Bill advances removing University of Missouri's exclusive right to certain degrees
The iconic columns of the University of Missouri-Columbia campus (University of Missouri photo).
A Missouri House committee advanced an amended Senate bill Monday that would end the University of Missouri's exclusive permission to grant doctoral degrees.
The new provision is tacked onto Senate Bill 150, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Jill Carter of Granby, which originally established a fund to reimburse tuition and book fees for students in community colleges and technical schools. It passed the Senate last month.
A substitute version of the bill adopted Monday by the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee consolidates six smaller education bills, including provisions ranging from expanded financial aid opportunities to increased requirements for universities to accept transfer credit.
Among these consolidated bills is one sponsored by Republican state Rep. Melanie Stinnett if Springfield which would remove statutes that grant the University of Missouri and other UM System campuses exclusive license to offer certain doctoral degree programs.
The UM System is the only public university system permitted to grant research doctorate and professional degrees. Other state universities are allowed to partner with the UM System to offer similar degree programs but cannot do so independently.
The amended version of the bill passed Monday out of committee would repeal this provision, specifically to allow Missouri State University to offer programs that compete with those on UM System campuses.
Proponents of the bill say that the exclusivity granted to UM System campuses makes doctoral degrees less accessible to those who do not live near a campus.
'When I look at that, if that is a space that someone is interested in, we really shouldn't be limiting that for people just because they can't travel to a specific area of the state,' Stinnett said in a committee hearing last month.
Missouri State University President Richard Williams testified last month that his university simply seeks more flexibility. Missouri State currently offers 10 doctorate programs but is required by state law to do so in partnership with UM System campuses.
'This is relieving restrictions so we can be nimble,' he said.
Opponents to ending UM System's exclusive power include the University of Missouri Flagship Council, which said in February in a Missourian guest commentary that tuition increases would likely follow as a result.
'The bottom line is that starting doctoral programs at public universities without research funding will need to be propped up with significant state support,' Chuck Brazeale, chair of the Flagship Council's board of directors, wrote.
The bill passed through the House committee Monday by a vote of 10 to 1, with only state Rep. Bill Allen, a Republican from Kansas City, dissenting.
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation. Uribe was shot on Saturday as he addressed a small crowd of people who had gathered in a park in Bogota's Modelia neighborhood. On Sunday hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital where Uribe is being treated to pray for his recovery. Some carried rosaries in their hands, while others chanted slogans against President Gustavo Petro. 'This is terrible' said Walter Jimenez a lawyer who showed up outside the hospital, with a sign calling for Petro's removal. 'It feels like we are going back to the 1990's,' he said, referring to a decade during which drug cartels and rebel groups murdered judges, presidential candidates and journalists with impunity. Petro has condemned the attack and urged his opponents to not use it for political ends. But some Colombians have also asked the president to tone down his rhetoric against opposition leaders. The assassination attempt has stunned the nation, with many politicians describing it as the latest sign of how security has deteriorated in Colombia, where the government is struggling to control violence in rural and urban areas, despite a 2016 peace deal with the nation's largest rebel group. The attack on Uribe comes amid growing animosity between Petro and the Senate over blocked reforms to the nation's labor laws. Petro has organized protests in favor of the reforms, where he has delivered fiery speeches referring to opposition leaders as 'oligarchs' and 'enemies of the people." 'There is no way to argue that the president… who describes his opponents as enemies of the people, paramilitaries and assassins has no responsibility in this' Andres Mejia, a prominent political analyst, wrote on X. The Attorney General's office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene of the attack against Uribe. Videos captured on social media show a suspect shooting at Uribe from close range. The suspect was injured in the leg and was recovering at another clinic, authorities said. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez added that over 100 officers are investigating the attack. On Monday, Colombia's Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said that minors in Colombia face sentences of up to eight years in detention for committing murders. Camargo acknowledged that lenient sentences have encouraged armed groups to recruit minors to commit crimes. However, she said that Colombian law also considers that minors who are recruited by armed groups are victims, and is trying to protect them. 'As a society we need to reflect on why a minor is getting caught up in a network of assassins, and what we can do to stop this from happening in the future' she said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
