Choose Responsibility has launched Get REAL, an initiative for student body presidents at college and university campuses nationwide that encourages responsibility, education, and leadership on alcohol issues.

Student body leaders possess the skills and real-world experience necessary to ensure that the debate about binge drinking, the legal drinking age, and campus alcohol policies is allowed to continue unimpeded on their campuses. Over the course of the coming months, Get REAL signatories will work together to foster productive discussions about alcohol that emphasize peer-to-peer accountability and explore all possible alternatives that will make their campuses safer.

In effect, this is an Amethyst Initiative for the student set. The program was just formally launched yesterday, but already has 23 signatories, including the student body presidents from major schools like Florida State, West Virginia, and Oregon State. Although this is often interpreted as some full-throated ‘Repeal!’ battle cry, the aims of the initiative are far more modest (again, like Amethyst):

By signing the statement, what am I committing to do?

When you sign on to Get REAL, you are pledging to engage your fellow students, campus administrators, and public officials in a frank conversation about all of the intended and unintended consequences of Legal Age 21. Additionally, as student body leaders, Get REAL signatories commit themselves to helping students at their schools have a meaningful impact on the direction of campus alcohol policies, and, most importantly, to making responsible decisions about alcohol use.

President Shelton choose craven defense of bad policy and worse remedies; it will probably take a few more alcohol-fueled deaths before he is forced to consider the matter seriously. Hopefully, our own President Nagata is a little wiser, and a little less busy, and will be able to focus on this issue which (to use the parlance of the establishment) affects so many of his constituents.

We hate email campaigns as much as anyone, but if you have a minute or two we’d really appreciate it if you sent an email to President Nagata, urging him to add his name to the list. Heck, we even wrote the email for you! (Just be sure to replace the email and signature with your own name.)

From: yourname@email.arizona.edu

To: asuapres@email.arizona.edu

Subject: Please Sign the Get REAL Initiative

President Nagata,

As a student at the University of Arizona, I am very concerned about binge drinking and the impact that the current drinking age has had on campus and across the country. According to a Choose Responsibility press release, “Recent statistics from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reveal that the problem of toxic drinking is getting worse on campuses across the nation: rates of binge drinking and unintentional alcohol-related deaths among the 18-24 college population increased between 1998 and 2005. Another recent study from researchers at the University of Minnesota identified 18 heavy-drinking schools and tracked survey results of alcohol-related problems on those campuses in 1993 and 2005, with little or no improvement over that 12-year period.” According to a 2007 report by Peggy Glider, heavy drinking was more predominant among those under the age of 21 than among those of legal drinking age. Such statistics do not account for the costs of imposing such an age, which requires police to devote resources to underage drinking that might otherwise be used to combat the perception – and reality- that much of the UA campus is unsafe.

Choose Responsibility has launched a new initiative directed at student body presidents, which aims to put them at the forefront of this national conversation. Signing the statement means that you pledge to do the following:

You call on your fellow students….

  • To make responsible decisions about alcohol.
  • To make sure friends who have consumed too much receive medical attention.
  • To never mix alcohol use and driving.

You call on your campus administrators…

  • To create an on-campus environment that ensures the safety of all students.
  • To provide alcohol education and prevention programs that acknowledge the reality of alcohol use and give students the tools they need to make responsible decisions about alcohol and prevent alcohol-related emergencies.
  • To engage in dialogue about the legal drinking age and its impact on campus life.

You call on your elected officials…

  • To recognize the intended and unintended consequences of Legal Age 21.
  • To acknowledge that 18-20 year-olds are adults in all respects but one—they may vote, serve in the armed forces, marry, adopt children, and sign contracts, but are not able to choose whether or not they would like to drink.
  • To consider alternatives to Legal Age 21 that will create a safer environment on college campuses, and better prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol use.

This initiative has already been signed by student body presidents at major public universities like your own, including West Virginia and Florida State. As the preeminent student leader on campus, I sincerely hope that you will use this position to take a stand on this very important issue. Please sign the Get REAL initiative, and show the students at the University of Arizona that you are genuinely concerned about their well-being as it relates to this important issue.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME HERE

UPDATE: Title changed to reflect the fact that there’s no reason that the GPSC president shouldn’t be involved as well. Although the overwhelming majority of President Talenfeld’s constituency is over twenty-one years of age, the effects of the current regime ripple through the entire community. His email address is davidt1@email.arizona.edu.

ASUA Senate Meeting, 21 October: Stayin’ Green

Posted in Campus, Politics by Evan Lisull on 22 October 2009

Sustainability funding for the Senate. The main action item for yesterday’s Senate meeting was the approval of $895 from the Senate kitty for Sen. Katherine Weingartner’s project. The money will be used to further her campaign’s focus on sustainability and other “green” measures – in this case, providing non-disposable water bottles for the Tucson community.

Except, of course, that none of the $895 will actually be used to purchase water bottles. Instead, the money will be used to “raise awareness” of a fund-raising effort to purchase the water bottles. This includes a $300 ad in the Green Times (the latest issue of which has a page 1 article on ASUA’s sustainability program), $200 for a table on the Mall, $175 for one week of table toppers, and $120 for fliers. Sen. Weingartner mentioned that she had set up a PayPal account for donations to the project.

As far as sustainability goes, this is far from the most repulsive of measures (see some nominees here and here), although it would be nice if the money were spent actually purchasing bottles. Also, what groups exactly are being targeted for an ASUA Nalgene?

While sustainability measures are certainly more popular among The Youth than they are for the writers at this site, there is a case to be made that sustainability is second only to concerts when it comes to bureaucratic fervor. For the UA as a whole, it is probably first. Does this really reflect the preferences of ASUA’s – or the UA’s – constituency? There’s a paucity of polls (and a near absence of well-conducted polls) on student views on the matter, but there are certainly other issues – General Education, police enforcement priorities, ZonaZoo availability – that perhaps merit more focus.

Part of this reflects the difficulty entailed in making even the slightest modifications to the GenEd program, and the inability to have anything to show for one’s efforts at the end of the term. Thus, the Senate tends to move towards the provision of new products – be it the “SAPR scholarship” of Sen. Andre Rubio, the analog breathalyzers (HT: Connor) of Sen. James MacKenzie , or Sen. Fritze’s USA Today readership program – rather than focusing on structural changes in policy. This leads to the problem that Sen. Brooks alluded to when he asked, “Will the project continue past this year?”

Sen. Weingartner, slightly caught off guard, replied, “It depends,” but that of course isn’t the point. In some cases, this is a good thing: the one-year experiment of safety cards was more than enough. Yet in aggregate this leads to a sort of attention-deficit Congress, flitting from one focus to the other from year to year, marking off their resumes without setting any main direction for the university. Scholarships rise, readership programs fall, and only the provision of concerts maintains through the years.

Committee Reports. These committee reports used to come from internal committees, but in the past couple of weeks the Senate has shifted their focus towards reporting of the campus-wide committees on which they sit – the Undergraduate Council, the Campus Recreation Center Committee, etc. This is a rather underrated role of the Senate, and reflects the majority of their policy-making capabilities. A few notes:

-Sen. D. Wallace reported that the Undergraduate Council (UGC) just added eight more classes for Tier 2 GenEd eligibility.

-Sen. Atjian has urged the Health/Rec Center Fee Proposal Committee to present their proposal of “one big fee” before the Senate as whole.

Other Items of Note

-The Elections Code will be presented before the Senate on November 4. Also, the November 18 meeting will be held in the Rec Center, to unveil the new Gardens of Babylon Rec Center Expansion.

-Club Advocate Kenny Ho is now Chief Club Advocate Kenny Ho. You know what? That makes sense.

-President Nagata emphasized, perhaps in oblique response to this editorial, that the forthcoming Special Events survey would contain a question asking whether bringing a concert to campus is, in fact, a campus priority.

¿Cómo se dice “D2L”?

Posted in Uncategorized by Evan Lisull on 21 October 2009

Spanish InstructionHuge step forward for online education at UNC-Chapel Hill:

After several years of experimenting with “hybrid” Spanish courses that mix online and classroom instruction, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has decided to begin conducting its introductory Spanish course exclusively on the Web.

Spanish 101, which had featured online lessons combined with one classroom session per week, will drop its face-to-face component in an effort to save on teaching costs and campus space in light of rising demand for Spanish instruction and a shrinking departmental budget.

Meanwhile, the department’s budget was slashed by $150,000 this year. It had been planning to shift its introductory courses online even before the recession hit, King said, in hopes of freeing up money to hire another instructor. Instead, the anticipated savings from the move have so far spared his department from personnel cuts.

Even as a partisan of online education, a stance further entrenched by the positive experience with my current online class (of which more will be said after the class is over), this might be going too far. It’s an oft-repeated truism that daily, face-to-face interactions are essential to learning a language, and such accepted facts are used to justify the university’s stringent attendance policies for language courses. Yet according to UNC,

Hosun Kim, director of the college’s Foreign Language Resource Center, said survey data gathered by the department revealed that while students in traditional courses said they thought they mastered the material better than their peers in hybrid courses, a comparative assessment of learning outcomes showed no difference between the two.

That’s not entirely true, if the Daily Tarheel’s report is to be believed: online students did slightly worse overall, but “drastically” worse on pronunciation. But are there any Spanish 101 students who have decent pronunciation?

It’s tempting to turn all defense of relative ineffectiveness to a Hansonian signal (see: health insurance, child care, voting,  and the female orgasm (you mean, coitus?)), but that approach very much seems to apply to occasionally irrational defenses of in-class education. Without a classroom setting, neither teachers nor students are given the opportunity to demonstrate that they care about the material being taught (which has benefits for both, in the form of career improvement and grade improvement, respectively). The prospect of pure, unadulterated information comprehension is imposing. (If there any studies out there on the relative effectiveness of in-class language instruction versus online instruction, I’d be glad to be corrected.)

There are problems, though, beyond actual instruction. Not only are Spanish 101 classes taken primarily by freshmen, but as the most popular language Spanish is also more likely to draw in more academically-struggling students. Such in-person interaction is more necessary for students making the transition to college than for those taking upper-division courses.

At any rate, even if this program might be a step too far, it should highlight even more the ludicrous – and frankly, neo-Luddite – arguments against online education as a whole. If an introductory language course can be delivered effectively over the internet, there’s no reason that any other class (barring, perhaps, lab classes and other location-centric courses) can be done online as well.

NB: Also, only in Cloud-Cuckooland could you find a statement like this:

[Rosemary Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association] did, however, caution against letting teaching decisions be guided by thrift. “The question of ‘How can we reduce the cost of delivering instruction’ is not what should be driving the decision, even though we all understand that universities are facing hard financial times,” Feal said. “A lot of tough decisions must be made, but those must always be made in thinking about what are the best instructional environment and opportunities for our students.”

So what should the university do – write the budget deficit off to structural oppression imposed by neoliberal, postcolonial hierarchies of patriarchal power, and proceed as though nothing has happened? This might actually be an approach Provost Hay could adopt – simply tell the professors that things like “salaries” and “budgets” are just vestigial structural concepts of the old world order, and that the professariat really needs to get hip and start liberating their consciousness.

The Veronicas Contract

Posted in Campus by Evan Lisull on 20 October 2009

Veronica_167Last and, well, probably least, we have the Veronicas. Their contract, worth $20,000, can be read here [PDF], and is the shortest of all the contracts.

There’s not a whole lot else to say, so here’s a heartwarming litigation story from Wikipedia:

However, some believe that Archie Comics character Veronica Lodge had some influence on the naming, including people at Archie Comics themselves, who launched legal action against the group for trademark infringement.[7] A settlement was reached that included a cross-promotion deal, including an appearance in an issue of their namesake Veronica’s comic book. The issue (#167) featured a card with a code allowing a free download of their single “4ever” in MP3 form. A few months later, Archie and Friends (#100) featured The Archies meeting The Veronicas. The next issue of Archie and Friends (#101) also featured The Veronicas, with Archie as their biggest fan. They also starred in one episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.

The contracts for Kelly Clarkson, Third Eye Blind, and Jay-Z can be read at the respective links.

More truth in t-shirts: eco-chic edition

Posted in Campus, Politics by Evan Lisull on 20 October 2009

American Apparel Sustainability Edition

In case you thought that the green expended on “green” expenditures was anything more than getting excited about eco-chic, allow Family Weekend Director Lauren Carter to correct you:

ASUA also searched for shirts that were made of environmentally friendly material, so they selected the American Apparel “sustainable edition” T-shirt with organic cotton. This was one splurge that they did make, but “you get what you pay for,” she said. The shirts cost a bit more to produce, but Carter said they will last longer because they are better quality than previous Family Weekend shirts.

Still, though, such a gesture might be inspiring to someone less skeptical/cynical. Perhaps another club on campus might want to go “green” – in all senses of that word – as ASUA. Well, that’s too bad – because according to club funding request regulations [doc]:

T-Shirt Funding

Nice little duopoly that they’ve set up, no doubt in order to “help” the students. Perhaps if ASUA itself was forced to hew to the same restrictions that they impose on others, we might have avoided a whole lot of trouble. (Then again, if the government possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, perhaps it should also possess a monopoly on illegitimate hipsterdom.)

ASA’s “Truth in T-Shirts” Campaign

Posted in Campus, Politics by Evan Lisull on 19 October 2009

Ever wonder exactly what you’re getting for your $2, semi-voluntary donation to the Arizona Students Association? Thanks to the power of the internets, now you can see your lobbyists at work – making topical fan videos based on Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”!

Yes, the chorus is, “SAFRA is a bill for education.” Everyone gets a good laugh out of the hopelessly out-of-touch efforts by adults to “get hip with the kids,” but forgotten is how student leaders do exactly the same thing. (Good voices, though.)

The video does serve a useful purpose, though, in unintentionally highlighting a few, forgotten truths about the organization.

David Martinez, wearing an ASUA shirt

1. ASA is not independent of ASUA. This myth got its greatest airing during the uproar at the concert loss, when some students advocated a widescale refund of the ASA fee. Some commenters pushed back, arguing that the organization was independent and shouldn’t been penalized for Bruce’s indiscretions. Yet according to the ASA bylaws,

ASA UA shall consist of  six (6) Directors, (1) Director shall be the Graduate and or the Student Council President. The ASUA President shall appoint four directors, one of whish [sic] shall be a graduate or professional student. The graduate student or professional student must be confirmed by the GPSC in addition to the ASUA Senate before taking office.

Similar provisions of appointment exist at ASU and NAU, where ASA directors are part of the executive cabinet and serve at the pleasure of their respective student body presidents. ASA is more financially independent than other offices, thanks to the fee, but in addition to its fee money the group also receives $11,120 directly from ASUA, in the form of stipends and a general budget (like those alloted to other divisions of the president’s cabinet).

Obama Shirt at ASA Meeting

2. ASA is not “non-partisan.” It might be a rule of thumb by now that any self-proclaimed “non-partisan” organization is in fact hellbent on very partisan goals (see: PIRG, the Nonpartisan League, ACORN, etc.). So it should come as no shock that an official video of the “nonpartisan” ASA features a cameo of the Shepard Fairley “HOPE” shirt, highlighted even further by the fact that everyone else in the shot is wearing business casual (“Dress Code: business casual and/or Obamaphenalia.”)

I suspect that ASA would be shocked to learn that some people might take offense to this, that this is actually not OK. Such is the banality of HOPE. After a flowering of structural reforms at the beginning of its existence, the organization now exists solely as one of many lobbying groups interested in more money. These policy goals have been grudgingly tolerated by those that oppose them, due in part to the fact that ASA has cast their goals in an entirely apolitical light – “save the students” and whatnot. Seeing how the organization has been sharpened under the influence of Hilary Clinton delegate David Martinez III, though, a couple of questions emerge:

1) If ASA’s entire ethos involves increasing government spending on higher education (specifically, research-1 universities – community colleges are left by the wayside), can it ever in fact be a “nonpartisan” organization?

2) Even more broadly, for those who view the political process and lobbying with disdain: is the hatred with lobby-fueled government the principle of the matter, or is it simply disappointment that one’s own special interest isn’t getting what s/he thinks it is owed?

Less importantly,

3) What exactly does it mean that the lone comment on the video comes from this guy?

Stalin1938 Comment

Uh, thanks?

More services, more transparency?

Posted in Campus, Politics by Evan Lisull on 15 October 2009

Legal ServicesThe content of this Editorial Board piece in the Wildcat is pretty harmless, but the title and conclusion are honestly baffling:

Who said anything about no transparency?Want a free answer to a pressing legal question? ASUA legal adviser Susan Ferrell can tell you whatever you need to know on certain legal issues free of charge.

“One of the biggest problems I see is when students are taken advantage of by their landlords,” she told the Wildcat yesterday. “Students often come to me in regards to getting back a security deposit.”

The security deposit problem is one that many students are familiar with, and it’s a relief to know there’s someone willing to discuss the legality of this issue at no cost. Besides advising on landlords potentially taking advantage of students, Ferrell discusses a myriad of legal issues that students may face, and she makes herself available five days a week.

For providing a necessary and helpful free service to students as well as taking a step toward transparency, ASUA gets a pass.

For starters, the presence of Legal Services hasn’t exactly been a secret – ASUA has advertised the service incessantly on their website for years, and more often than not the only indication of ASUA’s location in the Union is the presence of a Legal Services sandwich board.

The actual services do provide information about certain legal issues. But when transparency is used in context of politics, it generally refers to the releasing of information about the government’s operations. So when ASUA releases its budget and minutes online, it’s becoming more transparent – more open – about its operations. Transparency generally does not apply to the release of details about a service being provided – like the time, date, and location of an upcoming concert. ASUA has in fact made strides towards transparency already this year. Continuing to offer legal services just isn’t one of them.

Really, this isn’t snark – I just have no idea what the use of ‘transparency’ is supposed to indicate in this context. Board members are invited to any insight or clarification in the comments.

The Jay-Z Contract

Posted in Campus by Evan Lisull on 15 October 2009

Jay-Z, hoodedWe’ve fallen off the contract-uploading bandwagon, but at long last here is the $750,000, flat-fee contract [PDF] for Jay-Z . The contract guaranteeing Jay-Z (represented by Live Nation) was finalized on March 24, and ASUA wasted no time in spreading the good news.

Some of you have probably already seen Jay-Z’s rider, some of which has been available at the Smoking Gun, and there’s really not much else outside of what has already been covered. One item of interest is that while the other three contracts were drawn up by the UA/ABOR, Live Nation authored this contract. Seeing how both parties have to agree on the final terms, this probably doesn’t make that much of a difference; at the same time, it does give a sense of who was in the driver’s seat during these negotiations.

Jay-Z might have cost us a pretty penny, but cheer up – our loss is America’s gain! Since Jay-Z had such a great time on the dime of your student government, he’s decided to share the love with college towns across the country:

Just in case Jay-Z wasn’t enough, hip-hop fans now have three more very good reasons to snatch up tickets for Hova’s tour this fall: N.E.R.D, Wale, and J. Cole, who have just been announced as supporting acts for the 24-date jaunt, kicking off October 9 in State College, PA!

10/9, State College, PA (Penn State/Bryce Jordan Center)
10/10, Cincinnati, OH (N Kentucky U/Bank of Kentucky Center)
10/13, Edmonton, AB (Rexall Place)
10/14, Calgary, AB (Pengrowth Saddledome)
10/15, Kelowna, BC (Prospera Place)
10/16, Vancouver, BC (General Motors Place)
10/17, Seattle, WA (KeyArena)
10/21, Ypsilanti, MI (Eastern Michigan U/Convocation Center)
10/23, Philadelphia, PA (Wachovia Center/Powerhouse)
10/24, Providence, RI (Dunkin Donuts Center)
10/25, Amherst, MA (U of Mass/Mullins Center)
10/27, Baltimore, MD (1st Mariner Arena)
10/28, Columbus, OH (Ohio State/Value City Arena the Schottenstein Center)
10/29, London, ON (John Labatt Centre)
10/30, Montreal, QC (Bell Centre)
10/31, Toronto, ON (Air Canada Centre)
11/1, Ottawa, ON (Scotiabank Place)
11/7, Fresno, CA (Fresno State/Save Mart Center)
11/12, Champaign, IL (University of Illinois/Assembly Hall)
11/19, Albuquerque, NM (Tingley Coliseum)
11/20, El Paso, TX (U of Texas at El Paso/Don Haskins Ctr)
11/21, Lubbock, TX (United Spirit Arena)
11/22, Austin, TX (U of Texas at Austin/Frank Erwin Center)