*Question*
As academic work is becoming arguably more precarious and competitive, shorter contracts are becoming the norm, and the number of people completing PhDs in the UK is increasing, the risks associated with researching academia are high. This post discusses and explores my experiences of being a PhD student researching women's lived experiences of research evaluation in the UK, and my thoughts on and experiences of interviewing very senior and esteemed academics as a junior researcher. My PhD study explored research evaluation in the form of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) a weighty force in UK academia the outcomes of which, I argue, hold the potential to alter the course of an academic career considerably, as well as playing a role in the type of work that some academics do, particularly given the REF impact agenda. There is currently an international trend towards research evaluation with programmes such as the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), the Performance-Based Research fund in New Zealand (PBRF), and equivalents in countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. What is clear is that there is not enough qualitative, exploratory research into the effects of research evaluation on academic careers, especially for women, and so my PhD study was born. My findings suggest that research evaluation in the UK actively contributes to the continuance of gender inequality regimes in the academy, and that the ability to negotiate managerial control and be politically savvy is increasingly important in the academic world. Before embarking on my PhD, I was acutely aware of the sensitivity of my research, as well as my own positionality with regards to my participants. Reflection is and was an important element in the research process for me, as it allowed me to reflect on the effects of the self on the research process and, ultimately, also on the data, as well as the various power dynamics discernible during interviews for my study. I was continually taken aback by participants'... What is an important part of British academia? - not enough information - REF - PBRF - ERA
**Answer**
REF

*Question*
2018 is a congressional election year in the United States, and President Donald Trump is urging his supporters to get motivated to vote as both parties prepare for November. "The people who voted for us become complacent a little bit, they are happy," Trump told supporters during a recent speech on tax reform in Cincinnati. "They sort of take it for granted, they sit back and then they get clobbered because the other people are desperate and they get out, and they have more energy." Trump predicted that Republicans will do better than expected in November when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are at stake and 34 of the 100 Senate seats. "I think because of what we've done, because of the tremendous success we've had, I have a feeling that we are going to do incredibly well in '18, and I have to say this, history is not on our side," he said. The president is right. History is not on his side. Midterms are typically unkind to the president's party, which on average loses about 30 House seats and a handful of Senate seats. The losses are worse if the president's approval rating is below 50 percent, which could be the case this year. Trump's approval rating has ticked up in recent weeks, but the average has him just above 40 percent, not a strong position with a midterm looming. "You know, you have a very unpopular president. And if Democrats take a broad path, they should win lots and lots of seats," said Jim Kessler of Third Way, a center-left advocacy and research organization. Gallup has noted historically that presidents with an approval rating above 50 percent lose an average of 14 House seats in midterms, while those below 40 percent can expect to lose about 36 seats. Democrats need to gain 24 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate to regain the majority in both chambers. Which party loses an average of about 30 House seats and a handful of Senate seats? - the president's party - not enough information - the democrat's party - the independent's party
**Answer**
the president's party

*Question*
The Department of Health and Human Services lost track of nearly 1,500 migrant children it placed with sponsors in the United States, an agency official told a Senate subcommittee Thursday. The children were taken into government care after they showed up alone at the Southwest border. Most of the children are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and were fleeing drug cartels, gang violence and domestic abuse. The agency learned the 1,475 children could not be found after making follow-up calls to check on their safety, the committee was told. The news has raised concern that the children could fall into the hands of human traffickers or be used as laborers by people posing as relatives. "You are the worst foster parents in the world. You don't even know where they are," said Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. "We are failing. I don't think there is any doubt about it. And when we fail kids, that makes me angry." Since the dramatic surge of border crossings in 2013, the federal government has placed more than 180,000 unaccompanied minors with parents or other adult sponsors who are expected to care for the children and help them attend school while they seek legal status in immigration court. An AP investigation in 2016 found that more than two dozen of those children had been sent to homes where they were sexually assaulted, starved or forced to work for little or no pay. Since then, the Department Health and Human Services has boosted outreach to at-risk children deemed to need extra protection, and last year offered post-placement services to about one-third of unaccompanied minors. But advocates say it is hard to know how many minors may be in dangerous conditions, in part because some disappear before social workers can follow up with them, and they never show up in court. Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio gave HHS and the Department of Homeland Security until Monday to deliver a time frame for improving monitoring. "These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to... Which agency placed the children with sponsors? - the agency - not enough information - the Department of Health and Human Services - the U.S. government
**Answer**
the Department of Health and Human Services

*Question*
In the cosmic scheme of things, this was relatively minor. But very annoying. I had met a woman. Actually, at 19, she was still a girl. I lived in Pittsburgh. She lived in London, Ontario. She was, to put it bluntly, hotter than hell. On top of that, she's one of the sweetest, nicest people you were ever going to meet. Needless to say, I was quite smitten, and quickly arranged to spend a week in London with her. When I showed up, she was wearing very interesting pajamas. At least for a few minutes. Unfortunately, my two cats, who had never spent a night in my home without me being there, were, less than impressed when I didn't show up by 5 PM the day I left, despite having arranged for one of my parents to come over each day to feed them and make sure they had water, etc. Playing with them was optional, but neither would show themselves during that week. Nothing looked amiss on the first floor to Mom or Dad. The food was eaten, the water, apparently drunk, etc. When I got home and went upstairs I found something quite different. There was a trail of toilette paper strewn all over the hallway. My pillow was in the bedroom door and shredded. My alarm clock was on the floor. The power cord had been pulled from the wall and chewed through. There were severaluhmmm "presents" in the middle of the bed, where they had pulled the sheets back. Some of them were still wet. I figure that trip cost me somewhere in the neighborhood of $1k to repair the damage. So I did what any 24 year old would do when faced with that situation. I cleaned up, went to bed, and went back to London a few weeks later. But I cat proofed the house first. (Yes, they still lived with me for another 12 years before passing away.) Like I said, she was wearing very interesting pajamas when I got to London. At least for a few minutes. why was the girl so attractive to the man? - not enough information - she's got a great personality - she's got a great smile - she's got a great body
**Answer**
not enough information