Helmet-Cam

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

aka Ben ? wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:26 am, Tom Sherman wrote:
...
Imagine being an overachieving student from the "hood" in a US
city, and having to live in the same type of crappy housing with
the same type of "slum lord" running the place, while in graduate
school.

Blame the slumlord, not the Chinese students. Crappy housing is
part of the joy of grad school in any expensive area. You have
options.

Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government get
priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest income
group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?

Because the Supreme Court has ultimately outlawed affirmative action of
any type. You're on your own, pal. Pull yourself up by your own damn
bootstraps.

People born in the US start with a huge leg up on most of the rest
of the world (unless they come from a really poverty stricken place
or dysfunctional enviroment).

BINGO. These are the ones being discriminated against. No love for
the "mutt people".

You expect a government of the people by the wealthy for the wealthy is
going to worry about the "little people?" Dream on.

Use what you got rather than feeding resentment about policies that
cut so slightly into your advantage of birth.

No advantage compared to the upper crust of foreign students who come
from rich families or get subsidies to come to the US. If these
foreign students are so poor, how come they can afford to drive late
model cars, some of them quite expensive?

I see very few of these. Most of the college students I see driving
1-2 year old cars are white Americans from the suburbs, who got the car
as a high school graduation present. Around here, most of the Asian and
Indian students don't even have cars.

On Oct 22, 4:39 am, Tom Sherman wrote:

Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government get
priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest income
group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?

At my school, undergrad admission decisions are independent of
financial need decisions and out-of-state students (whether foreign or
domestic) definitely need to attain a higher academic standard in
order to be admitted, i.e., there *is* a preference for in-state
students. I'm more familiar with our graduate admissions process: in
my own department admission decisions are completely independent of
financial need decisions. We turn down both foreign and domestic
students.

On Oct 22, 7:02 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article om,

" wrote:
The out of state kids are paying higher tuition and subsidizing
(slightly) the in-state tuition.

Not necessarily. Back in the mid-80s I was legally a Minnesota resident
and took graduate classes at UW-La Crosse. At that time the reciprocity
agreement between Minnesota and Wisconsin was that students would pay
the tuition they paid in their home state- and at that time Minnesota's
state university tuition was about half of Wisconsin's, so I paid much
less than Wisconsin residents.

This has changed, BTW, after a couple of higher-education-hostile
governors in Minnesota (Jesse Ventura and Tim Pawlenty) resulted in
massive increases in tuition costs at state universities in Minnesota.
Now we are trying to force Wisconsin residents to pay more than
Minnesota students.

It's all stupid. Many out-of-state students decide to live and pursue
their careers in the area where they went to college, benefitting the
local economy far more than their educations cost the economy.

Most colleges and universities have graduate (and some undergraduate)
programs that they market nationally, so get used to having out of
state students if you want your college or university to have a
national reputation. Imagine if Berkeley and CalTech excluded out of
state students -- we would probably have a dozen or so fewer Nobel
laureates in physics. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:02 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article om,

" wrote:
The out of state kids are paying higher tuition and subsidizing
(slightly) the in-state tuition.
Not necessarily. Back in the mid-80s I was legally a Minnesota resident
and took graduate classes at UW-La Crosse. At that time the reciprocity
agreement between Minnesota and Wisconsin was that students would pay
the tuition they paid in their home state- and at that time Minnesota's
state university tuition was about half of Wisconsin's, so I paid much
less than Wisconsin residents.

This has changed, BTW, after a couple of higher-education-hostile
governors in Minnesota (Jesse Ventura and Tim Pawlenty) resulted in
massive increases in tuition costs at state universities in Minnesota.
Now we are trying to force Wisconsin residents to pay more than
Minnesota students.

It's all stupid. Many out-of-state students decide to live and pursue
their careers in the area where they went to college, benefitting the
local economy far more than their educations cost the economy.

Most colleges and universities have graduate (and some undergraduate)
programs that they market nationally, so get used to having out of
state students if you want your college or university to have a
national reputation. Imagine if Berkeley and CalTech excluded out of
state students -- we would probably have a dozen or so fewer Nobel
laureates in physics. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes, but should CalTech and Berkeley give preference to LESS-QUALIFIED
out of state students over BETTER-QUALIFIED in state students?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

aka Ben ? wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:26 am, Tom Sherman wrote:
...
Imagine being an overachieving student from the "hood" in a US
city, and having to live in the same type of crappy housing with
the same type of "slum lord" running the place, while in graduate
school.
Blame the slumlord, not the Chinese students. Crappy housing is
part of the joy of grad school in any expensive area. You have
options.
Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government get
priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest income
group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?

Because the Supreme Court has ultimately outlawed affirmative action of
any type. You're on your own, pal. Pull yourself up by your own damn
bootstraps.

People born in the US start with a huge leg up on most of the rest
of the world (unless they come from a really poverty stricken place
or dysfunctional enviroment).
BINGO. These are the ones being discriminated against. No love for
the "mutt people".

You expect a government of the people by the wealthy for the wealthy is
going to worry about the "little people?" Dream on.

Yes, the purpose of government is to tax the middle class so no-bid
contracts can be awarded to the upper class.

Use what you got rather than feeding resentment about policies that
cut so slightly into your advantage of birth.
No advantage compared to the upper crust of foreign students who come
from rich families or get subsidies to come to the US. If these
foreign students are so poor, how come they can afford to drive late
model cars, some of them quite expensive?

I see very few of these. Most of the college students I see driving
1-2 year old cars are white Americans from the suburbs, who got the car
as a high school graduation present. Around here, most of the Asian and
Indian students don't even have cars.

Well, at UW-Madison, there was a group of Chinese students suggesting
that road signs should be in both English and Chinese for their convenience.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

aka Robert Chung wrote:
On Oct 22, 4:39 am, Tom Sherman wrote:

Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government get
priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest income
group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?

At my school, undergrad admission decisions are independent of
financial need decisions and out-of-state students (whether foreign or
domestic) definitely need to attain a higher academic standard in
order to be admitted, i.e., there *is* a preference for in-state
students. I'm more familiar with our graduate admissions process: in
my own department admission decisions are completely independent of
financial need decisions. We turn down both foreign and domestic
students.

But does your school grant fellowships and assistantships to
LESS-QUALIFIED out of state students over MORE-QUALIFIED in state
students for the sake of "diversity"? And then, does this drive for
"diversity" somehow forget to include in state minority students?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

On Oct 22, 4:20 pm, Tom Sherman wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:02 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
It's all stupid. Many out-of-state students decide to live and pursue
their careers in the area where they went to college, benefitting the
local economy far more than their educations cost the economy.

Most colleges and universities have graduate (and some undergraduate)
programs that they market nationally, so get used to having out of
state students if you want your college or university to have a
national reputation. Imagine if Berkeley and CalTech excluded out of
state students -- we would probably have a dozen or so fewer Nobel
laureates in physics. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes, but should CalTech and Berkeley give preference to LESS-QUALIFIED
out of state students over BETTER-QUALIFIED in state students?

Back it up with evidence. While there are sometimes
differences in SAT scores between in and out of state
students, they can go either way. And SAT scores are
fairly meaningless anyway. Universities attempt to attain
a mix of students because they think it's good for both the
students and the university. Some students from Illinois
go to school in Wisconsin, some students from Wisconsin
go to school in Illinois, and Vermont has a net importation
of students because Vermont has a small population but
the kiddies like Burlington or skiing or 6 months of winter,
I guess.

Caltech isn't even a state school. Are there any other
grudges we can help you with today?

Ben
RBT Dept. of Therapy

aka Ben wrote:
On Oct 22, 4:20 pm, Tom Sherman wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:02 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
It's all stupid. Many out-of-state students decide to live and pursue
their careers in the area where they went to college, benefitting the
local economy far more than their educations cost the economy.
Most colleges and universities have graduate (and some undergraduate)
programs that they market nationally, so get used to having out of
state students if you want your college or university to have a
national reputation. Imagine if Berkeley and CalTech excluded out of
state students -- we would probably have a dozen or so fewer Nobel
laureates in physics. -- Jay Beattie.
Yes, but should CalTech and Berkeley give preference to LESS-QUALIFIED
out of state students over BETTER-QUALIFIED in state students?

Back it up with evidence. While there are sometimes
differences in SAT scores between in and out of state
students, they can go either way. And SAT scores are
fairly meaningless anyway. Universities attempt to attain
a mix of students because they think it's good for both the
students and the university. Some students from Illinois
go to school in Wisconsin, some students from Wisconsin
go to school in Illinois, and Vermont has a net importation
of students because Vermont has a small population but
the kiddies like Burlington or skiing or 6 months of winter,
I guess.

Caltech isn't even a state school. Are there any other
grudges we can help you with today?

Note that what I wrote was a question in response to Jay Beattie's post.
I have no idea what CalTech and Berkeley do, and was not making any such
claim.

My complaint is with the policies of the campus that is near where
Andrew Muzi was hit by a Chinese driver. Clear now?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

aka Robert Chung wrote:
On Oct 22, 4:39 am, Tom Sherman wrote:

Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government
get priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest
income group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?

At my school, undergrad admission decisions are independent of
financial need decisions and out-of-state students (whether foreign
or domestic) definitely need to attain a higher academic standard
in order to be admitted, i.e., there *is* a preference for in-state
students. I'm more familiar with our graduate admissions process:
in my own department admission decisions are completely independent
of financial need decisions. We turn down both foreign and domestic
students.

But does your school grant fellowships and assistantships to
LESS-QUALIFIED out of state students over MORE-QUALIFIED in state
students for the sake of "diversity"? And then, does this drive for
"diversity" somehow forget to include in state minority students?

As you have been asked already, got some proof for this as a general
practice? This sort of claim is a favorite tool of those opposed to
affirmative action, but there is rarely proof of it happening in
actuality. Usually it's some arrogant white twit who can't believe
someone of another race really was a better qualified applicant...

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

aka Robert Chung wrote:
On Oct 22, 4:39 am, Tom Sherman wrote:

Why should a foreign student on a stipend from their government
get priority over an in-state student from a family in the lowest
income group? Why is preference NOT based on economic need?
At my school, undergrad admission decisions are independent of
financial need decisions and out-of-state students (whether foreign
or domestic) definitely need to attain a higher academic standard
in order to be admitted, i.e., there *is* a preference for in-state
students. I'm more familiar with our graduate admissions process:
in my own department admission decisions are completely independent
of financial need decisions. We turn down both foreign and domestic
students.
But does your school grant fellowships and assistantships to
LESS-QUALIFIED out of state students over MORE-QUALIFIED in state
students for the sake of "diversity"? And then, does this drive for
"diversity" somehow forget to include in state minority students?

As you have been asked already, got some proof for this as a general
practice? This sort of claim is a favorite tool of those opposed to
affirmative action, but there is rarely proof of it happening in
actuality. Usually it's some arrogant white twit who can't believe
someone of another race really was a better qualified applicant...

I am aware of several instances where people were told not to waste
their time applying to graduate school unless they could pay their own
way, since the available assistance had been earmarked to non-residents.
Also, it is well known that UW-Madison does not do much to attract and
retain in state black students (unlike UW-Milwaukee).

Where I ended up going to school (UIUC), the Graduate College encouraged
undergraduates to apply to graduate school (e.g. waiving the GRE
requirement), certain colleges (e.g. Engineering) took into account the
more demanding curriculum at UIUC when evaluating academic records, and
they made an effort to find at least a quarter-time assistantship for
UIUC graduates planning to attend graduate school.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!