Unofficial Wage Policy?

An interesting post from one of our readers . . . .

Is it true that HR said that there were over 3000 UK employees that were not being paid according to UKs unofficial wage policy? Is it true that the Staff Senate is attemping to right this wrong by making this unofficial policy official and mantory for all Depts? Why has UK held back wages for so many for so long? What can staff do to correct this injustice to long time employees?

We don't have the answers, but we sure would like to know, too.

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

James Paxton, a UK baseball player, filed suit against UK for demanding that he "answer questions" from the NCAA or face possible expulsion from the team -- without allowing Paxton to know why or what the NCAA was looking for. " 'University officials allegedly have threatened to remove Paxton's eligibility if he continues to decline NCAA interviews, and such a threat violates the UK code of student conduct,' Paxton's attorneys say."

Yes, well, UK would never let a little thing like the UK Code of Student Conduct bother them, would they?

Our favorite part is Paxton's allegation that UK compliance director Sandy Bell told him "not to tell anyone — including his parents or his attorney — about the interview or (UK's) instruction to participate."

Fortunately Paxton wasn't quite the stooge UK Athletics assumed. He filed suit against UK, resulting in a nice article on the front page of the Herald-Leader. He talked.

Later this evening Kentucky.com reported that Paxton will be allowed to stay on the team and receive his scholarship "without the threat that it will change."

James Paxton, we applaud you and wish you great success in your pursuit of justice for student athletics.

It's Always Worked Before . . . .

It's nice to hear that UK won't consider changing the speaking rules for the Board of Trustees.

The Board has basically operated in secret behind the scenes for over 30 years -- why change now?

Another Day, Another Insult to Our Intelligence

Too many people complaining about naming a building after a fossil fuel? Just hold a big ole seminar and "educate" 'em about it. That'll make it all okay!

Coal conference at UK

Cuts in Benefits and More for Todd

from another one of our alert readers . . . .

"The same day the administration decided to defer vesting the university contribution for new faculty and staff for 5 years to save money, they are considering ways to increase Lee Todd's pay. That certainly will help us attract the best new faculty and staff."

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/994111.html

Name Your New Buildings Here!

Think you can top the Wildcat Coal Lodge? Well, here's your chance.

What creative names can you come up with for new buildings?

King Coal!

The following e-mail has been circulating among staff and faculty today . . .

KING COAL

Old King Coal was a monied old soul


And a monied old soul was he;


He called for his cash, and he called up his Pres


who gathered his lackey trustees.


Three of the board had some spine,


But they had very little say;


And when there’s only a few who dare (or even care),


Old King Coal will have his way.

To no one’s surprise, the UK Board of Trustees took the low road and accepted $7 million to fund the new Wildcat Coal Lodge, beginning a new error, I mean era, in UK traditions by naming a building after an industry rather than a person. The Trustees took the coal money; we got the shaft (again).

In response to numerous complaints, President Todd (might have) said, “Look, Coach Cal has successfully recruited rock star players, so it is only fitting that we name the Wildcat Lodge after a rock, right? In fact, we in the UK Administration have had rocks on our mind (and in our head) ever since the Top 20 program ended up on the rocks. So, it’s time for the entire UK community to come together and support this decision by following the example of Billy G by having a few on the rocks.”

President Todd (probably didn’t) continue his justification for the decision by noting: ”It’s important to realize that in the race to the bottom, our lead over the University of Louisville was in danger. Not long ago, we were way ahead; but that all changed with the exposure of Pitino’s poor table manners and the under-the-radar (table?) pension payoff to President Ramsey. But now we are again safely ahead and working on padding our lead.”

COAL WINS. SO, LIKE IT OR LUMP IT.

Well, I guess we have to just think of this as yet another lump of coal in our collective stocking. Even so, we have to move on and continue to make regress in our path to the Top 20. Perhaps the failure to stop the insertion of Coal into the name of the Wildcat Lodge occurred because faculty, students, and staff members did not object early enough; although to be fair, we have no evidence that the UK administration and Board of Trustees have ever listened to students, faculty, or staff complaints.

Even so, we must start now to protect the names of our next new buildings. The current top three building priorities on the UK list are:

1. New wing on the administration building

2. Board of Trustees annex to the Patterson Office Tower

3. Research—Ultra Science (R-US) building

The UK Administration and Board of Trustees have been working hard to find donors for these worthy projects. The Trustees Annex is particularly crucial because it will have a sauna and a state of the art exercise facility. This is a priority because the Trustees have not been getting enough exercise; after all, when is the last time the Trustees exercised good judgment? In addition, they have agreed to allow President Todd to have an honorary membership because he, too, has not been getting much exercise lately. When asked, he explained that he no longer takes walks since he now has two university cars and would feel guilty wasting university resources by letting them just sit in his driveway. In fact, since he is such an environmental advocate and strongly supports the UK green initiatives, he no longer drives his Jeep Grand Cherokee 4X4 Hemi, but instead tows it behind his Avalon wherever he goes.

You are all aware that these are tough financial times. It is hard to raise money for worthy causes like hiring and compensating faculty and staff, or providing more scholarships to students. Still, our leaders have been able to find potential donors for our high priority buildings by focusing on industries that have been doing well during the recession and financial crisis. One potential donor, Joe Morally, President of the Association of Bankruptcy Lawyers, has done quite well helping the government take over bankrupt businesses. Another group that has profited from the current economic downturn is the American Association of Auctioneers and Liquidators. Finally, Kentucky’s agricultural industry remains recession-proof (at least the marijuana growing sector has).

At the next UK Board of Trustees meeting, the Trustees will be voting on accepting the donations from these groups. The only conditions imposed by the donors are that the building names include Bankrupt, Morally, Sell Out, and Dope. So, we’ll soon have the Board of Trustees Sell Out Annex, the Morally Bankrupt Administration Building, and the Dopes R-US Building. The only saving grace is that unlike the name “Wildcat Coal Lodge” (which suggests that the occupants are lumps of coal), these names don’t misrepresent the occupants. But, as President Todd (never actually) said, “That’s the way it is, so you can just like it or lump it.“

We'd All Like to Know

One of our readers wants to know how much money UK Human Resources spent sending ANOTHER letter out about the potential savings of Express Scripts, including to people who'd already called up and declined to use Express Scripts (because, you know, you like talking to a real person when getting your meds), a letter telling us that now we don't need to do anything if we want to opt out, etc. And finally, I'd like to just know when UK is going to force us all to use Express Scripts because it saves them money somehow.

UK's First Step in Taking Over City

One of our astute readers brought this to our attention last month, and now it's official.

First the sidewalks in front of UK buildings, then what? Neighboring buildings? Roadways What's next?

Performance Evaluation of UK Administrators

In an interview to the UK student Newspaper, President Todd emphasized that he earned a 96 on his performance evaluation. It is not clear who evaluated him. Most of the faculty never got a chance to evaluate his performance. Even when faculty are asked to turn in adminstrator evaluations, faculty are not provided the results. Recent evaluations of the Provost and several Deans are a case in point. The performance evaluation data has never been made public and requests for such data have been denied. Makes one wonder why they do not disclose this information.

UK says "Fair and final!"

Nice to know UK insults everyone's intelligence equally.

http://www.kentucky.com/818/story/979051.html?storylink=omni_popular

We're Used To It!

Another testament to that old adage we're used to at UK: Put money into buildings, not bodies.

http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/966692.html

How Much?

How much money is UK on the hook for at the Research Park on Newtown Pike?

Priorities

Healthcare workers at the Medical Center are routinely offered flu shots about this time of year. This is common practice throughout the US since these types of employees are more exposed to flu than members of the general public.

This year, however, the UK football team got their flu shots before anyone in the Medical Center.

Just goes to show UK's priorities.

Where have all the Nurses gone?

Nursing Turnover at UKIt has come to the attention of this blogger that UK’s nursing turnover is hovering around 30%. This number may sound astonishing to many, and it is! The majority of the research investigated for this post reported the nationally average turnover rate is around 8%. With more nursing shortages expected in the future, what will UK do to retain the nurses it has and recruit new graduates? It certainly is not trying to keep them happy. Reports have already surfaced about cuts to the Baylor Plan and have offered no suggestions on retention of any employees, let alone qualified nurses! According to a meta-analysis “Turnover costs, in general, have been estimated to range between 0.75 to 2.0 times the salary of the departing individual (McConnell, 1999), while nurse turnover costs have been estimated at 1.3 times the salary of a departing nurse (Jones). However, these estimates may vary depending upon the human capital, e.g., the education, experience, and tenure of the nurse who leaves; the era during which the nurse departs, e.g., at the beginning versus the height of a nurse shortage; and other organizational and environmental factors, such as the local labor market and whether the organization is in a rural or urban location (Jones & Gates, 2007).” Let’s do some math. Of the 6,000+ employees boasted by UK Healthcare’s website, let’s estimate 1,500 of those are nurses with an average salary of $40,000. A turnover rate of 30% would mean that 450 nurses left their position. And even the smallest estimate of .75 times a nurse’s salary would put UK in the hole around $13 million!

So a few questions:

Is turnover where UK employee raises went?

What is UK doing (or not doing) to keep its nurses?

What should UK do to retain all its staff?

Lee Todd Underpaid?

So Lee Todd turned down his annual bonus of $168,000, which one Board of Trustees claimed was such a "tiny" amount. It's admirable that Todd finally got the message that none of the people who work at UK appreciate his outrageous bonuses while staff and faculty salaries continue to plummet.

Now the Board of Trustees, who apparently live on Mars, want to re-examine Todd's pay package in case he might be underpaid.

Perhaps they're on to something. Just how much is Todd worth to UK? Will the Board take into consideration that the Todd's live rent free, have all their medical needs and insurance paid for, as well as their transportation (remember that second car it decreed was necessary)? And what's the value of all that cheap labor supplied by underpaid staff members?

Let's get a real picture of what exactly Todd is worth.

What do you think? What is Todd worth to UK? What would be a good salary for him, minus any bonuses?

Express Script - A Run for Your Money?

Another issue sent in by one of our readers:

"Some of you might have received a letter from Human Resources regarding the new home delivery plan from Express Scripts. I certainly hope it will save us money like it is supposed to. However, there is one aspect that I believe is 'true to form' for UK.

"The letter states that in order for you to continue to receive benefits, you MUST inform Express Scripts that you will not enroll in Express Scripts Pharmacy. According to the letter (emphasis in the original letter):

"Here's how it works: From October 15, 2009 on, you may obtain the first and second refills of your maintenance medication at any participating pharmacy. Starting with your third fill, you will pay the full cost of your prescription unless you move to the Express Scripts Pharmacy OR let Express Scripts know you choose not to participate in this program and want to keep your prescription at your local pharmacy.

"Why would HR force us to call Express Scripts if we simply wish to continue to get our prescription the usual way and do not wish to participate in the new program? Doesn't it make more sense to say, those who wish to participate in the new program, please enroll? Note that this letter is coming from UK's HR folks.

"In addition, note that the bold emphasis is reserved for the part which seems to indicate that you will pay the full price unless you participate. The other option is not in bold. I am not sure if this is intentional, but somebody who looks at the bold part of the sentence will be mislead into thinking that they will not receive prescription benefits unless they enroll.

"Thanks."

We have that letter right here. It does imply that if a staff member doesn't participate they will have to pay the full price. Personally, we've never had a good experience with Express Scripts. They must be paying UK a pretty penny for its business.

When you read that letter, what did you think? Why do you think UK is doing this?

UK Taking Over Public Property?

A very interesting post sent in by one of our readers.

"Is it true that UK is in negoations with LFUC goverment to gain control of many public streets on main campus to stop tobacco use which is scheduled to begin in November? How can UK control public property that is paid for by public tax funds? Is UK over stepping there authority? Can somone confirm?"

UK Produces Most Rhodes Scholars in World

Wouldn't that be a great headline? Wouldn't it be wonderful for UK to be known as an intellectual center, a great place of learning and achievement?

We already know how good it feels to be famous for our basketball program and history. How much better would it be if students from all over the world were clamoring for a chance to attend one of many superb academic programs?

Why don't we put as much energy into our academic programs as we do athletics?

Is it a lack of funding? Poor teaching? Timid advertising? Administrative indifference? Rock-bottom admission requirements?

What would it take to make that title a reality, just one of many prestigious awards we could all be proud of?

Take Another Look, Part 2

Dr. Krish Muralidhar received a response from Christopher Rice regarding yesterday's letter but did not feel comfortable publishing it without permission. However, he did want to share his response back to Rice.

What's your take on this situation? Do you think UK should give users of the Big Blue Network a chance to opt out of the research-related data gathering?

- - - - - -

First of all, I am all for improving student retention and appreciate your efforts in this regard. My only issue is that your current procedure does not provide the students with all the facts regarding the specific objectives of the Big Blue Network. The Big Blue Network is described as follows http://www.uky.edu/UGS/network.html

“The goal of the network is to build real connections between students, and between students and the University in a safe and private space to interact. Students will learn from each other and assigned peer mentors how best to make the most of their University of Kentucky experience. UK faculty and staff from the departments and colleges will also participate in communicating about and finetuning expectations about students' majors.

The online community members can share content between Big Blue Network and your existing Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Second Life, Twitter, etc. accounts. Members can update their personal status, send instant messages, post pictures and videos on both their existing social networking sites AND Big Blue Network.

Nowhere does this description include any information that the comments posted on this web site will be analyzed. The description leads one to believe that when you join the Big Blue Network, you are joining a social network of peers, faculty and staff at UK (which is monitored and administered by UK). The participating students have no idea that the comments they post will be gathered, catalogued, and analyzed. In my opinion, with the exception of those students who you chose to inform, the other students who participate in the Big Blue Network have not consented to their comments being analyzed since they do not have all the relevant facts.

In your response, you have addressed several points, but the key point that directly addresses my concern is the following statement: “It is my understanding that students "opt in" to the collection of data for retention and success efforts when they confirm their admission to the university.” This may be true. It is also true that many commercial organizations use the same (fine print) approach. However, privacy advocates have consistently argued against this implicit “opt in” approach and have insisted that every individual must be provided the opportunity to explicitly “opt in” or “opt out” even in situations where the participant is simply sent informational emails. In the case of the Big Blue Network, you intend to analyze the comments that are posted on the network which is far more intrusive. Currently, the students have no facility to “opt out” since most of them are not even aware that their comments will be analyzed.

As an institution of higher learning and a Tier I research university, UK must hold itself to a higher standard when it comes to privacy issues. What is an acceptable standard for a commercial organization is not necessarily an acceptable standard for an educational institution. It is for this reason that we have entities such as the Institutional Review Board that oversee research involving human subjects.

It is not very difficult to achieve this higher standard. All that is required is the following. In addition to the description currently being provided, provide every student joining the network with a statement informing them that the comments that they post online will be gathered, catalogued, and analyzed. You can also provide additional information regarding the purpose of such analysis and the procedures that would be adopted to prevent their identity from being disclosed. This information should also be included in the description on the UK UGS web site. You should also inform students who have already enrolled. After receiving this information, if a student chooses to participate in the Big Blue Network they have given you informed consent to analyze their comments.

Providing this statement will result in one of the following outcomes:

(1) It has no impact on student participation. This implies that the students have made an informed decision to participate because they feel that analyzing their comments does not adversely affect their privacy.

(2) It has a positive impact on student participation. This implies that some students have made an informed decision to participate specifically because they would like their comments to be analyzed.

(3) It has a detrimental impact on student participation. This implies that some students have made an informed decision not to participate specifically because they do not wish their comments to be analyzed.

The key here is that in all cases, the students are making an “informed” decision. The only outcome that would adversely affect your data gathering effort is the last outcome. However, if you believe that this outcome is more likely, then it is all the more reason to provide an explicit statement of your intention to analyze the comments. Failure to do so, in my opinion, is to mislead some students to participate in a process that they would not have participated if they had all the relevant facts.

In conclusion, I believe that every student should be provided an explicit statement detailing the specific objectives of the Big Blue Network including the fact that the comments posted online will be analyzed. This is probably one of the first interactions that the student will have with UK as an institution and represents an opportunity to earn their trust. We do not earn their trust by relying on some fine print statement included in the admission letter to gather and analyze their online comments without informed consent. We earn their trust by being honest and upfront with the students and allowing them to make an informed decision.

Dr. Krish Muralidhar
Gatton Research Professor
School of Management
University of Kentucky

Take Another Look . . .

What looks like a great service at first glance proves to be something else on second look . . . .

Following is a letter sent to Christopher Rice (UK Online Community Manager), copied to Lee Todd, the Provost, and Ryan Alessi (Lexington Herald-Leader) regarding the Big Blue Network. It is reprinted here with the permission of the author, Dr. Krish Muralidhar, Gatton Research Professor, School of Management.

-----------

Dear Professor Rice,

This is in reference to the story in the Lexington Herald regarding the Big Blue Network. I am very happy that UK is using technology to make it easy for incoming students. However, I was somewhat disturbed by the following statements in the article:

He and a team will catalog students' exchanges and discussions to track how participation in the Big Blue Network might affect freshmen retention rates, although most of the incoming students using the site haven't been told that their comments will be collected.

Rice said they didn't broadcast the cataloging of content because they wanted to avoid "creepy treehouse syndrome."

"Nobody wants to hang out in the treehouse with Dad," Rice said. "We didn't want the research to get in the way of aspects students find useful."

He and a team will keep track of how many times each student posts something on the network as well as the quality of the discussions, Rice said. For instance, there's a big difference between starting a debate over an academic issue and posting a mundane update, such as "my cat just threw up," he said.

It is clear from the above statements that the research team not only intends to monitor usage, but actually evaluate the content of the comments. Even if you will be analyzing only de-identified (anonymized) data, I believe that every student must be informed that such information is being collected. And, in situations such as this, it is very easy to (re)identify the individual posting a comment even if the data has been de-identified.

Your statements above make it very clear that you are aware that the students are not necessarily comfortable sharing some comments with researchers (the treehouse syndrome that you discuss). If this is the case, then to analyze the comments when the students have not explicitly “opted in” is inappropriate. The article also does not provide any information whether some students can use the network but “opt out” of participating in the research study. The students have a right to be informed as to how the administrators of the network will use the data.

The article mentions that “student leaders” were informed, but not the individual students. I think this is inappropriate. As a leading research institution we should attempt to be a leader in appropriate research practices. Not providing the participating students with a clear indication that the individual comments will be analyzed is, in my opinion, not appropriate research practice. It is irrelevant that “no one has expressed that fear”. They should have been provided a choice to “opt in” or “opt out”.

In addition, as educators, one of our responsibilities is to educate our students regarding the dangers of participating in networks and posting information that could potentially have adverse consequences. By gathering data without (what I consider to be) informed consent, we not only fail to educate the students, we are contributing to the problem.

At the very least, I strongly suggest that you immediately inform all students that their comments will be used for research purposes and allow them to “opt in” if they want to participate in the study and “opt out” if they do not wish to. I clearly understand that this may have a detrimental effect on the data that is being collected. But that is a small price to pay for the loss of trust that would result from the current practice.

Sincerely,

Krish

-----------

We don't know about you, but we're not joining a network with no opt out.

Another Day, Another Lawsuit

Another employee has filed a lawsuit against UK, and as is often the case with UK, has seen the lawsuit dismissed.

UK gets sued a lot, especially by hospital patients. And former basketball coaches. But a lot of employees and former employees sue UK, too, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination based on race or gender or age or religious beliefs. Sexual harassment. Hostile work environment. Wrongful termination. And so on.

It's true that some of these employee lawsuits are frivolous, but we're willing to bet that most of them are legitimate and are not brought about easily. There is a rumor that UK has nearly all the attorneys in the region on retainer -- cutting off access to employees right from the start. If the employee is still working, they face all manner of silent subtle harassments -- stolen brown bag lunches, time cards that get read "wrong," penalties for taking literally six seconds more than the legally mandated break time, not being allowed breaks at all, fewer hours, rumors about their character.

Going to HR for such "little" things is a waste of time, as hundreds of employees already know. (Let's be clear about HR. UK HR exists to protect the university's interests. Employees come in a far second. Employees can have all the wellness benefits they can handle, but only because UK has decided those benefits are in its best interest as an organization.)

In Cowan's case, UK maintains it addressed the problem as soon as supervisors were aware of the situation. Which leaves us wondering how long and how many complaints it took to bring the problem to the supervisors' attention.

To Cowan and all the other folks suing UK for legitimate reasons: We believe you and we hope you win. We work at UK, and we understand what you're up against.

Survey Anyone?

We notice that several areas of the University like to survey their staff and faculty. In fact, the Medical Center spent a great deal of money recently surveying staff to see what was really going on with them. As of this date, we haven't heard of anything changing over there. Have you?

Of course, spending a lot of money for surveys shows how much administration "really cares" about faculty and staff. It's also a lot cheaper than giving actual raises.

Have you been surveyed lately? Were you honest? Did anyone listen to you? Did anything change?

Performance Evaluation Time!

It's about time for Lee Todd's annual performance evaluation. What's your opinion of how well Todd has performed his duties this past year? Has he communicated well? Has he moved us closer to top 20 status?

If he does the absolute minimum required by his contract, does he deserve a bonus?

Do you think you should get a bonus for doing your job?

News Flash

Rick Pitino, former UK basketball coach, reveals he is not perfect. It is unknown at this time how earth-shattering this will turn out to be for the state or even the nation.

What implications do you think this will have on Pitino's career?

Sports or Academics?

Today's news informed us that UK athletes senior Jorge Gonzalez and sophomore Aaron Boyd were suspended for violating team rules. Gonzalez will miss one game. We imagine there will be much gnashing of teeth over this as well as a lot of angry comments and discussions. Or maybe it's too early in the season for fans to worry.

During the uproar about UK letting Gillispie go and hiring Calipari a few months ago there were a few letters to the editor reminding readers that UK is also about academics, or that at least it should be.

It's a bit hard to believe that UK values higher education if you consider the money that gets funneled into athletics over academics, despite UK administration's protestations that it's separate money and that athletics help support academics.

What do you think? Does UK value athletics over academics? Do you think the distribution of money at UK is fairly distributed? Do you think there's a better way?

Effective Senates?

If you've ever attended a faculty or staff senate meeting you probably wondered what was really going on. Lots of paper gets passed around, a lot of people get up and say things. Then it's over and you go back to work.

Do you think our senates are really doing their job of representing our best interests? Or are they just another empty gesture?

What do you think our senates should really be doing?

When Did She Get Hired?

The rumor mill has been busy this week and the issues are all sadly business as usual -- the UK Way.

Let's start with a simple one. Why is Patsy Todd allowed to interfere in HR's hiring and firing decisions for staff even though she is not a UK employee? Is she also interfering with faculty hirings and firings? Does she get a bonus for this (besides driving a university car)?

Of course, we all know that certain high-level administrators frequently bypass HR in hiring and firing. All they have to do is pick up the phone and say they want so-and-so hired at such-and-such a salary, and that's that.

The rest of us have to settle for being overqualified and underpaid to work at UK.

Thanks for the Bucks

Lee Todd's blog recently announced that UK raised more than $68 million for colleges and programs this past fiscal year, an increase of 18% over last year. The number of donors was up, too -- 6% more folks gave this year.

The blog stated that research chairs and faculty lines will be created. Where are they? And who will support them? As there was no mention of adding staff positions!

Do you think a portion of the donation should go to staff? If so, how much?

UK's New Hospital Already Out of Money?

Word on the street is that UK's medical center has had to borrow well over $100 million to continue work on the new hospital complex and who knows what else. Certainly not a dime of that money will be going to faculty or staff -- unless it's those special hires from on high that are allowed to bypass all of UK's personnel policies and procedures (business as usual).

Back in May UK was "reprimanded by lawmakers" for the "potentially risky funding arrangement" used to buy Good Sam. Maybe that risky arrangement has come due?

But who would lend UK hundreds of millions of dollars?

He's Making How Much?

All salaries at UK are a matter of public record. The Herald-Leader publishes a database of UK salaries so you can see yourself how overpaid some employees are and how underpaid others are.

A Comforting Euphemism

Today's Herald-Leader printed three letters to the editor about Lee Todd and the university. The first one, by David Baynham, "UK Mistreating Faculty & Staff in its Cutbacks," highlights how UK has been eliminating jobs on one hand and on the other proclaiming "there haven't been firings at UK because of the budget."

Baynham goes on to say, "I'm sure everything Todd describes as accomplishments is accurate. What Todd omits is how UK is treating faculty and staff — the very people he extols for dedication, gallant efforts and determination, and refusal 'to use a troubled period' as an excuse to relinquish leadership.

"Too bad Todd and his cabinet don't hold themselves to the same high commitment."

How many people do you know who've lost their job due to these non-firings? What reason were they given?

Obligatory Disclaimer

This site was created to encourage candid conversations about working at UK -- no matter what the subject is and no matter if you're a staff person, faculty member, alumni, or the general public.

We encourage anonymous postings; just select anonymous when you post a comment.

We don't collect any information about people who post comments or visit this blog, nor do we share any information on this blog with anyone. However, we do moderate comments in order to keep down spam and to keep the blog as civil as possible.

Use common sense when commenting on this blog. If you're afraid someone will recognize you, use the anonymous option when you post. There is no way to know who may or may not be reading this blog at any time.

We are not responsible for comments made by anyone on this blog, and we are not responsible for who sees any material on this blog or for what a reader or poster may or may not do with material on this blog.