Student loans to hit 1 trillion this year.

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing wrong with that the U.S. has always done it.
Wernher von Braun, Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, Hans Albrecht Bethe, Madeleine Albright just to name a few and thousands of others all immigrated to United States.

There is no shortage of top level "brains" in the U.S. and certainly no shortage of talent. What there is a shortage of is properly educated masses, skilled trades people and manufacturing.




The problem is that much of what we bring in is illegal and a drain on our society.

I read just last night that in NJ the "immigrant" population, which is really necked down further into just a certain smaller group is 27.9% IIRC. The percentage is just behind NY and CA. Granted NJ has a lot of farm work down south, but really? And a lot of this is illegal.

I certainly dont think that many of these are going to turn into physicists or rocket scientists, sorry.

Before we targeted immigration of people with high credentials. Now we offer quota grants and free or nearly free schooling (plus low cost federal loans) to people who ma not actualy even be here legally - essentially invaders to our country mooching our resources.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
Example, kids who choose the rat race of University of Wisconsin for its rankings over some plush private school with a bunch of counselors holding their hands and fancy dorm rooms are generally better self starters, more ambitious and have more fire in the belly.


Or they know that Madison is consistently ranked as the best party school in the nation and want a good night life. Or they go there because their friends are going there. Or they go there because their high school counselors or parents push them in that direction. All of the above are true for many classmates of mine who went to UW-Madison over other schools.

There are a lot of reasons why 17 year old kids chose a particular college or university, and pretty far down the list is whether or not they are a "self starter."


Ok fair point. I only meant it as an example and I don't only use that as my only piece of information. When you look at the whole package: say you get a kid with really high grades, s/he look fantastic on paper, you still have to gauge the intangibles that are important in a successful employee. Then you gauge that by asking questions about how they've made major decisions in the lives. Was the kid afraid to leave home? Was the kid looking for an "experience" rather than an investment in choosing colleges? Does the kid want to go to the best place or a place that keeps them entertained and comfortable? If a kid can navigate a place like U Wisc, U of Michigan, UC Berkeley etc with very little guidance, that is a good signal.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing wrong with that the U.S. has always done it.
Wernher von Braun, Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, Hans Albrecht Bethe, Madeleine Albright just to name a few and thousands of others all immigrated to United States.

There is no shortage of top level "brains" in the U.S. and certainly no shortage of talent. What there is a shortage of is properly educated masses, skilled trades people and manufacturing.




The problem is that much of what we bring in is illegal and a drain on our society.

I read just last night that in NJ the "immigrant" population, which is really necked down further into just a certain smaller group is 27.9% IIRC. The percentage is just behind NY and CA. Granted NJ has a lot of farm work down south, but really? And a lot of this is illegal.

I certainly dont think that many of these are going to turn into physicists or rocket scientists, sorry.

Before we targeted immigration of people with high credentials. Now we offer quota grants and free or nearly free schooling (plus low cost federal loans) to people who ma not actualy even be here legally - essentially invaders to our country mooching our resources.



JHZR2. we are not talking about opening the borders here. We are talking about identifying gifted individuals who show exceptional ability in the university system. If you want to make this a rant about illegals stealing blue collar jobs and mooching off the system, nobody here is going to disagree with you.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

The problem is that much of what we bring in is illegal and a drain on our society.
Before we targeted immigration of people with high credentials. Now we offer quota grants and free or nearly free schooling (plus low cost federal loans) to people who ma not actualy even be here legally - essentially invaders to our country mooching our resources.


I knew we could eventually agree on something.


Originally Posted By: VeeDubb

JHZR2. we are not talking about opening the borders here. We are talking about identifying gifted individuals who show exceptional ability in the university system. If you want to make this a rant about illegals stealing blue collar jobs and mooching off the system, nobody here is going to disagree with you.

In the last 10 years we needed nurses..so we brought in Nurses from the Philippians. Many didn't know how to use a thermometer or bedpan but they did own a nursing suit and staid in a Holiday in. They had no degrees.

Same during the DotCom bubble we brought in computer people who had never seen a computer nor held a computer degree. Many were from Africa.

 

[wallyuwl]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
If a kid can navigate a place like U Wisc, U of Michigan, UC Berkeley etc with very little guidance, that is a good signal.


Sure. But that is something that happens once they get there. Large state universities also do have a lot of guidance available to students if they choose to take advantage of it, so it isn't like they are on their own. Most don't seek out that guidance, though.

I think state comprehensive universities are ideal for undergraduates - you get as much or little guidance as you choose to accept/look for, but you are taught by professors and build relationships with them, and not graduate students. There are many other benefits to state comprehensive universities vs. large institutions as well.

 

[VeeDubb]

Al I think you are on target here. What I can't understand is why we can't incentivize more Americans to want to be nurses. At the same time, we have a glut of people graduating from law school. It does not take rare ability to be a nurse and most of the wannabe lawyers who are currently unemployed could probably be competent nurses. I'm not interested in bringing immigrants here to fill positions that many Americans can fill. It's much better to tinker with policy that make provide incentives for Americans to reallocate their priorities (e.g. tax breaks for becoming a nurse). The only people I want to recruit are people with exceptional talent. For example, you don't deny Albert Pujols and Pedro Marinez a visa but you also don't let every teenager who has ambitions of being a big leaguer into the country.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Several sources show tuition has been increasing at a faster rate than even health care. Any recent cuts in state funding don't account for the increase.



I'm pretty much at a loss of what else to say? Like I said, you seem committed to believing what you want to believe. YES, TUITION HAS GONE UP, RAPIDLY! I've never denied that! What I've said is that at least with respect to state-run institutions, it's NOT because the actual cost has spiraled out of control, it's because individuals are now funding it rather than the states.


I'm not going to debate the graph you posted which applies only to Washington and is unclear. State funding may have dropped in most states very recently. But all universities absolutely do receive federal funding through grants to the state's general budget, Pell grants and subsidized loans and these have been increasing. The bottomline is tuition has been increasing even for public in-state much faster than the difference between state funding, inflation and normal supply and demand. I've posted numerous sources showing it is rapidly increasing. I could post you a link to the Dept of Education's website and their study listing this rapid increase by college, but I hesistate to do so since someone might consider that political. The sources are numerous showing costs are increasing.

Quote:
I'd tried to provide a concrete example of this, demonstrating that while a major university has actually DECREASED the actual cost to put a kid through school over the last 20 years, the cost to the student has risen--dramatically. And that's one the major reasons that student loans have risen so dramatically. There's absolutely nothing in the references you provided which disagree with that conclusion.

I've done about all I can do to make this clear, but you seem pretty intent on ignoring it, so I think I'm going to give up now.


You've provided one vague graph about Washington University from Washington University, and I've provided several sources showing tution is increasing at a rapid rate at most colleges. You're the one intent on ignoring the facts.

And in regard to the PC of colleges. Books could be written and have on all the PC stuff they engage in. And I don't see how public colleges rejecting qualified residents for higher paying less qualified non-residents in the face of rising tution costs (that many sources show and you won't accept) does anything other than prove that colleges are seeking highest revenue to offset their increasing costs.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
If a kid can navigate a place like U Wisc, U of Michigan, UC Berkeley etc with very little guidance, that is a good signal.


Sure. But that is something that happens once they get there.

I


When you are trying to hire a kid fresh out of college, there isn't much track record to go on. So it is as much art as science. You do what you can with the information you have. I acknowledge it is imperfect, but the question is whether there is a correlation between the way the kid chose a college and their drive, ambition and priorities. I think there is based on experience. The correlation is not perfect, but it's there so you should use the information in combination with a lot of other information. If the correlation was zero, then you toss it in the trash can as a predictor.

 

[wallyuwl]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
the question is whether there is a correlation between the way the kid chose a college and their drive, ambition and priorities. I think there is based on experience. The correlation is not perfect, but it's there so you should use the information in combination with a lot of other information. If the correlation was zero, then you toss it in the trash can as a predictor.


I've attended and taught at small private colleges, state comprehensives, and large state universities. I have seen no meaningful relationship between the ambition of incoming freshmen and the type of institution they choose. And even if there was, correlation (and the level of possible correlation) is not causation. Seventeen year old kids choose their college based on many factors. The most prominent of those factors are (in no particular order): 1) where their friends are going, 2) where their parents want them to go, 3) the social life reputation of the university compared to the type of social life they want, 4) how much it costs, and 5) if their desired degree program is offered.

Now, some students at large universities choose to not utilize the resources available to them, thereby making them have to be more independent and do things on their own. I'd contend this shows stubbornness, and in come cases stupidity, just as much as ambition. But that is just a difference in perspective. But back to the main point, which is that WHY a 17 year old kid chooses a college has nothing to do with how much of a self-starter they are. 17 year old kids with moer of an independent streak don't necessarily go to large state universities, and less independent seventeen year old kids don't necessarily not go to them.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb

JHZR2. we are not talking about opening the borders here. We are talking about identifying gifted individuals who show exceptional ability in the university system. If you want to make this a rant about illegals stealing blue collar jobs and mooching off the system, nobody here is going to disagree with you.


And Im not talking about opening borders either. But you have to realize that most all of the immigration discussion is centered upon the hispanic/latino groups and what they can get and how they can protect each other once here.

You have to realize that we do have a process for getting and retaining the best and the brightest. Ive written quite a few letters to immigration for excellent scientists and engineers.

But you also have to realize that in this thread we are talking about people of low means who are trying to create some "dream" by going to college, and with staggering immigrant populations by well represented groups that are getting quota scholarships and assured loans, this is just growing from another angle.

So it is a very real problem, and some of these groups are unfortunately the least likely to pay.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
the question is whether there is a correlation between the way the kid chose a college and their drive, ambition and priorities. I think there is based on experience. The correlation is not perfect, but it's there so you should use the information in combination with a lot of other information. If the correlation was zero, then you toss it in the trash can as a predictor.


I've attended and taught at small private colleges, state comprehensives, and large state universities. I have seen no meaningful relationship between the ambition of incoming freshmen and the type of institution they choose. And even if there was, correlation (and the level of possible correlation) is not causation. Seventeen year old kids choose their college based on many factors. The most prominent of those factors are (in no particular order): 1) where their friends are going, 2) where their parents want them to go, 3) the social life reputation of the university compared to the type of social life they want, 4) how much it costs, and 5) if their desired degree program is offered.

Now, some students at large universities choose to not utilize the resources available to them, thereby making them have to be more independent and do things on their own. I'd contend this shows stubbornness, and in come cases stupidity, just as much as ambition. But that is just a difference in perspective. But back to the main point, which is that WHY a 17 year old kid chooses a college has nothing to do with how much of a self-starter they are. 17 year old kids with moer of an independent streak don't necessarily go to large state universities, and less independent seventeen year old kids don't necessarily not go to them.


You really need to just go back and read my post. Nowhere does it say I choose a kid blindly because s/he choose Wisconsin over Tufts for example. I said I aske them the THOUGT PROCESS they used in selecting the school they selected. And FOR EXAMPLE if they chose a large public university over a private school because they liked its ranking over a private school that was more plush, they get credit from me. I do not read their minds. I ask them a question and evaluate an answer. Now do I always choose a kid who went to Swarthmore over Berkeley. No. Depends on the caliber of the amswer. But on average, i get a lot more kids giving the wrong reasons (for us) why they chose a equivalent or lower ranked private school over a higher quality albeit more intimidation public school. Now all those reasons you gave: where friends are going, where parents want then to go, social reputation, etec. Those are the wrong answers. Those are median job applicant answers. They are not top 5% get hired answers. We get a lot of applicants and some of the candidates blow away candidats who give those amswers.

 

[wallyuwl]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb

You really need to just go back and read my post. Nowhere does it say I choose a kid blindly because s/he choose Wisconsin over Tufts for example. I said I aske them the THOUGT PROCESS they used in selecting the school they selected. And FOR EXAMPLE if they chose a large public university over a private school because they liked its ranking over a private school that was more plush, they get credit from me. I do not read their minds. I ask them a question and evaluate an answer. Now do I always choose a kid who went to Swarthmore over Berkeley. No. Depends on the caliber of the amswer. But on average, i get a lot more kids giving the wrong reasons (for us) why they chose a equivalent or lower ranked private school over a higher quality albeit more intimidation public school. Now all those reasons you gave: where friends are going, where parents want then to go, social reputation, etec. Those are the wrong answers. Those are median job applicant answers. They are not top 5% get hired answers. We get a lot of applicants and some of the candidates blow away candidats who give those amswers.



Fair enough. You made it seem like you value someone who went to a large public institution more than another type of college or university because you think that shows they are more "self-sufficient." My point is, and has been, that is not necessarily the case.

A few things for you to consider: you should be careful about your perception of different institutions. To make such judgements you really need to understand what goes into the rankings. Different agencies judge different criteria (US News and World Reports judges differently than Kaplan, for example). Often the criteria used has little to do with undergraduate learning, or undergraduate learning only makes up a small part of the criteria. You really need to know what the "college experiences" are on every campus you are making a judgement on. A student being taught by TAs in 90% of their classes at a "highly ranked" large public university, such as Madison, will almost always leave a learning deficit compared to students being taught by, and building relationships with, professors at less "highly ranked" (though still good) places like UW-Eau Claire. If you don't know these things about the rankings and institutions it is unfair to your applicants and is a hiring bias that might be hurting your company.

As for the answer to to the question about why a kid chose a college, you need to understand that: 1) you are making a judgment on a 22 or 23 year old adult based on a decision that person made as a 17 year old kid, possibly with a lot of influence from family and counselors; and 2) you are judging a truthful answer as "right" or "wrong" based on your perceptions of what is "right" or "wrong" about HOW a 17 year old kid made their college choice. How a teenager makes decision is not the same as how an adult does; not only is their sphere of experiences and perceptions different, but there are even differences in how the brain is developed at those different times which influences thinking and decision making. You're doing the hiring and you can use whatever criteria you want, but these are things you should be aware of if you haven't thought of them previously that may lead to the exclusion of good applicants.

 

[VeeDubb]

First of all, when I say "right" or "wrong" answers, they are conditional based on what we are looking for. They are not statements about the person's inherent worth. Some people are fabulous human beings - people I may want at my bedside when I'm dying. Does't mean they are qualified to work at our company.

Secondly, If a kid made a bad choice and shows he has learned and how he might do it differently now, he gets bonus points. This is not an absolute thing and many times, kids will pleasantly surprise you in dramatic ways.

Thirdly, i can careless that US World News or any ranking is flawed. I care that a kid is paying attention to it and is choosing that over plush dining halls, and buddies from high school sharing the same dorm room. Now if the kid also realizes that the rankings are flawed and gives very precise reasons why they choose not to heed the rankings for good reasons, that is mega bonus points.

 

[wallyuwl]

All I can say is I'm happy I'll never be applying to your company. I feel bad for the folks who don't know the ignorance of the company they are attempting to become a part of.

 

[VeeDubb]

Ok. But if you understood half the points I were making, maybe you'd have a clue. This is less about what I think about the schools and more about the candidates thought process. But you couldn't figure that out. You keep thinking it's about the schools. I've got 22 year olds working for me that pick these things up more clearly and efficiently than you do.

 

[wallyuwl]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
Ok. But if you understood half the points I were making, maybe you'd have a clue. This is less about what I think about the schools and more about the candidates thought process. But you couldn't figure that out. You keep thinking it's about the schools. I've got 22 year olds working for me that pick these things up more clearly and efficiently than you do.


I understand your points perfectly. You are not making any sense, that is the problem.

You stated:

"kids who choose the rat race of University of Wisconsin for its rankings over some plush private school with a bunch of counselors holding their hands and fancy dorm rooms are generally better self starters, more ambitious and have more fire in the belly."

Thus, you are saying large state institutions attract "self starters" as students, while other types of universities don't. You are making a judgement about what types of students go to what types of institutions. As I said, I've taught and studied at all three main types of institutions (large state universities, state comprehensives, small private colleges/universities). Your judgement about the types of students are different types of institutions is wrong.

You are also making a judgment about the quality of different institutions. At the same time, you state: "i can careless that US World News or any ranking is flawed. I care that a kid is paying attention to it and is choosing that over plush dining halls, and buddies from high school sharing the same dorm room."

You also stated: "i get a lot more kids giving the wrong reasons (for us) why they chose a equivalent or lower ranked private school over a higher quality albeit more intimidation public school."

You are judging your applicants based on the ranking of their university, based on your impression of various institutions (both specifically and categorically), without knowing or even caring about how those rankings are formed. Now that makes sense. I'd also contend your premise that larger institutions are more intimidating depends on the person's perspective - some will be intimidated by the size of the school, but some will think of a large school as being less intimidating because there is an extreme level of anonymity.

So here is the part you aren't getting: your judgement about an applicant's answer to your question depends on what you think of the university they went to (or the one they went to in comparison to ones they didn't choose, or that other applicants chose). You have an obvious bias toward large state public institutions. You assume all small private colleges are "plush" with "fancy" dorms and counselors holding students' hands all the time. You are wrong (have you ever seen the dorms at your example of UW-Madison? They are much more "plush" than nearly all private college dorms I've seen.). So, because of your bias, you are automatically less likely to think a job candidate gave the "right" answer regarding their rational for choosing the institution they did if they didn't choose a large public state institution. You said they get bonus points for admitting they made a mistake in choosing the college they chose, and explaining why they would do things differently. If an applicant went to Purdue, but wishes they would have gone to Holy Cross because didn't like it that their professors didn't know their name even in their 400 level courses, your bias would lead that answer to be a negative to that applicant. The thing about biases is they work their way into our thinking even if we attempt to not let them.

Perhaps the biggest problem in the whole premise is that you are attempting to see if a 22 or 23 year old adult is a good fit for your company, but you are asking a question about how that person as a 17 year old kid made their college decision. You aren't possibly hiring the 17 year old kid, but the 23 year old adult who has a different perspective than their 17 year old self, and even has a more developed brain and different way of thinking.

 

[VeeDubb]

. I can explain myself again but I can't control you ignoring statements that I make or confusing examples for general statements. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. I am happy with my employees and our track record and you are happy you don't have to ever contemplate working for us. Sounds like a winning situation for all.

 

[Loobed]

More stuff

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-10-24/ABA-law-schools-student-debt/50898362/1?csp=24&kjnd=Lw8RKVffN4rUs5WkdRbzp8nL/foqqtXoWeaTSWTj1gbuYPwnAkPhDXbZhWN8np80-1d08a52a-2e05-41f0-a950-f631d2b613e4_bBz7xKW2RX78yHrg6v0pTiT3AG%2BUqgf4BeNnE35sVkaMizNBNxypljbnIz6Lhu9i

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: VeeDubb


....

Example, kids who choose the rat race of University of Wisconsin for its rankings over some plush private school with a bunch of counselors holding their hands and fancy dorm rooms are generally better self starters, more ambitious and have more fire in the belly.


Is there any objective evidence that any of that is true, because just reading it sounds like a pretext for holding a bias against kids that went to private schools.

 

[CivicFan]

I don't think we will need to worry about this for too long. Given the crop of illiterate [censored] we are going to churn out of high schools as the funding for schools gets cut on a local level, it will be impossible for them to get into a college.