Two comments in reply:

(1) It is common for comments on articles about scientific results to include anecdotes of the form "The result is clearly wrong, because I experienced the exact opposite." This kind of response is so common, in fact, that the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data" has become a shorthand way of noting that the anecdotal evidence of one person does not disprove a statistical aggregate based on a much larger set of data. Indeed, a quick search would make that clear. Even if it were the only thing that I had written, I would hope that the meaning would be clear from the large cultural context. As it is, I provided greater context with the second and third sentences of my post, which I would invite you to re-read before concluding that I don't know what the word "data" means.

(B) That being said, if you are going to be pedantic (as it seems you are insisting upon), the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes." The plural of "datum" is "data". From the point of view of a grammatical pedant, I am entirely correct.

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data." Yes, it is possible to be an adult, become infected with chicken pox, and not become terribly ill or suffer life-altering damage. However, the *probability* of suffering major complications as an adult is much, much greater.

Given that I now hold an MA and am working on a Ph.D., I don't think that it has mattered much.

Not necessarily. While I can't speak to the AC's experience, I hold a BA and an MS in Mathematics. At my undergraduate institution, the difference between the BA and BS was a foreign language. To earn a BA, one needed to take four semesters of a foreign language (or equivalent), while a BS required two semesters of computer science. While I did both, I opted for the A rather than the S (for no particular reason).

Why do you hate America?

Lies! One minute each.

There ain't nothin' in this world that needs to be microwaved for anything other than an integer number of minutes.

This is slightly off-topic, but 4-6 hours of homework every night for a college student doesn't seem that far outside the realm of reasonable to me. A student taking 12-15 semester credit hours is considered a full-time student. The thinking is that this course load represents the same commitment as a full-time job, i.e. about 40 hours per week. Since each semester credit hour represents an single hour of class each week, a 12-15 hour load represents only 12-15 hours of the student's commitment for the week. That leaves another 25-28 hours for homework. That's another 3.5-4 hours for homework every day, or 5-6 hours if you take the weekend off.

I am stealing this and putting it on my syllabi from now forward. Thank you for the turn of phrase.

With regard to sales tax, it may also be appropriate to note that no sales tax need be paid on many textbooks. Most public universities operate their own bookstores (either directly, or through some intermediary), and in many places these university run bookstores, as extensions of the state, do not charge sales tax. This probably varies some from state-to-state, and almost certainly does not apply to private institutions, but does deflate the tax argument a bit more.

It should also be noted that, from a student perspective, this is likely very similar to what already happens. Most students seem to sell their textbooks back to the bookstore (or some other reseller) at the end of the semester (much to the chagrin of a calculus student that showed up in one of my second semester classes---he sold his book back to the bookstore in December, then had to rebuy it in January, since he needed it for my class). Since they get a pittance for their books under such an arrangement, a $200 textbook that is bought then resold vs "rented" wouldn't make that much difference. The model of renting books to students doesn't seem terrible to me at first blush.

Of course, the real problem is that textbooks cost $200 in the first place, and there is no good reason to be charging students $200 for a rental.

I know of no university in the world that can compel you to attend class. You are always free to attend or not. When a professor states that attendance is required, the strongest statement that they could possibly be making is that attendance will constitute a (possibly very large) portion of your grade. There are some classes where attendance really is important (seminar classes where there is a lot of give and take between students and the instructor; practical classes like chemistry labs; and so on), and in such a class a professor may be making that point. In other cases, the professor might note that attendance and performance on assessments are highly correlated, and "require" attendance in an effort to improve overall performance. In either case, you are free to attend or not, as you choose.

While the headline makes a sweeping statement, the research is statistical in nature. Essentially, if you are an average student (I don't know how they selected or segregated their sample, but one assumes that they outline their methodology in the paper---my institution does not subscribe to [i]Psychological Science[/i], so all I can see is the abstract), you are more likely to do well if you take notes longhand rather than with a computer. In terms of your anecdotal evidence, the study is mute, as it doesn't seem to consider any kind of disability, nor does it address those that take no notes.

*headdesk*

Man, I wish that all of my students were as smart as you. I assign them reading from the text prior to lecture, and give them problem sets to work on ahead of time. I encourage them every day to do the work before class (the reading and exercises). And then on my evaluations I get dinged for assigning problems that the students don't know how to do, because we haven't covered them in lecture yet. THAT WAS THE POINT!

The headdesk, by the way, is not for you, but for my students.

Affirmative action was established by Executive Order 10925, which focusses on data collection. Executive Order 11246 supplanted this order (note that this order has been amended somewhat, but the link on EEOC's website seems to be dead, and I don't have the interest to find the most recent version---it is not necessary to counter your point, and if you really care, you can probably find it yourself). Again, note the emphasis on collecting data regarding existing discrimination, and the lack of any order to conduct "positive discrimination."