Helmet-Cam

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

Tim McNamara wrote:
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.

Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

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

I have no dog in this fight but define 'qualified' please.
As another writer noted, test scores are not the only factor used.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman wrote:
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.

'asking' and 'receiving' are different.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Oct 22, 4:26 pm, Tom Sherman wrote:

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?

My department is a graduate department (we offer some undergraduate
courses but we don't offer an official undergraduate degree) so, as I
said, I'm much more familiar with the grad student process. We make
admission decisions regardless of ability to pay. After admission
decisions are made, we examine funding. Some of our graduate student
support money is earmarked for American citizens -- I don't think we
have any money that is specifically for California citizens. For a
while, we had some training grants from a private foundation that was
specifically earmarked for training graduate students from developing
countries. If we didn't accept any foreign students who met our
minimum qualifications that money rolled over--we didn't accept lower
and lower down the qualification ladder. But, that was private, not
public, money and it's dried up.

As for undergraduates, that's handled differently. The classic example
is athletic scholarships -- but I don't think they fall under what
you're calling "diversity" students. My understanding is that there is
a different kind of "diversity" plan that applies to undergraduate
admissions, though: this is Berkeley, and if we just went by SAT
scores and high-school GPAs the entire undergraduate class would be
female. So there's some attempt to balance by sex.

On Oct 22, 4:31 pm, "
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?

Ooops, my fault. I forgot CalTech was private. I should have put in
University of Chicago (back in the Fermi days). Berkeley is certainly
public, and was even free for state residents until the 60s (Reagan,
that blaggard!). You could go there free and build bombs back in the
40s. What a deal! Just don't hang with the commies. -- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:04:12 -0500, 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...

Dear Tim,

Dunno about in-state/out-state, but the case of black law student LSAT
scores and graduation rates suggests that you may be out of touch with
at least some admissions policies since the early 1990's.

Here's a short page with some figures. The author stresses the
mismatch effect when law schools compete on racial grounds for a
limited number of students:

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical..._2_black_.html

The mismatch effect is roughly analogous to what would happen if major
league baseball teams decided to try to hire more English majors, a
small worthy group indeed--but not one with exceptional baseball
talents.

Geeks who were merely decent intra-mural softball players would be
offered tryouts with the Yankees. Humiliated by being tossed into the
deep end before they learned how to swim, the English majors would
write essays about the corrupt system, scathing essays that no one
would read. [1]

Not that hiring English majors would have caused the Yankees to do
worse in the playoffs--swept in four games with only two earned runs
scored.

Even Moe Berg fails to make the case for hiring university men to play
ball. [2]

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[1] Footnotes rarely make the best-seller list, any more than English
majors bat clean-up.

[2] Moe wasn't an English major, but he was close enough to be a hero
to some English department softball teams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_Berg

It's best not to look too closely at the details of Moe's life.

Andrew Muzi mused:
Tom Sherman wrote:
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.

'asking' and 'receiving' are different.

The asking is presumptuous.

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

aka "Dear Carl" aka Carl Fogel wrote:
...
[1] Footnotes rarely make the best-seller list, any more than English
majors bat clean-up.

One of my favorite science fiction books is Heinlein's "For Us, the
Living" [1], which uses footnotes. Its progressive political, economic
and social ideas were likely the reason it was rejected for publication
in 1939, not the footnotes.

[1] Published posthumously.

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

aka Robert Chung wrote:
...
As for undergraduates, that's handled differently. The classic example
is athletic scholarships -- but I don't think they fall under what
you're calling "diversity" students. My understanding is that there is
a different kind of "diversity" plan that applies to undergraduate
admissions, though: this is Berkeley, and if we just went by SAT
scores and high-school GPAs the entire undergraduate class would be
female. So there's some attempt to balance by sex.

High school grades cam be a silly criteria, since there are so many
reasons for poor performance, such as a home/street environment that
does not a allow a student to work on homework. I do recall reading
about several studies that indicated that admissions tests [1] are a
better predictor of college performance than high school grades.

[1] Proper tests, that is. I did poorly on my English placement test,
since the subject was "How did High School Prepare You for College".
Since it did not, I had nothing to say, and bull****ted badly. Now I
write reports for a living.

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

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

Tim McNamara wrote:
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.

Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

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

I have no dog in this fight but define 'qualified' please.
As another writer noted, test scores are not the only factor used.

What about quality of papers written for a academic field (where it is
publish or perish), depth and breadth of knowledge in the subject,
ability to do independent research, and a tenured professor requesting
to have a student as a research assistant?

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

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

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?

Not a problem. Highly qualified out of state students
are stacked up like rock concert ticket buyers.

--
Michael Press