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.