Individual Program Evaluation Form Evaluation Completed By: Fill & Download for Free

A few things come to mind.Firstly, some very intelligent people simply cannot complete a Ph.D program. It’s a generally accepted truism in academia that highly intelligent individuals often do not develop the kind of zealous study habits necessary to get a doctorate because, too early in life, they learn that their intelligence enables them to cut corners and still get good grades; this is not often a transferable skill at the doctoral level! Less highly intelligent individuals (“dull plodders”) learn diligence early on, and they’re prepared for the challenges of a doctoral program.Secondly - at least for humanities majors - job prospects aren’t good, even in your field. If you go far enough, you can probably get enough recommendations to move into the poorly paid, unstable, and frequently healthcare-less world of community college instruction; or, you can look for positions where you can find them - and, being at the bottom of the rung, you will find them in challenging, potentially detrimental locales like, say, a small state school in rural Kansas. If you really strike out in search of a tenure track position, you will have to move around. Often. To places in which you will not wish to remain.Thirdly, NASTINESS. Besides low-paying concession jobs held during my teen years, I’ve only worked in academia and social/human services. The latter has more than its share of problems, granted, but on the whole, they are transcended by a level of sleaze and cruelty so pervasive in academia that it boggles the mind how the whole “ivory tower” stereotype even got started. Highly intelligent and talented people are always the targets of abuse, and colleagues with mediocre intellects and enormous pretensions, spurred on by their own deep-seated invidiousness, are always the perpetrators. Graduate students are eager to get ahead, and accustomed to subservience to authority - people you thought were your friends will do a complete about-face if they realize that the supervising professor hates you, IMO, this particular aspect really distinguishes workplace conflict in academia from that in social/human services - it’s quite rare in the latter, depressingly common in the former - in fact, social/human service worker teams tend to pull together and form a wagon circle in the face of abusive or incompetent management. Some people have the temperament and stamina to face such office-politics type challenges head-on on a more or less continual basis, many don’t.Fourthly, some people dislike or are very bad at teaching. If you’re a humanities major in a post-graduate program, unless you are one of a handful of very lucky ones, you have to teach. You will receive student evaluations, which will be bad if you are. Your advisor and department chair will read them; if you suck, it’s common knowledge.Finally, they’re just simply drawn to other opportunities. If you’ve got an advanced degree in computer science, for example, the world is your oyster - why put up with a substandard academic job with onerous teaching duties and dangerous, craptastic colleagues when you can work anywhere you want?That’s all for now!

Don’t listen to these other guys. Their answers are naive and assume that you (or the people who will be compiling your code) are using a particular implementation of C (case in point, their answers are all inconsistent). The actual answer is that there is no answer. The specification leaves this ambiguous on purpose, as it does with many things that you really shouldn’t be doing regardless of whether it’s defined or not. This type of grey area is called undefined behavior, and it is the source of many memory-related bugs (I’m sure you are all-too-familiar with the words “Segmentation Fault”).Specifically, this is a form of undefined behavior involving sequence points. Sequence points are essentially the things that divide “units of work” unambiguously. I.e. the semicolon/brackets separating two statements (foo(); foo2(); — 1 seq point divides 2 expression-statements), a logical operator (A && B || C — 2 seq points, 3 units) or comma operator (q = ((a *= b), d*a + c*a) — the comma forms a sequence point separating assignment of ‘a’ on the left side from its use on the right side) forming a compound expression-statement, etc.What all that means is that the specification doesn’t require any implementation to evaluate a + a++ in any particular order. A is being modified and used twice within the same sequence point. That means you cannot predict what the answer will be across implementations. Some implementations will come up with 11, having applied and completed the post-increment before applying the binary addition, while others will come up with 10, effectively discarding the post-increment, some will even come up with 12, having created an artificial sequence point on a++ and evaluating it first. On top of that, it’s difficult to suss out what your intent is anyway. Did you intend 5+6 or 5+5?Edit: Based on some discussions I’ve had on other answers to this question, I think it would be a good idea to elaborate a little more on how undefined behavior factors into this.As a rule of thumb, a variable can only be read/written once per sequence point, and when it’s written, the written value becomes the value of the expression, which can also be read (hence why “b=++a” is perfectly fine). var++ is a special case here in that the value of the expression is the value of var before being assigned its new value. That said, if after being written to, the same variable then is read/written again before the next sequence point, the behavior is undefined. Also keep in mind that reading a variable is not the same thing as reading the value of an expression, so I’ll refer to them as explicit read and implicit read, respectively. You can have a write with an implicit read, and you can have as many implicit/explicit reads as you want, but you cannot mix a write and an explicit read or another write.So let’s take a look at a couple expressions, assuming a = 5. To try to keep it simple, we’ll only focus on the part after “b = “. Hopefully, this makes sense.Example 1: write + implicit readb = a++; // b = 5 // a++ | 1x[write] [OK] // ^^ // a++ | 1x[implicit read] [OK] // ^^^ This is well-defined because b and a are read/written exactly once. First, a is written to with the value (a + 1), and then the value of the expression, (a), is written to b.Example 2: read + readb = (a + 1) * (a + 2); // b = 42 // a + 1, a + 2 | 2x[explicit read] [OK] // ^ ^ // (a + 1), (a + 2) | 2x[implicit read] [OK] // ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ This, too, is well-defined, as a is only read here. Its value is never modified, and hence its value is never ambiguous. I wanted to make this clear because the way I wrote the last revision made it look like something like this would be invalid.Example 3: write + explicit readb = a + a++; // undefined // a++ | 1x[write] [OK] // ^^ // a++ | 1x[implicit read] [OK] // ^^^ // a + ... | 1x[explicit read] [!]: write + explicit read // ^ This, on the other hand, is undefined, because a is written and then explicitly read in the same sequence point. It’s written to via the postfix ++ operator, and then read when the value of a + a++ needs to be computed (remember: after writing to a variable, you can’t perform any more read/write actions on it until the next sequence point). Because we’ve invoked UB, nothing can be guaranteed. The program has ceased to have meaning.Example 4: write + writeb = a++ + a++; // undefined // a++ | 2x[write] [!]: 2x write // ^^ // a++ | 2x[implicit read] [OK] // ^^^ I don’t think anybody’s disputing that this is completely wrong. But I wanted to have an example of a write + write to have all the bases covered.Example 5: write + write, but with different variablesb = a++ + c++; // b = 10 (if c = 5). This is fine. Although there’s a write+write happening here, a and c refer to different variables, so my rules of thumb don’t apply here. Although if you’re writing C++ and c is a reference to a, there may be a problem since modifying c would also modify a. We’re talking about C, though, so references are irrelevant.Example 6: write + explicit read, but with different sequence pointsb = (a++, a + 1); // b = 7 This is also fine. The comma forms a sequence point, so the side effects and evaluation of a++ have a chance to happen before a + 1 is evaluated (see: comma operator).NB: “undefined” here is essentially the standard saying “compilers: you can do anything you want here”. So undefined could be 10, or 11, or 12, or -2147483648, or the compiler could throw a warning, or demons could just start inexplicably flying out of your nose. Any of it is fair game according to ISO/ANSI C.Need proof? Let’s consult my standards-compliant C compiler:code:$ cat seqpoint.c int main(void) {  int a,b;   a = 5;  b = a + a++;   return b; } compile output:$ gcc -Wall -pedantic seqpoint.c seqpoint.c: In function ‘main’: seqpoint.c:7:14: warning: operation on ‘a’ may be undefined [-Wsequence-point]  b = a + a++;  ~^~ Listen to your compile warnings!Long story short, don’t do that. Even if you tested it in every compiler you’re aware of, and are sure it works, you’re still playing with fire. Figure out what your intent is (a + a // a + (a + 1) // (a + 1) + (a + 1)) and spell it out unambiguously (2 * a // 2 * a + 1 // 2 * (a + 1)). Your future self and collaborators will be glad you did it.You can read more about sequence points and undefined behavior in this StackOverflow answer. It’s about C++, but C++ borrows a lot of semantics from C, including UB and seq points, so although I cannot stress enough that C and C++ are not the same thing, this time it’s close enough.Some points of interest:“the order of evaluation of operands of individual operators and subexpressions of individual expressions, and the order in which side effects take place, is unspecified”This means that there is no guarantee in what order the respective modification of b’s and a’s values will happen in, as they are both side effects. In programming, the more side effects there are, the more difficult it is to reason about state. I.e. the more you can reduce side effects, the more predictable (and less bug-prone) your program will become. This is desirable, and is one of the core principles of functional programming, which I suggest you look up if you haven’t already.“Between the previous and next sequence point a scalar object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression.”Here’s the nasal demon. What this means: if you modify a variable’s value more than once between two sequence points, the behavior is undefined. Here, this isn’t exactly happening, but an expression like “a + a++” is still playing with fire due to the previous point, and the fact that it can easily lead you into modifying a variable twice in one expression, and also, it’s just ugly. “2*a + 1” is far more clear than “a + a++”.The post-increment operator is actually kind of an oddball. It’s the only assignment expression in which the returned value differs from the side-effect value. This is different from, say, b = (++a - 1) and b = ((a += 1) - 1), which behave identically. In fact, the only time I ever use x++ is when I’m using an array as a stack.*myarray++ = foo; bar = *--myarray; Any other time I need an increment or decrement, I just use the prefix operator.for(int i = 0; i < some_limit; ++i) … ++some_number; 

Q. Can America sentence young non-violent people to military basic training and advanced skilled training instead of a prison sentence?A. Correctional boot camps were the rage in the US in the 1980’s and 1990′s. Meta-analysis conclusively showed no improvement in recidivism, or cost savings. Two papers included were reviews of US experience (vengeful justice) as models/cautionary tales for Australia and the United Kingdom.Correctional boot camps (United Kingdom)What is the focus of the intervention?Boot camps are programmes for juvenile or adult offenders as an alternative to punishments such as prison or probation. They are modelled on military boot camps and involve activities such as drills, ceremony and physical training. Strict daily schedules are followed, and punishments for misbehaviour often involve physical activities like push-ups.Programmes differ based on content and delivery of physical and therapeutic aspects, which could include education, substance abuse treatment and improvement of cognitive skills.This narrative summarises the findings of three systematic reviews. Review 1 was based on 32 studies, Review 2 was based on 44 studies and Review 3 was based on 16 studies.The conclusions on effect size are taken from Review 1 only.All boot camp studies included in the reviews were conducted in the USA.EFFECTHow effective is it?There is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime.In Review 1, while individual studies found both statistically significant positive and negative effects on crime, the overall analysis showed that boot camps had no overall effect on rates of re-offending by participants. This result was consistent across all three reviews.How strong is the evidence?The overall evidence is taken from Review 1 (based on a meta-analysis of 32 studies).The review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions can be ruled out.It had a well-designed search strategy, included unpublished literature and risks of bias by the reviewers were minimised.However, biases remain within the primary studies, including the difficulties of comparing boot camps to one another due to differences in treatments, the use of different outcome measures by researchers, and the problem of drop-out rates and how to take these into consideration when calculating effect sizes.MECHANISMHow does it work?The authors of Review 2 provided the most comprehensive attempt at explaining how boot camps work to reduce reoffending.By ensuring strict discipline and demanding physical exercise and labour, participants are encouraged to behave respectfully and obediently, hopefully making them more likely to comply with rules or laws upon programme completion.Adherence to daily routines and interactions with camp staff should teach participants skills to help them control their behaviour.Prosocial behaviours such as respect are also taught and practiced, with close supervision allowing positive behaviours to be reinforced and negative behaviours punished immediately.Review 3 also mentioned increasing self-esteem and promoting physical fitness as life skills.MODERATORSIn which contexts does it work best?The reviews noted a number of potential moderators, including offender characteristics (age and gender), programme characteristics (focus on rehabilitative or physical elements), treatments (drug treatment, vocational education and aftercare components), whether the programme was voluntary or mandated, and the presence of counselling sessions as part of the programme.None of the three reviews explained why or how these contextual differences might influence the outcome.Review 1 found that participants in boot camps with a strong therapeutic component including treatments such as education, drug treatment and counselling had lower rates of reoffending than those in camps with a stronger focus on physical elements.They also found that juvenile boot camps without a counselling component had a statistically significant negative effect upon re-offending rates of participants.Review 2 found that participants in voluntary boot camps had reduced rates of recidivism compared to mandatory boot camps. Review 2 also discovered that voluntary boot camps for young people significantly reduced the participants’ odds of recidivism (based on only 3 primary studies).While no moderator analysis was conducted on race, review 3 noted that up to 80% of boot camp participants were ethnic minority youths, despite boot camps being originally designed for white, working class participants.IMPLEMENTATIONWhat can be said about implementing this initiative?Boot camps are structured programmes, which generally last between 90 and 180 days.There is a graduation ceremony attended by family and friends for those who successfully complete the programme.Participants are housed in dormitories resembling military barracks, are placed in squads or platoons, and wear uniforms. Programme staff function as drill instructors and are often addressed by military titles. Punishment for misbehaviour is immediate, and usually takes the form of physical activities such as push ups.All three reviews note that studies evaluating boot camps with a strong therapeutic element seemed to have a higher chance of a successful outcome than those with a weaker or no therapeutic focus. Review 3 noted that programmes vary widely in the application and duration of therapeutic elements. Review 2 suggested that aftercare services with therapeutic content are important, and therefore, should not be short term in duration.ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSHow much might it cost?While none of the reviews conducted a full cost benefit analysis, some mention of costs was reported in the primary studies.Review 2 cited one study, which found that in 1997, the cost per boot camp participant was $31,752 less per year in California, compared to the cost of incarceration. Another study reported a similar comparison and found that in 2001 boot camps were $78,700 cheaper than prison per participant per year. Review 3 stated that the Alabama boot camp cost a total of between $779,229 and $1,676,880 less than participants being in prison. Three studies within Review 3 found that boot camps were cheaper than prison, while four studies found no difference.General considerations• Boot camps differ substantially in content – some camps focus on physical training and hard labour, while others emphasise delivering therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills.• Boot camps with an evidence-based therapeutic focus see the largest reductions in recidivism amongst participants.SummaryThere is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime. Those boot camps that have seen the greatest reduction in participant recidivism, especially with juvenile populations, have focused upon therapeutic elements within the programmes.Ratings for Individual ReviewsResourcesReview 1: Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L., Mitchell, F.N. (2003) 'Effects of correctional boot camps on offending' Campbell Systematic Reviews 2003:1, DOI:10.4073/ csr.2003.1Review 2: Meade, B. and Steiner, B. (2010) 'The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence', Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841-853Review 3: Riphagen, R. C. (2010) 'Effectiveness of Male Juvenile Boot Camps in the United States: A Critical Review of the Literature', Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University.Uploaded 04/06/15Boot camps a poor fit for juvenile justice (Australia)October 24, 2012 2.36pm AEDT Robyn Lincoln Assistant Professor, Criminology, Bond UniversityQueensland unveils tenders for two new boot camp programs for young offenders.The Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, has authorised a tender process for the operation of two youth boot camps. The camps, aimed at 13 to 17 year olds, are to be trialled in Cairns and on the Gold Coast for a two-year period. The camp in the north of the state is an intensive diversion program for “sentenced” juveniles, while that in the south-east corner is an early intervention scheme for “at risk” youth.As with all matters of justice, Queensland is not alone in proffering boot camps as the “answer to youth crime”. The Brumby Government proposed school-based camps for Victoria in 2010, and both the Northern Territory and Western Australia have flirted with such programs as early as the 1980s.In the wake of calls for the operation of boot camps to solve problems of youth crime, it is instructive to examine what they are, what inspires them and what the research evidence reveals about their outcomes.The shape and size of boot campsThere was a proliferation of boot camps in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s, where millions of dollars were diverted to their operations.They come under the guise of wilderness, bush, work, motivational and challenge camps. Some are attached to schools or prisons and many are geared toward adult offenders, but a significant proportion are aimed at “recalcitrant youth”, some set up specifically for females.While the camp programs vary, the common features of these residential programs are that they are established on militaristic lines with an emphasis on deference to authority, conformity, intimidation, isolation, and concentrated physical training.The tender documents for the proposed Queensland camps appear no different. The program intends to instill “discipline and respect”, ensures “direct consequences for offending” and entails considerable “supervision”.Moral foundationsThe very concept of a boot camp is based on the notion of individual responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour. It is about failure of parents or families and ultimately of the young people who find themselves in trouble with the law.The principles revolve around shock treatment, power and control, and disciplinarian techniques. To that end they exemplify the “get tough” politicisation of crime, a misplaced view that we have the capacity to correctly identify threat and risk. A misguided belief in the effectiveness of the punitive approaches of past centuries.This is what has been labelled by some as “vengeance justice”. For even though these programs purport to “address the causes of crime”, they are mean-spirited and sheet the blame for crime solely at the individual level.Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie addresses the press. AAP/Dave HuntEvaluating boot campsDuring the 1990s in particular and in the USA specifically, a number of studies were conducted into the effectiveness of boot camps. Similar evidence emerged from the UK about a range of “short sharp shock” treatment regimes.All of this empirical work shows quite clearly that there is no benefit to boot camps. Whether the measures are re-offending rates or whether it is centred around cost-effectiveness — there is little to show that boot camps offer a beneficial alternative.Of course given the variety of boot camp philosophies and the practices of their daily regimes some caution needs to be exercised about the research evidence. In addition, trying to conduct any truly robust research is difficult and rarely are quasi-experimental designs used (that is, random allocation of youth to boot camp versus a range of other interventions that are then followed up in the long term).Yet even in studies where there were some differences in outcomes, they were marginal or negligible and could often be sheeted home to the backgrounds of the offenders (age, sex, previous convictions) rather than any militaristic-style intervention they had undergone.Of most significance is that some studies showed that there was potential for greater effectiveness when the boot camp included some kind of “treatment” option which flies in the face of the fundamental philosophy of such camps.In the last decade more sophisticated research has emerged including meta-analyses of multiples studies. However the findings remain, that there were no significant differences on re-offending measures between those who attend a correctional boot camp and those who did not.Even when the “softer” style of boot camps were evaluated there were no differences on recidivism. Similarly studies that have undertaken longer term follow-ups show no benefit. In research where a cost-saving has been identified this was only because offenders spent slightly less time in prison. Finally, one evaluation of a school-based camp again found no differences on re-offending but participants displayed “favourable” views of the program.Does the boot fit?Thus several decades of evaluations of boot camps has demonstrated quite conclusively that they are not effective in reducing recidivism and have marginal impact on cost-savings.The problem with these “shock and awe” tactics is that they are centred around individual responsibility. This shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the “causes” of crime — demographic changes, deployment of police, reform to criminal codes, urban design, extended surveillance, tougher supervision orders.Most of all it signals a vengeful justice system. Let’s face it, boot camps are founded on fear and terror.Return to the Crime Reduction ToolkitJuvenile Boot Campshttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdfConclusions: Correctional practitioners and planners might learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:■ Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s individual program and reentry plans may improve the likelihood he or she will not commit a new offense.■ Programs that offered substantial discounts in time served to those who completed boot camps and that chose candidates sentenced to serve longer terms were the most successful in reducing prison populations.■ Chances of reducing recidivism increased when boot camp programs lasted longer and offered more intensive treatment and post release supervision, activities that may conflict with the goal of reducing population. Efforts to achieve multiple goals are likely the overall cause of boot camps’ conflicting results.Program designers are urged to determine which options are best for their jurisdictions; for example, they may consider whether to implement more treatment programs or move inmates out of the system more rapidly. These decisions affect costs, as prison bed-space savings go up or down. Other correctional programs are adopting some of the important elements of boot camps—for example, carefully structured programs that reduce idleness—to increase safety and improve conditions of confinement for younger offenders.20 However, in recent years, some jurisdictions facing rising costs have responded by cutting programs.One lesson for policymakers from 10 years of boot camp research is that curtailing programs may lead to increased violence, misconduct, and serious management problems.Boot Camp Justice for Juvenile OffendersAfter the crime rate for those under the age of 17 doubled in a five year period, Camp Stop, a military-style boot camp, was opened. This program aims to deal with juvenile offenders and steer them away from a life of crime. Fourteen-year-old Norton G. explains why he was incarcerated. Sgt. Major Richard Hurt believes boot camp can make a positive difference in kids’ lives. While life is harsh at Camp Stop, it cannot compare with life in Georgia prisons in the 1930s. Scenes from the movie I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, based on a book about Georgia prisons, show how the mistreatment of prisoners led to prison reforms.Criminal Justice and the Juvenilehttp://file:///C:/Users/RAD/Downloads/1978-6398-2-PB%20(1).pdfhttps://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FCJEI/Programs/SLP/Documents/Full-Text/Bobbitt-thomas-paper.aspx