Tuesday, 26 January 2016

The Amazing Significo: why researchers need to understand poker

©www.savagechickens.com
Suppose I tell you that I know of a magician, The Amazing Significo, with extraordinary powers. He can undertake to deal you a five-card poker hand which has three cards with the same number.

You open a fresh pack of cards, shuffle the pack and watch him carefully. The Amazing Significo deals you five cards and you find that you do indeed have three of a kind.

According to Wikipedia, the chance of this happening by chance when dealing from an unbiased deck of cards is around 2 per cent - so you are likely to be impressed. You may go public to endorse The Amazing Significo's claim to have supernatural abilities.

But then I tell you that The Amazing Significo has actually dealt five cards to 49 other people that morning, and you are the first one to get three of a kind. Your excitement immediately evaporates: in the context of all the hands he dealt, your result is unsurprising.

Let's take it a step further and suppose that The Amazing Significo was less precise: he just promised to give you a good poker hand without specifying the kind of cards you would  get. You regard your hand as evidence of his powers, but you would have been equally happy with two pairs, a flush, or a full house. The probability of getting any one of those good hands goes up to 7 per cent, so in his sample of 50 people, we'd expect three or four to be very happy with his performance.

So context is everything. If The Amazing Significo had dealt a hand to just one person and got a three-of-a-kind hand, that would indeed be amazing. If he had dealt hands to 50 people, and predicted in advance which of them would get a good hand, that would also be amazing. But if he dealt hands to 50 people and just claimed that one or two of them would get a good hand without prespecifying which ones it would be - well, he'd be rightly booed off the stage.

When researchers work with probabilities, they tend to see p-values as measures of the size and importance of a finding. However, as The Amazing Significo demonstrates, p-values can only be interpreted in the context of a whole experiment: unless you know about all the comparisons that have been made (corresponding to all the people who were dealt a hand) they are highly misleading.

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the phenomenon of p-hacking - selecting experimental data after doing the statistics to ensure a p-value below the conventional cutoff of .05. It is recognised as one reason for poor reproducibility of scientific findings, and it can take many forms.

I've become interested in one kind of p-hacking, use of what we term 'ghost variables' - variables that are included in a study but not reported unless they give a significant result. In a recent paper (preprint available here), Paul Thompson and I simulated the situation when a researcher has a set of dependent variables, but reports only those with p-values below .05. This would be like The Amazing Significo making a film of his performances in which he cut out all the cases where he dealt a poor hand**. It is easy to get impressive results if you are selective about what you tell people. If you have two groups of people who are equivalent to one another, and you compare them on just one variable, then the chance that you will get a spurious 'significant' difference (p < .05)  is 1 in 20. But with eight variables, the chance of a false positive 'significant' difference on any one variable is 1-.95^8, i.e. 1 in 3. (If variables are correlated these figures change: see our paper for more details).

Quite simply p-values are only interpretable if you have the full context: if you pull out the 'significant' variables and pretend you did not test the others, you will be fooling yourself - and other people - by mistaking chance fluctuations for genuine effects. As we showed with our simulations, it can be extremely difficult to detect this kind of p-hacking, even using statistical methods such as p-curve analysis, which were designed for this purpose. This is why it is so important to either specify statistical tests in advance (akin to predicting which people will get three of a kind), or else adjust p-values for the number of comparisons in exploratory studies*.

Unfortunately, there are many trained scientists who just don't understand this. They see a 'significant' p-value in a set of data and think it has to be meaningful. Anyone who suggests that they need to correct p-values to take into account the number of statistical tests - be they correlations in a correlation matrix, coefficients in a regression equation, or factors and interactions in Analysis of Variance, is seen as a pedantic killjoy (see also Cramer et al, 2015). The p-value is seen as a property of the variable it is attached to, and the idea that it might change completely if the experiment were repeated is hard for them to grasp.

This mass delusion can even extend to journal editors, as was illustrated recently by the COMPare project, the brainchild of Ben Goldacre and colleagues. This involves checking whether the variables reported in medical studies correspond to the ones that the researchers had specified before the study was done and informing journal editors when this was not the case. There's a great account of the project by Tom Chivers in this Buzzfeed article, which I'll let you read for yourself. The bottom line is that the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine appear to be people who would be unduly impressed by The Amazing Significo because they don't understand what Geoff Cumming has called 'the dance of the p-values'.



*I am ignoring Bayesian approaches here, which no doubt will annoy the Bayesians


**PS.27th Jan 2016.  Marcus Munafo has drawn my attention to a film by Derren Brown called 'the System' which pretty much did exactly this! http://www.secrets-explained.com/derren-brown/the-system

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Bishopblog catalogue (updated 17 Jan 2016)

Source: http://www.weblogcartoons.com/2008/11/23/ideas/

Those of you who follow this blog may have noticed a lack of thematic coherence. I write about whatever is exercising my mind at the time, which can range from technical aspects of statistics to the design of bathroom taps. I decided it might be helpful to introduce a bit of order into this chaotic melange, so here is a catalogue of posts by topic.

Language impairment, dyslexia and related disorders
The common childhood disorders that have been left out in the cold (1 Dec 2010) What's in a name? (18 Dec 2010) Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010) Where commercial and clinical interests collide: Auditory processing disorder (6 Mar 2011) Auditory processing disorder (30 Mar 2011) Special educational needs: will they be met by the Green paper proposals? (9 Apr 2011) Is poor parenting really to blame for children's school problems? (3 Jun 2011) Early intervention: what's not to like? (1 Sep 2011) Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011) A message to the world (31 Oct 2011) Vitamins, genes and language (13 Nov 2011) Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012) Phonics screening: sense and sensibility (3 Apr 2012) What Chomsky doesn't get about child language (3 Sept 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012) Auditory processing disorder: schisms and skirmishes (27 Oct 2012) High-impact journals (Action video games and dyslexia: critique) (10 Mar 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013) Raising awareness of language learning impairments (26 Sep 2013) Good and bad news on the phonics screen (5 Oct 2013) What is educational neuroscience? (25 Jan 2014) Parent talk and child language (17 Feb 2014) My thoughts on the dyslexia debate (20 Mar 2014) Labels for unexplained language difficulties in children (23 Aug 2014) International reading comparisons: Is England really do so poorly? (14 Sep 2014) Our early assessments of schoolchildren are misleading and damaging (4 May 2015) Opportunity cost: a new red flag for evaluating interventions (30 Aug 2015)

Autism
Autism diagnosis in cultural context (16 May 2011) Are our ‘gold standard’ autism diagnostic instruments fit for purpose? (30 May 2011) How common is autism? (7 Jun 2011) Autism and hypersystematising parents (21 Jun 2011) An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011) Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011) Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012) The ‘autism epidemic’ and diagnostic substitution (4 Jun 2012) How wishful thinking is damaging Peta's cause (9 June 2014)

Developmental disorders/paediatrics
The hidden cost of neglected tropical diseases (25 Nov 2010) The National Children's Study: a view from across the pond (25 Jun 2011) The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014)

Genetics
Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from? (9 Sep 2010) Genes for optimism, dyslexia and obesity and other mythical beasts (10 Sep 2010) The X and Y of sex differences (11 May 2011) Review of How Genes Influence Behaviour (5 Jun 2011) Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Genes, brains and lateralisation (22 Dec 2012) Genetic variation and neuroimaging (11 Jan 2013) Have we become slower and dumber? (15 May 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013)

Neuroscience
Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010) Brain scans show that… (11 Jun 2011)  Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012) Neuronal migration in language learning impairments (2 May 2012) Sharing of MRI datasets (6 May 2012) Genetic variation and neuroimaging (1 Jan 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013) What is educational neuroscience? ( 25 Jan 2014) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014)

Statistics
Book review: biography of Richard Doll (5 Jun 2010) Book review: the Invisible Gorilla (30 Jun 2010) The difference between p < .05 and a screening test (23 Jul 2010) Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010) A short nerdy post about the use of percentiles (13 Apr 2011) The joys of inventing data (5 Oct 2011) Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Causal models of developmental disorders: the perils of correlational data (24 Jun 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012)Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (1 Nov 2012) Flaky chocolate and the New England Journal of Medicine (13 Nov 2012) Interpreting unexpected significant results (7 June 2013) Data analysis: Ten tips I wish I'd known earlier (18 Apr 2014) Data sharing: exciting but scary (26 May 2014) Percentages, quasi-statistics and bad arguments (21 July 2014)

Journalism/science communication
Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010) Journalists and the 'scientific breakthrough' (13 Jun 2010) Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010) Orwellian prize for journalistic misrepresentation: an update (29 Jan 2011) Academic publishing: why isn't psychology like physics? (26 Feb 2011) Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011) Accentuate the negative (26 Oct 2011) Publishers, psychological tests and greed (30 Dec 2011) Time for academics to withdraw free labour (7 Jan 2012) Novelty, interest and replicability (19 Jan 2012) 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012) Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012) Communicating science in the age of the internet (13 Jul 2012) How to bury your academic writing (26 Aug 2012) High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013) Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) A short rant about numbered journal references (5 Apr 2013) Schizophrenia and child abuse in the media (26 May 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013) On the need for responsible reporting of research (10 Oct 2013) A New Year's letter to academic publishers (4 Jan 2014) Will Elsevier say sorry? (21 Mar 2015) How long does a scientific paper need to be? (20 Apr 2015) Will traditional science journals disappear? (17 May 2015) My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals (7 Jun 2015) Publishing replication failures (11 Jul 2015) Psychology research: hopeless case or pioneering field? (28 Aug 2015) Who's afraid of open data? (15 Nov 2015) Open code: note just data and publications (6 Dec 2015)

Social Media
A gentle introduction to Twitter for the apprehensive academic (14 Jun 2011) Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011) Will I still be tweeting in 2013? (2 Jan 2012) Blogging in the service of science (10 Mar 2012) Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) The impact of blogging on reputation ( 27 Dec 2013) WeSpeechies: A meeting point on Twitter (12 Apr 2014)

Academic life
An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010) How our current reward structures have distorted and damaged science (6 Aug 2010) The challenge for science: speech by Colin Blakemore (14 Oct 2010) When ethics regulations have unethical consequences (14 Dec 2010) A day working from home (23 Dec 2010) Should we ration research grant applications? (8 Jan 2011) The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011) The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011) Should we ever fight lies with lies? (19 Jun 2011) How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011) So you want to be a research assistant? (25 Aug 2011) NHS research ethics procedures: a modern-day Circumlocution Office (18 Dec 2011) The REF: a monster that sucks time and money from academic institutions (20 Mar 2012) The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012) Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012) Journal impact factors and REF2014 (19 Jan 2013)  An alternative to REF2014 (26 Jan 2013) Postgraduate education: time for a rethink (9 Feb 2013) High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013) Ten things that can sink a grant proposal (19 Mar 2013)Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) The academic backlog (9 May 2013) Research fraud: More scrutiny by administrators is not the answer (17 Jun 2013) Discussion meeting vs conference: in praise of slower science (21 Jun 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013) Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate (12 Sep 2013) High time to revise the PhD thesis format (9 Oct 2013) The Matthew effect and REF2014 (15 Oct 2013) Pressures against cumulative research (9 Jan 2014) Why does so much research go unpublished? (12 Jan 2014) The University as big business: the case of King's College London (18 June 2014) Should vice-chancellors earn more than the prime minister? (12 July 2014) Replication and reputation: Whose career matters? (29 Aug 2014) Some thoughts on use of metrics in university research assessment (12 Oct 2014) Tuition fees must be high on the agenda before the next election (22 Oct 2014) Blaming universities for our nation's woes (24 Oct 2014) Staff satisfaction is as important as student satisfaction (13 Nov 2014) Metricophobia among academics (28 Nov 2014) Why evaluating scientists by grant income is stupid (8 Dec 2014) Dividing up the pie in relation to REF2014 (18 Dec 2014) Journals without editors: What is going on? (1 Feb 2015) Editors behaving badly? (24 Feb 2015) Shaky foundations of the TEF (7 Dec 2015) A lamentable performance by Jo Johnson (12 Dec 2015) More misrepresentation in the Green Paper (17 Dec 2015) The Green Paper’s level playing field risks becoming a morass (24 Dec 2015) NSS and teaching excellence: wrong measure, wrongly analysed (4 Jan 2016)  

Celebrity scientists/quackery
Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010) What does it take to become a Fellow of the RSM? (24 Jul 2011) An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011) Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011) How to become a celebrity scientific expert (12 Sep 2011) The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011)  The weird world of US ethics regulation (25 Nov 2011) Pioneering treatment or quackery? How to decide (4 Dec 2011) Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012) Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012) Why most scientists don't take Susan Greenfield seriously (26 Sept 2014)

Women
Academic mobbing in cyberspace (30 May 2010) What works for women: some useful links (12 Jan 2011) The burqua ban: what's a liberal response (21 Apr 2011) C'mon sisters! Speak out! (28 Mar 2012) Psychology: where are all the men? (5 Nov 2012) Should Rennard be reinstated? (1 June 2014) How the media spun the Tim Hunt story (24 Jun 2015)

Politics and Religion
Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011) A letter to Nick Clegg from an ex liberal democrat (11 Mar 2012) BBC's 'extensive coverage' of the NHS bill (9 Apr 2012) Schoolgirls' health put at risk by Catholic view on vaccination (30 Jun 2012) A letter to Boris Johnson (30 Nov 2013) How the government spins a crisis (floods) (1 Jan 2014)

Humour and miscellaneous Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010) An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010) Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010) Parasites, pangolins and peer review (26 Nov 2010) A day working from home (23 Dec 2010) The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011) The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011) Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011) How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011) Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011) 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012) The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012) Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012) The bewildering bathroom challenge (19 Jul 2012) Are Starbucks hiding their profits on the planet Vulcan? (15 Nov 2012) Forget the Tower of Hanoi (11 Apr 2013) How do you communicate with a communications company? ( 30 Mar 2014) Noah: A film review from 32,000 ft (28 July 2014) The rationalist spa (11 Sep 2015)

Thursday, 24 December 2015

The Green Paper’s level playing field risks becoming a morass

© Cartoonstock


The Green Paper Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice is a consultation document by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) that sets out plans for a radical shake-up of English universities. One of its many goals is to encourage ‘alternative providers’, aka private higher education institutions (HEIs), into the system.
The rationale behind this move has four elements:
Widening access: The need to widen access to higher education is a central plank of the Green Paper. New providers are seen as part of this: they “can offer programmes that are attractive to hard-to-reach communities and to groups of people that are not currently well-served.”
Equipping students for the world of work:  As I have argued elsewhere, the Green Paper is rather disingenuous in creating the impression that businesses are unhappy with the quality of university graduates.  Nevertheless, there is a shortage of STEM graduates and there is scope for different approaches, one of which is the ‘Degree Apprenticeship’, announced by BIS in March 2015, where the student “will be employed throughout and so have the opportunity to develop employability skills that employers value.” One can see that these apprenticeships would be appealing to those on a low income (and to many others as well!) as the cost of course fees is shared between government and employers.
Competition: For a conservative government, competition is a key driver for improving the world. We are told that: “Widening the range of high quality higher education providers stimulates competition and innovation, increases choice for students, and can help to deliver better value for money.”
Fairness:  Since students are now paying full fees, it seems unfair to allow traditional universities to have a monopoly on the higher education market. According to the Green Paper:  More providers entered the sector in the last five years than at any time since the last major expansion in 1992, but it’s still too difficult to set up a new institution. We want to see a level playing field for all providers and a faster route to becoming a university.”  
I knew very little about the “alternative providers” that BIS is so keen to encourage, so I had a dig around on the internet. I found a HEFCE Register of Providers but this contained only 12 institutions with degree-awarding powers, and it did not have historical data. I also wondered about accuracy, as the register did not include the New College of the Humanities*. It did include an assortment of religious institutions (e.g., Assemblies of God Incorporated, Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance, Salvation Army) and those offering training in various therapies (British School of Osteopathy, the College of Integrated Chinese Medicine), but of these only the British School of Osteopathy was a recognised HEI with degree-awarding powers. An email to HEFCE confirmed that the register was set up only in 2014. They gave me a contact for the department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), but an email to them requesting a source for the claim “More providers entered the sector in the last five years than at any time since the last major expansion in 1992” has so far not elicited a response.
Further digging around established that in January 2015, plans were announced to form an Independent Universities Group (IUG) representing private institutions with degree-awarding powers or university title. The goal was to establish a kind of “Russell Group” of independent providers, who could be clearly distinguished from what the Times Higher Education called “dodgy for-profit colleges”. However, discussions between these institutions seem to have been derailed by the election and the IUG has not so far been formed.
I looked at the courses on offer at this “high-quality” end of the sector, to see how far they meet the four goals outlined above.

  • The website of Ashridge Business School takes you to Hult International Business School, a global organisation with campuses around the world. They offer one undergraduate degree, a Bachelor of Business Administration, for a tuition fee of £23,580 per annum.
  • BPP University (owned by the US Apollo Group) offers undergraduate courses in Accountancy and Finance, Law, Business and Management, and Health. “Health” may be something of a misnomer, given that it includes an “Integrated Undergraduate Masters in Chiropractic (MChiro)” (see this article). Fees for undergraduate degrees are £6K per annum for a 3-year course and £9K per annum for a 2-year course.
  • The University of Buckingham was founded in 1973 and is the private university in the UK operating under a Royal Charter. It runs a range of degrees in arts and humanities, and offer a more intensive 2-year degree curriculum, at a fee of just over £9K per annum. In 2015, they expanded to offer a medical degree at a cost of just over £35K per annum for a 4.5 year course.
  • The College of Estate Management offers part-time online courses in areas such as building surveying and estate management, at a cost of around £5.5K per annum.
  • The University of Law (owned by Montagu Private Equity), as its name suggests, offers a range of undergraduate and postgraduate law courses, and charges £9K per annum for a 2-year undergraduate LLB or £6K per annum for a 3-year degree.
  • Regent’s University London offers undergraduate degrees in a wide range of subjects in arts and humanities, charging just under £16K per annum.
  • RDI (a subsidiary of US firm Capella Education Company) partners with various UK Universities to offer distance learning courses. You can, for instance, take a Psychology degree at Anglia Ruskin University through RDI. The nature of the course gives flexibility in duration of study, with a total cost of just over £12K.
  • Richmond, the American International University in London, offers a range of undergraduate courses, mostly in business and finance, with an annual fee of £9K.

My overall impression is that these institutions introduce some innovative practices that could help achieve the goal of widening access. In particular, we see places offering shorter, more intensive degrees, part-time degrees, and distance learning. Some of them are competing with public universities in terms of cost, because there is currently a lower ceiling on allowable fees, but many of them offer a restricted range of courses. There is little evidence that these alternative providers will do a better job than other HEIs in catering to the needs of employers. STEM subjects are expensive to teach and are barely represented in courses offered by alternative providers. The medical degree offered by the University of Buckingham is an exception, but it is priced out of the reach of all but the most wealthy. Only one of the private institutions described above, BPP University, features on a list of providers of Degree Apprenticeships: in general, it is HEFCE-funded institutions that have introduced these apprenticeships.  
Of course, it could be argued that a more diverse set of alternative providers would be seen if we could free them from the regulatory barriers that the Green Paper complains of. However, the regulation is there for good reason. The fact that the IUG group want to distance themselves from others in this sector should sound a note of caution about the potential downsides of the alternative provider market. It is noteworthy that most of the alternative providers from the IUG list offer courses that are eligible for loans from Student Finance England.  Only a year ago, Christopher Banks, Chairman of the Quality Assurance Agency was complaining that money was being squandered on loans to students attending dubious for-profit colleges.  Some institutions would encourage students to take out loans to cover their fees, but then offer inadequate courses associated with high drop-out rates.  Mr Banks was quoted as saying: “I would like to make sure we quickly respond and reinforce the need for consistent quality in higher education, because there is a danger, otherwise, that [the growth of private providers] will tarnish the reputation of the sector.”
We can also learn lessons from the USA, where the behaviour of some for-profit colleges in recruiting students to pay for worthless degrees is nothing short of a scandal. We should not forget that, only four years ago, the Apollo Group, who own BPP University, was investigated by the US Government for misleading students.
It is telling that the Green Paper recognises the potential problems of a marketised higher education sector, noting that students need protection from the consequences when their institutions fail. This has not previously been recognised as a risk, for the good reason that English universities have not failed. More recently, we have seen considerable hardship inflicted on overseas students when institutions have had their licences to sponsor overseas students revoked. In future, we may find students suffering, even after completing their course, if their degree comes from an institution that no longer exists. It is frankly surprising that anyone should be talking about reducing regulation of the private higher education sector and speeding up approvals when there is already evidence of unprecedented risks associated with the entrance of new providers.
There are many students who might benefit from having a wider range of options in higher education; I doubt that private HEIs are going to ‘drive up standards’ through competition, but they could potentially make a difference by complementing what is currently on offer. But if experience here, and in the USA, has taught us anything, it is that, in order to work well, alternative providers need to be carefully regulated and accredited only after establishing a solid track record.  

*Correction: 24th December 2015; David Sweeney of HEFCE pointed out that the New College of Humanities is on the directory and can be found via the web interface. On the .csv file that I downloaded it is included under an alternative name, i.e. Tertiary Education Services Ltd.
PS, 3rd January 2016: The relationship between Tertiary Education Service and New College of the Humanities is discussed further here.