10 minute read
The fuTure of The uPr
Eduardo Burgos-Suazo,
COO of ABEXUS Analytics and Professor at UPRCA
Advertisement
UPR: Where do we go from here?
As most of us know, Puerto Rico has experienced fundamental demographic changes in the past decade. Fertility rates have followed a substantial downward trend, we’ve seen multiple periods of migration, and the remaining population keeps growing older. This has left the island with a population that instead of looking like a healthy pyramid, looks inverted, more like a cone. In other words, the younger population cohorts are getting smaller while the older cohorts are getting larger.
Recently, the governing board of the University of Puerto Rico announced that fundamental alterations to the admissions process will be taking place to, as they say, tackle the decline in student enrollment. Mainly, the strategy revolves around lessening admission criteria while recalibrating the relationship between how much grades and entrance exams weigh in on acceptance probability. One might ask: are lower enrollment rates a direct result of local population decline? And, if so, can a mechanical solution be the best approach to a complex problem? Back in 1970, a highly controversial figure named Ivan Illich published a book called “Deschooling Society”. In it, the author proclaims the end of the school system as we know it today. Now, where did he get that idea? As he himself says on the first page of his book:
“I owe my interest in public education to Everett Reimer. Until we first met in Puerto Rico in 1958, I had never questioned the value of extending obligatory schooling to all people.”
Even though Illich’s ideas were relatively rejected by the international community, one can reflect on the basis of his arguments and question the core purpose of education, its relationship with any learning process, and the value that the consumer (in this case, a student) sees in the service (in this case, a college education). I humbly believe that the Institution is in dire need of a profound reflection. By design, Academia should take a scientific approach to problem solving. Any real solution or method must be multidisciplinary, taking into account all possible aspects that could potentially explain the problem at hand (low enrollment rates). The solution must, therefore, be complex by nature.
It seems from the surface that what has been proposed is a short-term, somewhat automated “solution” that, in one way or another, will inevitably sacrifice quality to pursue quantity. Has the research been done to assess students’ needs, their preferences when it comes to public vs. private colleges, career path choices, etc.? What about leveraging how attracting students from other countries could mitigate low enrollment rates? Is the Institution offering what this new generation of students demands and needs from the Academia? And, if these questions were in fact answered, how does the actual proposed “solution” reflect those conclusions?
I believe these are fairly simple questions that could serve as a starting point to produce a short- to middle-term plan that is both realistic and prepares our University for more than just survival mode. They could even help build the foundations for stability and future demand. A data driven approach is needed.
In that same spirit, I also recognize that there is no perfect solution; a real plan most likely provides multiple solutions that meet the mass of challenges that our Institution faces. Let’s keep in mind that providing a proficient work environment, groundbreaking research opportunities, stable electric services and valuable experiences is as important in retaining students (if not more so) as providing a more flexible access to the Institution.
Unfortunately, all trends point to a continuous decline in the Puerto Rican population. Therefore, one must ask: where do we go from here? What are the next steps to ensure that the heritage that the University of Puerto Rico has built for the past decades does not decay? Maybe our educational legacy system is in fact outdated. Maybe, just maybe, what Illich (and others like him) forecasted more than 40 years ago is already (in some way or another) taking place. Maybe we need a serious reflection of what constitutes one of the most basic and elementary parts of our species, which is learning. Time will tell…
11 more crash deaths are linked to automated-tech vehicles
Ten of the deaths involved vehicles made by Tesla
Tom Krisher – The Associated Press
DETROIT — Eleven people were killed in U.S. crashes involving vehicles that were using automated driving systems during a four-month period earlier this year, according to newly released government data, part of an alarming pattern of incidents linked to the technology.
Ten of the deaths involved vehicles made by Tesla, though it is unclear from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s data whether the technology itself was at fault or whether driver error might have been responsible.
The 11th death involved a Ford pickup. The automaker said it has to report fatal crashes to the government quickly, but it later determined that the truck was not equipped with its partially automated driving system.
The deaths included four crashes involving motorcycles that occurred during the spring and summer: two in Florida and one each in California and Utah. Safety advocates note that the deaths of motorcyclists in crashes involving Tesla vehicles using automated driver-assist systems such as
Autopilot have been increasing.
The new fatal crashes are documented in a database that NHTSA is building in an effort to broadly assess the safety of automated driving systems, which, led by Tesla, have been growing in use. Tesla alone has more than 830,000 vehicles on U.S. roads with the systems. The agency is requiring auto and tech companies to report all crashes involving self-driving vehicles as well as autos with driver assist systems that can take over some driving tasks from people.
The 11 new fatal crashes, reported from midMay through September, were included in statistics that the agency released Monday. In June, the agency released data it had collected from July of last year through May 15. The figures that were released in June showed that six people died in crashes involving the automated systems, and five were seriously hurt. Of the deaths, five occurred in Teslas and one a Ford. In each case, the database says that advanced driver assist systems were in use at the time of the crash.
Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said he is baffled by NHTSA’s continued investigations and by what he called a general lack of action since problems with Autopilot began surfacing back in 2016. “I think there’s a pretty clear pattern of bad behavior on the part of Tesla when it comes to obeying the edicts of the (federal) safety act, and NHTSA is just sitting there,” he said. “How many more deaths do we need to see of motorcyclists?”
Brooks noted that the Tesla crashes are victimizing more people who are not in the Tesla vehicles. “You’re seeing innocent people who had no choice in the matter being killed or injured,” he said. A message was left Tuesday seeking a response from NHTSA. Tesla’s crash number may appear elevated because it uses telematics to monitor its vehicles and obtain real-time crash reports. Other automakers lack such capability, so their crash reports may emerge more slowly or may not be reported at all, NHTSA has said. NHTSA has been investigating Autopilot since August of last year after a string of crashes since 2018 in which Teslas collided with emergency vehicles parked along roadways with flashing lights on. That investigation moved a step closer to a recall in June, when it was upgraded to what is called an engineering analysis.
In documents, the agency raised questions about the system, finding that the technology was being used in areas where its capabilities are limited and that many drivers weren’t taking steps to avoid crashes despite warnings from the vehicle. NHTSA also reported that it has documented 16 crashes in which vehicles with automated systems in use hit emergency vehicles and trucks that were displaying warning signs, causing 15 injuries and one death.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which also has investigated some of the Tesla crashes dating to 2016, has recommended that NHTSA and Tesla limit Autopilot’s use to areas where it can safely operate. The NTSB also recommended that NHTSA require Tesla to improve its systems to ensure that drivers are paying attention. NHTSA has yet to act on the recommendations. (The NTSB can make only recommendations to other federal agencies.)
Bóveda’s dinning room. >Courtesy Chef Carol’s Lamb Duo. >Courtesy
Bóveda: Hato Rey’s key back into Puerto Rico’s culinary scene
Juan A. Hernández, The Weekly Journal
Seeking to revive Hato Rey’s financial district as one of Puerto Rico’s epicenters of fine dining, Bóveda / Chef Carol Reyes is now open for lunch and dinner on the lobby of the Popular Center, in Hato Rey. “Bóveda was conceived as an haute Spanish cuisine project tempered by current contemporary gastronomic trends,” said Chef Carol, an alumnus of the prestigious Culinary Institute of
America (CIA). Bóveda occupies the space left by the legendary
Il Perugino, which left Hato Rey’s culinary scene after Hurricane Maria hit the island, and has taken advantage of the Arctic birch décor of its predecessor. “After Maria, bank execs had no alternatives for their regular business lunches. So, we made some minor improvements to the locale and made it ready for business. And we were able developed an alliance with Chef Carol for her to be the creative culinary talent responsible for Bóveda’s menu,” said
José “Peco” Suárez, president of BluHost. “Even though Bóveda is oriented to provide a fine dining experience, it does so in a casual setting.
What’s on the plate is haute cuisine, the table is a relax environment,” said Suárez when characterizing the restaurant. And relaxed it is. Recognizing that not every
Hato Rey exec has the time for the quintessential executive lunch, Chef Carol has designed a light menu which includes from pasta to the ubiquitous burger that they can enjoy either at the bar or in the dining room. But don’t jump to any hasty conclusions… these are not your basic pasta or burger. The Bóveda Burger is designed with chorizo, crispy onions, Tetilla cheese, tomato-piquillo ketchup and roasted garlic mayonnaise. While the pasta, could very well be a delightful gnocchi with ricotta, duck confit, roasted mushrooms, truffle emulsion and duck cracklings. But mind you, while you can opt to enjoy your meal either at the bar or the dining room, not all the entrées are available at either venue, or for lunch
José “Peco” Suárez, president BluHost
and dinner. Firmly rooted in her fine dining experience, Chef Carol conceived some specific dishes for dinner. One such dish is the Lamb Duo, a lamb loin accompanied by red pepper glazed ribs, charred eggplant and roasted shallots. Of course, there is a wide variety of wines to go with your meal –before, during or after, you decide– but for those preferring some stronger spirits, there is a surprisingly creative cocktail menu that is sure to impress the most demanding guests. You will definitely find the true and tried classics –Gin &Tonic, Manhattan, and Negroni– but also the very unexpected House Cocktails. On this list you will find the Bóveda 208 (Bourbon, crème de cacao, clove and cinnamon syrup and cacao bitters) and the “Que llueva la güita” (Vodka, lime juice, honey, cucumber and melon soda). Despite all of these cocktails being delicious, the hands down favorite is the “Mamaví,” a wonderful concoction made from aged rum, pineapple puree, lime, “maví” (Puerto Rican root beer) and orange bitters. When guests enter Bóveda, they are not just getting a meal. Be ready to be surprised. ¡Buen provecho!
