This example that happened to be in the news was to show how inequality manifests and is in cases promoted. It was also in response to those here arguing that the market takes care of things, even things out eventually and everything is basically fine.

I think I am through here.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

It relates to Barney Frank in that Federal funds now mean less ( as tuitions rise) as at the same time budget constraint are threatening to lower the awards. It’s connected. And it’s connected to the rich gettin richer and the poor and the lower middle class having a harder time.

Raising awareness that there is an iceberg is the first step in the process.

The original issue raised was one of financial inequity. Potter alleged that the top state schools were harming poor local students by recruiting top students and professors from out of state.

I suggested the opposite might be the case – recruiting top professors and students might create a more stimulating educational environment and bring in more money in the form of research grants and this would benefit everyone. I didn’t see where this was addressed. Furthermore I raised the point that the issue raised is a STATE policy matter and it’s unclear how this relates to the FEDERAL topic of Barney Frrank.

We also seem to be talking about the state universities’ obligations to under-prepared minority students. Just for the record I don’t see why colleges and universities should regard it as their mission to make up for poor educations at the high-school level. Asian students are also minorities but we conveniently leave them out of the discussion because they come from communities and cultures that place a premium on education and academic achievement. To include them would force us to admit that it’s a cultural issue more than a public-policy one.

But the MAIN topic here is COST, and quibbling over how to divide up the pie between poor students and middle-class students and rich students and in- and out- of state students is pointless. At best you might succeeed in shifting around a few thousand dollars in someone’s college expenses which are, today, the size of a decent house mortgage over a four-year degree program.

College expenses, like medical expenses, are rising faster than inflation and the main reason for this is poor productivity. Until someone makes a serious and detailed proposal for a way to address the underlying structural factors producing this fundamentally flawed economic model of how these vital services are delivered, your debates here about how to shift around a little bit of money at the margins amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Secondly this is a report that as you say is being used by very important people So acuracy and integrity are very important. You dont seem to think honesty means much as long as a report supports your ideas.

You nor Haycock and her group have any idea how many families that have children under 18 and who make 40k have children in college .There is a great percentage that don’t. I’ve gone over this with you twice and I gave you some of the examples. We NEED to know how many American families that have children under 18 and make 40k that DO have kids in college, Before we can use her numbers as a correct measuring stick in regards to moving forward with graphs and claims of discrimination. Her research techniques and data gathering are incredibilly flawed. Do you understand this?

You seem to brush this off by saying ”Most who have children will have children who want to go to college.” Really! You know this for a fact. Show me your data. The fact is you have know idea. I know many families whose kids have no desire at all to go to college. For your information college is not the main desire of every child. Now I see how easy it is for you to have some of your beliefs. Just make things up out of thin air and claim them as fact. You also fail to realize that wanting to go to college does not mean you are going. If you dont meet the academic standards for admission you dont go. This is the main reason we see less minorities on flagship U campuses. Why none of this manipulation of numbers bothers you is beyond me.

Once Haycock and her group use false data or have manipulated numbers in a dishonest way, the rest of her study becomes poisoned. I also found other parts of her study that were misleading. I’ll save those for later.

2nd point Public schools not fulfilling their mandate to provide higher ed for minorities and lower income students. etc.etc.
First who said it was their mandate to do this. second They are doing this, maybe not at the flagships but at the other state colleges this is being done. You see states have what is called a state U system in Mass we have Amherst and Lowell both pretty hard to get into sats avg about 1100 the other state colleges have lower academic standards. there is also a very good CC and JC system. I do agree that Lowell and Amherst have raised academic standards and it is harder to get in but this is not dicrimination. Unless we assume minorities are not as smart as whites. I guess you could say they are discriminating against kids who have achieved at a lower level. Because minorities Have lower sat scores on avg and also many come from the Boston city school system, wich is a complete joke. Graduating from one of these hell holes with A’s and B’s means almost nothing. These kids are mostly so unprepared for the rigors of college,that letting them into a flagship U is not only a disservice to the child but just sets them up for failure. I’ve seen this happen over and over. That is one of the reasons Mass state U’s raised admission standards.

The reason you see many more pells at private schools and smaller state schools is because they need students. Here is a little secret.Many small private schools are dying for students, so they recruit and admit minorities. In return they have lowered there academic standards, and their curriculum has been watered down. Most stateU’s give kids a much better education than many small pvt schools. Especially the flagships, but you have to be academically qualified

This is where I agree with you 1. State U’s are getting more expensive.2. Pell grants don’t cover the % of college tuition that they once did. 3. It is harder for some minority students to get admitted to state U’s due to increased academic standards.
Did you notice how Haycock seperated Asian students from the minority data she used. Why is this? because it did not support the argument she was trying to make.( Another manipulation of statistics)

Your final point The Times, Post and WSJ used this report so it must be important. I agree it is an important report. That is why it should be scrutinized more closely and as I’ve shown you it has many distortions and half truths.
Just because a report strikes a theme that you are in tune with doesn’t make it a truthful or honest report.

The thing that bothers me about this long conversaition we are having is not so much the debate about education, because it is a very complex issue and many people have important and valuable things to say, but how you so cavalierly brush off Haycock and her groups manipulation of data in order to support their position. This is dishonest and misleading and it doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. You actually seem to be in support of her twisting of the numbers in order to prove a broader point.

Of course not- and I assume that the authors realize this. Calling it a “lie” betrays, however, bias, not mere disagreement but an eagerness to dismiss the point. It doesn’t matter if every family earning 40K does not have a child under 18 ready for college at this moment. Some have, some don’t, some have two or more and I assume that MOST who have children will have children who will WANT to go to college ( rather than work or go into the military). The report SAYS that the data of incoming students is LIMITED on family income for this group so the next place to go is government census data. The HOLE is that we do not know how many families have SEVERAL children close to college age, ONE child close to college age, NO child close to college age, NO child interested in college. The ASSUMPTION for this 35% figure is that each family will have ONE eligible child, a modest assumption. The government number gives an idea of what percentage of people COULD have their kid/s in college. The theme of this report after all is not that we are doing well or even well enough, but that we could be and should be doing much better for lower incomes and minority kids who want to go to college AND the flapship state Universities should be leading the way.

This government census figure is corroborated by the OVERALL figure of 35% of Pell grant studentsin ALL universities ( public and private). The COMPARISON then is with the 22% of these students that wind up going to public institutions. This leads to the conclusion that private universities are doing better than public universities assisting the lowest income students. (!) But remember we are talking about percentages not numbers. How many ( eligible, willing) are being left out, discouraged, leaving too soon?

Saying Haycock (the report was written jointly BTW) is “deliberately” misleading ( when in fact the report says that the specific information was limited) betrays again your bias against what is presented overall. You just don’t want to swallow it seems, regardless of the facts, and are more interested in discrediting an author ( as you discredit Al Gore). And I am not going to attempt to force feed. The tables and charts and surveys are there. You decide. People believe what they want to believe.

Nowhere did I say that the state’s give the Pell grants.

You complain that I have several minitopics, but if you go through my posts, I have been saying ONE thing all along: that public universities are not fulfilling their mandate fully to provide higher education for minorities and lower income students and are instead becoming more interested in attracting the affluent, potential sports stars, raising their ratings on the “hot schools lists”, attracting research dollars. All of that is fine, but it should not be at the expense of giving space, giving attention to the disadvantaged and making sure they get through. The report says that the trend towards fulfilling the mandates is downward in too many of these universities,that too many kids are getting discouraged from achieving a full college degree. UMASS surprisingly trends downward.

This comes at a time when federal money covers LESS as tuition increases and pressures to cut Federal aid persist as we spend money on the military, and pork barrels etc.

As well it is not at all clear that the money state universities collect in the form of higher tuition is actually going to help lower income students. A critical report/analysis such as this one is very important. It shines a light on the problem. This country in order to be competitive, if you want to look at it that way, HAS to make sure that every child has an opportunity to go to college- a four year college.

RC21- The report was felt to be important enough to be used as a source by at least three papers of reputation: The New York Times, The Washington Post and indirectly, The Wall Street Journal ( all linked above). I don’t want to go on and on about this picking apart the little stuff and arguing about Haycock’s integrity. The harsh criticism seems to me too misplaced, definitely unsubstantiated.

But as we both know not every family with a child under 18 that makes 40k Has a child eligible for college. The 35% number she begins the statement with has to include families with very young children who are not even eligible to attend college. If your a young family with a couple of toddlers, there is no way you would qualify or even need a pell grant. It does not apply. Likewise with families that have kids that don’t go on to college. Many kids go right to the labor force, some go military some aren’t bright enough for college etc. You get my point. Haycock deliberatly leaves this out. She wants us to make the assumption that every family making 40k that has children also has a kid in college. This is absolutely absurd. I cannot make this any clearer read her own words It is right there in black and white.
I really dont want to go further. If you can’t see what I’m showing you or don’t care to look at this honestly than there is no point in continuing.
It is true that other smaller state schools and private U’s give more pell grants that is because they have more students that qualify.

All students who are eligible for pell grants recieve them. They are strictly given on a financial need basis. They are also awarded by the fed Govt not state U’s. State U’s cannot and do not award pell grants to more affluent students leaving poorer students to go without. This is illegal.

Now if we have finally settled this I will take your next question. please one thing at a time.

“Such students” in the quote above refers to the 35% of of students enrolled in ALL colleges and universities who have Pell grants as compared to the 22% of “such students” in flagship public institutions.

See figure 1 page 5.

From the report: “This figure not only puts the number of Pell recipients enrolled in flagships below what might be expected given the economic characteristics of society at large, but also well below the 35 percent of such students attending all colleges and universities.”

I interpret “such students” to mean of that income category.

That statement refers back to the previous statement regarding incomes of families that have or will have students preparing for college. It’s not a lie as you are too quick to assume but your misreading of the point. Read in context you can see the report is saying that ( my bold where I feel the conclusions are entirely warranted by the facts presented):

“As a group, however, the undergraduates who attend flagships don’t look
much like either the high school graduating classes they came from, or college students more generally: they are likely to be more affluent and less racially
and ethnically diverse than one might presume.

But, as we show later in this report, there turn out
to be far more top-achieving, low-income students
who could succeed in these institutions than ever
get a chance. Indeed, the highest achieving students
from high-income families-those who earned
top grades, completed the full battery of college
prep courses, and took AP courses as well-are
nearly four times more likely than low-income
students with exactly the same level of academic
accomplishment to end up in a highly selective
university.

Where are those talented, low-income students
instead? Mostly either not in college at all, or in
less selective schools to which these top achieving
students could have been admitted if their
achievement was only mediocre.

Why? Because what has changed over the past
decade in our most prestigious universities is how
merit is defined. Now, in addition to academic merit,
it appears to help a lot to be wealthy, too.

As a group, the nation’s 50 flagship universities
are failing to serve the full breadth of their state’s
populations. They’re failing to provide sufficient
access and they’re failing to focus sufficient energy
on student success. That is clear both in their
collective grade-point average in the summary
sections of this report, and in the fact that “F” was
the most common grade earned by the individual
flagships on our institutional report card.

But, as we show later in this report, there turn out
to be far more top-achieving, low-income students
who could succeed in these institutions than ever
get a chance. Indeed, the highest achieving students
from high-income families-those who earned
top grades, completed the full battery of college
prep courses, and took AP courses as well-are
nearly four times more likely than low-income
students with exactly the same level of academic
accomplishment to end up in a highly selective
university. 8

Fortunately, however, there are also some “A’s”-
exceptions that show that flagship universities can
indeed do better at both access and success when
they really focus. Exceptions that can teach us the
way.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

Access for Low-income and
Minority Students

In 2005, the nation’s 50 flagship universities
collectively enrolled approximately 1.2 million
undergraduate students-the majority of whom
entered these institutions directly after graduating
from high school. As a group, however, the
undergraduates who attend flagships don’t look
much like either the high school graduating classes
they came from, or college students more generally:
they are likely to be more affluent and less racially
and ethnically diverse than one might presume.

We know, for example, that 35 percent of American
families with children under 18 earn less than
$40,000 per year-roughly the threshold for
qualifying for a federal Pell Grant.9 While the data
on the income characteristics of students enrolled
in flagship universities are limited, we do know that
22 percent of these students receive Pell Grants. This
figure not only puts the number of Pell recipients
enrolled in flagships below what might be expected
given the economic characteristics of society at
large, but also well below the 35 percent of such
students attending all colleges and universities.

RC21- Did you read pages 16-19 and the tables and charts before that that lead to the conclusions?

I will show you how Haycock has manipulated and distorted numbers to fit her argument. This is from Pg4 Haycock says” We know for example 35% of American families with children under 18 earn less than 40k a year roughly the threshold for qualifying for a pell grant.
While the data on the characteristics of students enrolled in flagship U’s are limited, we do know that 22% of these students receive pell grants.
This figure not only puts the number of pell recipients enrolled in flagship U’s below what might be expected given the economic characteristics of society at large,but also well below the 35% of such students attending all colleges and universities.

This is totally misleading. She is outright lying to make a point. Yes 35% of american families with children under 18 earn less than 40k but not all these families have kids in college as Haycock would have us believe. She is basing all her statistics and arguments on a lie. Do you see how she has just manipulated a simple true statement 35% of american families with children under 18 make less than 40k a year into, why are not 35% of college students recieving pell grants, as if the schools are witholding money from the poor. Not only do many of the 35% not have children that are of college age but of those families that do have kids of college age many dont attend school for several reasons, Work Military, Not qualified, etc. So this would bring the number of kids that should get pell grants to an even lower % of Haycocks original 35%

After reading this I knew right away which way we were headed There are other half truths and manipulations in the report. If you would like I will show you.

If you want to further the discussion I dont have a problem. Just give me one thing at a time. It is easier that way.

I do agree with what I think is the crux of your feelings that public colleges are getting to expensive and they are trying to hard to keep up with elite private schools. I do not agree with the argument that they are trying to keep out poor minorities. As a matter of fact I see just the oppisite happening although at some state schools this may not be the case.

To RC21: What you don’t address is the complaints in the original article that state universities are aiming to raise their ratings ( as in the US News and World Report list) so as to attract the more affluent, that more money is going to help those who are not in great need than the poor, a poor student with higher grades is less likely to get aid than a more affluent student with lower grades.

Raising academic standards is good and besides the point here. The title of one article I linked above is “Public Universities Chase Excellence at a Price” however what price? For what? To attract the wealthy ( which you say is good)? To gain ranking in some listing that wealthy kids check before they apply?

Finally RC21 says: The report by Haycock is full of distortions and half truths weaved into a patchwork quilt that is intended to raise the sympathies of the public. This she hopes will lead to more taxpayer money being spent on her and her agenda.

Here is a link to thewhole report. Read it before you trash outright and make broad assumptions to be credible. If t this is your field, I expect more substance in your criticism:

Engines of Inequality by Danette Gerald and Kati Haycock

if you read further into one of Haycocks reports it claims minorities are graduating at a much lower rate than whites.These kids either are not doing the work once admitted to school or they should not have been admitted in the first place. Either way this is a tremendous waste of taxpayers money

You assume that those are the reasons, and not that these kids cannot afford to pay for college OR qualify for loans OR may be deterred by fears of getting into debts they cannot pay. You do not entertain other circumstances as well that may cause minorities to give up on college (ie the need to support or help their families). So you concluded this is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. I assume that you are content that it is okay and that these people, for whatever reason, are lost causes.

In fact the “edtrust” article summary (again linked here below) says that U of Florida is doing a better job than some of the others in making sure that minority students get through college with a degree and praises recent efforts of some other universities. Surely you would not trash that part of the report ( only the part that you are not prepared to accept for your own unsubstantiated reasons). This is not soley about the U of Florida remember. it’s about a trend that is worrisome in public universities. The report is to call attention to that.

Another example of closedmindedness:

Haycock’s group and the others you you speak of have vested financial and power agendas, This is their line of work. The more reports they write, the more money they can funnel into their projects, the more people they can influence with their lobbying, the longer they stay relevant and gain power. If you fail to understand this than I can’t help you.

I don’t think you have proved anything or been fair from the beginning of this discussion when facts were presented that you simply don’t like.

Did you read the summary?

What you don’t address is the complaints in the original article that state universities are aiming to raise their ratings ( as in the US News and World Report list) so as to attract the more affluent, that more money is going to help those who are not in great need than the poor, a poor student with higher grades is less likely to get aid than a more affluent student with lower grades.

You sidestepped that with a discussion about instate-out of state students.

Raising academic standards is good and besides the point here as well. The title of one article I linked above is “Public Universities Chase Excellence at a Price” however. What price? For what? To attract the wealthy ( which you say is good)? To gain ranking in some listing that wealthy kids check before they apply?

Finally RC21 says: The report by Haycock is full of distortions and half truths weaved into a patchwork quilt that is intended to raise the sympathies of the public. This she hopes will lead to more taxpayer money being spent on her and her agenda.

Here is a link to the whole report. Tell me you read it before you trash it outright, making broad assumptions. If t this is your field, I expect more substance in your criticism and evidence to prove that the facts are wrong, not sidesteps of the issues:

Engines of Inequality by Danette Gerald and Kati Haycock

Point 1 from your reply. Your right I don’t know if they are all lazy. Some just may not be mentally equipped to function in a college environment. This does not make them bad people, it’s just reality.Either way if they don’t perform they should not be admitted.

Point2:Back to Florida U again. Did you not read all the information on the various programs set up for poor and minority students? It seems you only read and retain information that fits your belief system. Go back and reread the article. Poor and minority kids from families that have not had college graduates are attending Florida U for free. What else do you want?

Point3: I work in this field so I have a good idea on how things work. You tell me Haycock insists federal aid is a very small part of poor kids financial aid packages, then you proceed to link several articles that focus on federal finacial aid, and the importance it has to poor students. So who is lying the Post , The WSJ, the Times, or Haycock and her group.

Point 4; Of course I’m biased against the Times, but for good reason they have a well documented liberal bias. Their own ombudsman even admitted to this. There is even a websight that’s only function is to expose this bias. There is not a day that goes by where they don’t have something to report. If you cant admit to the Times having a liberal bias,I would submit that your sense of impartiality and fairness runs along the same path as the Times. Check out the sight ”timeswatch” if you would like to see what is meant by liberal bias.
I gave you my reasons why I thought the writer of the article did not give the whole story and did not question Haycocks report. You have given me nothing to make think differently.

Point5: Affirmitive action, Give me your definition of affirmitive action and I will tell you if we differ. If you think we should reach out to poor and minority communities and find decent hard working kids that meet admission standards, than yes I’m all for affirmitive action. It may suprise you but this is my line of work. But if you think we should fill some preconceived numerical quota system soley based on a persons skin color, disregarding academic standards for races deemed to be intellectually inferior, than no I am not in favor of affirmitive action. It has far outlived it’s usefullness, and I also feel it unconstitutional in that it discriminates on the basis of race. If you read further into one of Haycocks reports it claims minorities are graduating at a much lower rate than whites.These kids either are not doing the work once admitted to school or they should not have been admitted in the first place. Either way this is a tremendous waste of taxpayers money, I see this happen all the time. I don’t need a report to tell me this, although I’m sure Haycock and her group would blame others for minorities flunking out of school at higher rates. .

Haycock’s group and the others you you speak of have vested financial and power agendas, This is their line of work. The more reports they write, the more money they can funnel into their projects, the more people they can influence with their lobbying, the longer they stay relevant and gain power. If you fail to understand this than I can’t help you.By the way this goes on in all walks of life. Advocacy groups advocate. Thats what they do. Can you imagine if Haycock wrote a report praising State U’s for increasing academic standards and admitting brighter students vs students with inferior grades and SAT’s. She would be out of work.

Bottom line Many stat U’s are raising academic standards, this inturn leads to a more challenging academic atmosphere at colleges. This is a good thing. Our students need to be challenged ,not allowed to wallow in mediocrity . More aid is being given to students who have achieved at a high level academically. This is also a good thing. We should reward those who work hard and study.

Public schools need to do a better job at prepairing their students. I also think minority communities need to do a better job at raising their children. In my state poor kids can go for free if they are qualified. The opportunities are unlimited. The report by Haycock is full of distortions and half truths weaved into a patchwork quilt that is intended to raise the sympathies of the public. This she hopes will lead to more taxpayer money being spent on her and her agenda.

As Tuition Soars,Federal Aid To College Students Falls”

The WSJ is also “biased” in their editorials ( as they should be) but I presume, like any paper that has a reputation, they try to report the facts and hold to a standard of journalism, notwithstanding Jay Rosen’s criticism ( which which I agree) about reporting regarding Iraq.

It’s not the newspapers that need to be discredited nor the leader of the respected advocacy group. RC21 seems to have a different version or reading of the facts.

Regarding Kati Hancock, from edweek.org study: “Influence: A Study of the Factors Shaping Education Policy” regarding influential people ( she is pretty respected):

“The top-ranked person, based on expert ratings, is Bill Gates. Billionaire, founder of Microsoft, and co-
chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he has become a leading voice for educational reform.
Many of Gates’ strongest statements have focused on the challenges facing the nation’s high schools
and, more recently, the crucial role of education in America’s ability to remain competitive in an
increasingly global economy.

Gates is joined on the list by two other leaders of philanthropic institutions. Eighth-ranked Marshall (Mike)
Smith has directed the education program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation since 2001.
Rounding out the short list is Chester Finn, Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (a
leading organization), senior editor of Education Next, and weekly columnist in the foundation’s Education
Gadfly. Kati Haycock, who receives the third-highest influence score, serves as director of the Education
Trust, a Washington, DC-based non-profit that is itself a highly-influential organization. ”

From the Education Trust website:

“OF NOTE… The Education Trust is the #1 education advocacy organization of the decade, according to the Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center. The Ed Trust was also ranked as one of the most influential information sources in education policy, and our president, Kati Haycock, was ranked as one of the most influential people in education. The Education Trust’s work in teacher quality research was also listed as one of the most influential research studies in the education policy landscape. For more information on the rankings, and the Education Trust’s work…” [link to Edweek.org report quoted from above]

RC21-Are you looking instead for information that you could use to discredit the facts in some way such as the phony issues of partisanship and NYTimes bias?

How do you know that those who have “achieved poorly” are lazy? I have a lot of problem with this assumption.

RC21It seems Florida U is doing some of this out of state recruitment and bringing in of more proffesors in order to lower the student to teacher ratio. This is good for the students not bad. Why would you have a problem with this?

More teachers is good but at what expense? And to attract who?
To get the revenue from attracting affluent students who take spaces that those who cannot afford college might occupy is not good.

Expanding Florida’s economy should not be the primary burden of the states higher education. It should be a byproduct. What drives what?

RC21 It also does not adress federal money that only is awarded on a need based criteria. Almost all of this money goes to poor and lower middle class kids.But the article doesnt mention this. Any half decent journalist would have mentioned it, as federal dollars makes up a substantial part of many poor kids financial aid packages.

The article says that federal money is, a very small part of the financial that these poorer students get. Where do you get your facts?

RC21 This is what I mean by biased journalism by the Times…..Always be sceptical of the Times. They have a track record.

You are blatantly biased against the Times especially when you broadbrush the whole paper for some points you disagree with ( and have not backed up with your own facts.. What track record? The one you cherrypick?). The article cites it’s source. If you quarrel with the source why do you blame the NYTimes?

RC21 The author never used one person from another institute or study group to dispute or question her or her motives, or her numbers. Kati Haycock is a Democrat who used to be in charge of Californias affirmitive action program. She has a real interest in seeing more money (state and fed) being used on minority students. This is how she makes her living .Unbiased journalism would have revealed some of the things I brought up and i’m not even a jounalist.

The facts are the facts, they are not Republican or Democratic. You write as though affirmative action is a bad thing. Maybe that is where we differ. State schools, above all others should be engaged in affirmative action. This notion is not the sole idea of one lady in charge of a watchdog group.

RC21 Maybe I will look up the author and see what her background is. Do you think she’s a conservative republican or a liberal Democrat…

You make this into a partisan argument when it is not.

First you made it seem as if the article was just about Florida U, As I reread I found many of the statements that were infered were not even about florida u. This may be my fault.

No where in the article did it say Florida U was giving more aid to out of state wealthy kids than they were to poor instate kids. This quote was about State U’S throughout the country. There may be several reasons for this. Other state U,s may be giving more scholarship money for academic acheivement. This is more likely the case. I see nothing wrong with this. School is about academic acheivement So awarding those who acheive only seems natural. Would you prefer money being given to those who are lazy and have acheived poorly?

Also read on in the article: Florida U pays 75-100% of tution and fees for students with high grades and test scores,including more than 90% of incoming freshman. What could possibly be the problem with this?

Now lets go further in the article; Florida U has started a new program that pays full cost of the school ,books, tuition, housing and fees for all kids from households with less than 40K income and wh,ose parents did not attend college. This has raised incoming frosh enrollment of blacks to 13% I’m sure Hispanic and Asian enrollment have also increased under this same program. By the way Mass has the exact same program. This is a great deal. One you forgot to mention,in your previous posts.

A few other comments; Look further into the article It seems Florida U is doing some of this out of state recruitment and bringing in of more proffesors in order to lower the student to teacher ratio. This is good for the students not bad. Why would you have a problem with this? Also the president said ”Economic development is tied to research. The state is fired up when it sees our projects with Burnham institute for medical research and Scripps research institute”

You see the more Florida U can show how well it does, the more investment will come. Thus more scientists, and researchers will be produced by Florida U. Some of these people will stay in Florida and start there own companies thus expanding the economy and adding new jobs. Many of wich will go to poor and and working class people.( Evil capitalism once again at work) This is actually great forsight , and will eventually help all Floridians.

If you want an example just look at Mass we have tons of bio research companies springing up all over ,as well as computer companies. These employ thousands, Many of the ceo’s of these companies went to school right here in Mass.

Another point; You use the quote by Education Trust pres Kati Haycock”Public universities were created to make excellence available to all qualified students” This is her opinion not fact. But she has shown no proof that the poor and minorites are not geting a chance. Looking at Florida U her and your focal point. It appears the poor and minorities are getting great opportunities and many are paying little or nothing.

Another point one of the main themes of the article . Aid to families with incomes of over 100K have quadrupled while aid to the poor has declined. They said flagship schools but gave no names and gave no hard numbers, so I question some of their statements. But let’s assume this is true. Here are some of the reasons this may happen First if an incoming rich kid has to pay 30-40K to go out of state he may get 20k in aid. If a poor instate kid wants to go he may qualify for the whole cost of school,say 14K So yes the rich kid gets more aid but the poor kid pays zero.The more wealthy kids that go out of state the more aid is going to be given. Yet the school and by extension the state still makes out because the out of state kid ends up paying 20k to go to school. This is a net gain of 24k over 4 years. By the way schools use the bait and switch ruse just like car dealers. They may give a rich out of state kid a big financial award the first year but as each year goes by the award becomes smaller,and more loans are used as opposed to grants. So by the 3rd and 4th year the out of state kid is now paying most of the cost through his or more exactly his parents bank account. This is a common practice at all colleges. Now the state is really raking in the cash. This should in fact help the school and the instate student,by putting more money into the coffer. Also much of the aid is being given out for acheivement not for ones economic status as Haycock would lead us to believe. It also does not adress federal money that only is awarded on a need based criteria. Almost all of this money goes to poor and lower middle class kids.But the article doesnt mention this. Any half decent journalist would have mentioned it, as federal dollars makes up a substantial part of many poor kids financial aid packages. This is what I mean by biased journalism by the Times.

Another point; Yes the Times is biased the group who put out the article has a vested interest in seeing more minorities in college this is one of their main goals. The author never used one person from another institute or study group to dispute or question her or her motives, or her numbers. Kati Haycock is a Democrat who used to be in charge of Californias affirmitive action program. She has a real interest in seeing more money (state and fed) being used on minority students. This is how she makes her living .Unbiased journalism would have revealed some of the things I brought up and i’m not even a jounalist.
Maybe I will look up the author and see what her background is. Do you think she’s a conservative republican or a liberal Democrat. I’m pretty sure we both know the answer to that one. In fairness she does use quotes by Florida U’s president and she does speak of the programs that are helping minorities and poor (This basically shoots holes into Haycotts report).

Finally when all is said and done the reality is minorities are doing quite well at Florida U. They are not under represented and many are paying little if anything at all to attend. I dont see what the big fuss is? The truth is, it is more about Haycock trying to gain more money and power for her,and her group. She manipulated data threw out some quotes and got a biased Times reporter to print her article and people like yourself who are allready predisposed to buy into this stuff, read it and say ”Yes another rich keeping down the poor example of what a racist, terrible class dominated society we live in”

Always be sceptical of the Times. They have a track record.

Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less, while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000 – a staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995. At the same time, poor students were disproportionately bearing the brunt of increased college tuition and fees.

These types of choices at the flagships have resulted in undergraduate populations that are less and less and reflective of the states these institutions were established to serve. For example, though minority students comprise more than 35 percent of Georgia’s high school graduates, they represent less than 7 percent of the entering 2004 freshmen at the University of Georgia. Even more alarming, this underrepresentation is actually getting worse at most flagship campuses. The report documents similar trends for low- and middle-income students, who are being displaced at the flagships by students from the most affluent families.

see: Engines of Inequality:Diminishing Equity in the Nation’s Premier Public Universities

that should read: also note “according to the Education Trust”” [as the NYTimes source for that report on who is getting financial aid].

While I am here again- here is the link to the watchdog group Education Trust and their report.

I did not.

The article says that students from out of state coming from higher income families ( $100K) are being given more aid to attend public universities, while aid to the poorest declined:

Again from the article- also not “according to the Education Trust” as the source:

From 1995 to 2003, flagship and leading public research universities quadrupled their aid to students from families with incomes over $100,000, while aid to students from the poorest families declined, according to the Education Trust. The best public universities, the group said, have come to resemble “gated communities of higher education.”

This does not refer to instate or out of state. This refers to poor versus affluent.

So before you discredit the NYTimes, read the article ( did you?) and make sure you are not setting up a straw man arguments to prove your bias against the paper.

So I did a little research. It took me less than 1 MINUTE to find the cost of an instate vs an out of state student. Instate total cost = about 15,000. Out of state total cost= about 30,000. That is twice as much. I also looked into their financial aid info. It seems they follow the guide lines as most state U’s. They also use the FAFSA form. They also have several scholarship,and financial aid programs that are only for minorities and instate students. Much of a schools financial aid is awarded through the Federal govt.this is blind aid only given to those who qualify through the FAFSA program. You have to have financial need in order to recieve it. Giving federal aid to students not eligible is illegal. I am almost positive Florida U is not doing this

The latest stats also show that of the 47,000 students over 40,000 are instate. I’m not sure but my guess is that is not out of line with many other states. Also remember more kids from out of state probably would like to attend a Florida state school as opposed to say a state school in Iowa, Michigan, or Maine. No offense but kids like sun and beaches more than snow and cold..

I also looked at their student breakdown by race. Over 23 percent of the students are minorities. Whats the problem with that?

So maybe Florida U is recruiting more out of state kids, but I don’t see the proof that this is hurting minorities or instate kids be they poor or wealthy. The writer of this article either lied or is a very poor journalist, that has some kind of hidden, or not so hidden agenda to promote. Maybe you should do some research on the author of this article. Dig intohis/ her background a little.
I wont blame you for throwing out inaccurate data. But my advice is always be sceptical of the Times.

If only everyone were so completely rational. If they could predict all possible consequences of their actions, control their emotions, their deepest desires/urges, weighing it all advance…. That’s not human nature.

Noone who has a child knows what they are getting into until they get into it. Regardless of the level of rationality employed in bringing new life, society has an interest in and a role to play in helping to provide for children.

That is not what the article said. Perhaps it’s so here and in a few other places. If you have the required grades, you should be accepted at a public university period and not be faced with having to decide about paying off big debts after graduatiuon either. The article says that poorer students are not being taken care of and that the campus is filled with affluent students making the less well off feel uncomfortable. The culture changes.

If a college is going after the affluent and has x number of spaces, each space that the affluent student takes, is a space a less well off student cannot take. The article says the more affluent are being given financial aid as well. (!) But to give a lower student to teacher ratio, additonal fees are being added to hire more teachers! This is a busness decision. ( More affluent students, more money to attract more and higher paid teachers pushing the university rating up attracting more research dollars, attracting more affluent students , attracting more research dollars attracting more quality or big name professors etc etc. ). The primary focus of providing a quality higher education to those who are unable to afford it is this lost to other goals.

I assume this is not true across the board in state and city schools, but it is a trend and it reflects a state of mind far from the mandate of these schools.

BTW- I graduated HUnter College, City University of New York at a time when it was essentiall free and if you had the equivalent of a B average in High School ( 85 average) plus I forget what on your SAT’s you were in. The teachers were first rate. That formula changed after I left to accommodate those who needed some remedial classes to gain entrance. This was to further the mandate that the college system provide a way up for the less well off, those disadvanataged at home, many immigrants or children of immigrants.

PLN: Obviously the taxpayers of Florida CHOSE to adopt the system you are objecting to.

Where do you get that from? What DID the taxpayers of Florida choose when they set up the state higher education system? Do you know? Or did that morph to what various leaders like Jeb Bush wanted ( less affirmative action) and Bob Graham had to fight to gain back?

from the NYT article: Like Florida, more leading public universities are striving for national status and drawing increasingly impressive and increasingly affluent students, sometimes using financial aid to lure them. In the process, critics say, many are losing force as engines of social mobility, shortchanging low-income and minority students, who are seriously underrepresented on their campuses.

“Public universities were created to make excellence available to all qualified students,” said Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, an advocacy group, “but that commitment appears to have diminished over time, as they choose to use their resources to try to push up their rankings. It’s all about reputation, selectivity and ranking, instead of about the mission of finding and educating future leaders from their state.”

I suspect what the taxpayers of Florida CHOSE was to set up a system available to all qualified students equally regardless of income, as long as they met the academic requirements. That’s what they needed, that is what they should have had. If the system is being used to try to attract research dollars, this relates to business interests and it corrupts the original purpose of a public university. To some extent of course a university has to be run as a business, but not at the expense of the primary mandate.

Greed, money interests, are very POWERFUL.