And with the few giant donations from one or two individuals, the school could artificially say that the average donation was way higher than typical, while hiding the fact that it was offset by just one or two massive donations.

As a humanities major, I may be off on the math, but if you increased the number of $1 donations, then you would need increasingly large donations to increase the average since the $1 donations would drag it down (assuming they are using "average" to mean "mean" and not "median", and also you'd need a relatively small graduating class size). So the only shady thing that has been done is the $1 donations, but they should be congratulated for the increase in donations at the high end.

I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.

Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcasts; I believe it is this one. Basically, each side is allotted X minutes. The creationist, since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question, will bring up Y number of objections to evolution. The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience. As you pointed out, explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated. Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while. So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair.

The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with. You need to pick people who have a history of a) playing fair and b) being genuinely insightful. This same process needs to occur in people's personal lives as well. We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth. This requires a level of trust that can be rare, since you have to be willing to possibly a) be extremely wrong about something and b) say something that some would find offensive (regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong). These friends (and debaters) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found, and which I think philosophy can help people achieve. They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views, and any complex idea will have pros and cons. We all have many beliefs that we cannot sufficiently justify (What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for). We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges, but as I mentioned before, this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare.

Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine. Personally, I'd prefer it in a simple website with a good database attached, especially for the social sciences where there are interesting negative results that may come as an afterthought (birth order effects, finger digit ratios before they became popular in the past ~10 years, etc in psychology); that may or may not be the case for other fields.

Here's actual data on the political views of the academy by department.

Obligatory video.

Just to let you know, heritability estimates for conscientiousness are between 0.18-0.49 (Michelle Luciano, Mark A. Wainwright, Margaret J. Wright, Nicholas G. Martin, The heritability of conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 40, Issue 6, April 2006, Pages 1189-1199, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.013).

According to Wikipedia, Thomas Huxley created the term "Darwinism". Try again. Plenty of people speak of "Darwinism". Dawkins uses the term "Darwinism" 18 times in The Selfish Gene. If I remember correctly, Popper used the term as he was trying to argue that evolutionary thought (at the time, since he later recanted this claim after being exposed to new evidence) was not scientific.

Well, there's only so many football linemen in a given school.

While it's not exactly a great reference, this story reports the average Wonderlic scores by position. Surprisingly, linemen fair pretty well, with all being in the upper half of the listed scores.

Troy Polamalu has reportedly had 7-8 concussions during his football career. If you see a pool on who will develop serious problems down the road, bet on him.

Scouts with good aim can cause Snipers a bunch of pain. Demos and Soldiers can make sniping much tougher. There's little problem IMHO.

Do you even know what The Bell Curve said? It wasn't radical in claiming that IQ scores are distributed on a normal (or bell) curve. The (main) radical portions were (a) that IQ is a good predictor of various life outcomes, (b) racial IQ differences and (c) that high IQ folks were being distanced from society. In all the objections to IQ, The Bell Curve and/or intelligence testing I have yet to see someone claim that modeling IQ scores on a normal distribution was outrageous. I am ashamed such a thing would come from this site.

Being in the Analytic tradition does not mean you aren't "tied up with the traditional philosophical issues". You are welcome to browse the rankings of the departments you listed. You'll notice how strong the schools are in things like metaphysics and ethics (not all are, but many are). You're also welcome to browse the rankings of schools in the area of 19th century Continental Philosophy after Hegel and 20th century Continental philosophy and notice how few top schools overall are listed there, although there is some overlap.

Your claim about science, logic and language seems either false or very overstated. In top US programs, philosophy of language is quite strong. There are topics within philosophy of science which are fairly popular. None are as popular as ethics, but your distaste for ethics, which I share to a small degree, is not mainstream. And metaphysics is well received by many top philosophers who are quite interested in logic (some of the most notable in my mind are David Lewis and PF Strawson). If you want to remove ethics and metaphysics from philosophy then form a coherent rebuttal to the arguments that discredited logical positivism.