[Mick]

My takeaways from skimming the report:

• I'm surprised how narrow the margins are between the top- and bottom-rated schools. For example, abortion is the topic most reported as difficult to discuss, but the difference is 54% at the top schools versus 49% at the bottom schools. Almost every difficult-to-discuss topic is a single digit difference in reported percentages.
  
• the situation on campuses sound pretty much the same as when I was in college in the 1980's.
  
• the main difference nowadays is social media. I said a lot of stupid stuff and made mistakes when I was young of which I'm glad there's no permanent record.
  
• rank the schools from best to worst if you want, but assigning one school a score of 0.00 is silly attention whoring. It reminds me of the Directors Cup adjusting the rules to get the result they wanted.
  

It's been a bit since I've read the report, but I seem to recall that Harvard actually scored in negative numbers, something like -10.89 due to three of the professors contending that they'd been de facto censored and reprimanded, and that Harvard's score was artificially raised to 0.00 because they would have otherwise been below the scale.  I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Mick]

My takeaways from skimming the report:

• I'm surprised how narrow the margins are between the top- and bottom-rated schools. For example, abortion is the topic most reported as difficult to discuss, but the difference is 54% at the top schools versus 49% at the bottom schools. Almost every difficult-to-discuss topic is a single digit difference in reported percentages.
  
• the situation on campuses sound pretty much the same as when I was in college in the 1980's.
  
• the main difference nowadays is social media. I said a lot of stupid stuff and made mistakes when I was young of which I'm glad there's no permanent record.
  
• rank the schools from best to worst if you want, but assigning one school a score of 0.00 is silly attention whoring. It reminds me of the Directors Cup adjusting the rules to get the result they wanted.
  

It's been a bit since I've read the report, but I seem to recall that Harvard actually scored in negative numbers, something like -10.89 due to three of the professors contending that they'd been de facto censored and reprimanded, and that Harvard's score was artificially raised to 0.00 because they would have otherwise been below the scale.  I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to look it up.