OT - Racism alive and well at universities
- Thread starter T2Kplus10
- Start date
Undergrad. Less of a connection in grad school to begin with, no?
Aren't the good times at "Mother B" going to stay with you much longer than whatever building you were in in Durham or Piscataway/Newark?
If we start to hit that nerve right....
Last edited:
There you guys go discussing race. Some guys aren't going to like it. And certainly won't get involved in another attempt to have a race-based topic. Oh wait. Nevermind.
Last edited:
Well, a poisson could work, although I always think of the poisson as occurring when you have a nearly infinite number of chances of something happening in a given time, but a very small probability of any one of them being a positive occurrence. So, let's call it possible. What I was hoping is that the likelihood of any given alum giving wouldn't be really small! Unfortunately, at RU, it is way too small!
One of the area's that utilize the Poisson Distribution is predictive policing. These mathematical models are quite effective. There are ways to optimize these models as they are applied to increasing donations.
No, I don't. But I understand why universities do them. It is in their financial best interest.
Crime stats would be an excellent example of poisson. I'm going to steal that one if you don't mind next time I teach this. I currently use traffic accidents at a given intersection or flaws in bolts of cloth. Not nearly as exciting as a good old murder!
While you're asking, here is my model for legacy admits to highly selective universities: At Princeton, tuition brings in a bit over $100 million a year. Let's make it $120 million. This involves tuition and fees. Lots of students get aid, some don't, but for most kids at Princeton, going there is a bit of a financial burden for the family. Legacies get in at a higher rate (partly because they typically have better academic records). So, my Gordian knot-cutting solution is to sell about 30 admissions each year for $1,000,000 bucks each (per year). No other admission info required. The family ponies up $1 mill a year, and the kid is in. That covers all of the income Princeton currently gets from tuition and fees. Everybody else? Free. No Cost. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Unfair? Well, yes and no. Let us say that Princeton says, "We will build an extra dorm, and admit 30 more kids a year than we used to." Thus, nobody who would have gotten into Princeton would have their place taken by one of these 30. The university would never say who the 30 were. And if somebody's name did leak, the other students would hold parties for him/her as they are picking up everybody else's tab.
Why do it? Simplifies all that financial add BS, and ensures that the best kids will want to go there. Win win.
Just sent you an e-mail.
As for your post, not sure about this. People that can afford those costs are likely already donating big amounts. Making them pay $1 million for tuition may cut into other donations. Just like libs always find out - raising taxes never generate the revenue that you believe it will! :)
Similar to how right wingers find out--though never admit--that dropping taxes on the wealthy and big businesses never generates the revenue they claim it will.
Doesn't thanks already happens today, except for the "free for everyone else" part. Unless your child is a train wreck, 4M in donations is getting them into the school
This might be true. However, I have yet to find a conservative that can explain how Tax cuts and trickle down reagonomics led to the creation of Google, Apple or Intel.
Go look up what happened to tax revenue after JFK, Reagan, and GWB cut tax rates. Let me give you a hint - up, up, and away!
Nah. People who don't have a tie to say, Princeton, aren't currently making donations to Princeton. I'm talking about some hedge fund guys, or oil folks, or athletes who have big bucks and an 18 year-old they want to go to Princeton. They are currently making donations to other causes (or not at all). So PU says, "A million a year, and your kid is in." Would there be 30 folks a year who would say, "Sign me up!" I'm thinking there would be. And for another contribution, you can get boxes for the all-important Princeton/Dartmouth game.
If you cut taxes and don't cut expenditures but simply borrow money to cover the difference you are merely doing Keynesian stimulation.
Thanks for proving my point. Tax revenue shot up over 40% after the rate cuts took affect in 2003! Go GWB! Now look up the data on Reagan and JFK. Those numbers will blow your mind.
Entirely different issue. The question at hand, did tax revenue increase after JFK, Reagan, and GWB cut tax rates? Stick to the topic. And FYI, yes it did, in all 3 cases.
The issue was the tax cuts did not lead to the expected revenue. That's why w bush never ran a surplus, not even close. Jesus do you guys ever admit that anything about your side is not perfect? Partisan hacks.
True . I would rather have that face than that race sitting next to me in math class.
If they don't carve out places for what looks like most Americans, there will troop carriers filled with prospective students sailing from China, Korea and India. UC Berkeley is 25% Caucasian now that the lid is off, yet I can't get one white cornerback in the NFL.
Definitely
which brings up another problem. Logic dictates that people leaving your professional and medical schools are poised to make an immediate financial impact. You have to figure out a way to address those numbers I talk about. The RU undergrad people in my program were largely big RU supporters. There was them and...me. lol. I would imagine, un scientifically, that the law school has similar problems. And I can say that we experienced very little in the RU Screw department. We were treated very well on a day to day basis in the hassle mitigation department.
Professor - after the tax cuts, revenue went up over 40%, but GWB's budgets were out of control and increased spending way too much, including the intro of Medicare Part D. GWB lost Congress in 2006 because many fiscal conservatives got feed up with his spending and stayed home for that election.
Can say the exact same about you. Even the liberal website you linked cited the huge increase in revenue. Yes, they tried to cherry pick and downplay the trend, but the facts are the facts.
How about listing the things you think show racist views.
It's getting a little old seeing weak posters drive by and allege racism without offering any substance to the conversation.
You'll have to show us this documented...and I hope everyone noted that the guy who is afraid to stay on the CE board injects tax policy in thus thread with a bomb thrown at the right wing.
As soon as I see documentation that raising taxes doesn't lead to as much revenue as expected. I seem to recall the last time we had a budget surplus it was after a tax INCREASE.
Interesting....
Make an allegation...then you get called on it...then you demand others disprove it.
Really weak.
See half of RcTroop I mean brg's posts, as well as RUforJersey, as well as a few others. It's a thin veil.
Rutgers should do then what I saw/heard at my niece's (masters in OT) graduation ceremony...
Last speaker was from the alumni office who said in a very nice and sweet way that, "...after you leave here you need to continue to learn and eventually earn but most importantly return." And she didn't mean come back for a visit and pick up a sweatshirt at the bookstore.;)
Her (the school's) way of saying, "Hey, that bridge? Yeah, you didn't build that."
Last edited:
Similar threads
