So much of this is indeed, rankings driven. Public colleges have lost focus of their mission statements. Private colleges have always been able to do what they want.
It's very difficult for public schools to stay in the top 30 or 40 in the country, and near impossible to be in the top 15 of colleges based on the model of questions they use to determine selectivity.
I think it was just under 30 when I applied. I know it has gone up drastically in the last 3-4 years.
I think state universities need to make a decision- do you want prestige or do you want to be a STATE university? If you want to focus on prestige, that's fine, but become a private school. Whether it's Michigan, Cali, North Carolina, etc.
I am assuming umich is taking OOS students to boost up their revenue and to push up their selectivity.
The cost of our in-state Cal States varies. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo will probably be around $23k next year. I believe that UC Berkeley will be around $30K. (Another round of hikes just hit the kids for this year. )
That's if you live on campus. If you don't, it's quite a bit cheaper. Not everyone can commute, though.
Our local Cal State used to have a service area where they gave local residents an advantage in admissions. Now, it doesn't. You can be a top student and get rejected from there, and still get into a UC. Its crazy.
It's going to be like this with UC Berkeley and UCLA, soon.
Going private would probably make the most sense.
It's just not a fun game for the kids I work with to be awesome and amazing and still not stand a chance with the competition out there - then add to the OOS students becoming a budget balancer.
I am wondering why Mich takes so many OOS? Do you know what the figure was when you applied, Romani? I think last year it was 35% and this year they figure 40%. Was it about the same in 2009?
The other part of this problem isn't even always about getting more money for the school.
It's diversity. Everyone wants it. It's politically correct. You want to have a diverse class, because that brings some level of prestige to your campus and state. It's not just about race or gender or ethnic or whatever, it's also about having every state represented and even a large number of international students coming from all over the world. My alma mater, USC, prides itself on having the largest number of international students at any school in the country.
Do you know how hard it is to be a prospective student from 10 miles away? Pretty damn tough to get into, now. It didn't used to be that way. Now, they want about a 4.2 GPA with around a 2030 SAT score.
Even if you have that, you might be rejected to make room for a kid from Dubai or Australia, or yes, even Michigan or Washington.
If only in-state kids attended, your prestige factor will go down.
It's a Catch-22.
Another interesting thing is at some UC's, if you are Asian, you will be likely be over-represented, but possibly discriminated against in the application process.
I just wish U of m would go private already and be done with it. They obviously don't need the state's money and it's really not fair to instate students. We all pay taxes, but only a small minority of students ever have a chance of going. I was accepted to the 09 fall class with a 3.8 GPA and a 33 ACT. I'm really not sure if that would get me in anymore with a push to get OOS students. It's just not right methinks.
I agree, romani. Even if my D will be one of those students!
I don't think any standards should ever be reduced for OOS kids. The first priority SHOULD always be educating those in Michigan, for all Michigan schools.
Or California schools. Or Washington schools.
It's a dreadful situation.
Our legislators and those controlling these public universities have let the cat out of the bag. It will be hard to contain this problem. Recruit OOS kids, turn away IS kids.
Happening all the time in the 23 public Cal States and all of the UC's.
I'm pissed that they're pushing to accept even more OOS students to U of Michigan. People on the Umich forum on CC want OOS students to be the majority. The goal should be to educate instate students first or forfeit the state's money.
ETA: The COA at my public instate school (not even the flagship) is $25k. And we have no state scholarships- at all. It's beyond ridiculous.
-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Thursday 25th of August 2011 01:46:09 PM
Yes, busdriver. That's exactly it. Swapping kids from state to state.
UC Berkeley - around 10% of their students are from out of state. It's actually easier to get in as an out of state student than it is an in state.
One of the schools D is looking at is an out of state public. We will never be able to swing the cost unless there are some scholarships. The OOS tuition is fixed, and it's unreal how high it is. Almost 40% of the students there attend from OOS. Quite a moneymaker. (However, it's nearly impossible to ever establish residency in that state for purposes of being a student.)
Tuition keeps going up. Even with big endowments.
-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Thursday 25th of August 2011 01:43:51 PM
Yep, I have some pet peeves about colleges too. In our state, they have dramatically increased the OOS acceptances, because of the money. And they fully admit it (this is to our flagship school). California is doing the same thing, and what was startling is that when we went on a tour of our local state university a few months ago, there were more kids there from California then from Washington. We're just swapping our kids to different states so they can charge more tuition dollars. I believe that since many of the funds come from the state taxpayers, the vast majority of students should come from that state. And they should raise the tuition to cover it, while offering what financial aid they can to those who really need it. We've had parents asking if their kids could get accepted under the OOS standards (lower) if they'll pay OOS tuition (not happening). I agree, there are many situations where the kids can get better deals at the private schools, but unfortunately it seems like the ones they often prefer are the schools that cost $55K and won't give them any aid!
Actually busdriver in our state they reduced the amount of OOS from 30 to 25%. However, because of the economy, many IS are not getting accepted to their IS just due to the economy since they can't afford anymore to go to OOS or private.
Since we have veered off topic already. Here is my pet peeve about colleges.
Look at their endowments, but yr after yr the colleges bump up the cost to students. Our DD's school has 500 million, yet they bumped up tuition by 20% this yr. I call that gouging. However, I get why they are doing it...they reduced the OOS rate, and so IS rate had to go up to make up the difference.
As a side note. my SIL's DS is going private and she said because the amount of FA the school offered. When I heard the amount they were paying out of pocket for her to attend, it was apparent the real reason why. Her stats were not high enough for the IS schools, so she had to go private.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
"Going to a private school is like spending twice for college... once to pay to go to private school, and once to pay to go to the public schools in your state that you have chosen not to attend."
And to add injury to insult, you might not even get accepted to your local university because they have raised the quota for out of state students.
Sure, the government could take 100% of earnings from US citizens, and then distribute the earnings equally. However, I don't think this would help maintain the rule of law, but rather do exactly the opposite.
I don't understand what your point is... all of my education was paid for through taxes and tuition.
AmeriCorps got a college graduate from a top university to work for 70 hours a pay period in exchange for roughly $425. From the government's point of view, they obviously won out massively here, getting me to work those hours for such little pay.
Going to a private school is like spending twice for college... once to pay to go to private school, and once to pay to go to the public schools in your state that you have chosen not to attend.
So by your definition, it could be the job of government to give its citizen's monetary equality in order to maintain the rule of law and protect the safety and security of its citizens.
I don't understand. You went to a public university for undergrad, did Americorps, and at doing public grad school? All of your education would be outside of the government's role. Would your philosophy have been better served to do private schools with no endowments and work in private enterprises?
I agree that you can increase demand by giving poor people more money (taking more from the rich), but it is only for a short term. Eventually they run out of that money, and demand will go back to what it was, or they will need another dosage of rich people's money.
Everyone cannot be rich, and everyone cannot have the same amount of money. It should not be the role of the government to create monetary equality.
------------
A lot of issues that you can be attack on. Easiest is your last statement: Government's role.
? If not the Government's role, then whose role is it? If anyone's?
SG, "well, if they are living paycheck to paycheck and they suddenly get more money, what they should do is save it. But obviously they aren't going to, because there is a reason they are living paycheck to paycheck."
so what will they spend the newly found excess $? On Needs, Wants, or Stuff?
My guess and others have studied, that Pchk-Pchk families will spend it on Wants and then Needs before stuff. Instant gratification is important to get them thru the next paycheck, if there is one. Savings is near the bottom because any savings and investment would be small in comparison to what really is necessary for saving/investment. So this money is spent quickly and is recycled into the economy many times over much as we saw in 2003-2007 boom years.
So what about the Wealthy? Do they spend excess $$$$ on Needs, Wants, and Stuff or something different?
I agree that you can increase demand by giving poor people more money (taking more from the rich), but it is only for a short term. Eventually they run out of that money, and demand will go back to what it was, or they will need another dosage of rich people's money.
Everyone cannot be rich, and everyone cannot have the same amount of money. It should not be the role of the government to create monetary equality.
------------
Ask yourself a question: If your family is living paycheck to paycheck, and the family gets a tax cut, what does the family do with the extra income?
------------
well, if they are living paycheck to paycheck and they suddenly get more money, what they should do is save it. But obviously they aren't going to, because there is a reason they are living paycheck to paycheck.
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Sunday 21st of August 2011 07:54:56 PM
obviously the other side of the coin is, how long can you keep giving money to people living paycheck to paycheck until you run out of other people's money to give them? You give them $500 extra dollars, and it gets spent in the first month. What happens the other 11 months of the year?
You agree to what part of the previous?
You are assuming the coin is fair. The saying, we all know about that coin, "he who has the coin, makes the rules."
What about the 20/80 rule. In our USA, 20% of us have +80% of the wealth. The other side of the coin is that 80% of the USA has a paltry 20% of the wealth; and the bottom 20% of the population has less than 1% of the wealth. I think the remaining 60% of the population, living paycheck-paycheck, government subsidy payments, is worried that they too will fall to the next lower 20%.
In my thinking, the top 20% have the natural ability to do very well. The second 20% will do pretty good. The bottom 20% will never have anything because of ability. The 40% in the middle will struggle.
-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 18th of August 2011 08:15:04 AM
obviously the other side of the coin is, how long can you keep giving money to people living paycheck to paycheck until you run out of other people's money to give them? You give them $500 extra dollars, and it gets spent in the first month. What happens the other 11 months of the year?
longprime - I am not necessarily arguing that there is causation. I am arguing that it is a FACT that lower tax rates CAN produce more revenue, under certain circumstances. And, I am arguing that it is a FACT that although Bush cut taxes for the highest income earners, tax revenue, for some years, was higher than it was under Clinton, despite the tax rates being lower.
The best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy, since historically federal tax revenue is a pretty stable percentage of GDP.
When Bush I, raised taxes, he also raised tax revenues. Guess what portion of the population paid the most taxes. He also set the path for economic expansion and a balanced budget under Clinton.
I do not dispute your claim about growing the economy. The question that the politicians and bankers are trying to answer. The best answer from my banker-economist brother is INFLATION, and as hard as the FRB is buying up treasuries and MBS, we still have a Deflational situation.
Ask yourself a question: If your family is living paycheck to paycheck, and the family gets a tax cut, what does the family do with the extra income?
If a family is well off can make savings and investment, and the family gets a tax cut, what does the family do with the extra income?
-- Edited by longprime on Monday 15th of August 2011 12:16:12 AM
I always love those polls. For yrs now Congress's approval rating has never been higher than 1 in 4 approval. However, here's the irony. People are asked the follow on question: Do you approve of your MOC, and they usually say "yes".
I now have to change course and from an overall perspective I agree with you regarding the no change. I say that because it is the voter who goes and re-elects time after time the same people because they have a D or an R after their name on the ballot.
Look at WV, why on earth did they vote Byrd in until the day he died. He spent 50 yrs on the Hill, and was a part of the problem.
Look at NJ, they have Frank Lautenberg who is 87. Most of us in our right mind would have taken our parents car keys away yrs ago, but for whatever reason 50+% of NJ residents said they want an octogenarian to represent their state.
How about Charlie Rangel?
MOC's know once in you are probably going to stay until you decide you want to leave. They don't get that being President may appear to hold all the power, but in reality it is the MOC's that hold it. They should spend less time worrying about who is in the WH and more time being informed with who represents your state.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
longprime - I am not necessarily arguing that there is causation. I am arguing that it is a FACT that lower tax rates CAN produce more revenue, under certain circumstances. And, I am arguing that it is a FACT that although Bush cut taxes for the highest income earners, tax revenue, for some years, was higher than it was under Clinton, despite the tax rates being lower.
The best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy, since historically federal tax revenue is a pretty stable percentage of GDP.
Pima - the approval rating for Congress is like 10%, yet the re-election rate is as high as ever. There is an extreme logical disconnect among voters.
I will agree with you that the political system is broken. The Republican and Democrat National Parties are million (billion?) dollar industries by themselves, and their only goal is to get more people with an R or D next to their name elected, because that gets the people in charge more money.
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Friday 12th of August 2011 08:48:14 PM
You can't blame society for not voting on it because not everyone is in govt. It was and is the politicians that do this. I could scream from my rooftop 24/7, but I am still left with the same result...politicians dictate the policies.
Before you go with the "I voted for them", remember that doesn't mean I have authority to dictate their agenda. If they don't want to broach welfare reform, but want to work on tax reform, we must all live and die by their agenda.
You can't just place blame at the feet of every citizen stating that no one voted to change these things.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
I question many people's conclusion that W's tax cut increased tax revenues. This is a too simplistic view of economics.
Here are two verifiable reasons why tax revemues increased but had nothing to do with tax rates or tax reduction:
Home refinancing due to perceived increased valuations from low interest rates.
Student loan interest rates decreased thereby allowing for larger loans.
This family alone, injected-created money close to $100,000 into the economy on a decreasing income base and lower income tax. Done on a small refi and student loans. Should've borrowed more and cause massive inflation but alas we now have massive deflation which results in lower tax revenues regardless of tax rate.
Both of our loans had a much greater impact to tax revenue than W's laizez-faire economics. And for which we are seeing the result in this past week (today is Wed Aug 10, 2011.)
-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 10th of August 2011 11:40:46 PM
As you can see, revenue fell when the dotcom bubble burst and taxes were cut, but then it actually increased again, to an amount higher than it was at any point under Clinton.
Lower tax rates do not always mean the government collects less revenue.
It is funny that you champion Clinton level tax rates, but not Clinton level spending. Why? Spending under Clinton never exceeded $2 trillion/year, and now we are spending $3.35 trillion/year (again, in 2005 dollars).
where is your $3 trillion from? $1.2 trillion is from costofwar.com
Strange that you picked Swizterland, Swededn, and Norway as your example countries instead of Spain, Portugal, Italy, France...
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Wednesday 10th of August 2011 07:30:51 PM
Billy - considering the US has spent $1.2 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, and the deficit is $14 trillion, I don't think the wars are what caused this situation.
And I'm not really sure what examples of success you are pointing to... the European economies are collapsing as we speak.
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 8th of August 2011 07:10:06 PM
You mean $3 trillion? And, at the same time, taxes were slashed for the rich and corporations. Or I suppose Clinton's budget wasn't markedly better?
I know, I feel so bad for Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, et al., and their collapsing economies. So glad to be safe and sound in the United States, where I'll never have to worry about hunger, homelessness, or death from lack or medical care.
Pima - and no one voted to change those things during the last half century...
Billy - considering the US has spent $1.2 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, and the deficit is $14 trillion, I don't think the wars are what caused this situation.
And I'm not really sure what examples of success you are pointing to... the European economies are collapsing as we speak.
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 8th of August 2011 07:10:06 PM
not surprising that the generation that voted themselves unsustainable pensions, social security, and medicare raised some people who now feel entitled.
Well, they actually are sustainable (see most of the Western world). It's the massive cutting of regulations and taxes, and then spending trillions on war that screws with the budget to the point where we have to start axing those things.
I have to say Jeffrey Immelt came to my mind right away regarding corporations on govt welfare. You know the guy Obama has on his inner team? The guy who has managed to circumvent the system, but can still sell BS to Obama from the corporate world?
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
This guy is 21. Unless you are with the UAW for our generation pensions were not a part of our employment bennies.
I have a 21 yo, and when I entered the workforce we got a 401K. In other words I had to put in to get anything out, and back in the early days we had to stay until we "vested". Which was yrs., otherwise, we only got what we put in...no matchy matchy like today.
As far as SS... you do know that it started in the late 1930's as a part of the Depression, right? I mean I don't think that there is anyone here who has a 21 yr old collecting SS, hence they didn't vote for SS.
Medicare is not Medicaid. Again, that puts them in the the 60-70 yo realm regarding bennies on the Medicare end.
Hence, the people who voted themselves everything you posted are far older than who would have fathered this child.
The reality is he was raised on the GOALS 2000 generation. That was when if you played a sport you got some type of award. Same for school. If you showed up there was some certificate of appreciation. It was insane and inane the level we reached...no grading with red pens, because that was seen as a negative...swear to God on my kids' life that was a rule. Only purple pens for grading because it wasn't seen as frightening. BS Flag for me, a kid that is in 6th grade who receives a 50 doesn't feel any better if it is in purple or red!
It is my generation, where it was you must coddle the child. You must never say anything negative in any aspect to them, so they can feel confident about their being. I didn't buy into that BS.
The people who raised this generation, are the problem, but they don't have pensions or ss or medicare. What they have is govt entitlements that if you don't make enough money you can get more money.
This kid is 21 going to college to be a music major, paid by tax dollars to attend...for MUSIC! No offense, but how many jobs are out there that can pay back 22k a yr (he had said he had 70 in grants/loans for 3 yrs)?
You want to point a finger at the generation who created this beast, point it at people who graduated HS in the 80's.
-- Edited by pima on Monday 8th of August 2011 12:16:45 PM
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
not surprising that the generation that voted themselves unsustainable pensions, social security, and medicare raised some people who now feel entitled.
I was listening to John Gibson today and he played the audio of this.
This was totally frightening of his attitude about taking tax payer dollars meant to pay rent, and using it on himself. His classic line was I paid her rent by letting her talk to me when she wanted to talk. I am 21 she's 30!
He is a 21 yo, going to college (grants and loans) and he still never understood when Judge Judy asked do you realize that money was paid by tax payer dollars for rent? Up and over his head.
I don't know what's scarier:
1. A 30 yo woman would be with someone like him
2. He is a jr. in college. Is that how low are colleges are now regarding education.
3. We have raised a generation of entitlement.
4. He is probably not the only one out there with his belief...they gave me the money and I worked the system. HAHAHA.
I never linked a youtube video, so if doesn't work go on you tube and search Judge Judy Here's Who You Support with Taxes
It's making the rounds now all over the place because she stated I am sending this episode to Congress.
Go JUDY, Go JUDY, GO, GO JUDY! (sorry it's hs FB season and that's stuck in my mind from the cheerleaders)
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
I am 21 she's 30!