Thank you Nick. It is a pleasure to be here today at HEPI’s annual conference. HEPI has proved itself an important voice in the field of higher education policy. And the impressive expertise assembled here today is testament to HEPI’s convening power.One of the great privileges of being universities minister is that I am constantly reminded what a great higher education system we have in the UK. Scarcely a week passes when I don’t meet a foreign politician or ambassador who makes a point of saying how much they respect the UK’s universities. Last week I was in Israel, talking to some of the world’s leading tech investors and entrepreneurs – and without exception they remarked that our universities were a unique national treasure.But what has made even more of an impression than the views of foreign grandees is the remarkable impact I see when I go to our universities in person. In my ‘Sam on Campus’ tours, I’ve been to universities across the country since the beginning of the year, and met and done events with over fifteen hundred students.And the overwhelming impression I have is how their university experience has enriched their lives and broadened their horizons. If you want an advert for our HE sector, you need only spend time with these students. I’ve been especially moved to meet so many students who are the first in their family to go to university, and to see the great expansion of opportunity that has taken place under this government. It is something we should all be proud of.Nearly one in two of 18 to 30 year olds in this country will now go to university. The system of fees and loans that has allowed us to remove student number controls and create this greater opportunity has also empowered students, and raised their expectations. We are now living in a different age: the Age of the Student. This means that universities and the value that you provide to your students and to society at large, is coming under greater scrutiny than ever before.Many parents and credible commentators are now questioning the principle of mass participation in higher education. The challenge takes two forms: questioning the value for money that students get during their course; and the benefit they derive from a university education post-graduation.I want to be clear that I do not see the value of a university education solely hanging on its contribution to one’s lifetime earnings. University should be an exciting, enriching stage in a young person’s life. For many, HE is a rite of passage to adulthood. And that is a good thing.So yes, we do not want to narrow the debate when we consider the value of Higher Education. But that does not absolve us from the need to tackle ‘head-on’ the legitimate questions posed to the sector.So what do we know about the current picture?On the experience of today’s students, HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey is a good place to start. I was glad to see that the survey shows a modest increase in the number of students who think they are getting good value for money from their courses. But we should not overlook the serious implications of the fact that 32% of students report poor value for money.Of course, no survey is perfect and students’ views of course quality may change over time and even after graduation. But no-one running any institution, whether a university or a business or a government department, can afford to be complacent faced with the knowledge that nearly a third of the people they serve think they are getting a bad deal.One implication of this is that universities need to think very carefully about actions they are taking that look like a relaxation of standards. The sharp rise in unconditional offers on the part of universities gives me cause for concern: can universities put their hand on their heart and swear that they are not compromising on standards?The same applies to grade inflation. Issues like these are problems in their own right but they are all the more important at a time when universities reputations, one of the most precious resources, are being questioned.But it also means that we really need to understand what is lying behind concerns about value for money, with a view to tackling them.But what about the longer term value people derive from a university degree?Today we have a better picture than we have ever had before, with the launch of the first major analysis of the Longitudinal Education Outcomes – or LEO – data for people five years after graduation. This data set tells us in unprecedented detail how much graduates from different courses and institutions earn after leaving university. I’m pleased to share with you analysis of this data published today by the independent and world-renowned Institute for Fiscal Studies.Before I talk about the findings, let me stress one thing. There is more to a university degree than lifetime earnings. Higher education is first and foremost education, and not all the benefits of education can or should be captured in future salary. Some graduates’ passion or talents might lie in a subject area that is not highly paid, but is personally rewarding and of benefit to society. Some graduates choose not to go into paid work at all. Some leave paid work to raise families or care for relatives. Some take valuable and important jobs with low salaries. Salary levels are not the be-all-and-end-all.But salary levels are still informative and important, especially in an environment where students are investing a considerable amount of their time and money in gaining a university education. With appropriate weighting and analysis, they can help us understand the differences between different courses and institutions, and see where value-for-money problems might arise.The research looks at nearly 1,400 courses offered across UK universities, and draws on the LEO dataset to take into account background characteristics including class, ethnicity and GCSE results, to estimate the relative earnings return from different university courses.The LEO dataset reveals that, from a salary perspective, while many institutions and courses are delivering big benefits to students, there are a clutch of courses that seem not to be.It is clear from the IFS analysis published today that this is not all explained by prior attainment.What potentially matters most is a student’s choice. After controlling for prior attainment and background, the researchers found significant differences between the earnings of graduates across different subjects and providers.Students who choose medicine or economics earned approximately 25% more after graduation than if they had studied biological sciences, history or English. This translates to over £6,500 per year.But choosing a high-return subject is not enough to guarantee high earnings. The lowest earning business degrees have a return more than 10% below the average degree, whilst the highest have earning at least 80% above the average degree.The top courses for women – economics at LSE, maths at Imperial and law at Oxford – have a return of at least 100%; approximately £26,000 per year higher than the average degree five years after graduation.Among the bottom courses for women, future incomes are much lower. Creative arts degrees at some universities leads to salaries at least 44% lower than the average graduate – approximately £11,000 per year. But this is not just a story about arts degrees. The variability among courses and institutions, even when subject and prior attainment are held constant, that should give us particular cause for concern.The IfS analysis shows that women who study the bottom 100 courses have earnings up to 64% (approximately £17,000) less than the average degree after graduation. For men, it can be up to 67% (approximately £21,000) less.These findings demonstrate that studying the same subject at a different institution can yield a very different earnings premium. The choices that students make about what and where to study does matter.The urgency of addressing value for moneyToday’s publication – the first in a series of such publications – has far reaching ramifications for the debate on value for money in Higher Education.The clutch of underperforming degrees is a problem for students – it is likely they include many of the courses whose students feel they are not getting value for money.They are also a problem for the taxpayer, since courses where students tend not to earn graduate salaries after graduation account for a disproportionate share of the costs to the public purse of the student loans system.And they are a problem for the reputation of the sector. They are the inconvenient kernel of truth underlying critiques of mass higher education.Previously it has been all too easy to dismiss value for money concerns as informed by personal anecdote, not hard evidence. What the HEPI and IFS Research tell us is there is some truth to the concerns. And as one prescient Vice-Chancellor said, the sector needs to “stop complaining and move onto the front foot”.Dealing with these issues is more urgent than ever. As well as their responsibility to their students, our universities also have a vital duty to the country as a whole. And this is a pivotal moment for the UK. As we prepare for Brexit, we need to ask ourselves how Britain will make its way in the world – and what sort of country we will be? I am convinced that we can only succeed through ingenuity and know-how, and with a spirit of openness and optimism. And what institutions represent these principles better than our universities?The ideas, the skills and the understanding that our universities generate through their teaching, their research and their wider engagement are more important than ever.I believe mass participation in higher education is here to stay and is key to our economic future. But for this vision to be realised in full, universities need to focus relentlessly on value for money.This is why value for money is a matter of central importance for the Review of Post-18 Education the Government is currently conducting, with input from Phillip Auguar’s independent panel.It is also important to recognise the huge positives in the IFS research.The huge improvements at our universities today are not always obvious especially to those who have not set foot on campus for a very long time and write off vast swathes of the sector.Here too the LEO data is helpful. It shows that across the HE sector, not just at our elite institutions, there are courses that are providing significant salary uplifts, as well as broadening minds and fostering learning.We should view the LEO data as an opportunity to make our university sector even better. This must be a shared endeavour – between government, students and universities. Today I’d like to outline the contribution that each group can make.Government’s role in promotion value and qualityWe in government are taking a number of steps to increase value for money.Firstly – and most importantly – we have established the OfS as an independent regulator with a specific and clear mandate on value for money within its general duties.We are also pushing ahead with the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework, which is becoming common currency within universities and beyond, giving students information about the characteristics they care about in a clear way. We will also continue to look at ways to improve further our LEO data over time to continue to help people make the right choices.I was glad to see yesterday’s announcement from Nicola and the team at the OfS about the new institution-level awards, meaning that there are now close to 300 universities and providers that have a TEF rating. The fact that so many of these awards were given to FE colleges and other non-university providers speaks to the growing diversity of provision.We will be developing this further with announcements about subject-level TEF to follow in the coming months.Transparency and student choiceBut improving value for money is not a task for government on its own. The combination of our student finance regime and the regulatory provisions of HERA puts unprecedented power in the hands of students. It is only right that we enable them to make choices that drive value for money.Our university system gives students an unprecedented degree of choice. Any of you involved in admissions and marketing will know that this is already a powerful driver of value. But I believe we can do more.Tools like TEF and LEO put more information into the hands of prospective students to allow them to better understand what course is right for them, and what outcomes particular courses at particular institutions have delivered.Making this information more accessible to applicants will help this process. But government doesn’t always have the best ideas about how to do this: we should make the most of all the country’s tech talents. That’s why today I am announcing the UK’s first ever Higher Education Open Data Competition, which will be open for applications on June 25th.We will be awarding up to five contracts of £25,000 each for the development of innovative and accessible digital tools to make use of public data on student outcomes. This will help put valuable data like LEO to use and allow software developers to come up with new, appealing ways of displaying and analysing the data, reflecting what applicants really care about.Our goal here is simple: we want people to study what they are good at and to follow their passion, but do that in the knowledge of what that degree actually offers. We know from other fields, from housing to energy to childcare, that making better use of public data provides insights that government alone would have missed. This is a chance to do the same for HE outcomes and to help applicants make even better choices.The role of universitiesWhile government and students have important roles to play, there is a vital third leg to this stool: you, our universities. The Higher Education and Research Act enshrined university autonomy in statute, and it is something we hold sacred. The corollary of this is that we cannot achieve change without you. So today, I want to encourage you to listen, engage anew and lead the change to deliver for our students.This is partly a question of the basics: appropriate contact hours; timely student feedback; highly motivated staff; and appropriate training and support to ensure teaching is of a high standard. In other words, making sure students get what they pay for.It is also about building on success. One sometimes hears the critique that Britain focuses too much on university degrees and not enough on vocational learning. Vocational and technical skills are vital.But I reject the false dichotomy between university and vocational education. In fact, much of Britain’s best vocational education goes on in degree courses in universities.Take Bournemouth University’s computer animation and visual effects courses, whose graduates have gone on to work on some of the biggest movies of the past decade. Or the accounting and finance degree at Nottingham Trent, which has fantastic satisfaction and employment rates – an example of the difference that effective work-based placements can make to a learning experience.In all these cases – and countless others – universities have engaged with the wider world and are delivering courses that combine first-rate education with excellent outcomes for students. Being more open to the idea of degree apprenticeships would also help.This speech is also a call to arms for innovation. The best universities have a knack for anticipation and planning, which makes it look as if they knew exactly what was coming all along. Take the development of remote experiments, for example. The Open University is now home to laboratories that can be accessed online by its students, allowing them to control research-grade microscopes, robots and telescopes. And while I am on the Open University, let me be clear that I see it not just as a great national institution but as essential to our future higher education landscape.We have now recast regulation in a way that is explicitly designed to facilitate innovation, avoiding overly-prescriptive, process-focussed approaches that might place limitations on creativity. I challenge all universities to make the most of it.Finally, I would like to send a message to one group of universities that is almost certainly not in the room today: the universities of the future.We set up our new HE regime to be more welcoming to you: to make it easier for you to get started; and to give you a level playing field with established institutions. There is a huge demand for accelerated degrees, for new ways of delivering university education, and for undergraduate and post graduate courses that focus on the higher technical skills that our innovation and technology driven economy needs.So, we have provided a faster route for high quality new providers to gain degree-awarding powers. We know you can bring new thinking and new offerings for students; we’ve seen the impact that the Open University, Buckingham and BPP have provided for students. We’re seeing how NMITE in Hereford is changing how engineering students are selected, how they learn, and how they find employment.I know there are more good ideas out there from providers we do not even know exist. And I wanted to make sure you make the most of your opportunities. That is why I can announce today that I am setting up a focused team, working alongside OfS, to help those who want to set up high-quality new universities understand the regulatory system and make the most of the opportunities. If you have a credible plan for the next Open University, the next BPP or the next Buckingham, I want to hear from you – we will help you make the most of your vision.ConclusionI made this speech today because I believe it’s important we focus on what is really important in the debate on universities.It is often hard to see the wood for the trees. Take for example the recent debate over Oxford’s admissions that has dominated the media in recent weeks. This is an important story, given the important role Oxbridge plays – rightly or wrongly – in British society.But it’s easy to slip into thinking that the value of the university sector is best expressed through a debate about who is admitted to two of our 150 plus higher education institutions.But there is more to universities than admissions, and more to the sector than Oxbridge. What really matters is that we build a system where everyone with the ability to benefit from a university education has the opportunity to attend, the information they need to make the right decision, and that when they go to university, they receive a first-rate education that delivers real value for money.The LEO analysis we are publishing today is part of a revolution in transparency that will help us understand the problems our universities face. It challenges received wisdom and snobbery about where excellence in the system lies, and it casts light on what is working and what is not. And I am convinced that it will help government, students and universities come together to change things for the better.When our talented young people succeed, our country succeeds. I’d like to thank you for your help in making this vision a reality.
Tag: 夜上海论坛HI Lady Wildcats Get Wins Over Lady Lions
The Franklin County Lady Wildcats defeated The Rushville Lady Lions in Varsity Volleyball action 25-16, 25-15, 25-13.It was a great night for the Lady Wildcats as they defeated the Rushville Lions in 3. They came together and played very well as a team. The team had 20 ace serves, 38 kills, 29 assists, and 16 digs. It was a true team effort. Way to go Lady Wildcats.The team is back in action Thursday night as they travel to Cambridge City Lincoln.Courtesy of Wildcats Coach Tanya Wirtz.The JV Lady Cats defeated EIAC Rushville Lions in 2 sets 25-24, 25-15.Jalynn Rogers lead the team with 4 ace serves. Charlotte Barrett lead the team with 4 digs. Sydney Graf lead the team with 5 kills. Lilli Stewart had 2 aces and 3 kills. Rachel Bischoff and Makyah Richardson also added 3 kills each.‘This team is ready to play some ball now. They showed a lot of heart tonight. I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s matchup against Cambridge City Lincoln, there, @6. This brings the JV record to 5-3 for the season.’ Wildcats Coach Jill Mergenthal.
Elk Valleyâ€“ Vance 2, Ferguson 2, Dow 5, Monjure 9, Coatney 10, Henning 4, Blankenship 1. Totals 11 (1) 10-23 33.Argonia â€“ Koerner 4, Gaddy 15, Tracy 1, Dolley 1, Swartz 7, Thompson 13, Harsh 3. Totals 15 (0) 14-39 44.Sumner County girlsConway Springs 60, Chaparral 34 Argonia1271015â€”44 Belle Plaine210106â€”28 Douglass â€” J. Gardner 14, C. Banister 12, C. Holthaus 10, D. Chadic 7, J. Roberts 1, Fraley 1Belle Plaine â€” A. Johnson 11, C. Throop 8, B. Gooch 3, Q. Hervey 2, B. Gann 2, T. Balsters 2Chaparral 70, Conway Springs 60 Chaparral9988â€”34 Conway Springs â€” R. Rasmussen 19, D. Murphy 15, D. Murphy 14, N. Oswald 5, J. Fisher 3, T. Wood 2, M. Misak 2Chaparral â€” J. Parsons 21, T. Copenhaver 14, R. Menhusen 9, J. Struble 7, J. Miller 7, N. Shaw 6, S. Nulik 3, C. Rogers 2, G. Berry 1South Haven 52, Central-Burden 28 Douglass11131011â€”45 Conway13131123â€”60 Chaparral21122116â€”70 Central-Burden8659â€”28 Elk Valley29139â€”33 Argonia22141115â€”62 Sedan131459â€”41 South Haven10132016â€”59 Oxford â€“ Norris 6, Payne 15, Moore 2, Metz 8, Whitlock 4. Totals 13 (0) 10-15 36.Sedan â€” Haughn 7, Jones 3, Unruh 2, Williams 6, Powell 8, Pray 2, Smith 13. Totals 16 (2) 7-14 41. by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow â€”Â The Wellington junior varsity girls lost the first time this season. South Haven boys won a big game against Central. Friday night basketball scores are as follows…Wellington vs. Augusta: JV girls: Augusta 37 Wellington 25WHS Â JV Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 4 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5 Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â Â Â 25Augusta JV Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 8 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 9 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 13 Â Â Â Â Â 7 Â Â Â Â Â Â 37Shelbie Wright 7,Â Holly Wright 5,Â Tyanna Hughes 5,Â Kelsey Whaley 2,Â Maggie Fink 2,Â Shelby Hamel 2,Â Halynn Page Â Â Â Â Â Â 2.C team girls: Augusta 40 Wellington 36WHS Â C-Team Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â Â 8 Â Â Â Â 14 Â Â Â Â Â Â 8 Â Â Â Â Â 36Augusta C-Team Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 15 Â Â Â Â 12 Â Â Â Â 4 Â Â Â Â Â Â 9 Â Â Â Â Â 40Taylor Zimmerman 16,Â Peyton Witham 7,Â Dietra Sober 5,Â Kennedy Hackerott 4,Â Noelle Wright 4Freshman boys: Wellington 58 Augusta 43Phelps 12,Â Gilmore 13,Â Jones 6,Â Blue 14,Â Pettegrew 4,Â Hyde 6,Â Lowe 2Junior varsity boys: Wellington 48 Augusta 27Phelps 2, Gilmore 2, Daugherty 6, Baker 4, Nance 16, Reichenberger 2, Dunn 9, Blue 2, Albright 5.Freshman boys: Wellington 58 Augusta 43Phelps 12,Â Gilmore 13,Â Jones 6,Â Blue 14,Â Pettegrew 4,Â Hyde 6,Â Lowe 2.Sumner County boys:Oxford 44Â Sedan 40Oxford 12 16 9 7 44Sedan 4 7 12 17 40Oxford â€”Â Williams 5, Burkes 14, Norris 2, Jones 17, Kennedy 3Sedan â€”Â Cunningham 2, Chee 3, Unruh 10, Filtingberger 13, Mills 4, Smilko 8Quote from Kyle Green, Oxford head boys basketball coach: “We almost gave this one away. We played a great three quarters of basketball. Solid Defense, limited turnovers, executed our offense, just looked great. The fourth quarter, we started making some mistakes, and didn’t do a good job of finishing out the game. We did not shoot FT’s very well at all either. We gutted out a win late that we needed. We still need to put four quarters of hoops together. We were up 40-28 with 5:30 left in the game, and Sedan made a heck of a run. They play hard and are well coached. Bottom line, we still need to improve and get better.“We had several kids step up tonight, Gage Burkes played well, Alex Jones played well, those two seniors really set the tone for the game. We have a tough game with Caldwell on Tuesday night at home. They are well coached and have a truck load of athletes. They shoot the ball well from the perimeter and are just a solid group of athletes that I believe will make some noise in the SCBL. We have to come to play, it will be a good battle Tuesday night.”Douglass 45, Belle Plaine 28 South Haven1619107â€”52 Central-Burden â€“ Magner 2, Koppelmann 4, Lawson 14, Loewer 4, Fischer 4. Totals 9 (0) 10-17 28.South Haven â€“ Harris 9, Hawkins 2, Cully 5, Upton 2, Showman 18, Schuster 4, Ray 8, Moreland 4. Totals 21 (4) 6-12 52.Argonia 44, Elk Valley 33 Oxford51786â€”36 Douglass â€” S. Wright 18, K. Stout 14, C. Bratcher 9, B. Nispel 8, Z. Green 6, S. Hajdukovich 5, J. Fowler 4, C. Munroe 3, M. Milum 2Belle Plaine â€” D. Balzer 19, K. Ast 9, C. Myers 3, B. Balzer 2.South Haven 59, Central-Burden 11 Central-Burden5312â€”11 Central Burden â€“ Moore 6, Beavers 5. Totals 4 (0) 3-9 11. .South Haven â€“ Wilkey 4, Barlow 10, Harris 1, W.Turek 2, Ralls 8, B.Tanner 2, White 8, Parks 2, Jacobs 22. Totals 26 (2) 5-11 59.Argonia 62, Elk Valley 34 Conway621276â€”60 Elk Valley124108â€”34 Elk Valley â€“ Packett 4, Cannon 8, Ashenfeller 2, Beougher 6, Carle 14. Totals 15 (0) 4-9 34.Argonia â€” Fitch 9, Gaddie 12, Drouhard 8, Hessman 21, Allen 4, Brantly 2, McCoy 6. Totals 27 (2) 6-15 62.Sedan 41, Oxford 36 Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one! Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Conway Springs â€” B. May 17, S. Sones 13, C. Ebenkamp 9, A. Smith 9, S. Echelberry 7, B. Pauly 3, H. Koester 2Chaparral â€” S. Wescoat 14, H. McKee 11, A. Ballard 4, T. Ireland 3, H. Spicer 2Douglass 69, Belle Plaine 33 Belle Plaine106107â€”33 Douglass12242310â€”69
Tag: 夜上海论坛HI Dog that bit mailman likely to be euthanized
“It is my determination that Chucky is a dangerous dog and should not be allowed to return to (owner) Mr. Brennan’s care,” wrote Linda Cessna, the deputy community development director who presided over the so-called vicious dog hearing on Sept. 10. Ryan Brennan has until the end of the month to appeal the ruling to the city’s Environmental Quality Commission. “I am not planning on appealing, but my friends are,” said 23-year-old Brennan. “I’m pretty much leaving it up to my friends to appeal. We don’t feel that we were given a fair trial.” Brennan, who refers to Chucky as his son, said he felt Cessna did not consider the testimony he and friends and family gave at the hearing when making her decision. “Linda doesn’t want to listen, so maybe someone else will listen to us from an unbiased standpoint,” he said from his home on Amapola Avenue, where Chucky attacked 60-year- TORRANCE: Official rules only acceptance by a nonurban animal sanctuary can save the pit bull. By Megan Bagdonas STAFF WRITER The pit bull that bit a mail carrier’s face in Torrance will be killed unless his owner can find an animal sanctuary that will accept him, the city of Torrance has ruled. old mail carrier Moon Choi on Aug. 20. “I’m trying to save my son’s life. Yes, he’s a scary looking 100-pound dog, but he’s not vicious.” Brennan maintains his dog is loving and sociable, and the incident that left Choi with 100 stitches on the right side of his face was an anomaly. Cessna did not return phone calls Monday. The ruling allows for the dog’s life to be spared only if Brennan can find a reputable animal sanctuary outside of an urban area to accept the dog. That could prove difficult. “Everybody’s full, and no- body will touch a pit bull, especially one that’s bit somebody – that’s a red flag,” said Marilyn Lofgren, owner of P.R.O.U.D., an animal rescue shelter 20 miles south of Fresno. “I have 150 dogs here, and taking a chance on one of them getting bit or killed isn’t worth it, so I would have to decline (Chucky). I hate to say that, and it breaks my heart, but I have to look after the safety of the other animals.” Lofgren says she turns down about 15 people a day looking to leave their pets at her 100-acre sanctuary. Meanwhile, the director of an animal sanctuary 12 miles east of San Bernardino said she wouldn’t even consider Chucky. “We take all kinds of dogs, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, but we won’t take the big aggressive dogs,” said Mary Cutherell of All Breed Rescue. “There’s so many really nice dogs put to sleep every year because there’s not room for them. A pit bull that bit somebody would just be taking the place of a nice animal.” Chucky, a white-and-brindle pit bull, has been kept at the county animal shelter in Carson since the day he jumped over a 4