SPARC Filing Against the Merger Between Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education

Abstract

On May 1, 2019, Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education — two of the three largest college textbook publishers — announced plans to merge. The merger would turn the college textbook market into an effective duopoly, dominated by the combined post-merger company and a single rival, Pearson. This merger would have drastic negative consequences for competition and student consumers in an industry that has already engaged in decades of relentless price increases that have made higher education harder to afford. Furthermore, as textbook publishers accelerate their transition to digital materials, a merger of this size could be a step toward forming a new data giant in the education sector. On August 14, 2019, SPARC submitted this extensive filing to the Department of Justice opposing the merger on the grounds that it would violate federal antitrust thresholds and harm the ability of students and their families to afford higher education.

Customers Satisfaction on Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Service Automation (RAISA) in the Hotel Industry: A Comprehensive Review

“…From assembly robots and testing robots used in automobile manufacturing production lines to genetic testing technologies used in hospitals, AI technology has gradually become a powerful assistant in many industries. At present, traditional tasks that require human participation, such as vehicle driving, simultaneous interpretation, translation, and portrait verifica-tion, can now be easily implemented by AI equipment, which manifests itself in autonomous driving, speech recognition, semantic recognition, image recognition and other related tasks (Allen, 2019). Companies that provide various services have also begun to use AI technology in the production and delivery of their services.…”

Mobile Interactive Multimedia to Assist Prospective Science Teachers Holding Conceptual Understanding in Problem-Solving Electrical Circuits

“…Misconceptions are ideas or knowledge substantially different from scientists' views [11]. It can interfere with students' concept formation processes, hinder the learning process [12], [13], and is one of the causes of students' failure in solving conceptual problems [10].…”