<p>We hire a decent amount of foreigners with MSCS and Phd degrees. These students typically do their undergrad abroad and come here on funded programs. There are some that come in through the wealthy parents route too doing undergrad here as well.</p>
<p>Returning to the original discussion of the girls in the NYT article, apparently there is NO WAY Angelica could have not known how to use her college email address. Apparently she would not have been able to complete her acceptance, arrange housing, a roommate, etc, without use of the university-provided email.</p>
<p>Why do some reporters feel it necessary to bend the truth?</p>
<p>Because it creates a more sympathetic story and big bad institutions look bad if they fight back with the facts. Obviously they should have sent a representative to her overcrowded house to help her along…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oooo! Ooooo! I know, I know!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am willing to maybe believe it but how do you know? Looks like the housing deposit and the FA response date are both May 1.</p>
<p>I know. Leave it at that.</p>
<p>And wonder if she was aware of this program? [AVID</a> | Higher Ed Overview](<a href=“http://www.avid.org/hed_overview.html]AVID”>http://www.avid.org/hed_overview.html)</p>
<p>I agree Angelica did not do her part, but knowing what I know about LearnLink (Emory’s student email system) I can see why she might have used it initially to register for classes then later not check every notice from the school. Many of the notices are boiler plate FYI announcements and reminders. I don’t think my own daughter reads all of them.</p>
<p>I think students can forward their college email to their personal email (like a gmail account). My s didn’t go to Emory, but I know he forwarded his college email to his personal email.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LF is deliberately mischaracterizing what I wrote in #466, which is that the student could either borrow more or not attend. I have no illusions about money magically appearing.</p>
<p>So poor students shouldn’t attend college? It doesn’t make sense to borrow tens of thousands… </p>
<p>I’m really confused. T_T</p>
<p>The system of merit-based aid I would like to see would work through a truly private (not government-backed) student loan market where lenders charged risk-based interest rates based on a student’s grades, test scores, college attended, college major, and college GPA so far. Good students with good job prospects would pay low interest rates, and bad students with poor job prospects would be priced out of the market.</p>
<p>And what of good students who become bad students, or vice versa? Or students who start out as petroleum engineering majors but late switch to medieval studies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their interest rates on further borrowing would rise. Encouraging students to keep their grades up and stay in practical majors is a feature, not a bug. Government-guaranteed student loans with the same interest rates for all students effectively give the biggest subsidies to the worst students, since their default rates are higher, and they would be charged the highest rates in a private loan market.</p>
<p>Only makes sense if a student is continuing to borrow. Interesting in theory, but then again a student with a lower GPA in a marketable field may be a lower employment risk than a student with a 4.0 in womens studies.</p>
<p>And this conflates the meaning of merit aid-- which isnt really “aid” at all but rather a scholarship, grant or tuition discount.</p>
<p>Bel’s system would steer them from that major mistake by providing a useful feedback loop. </p>
<hr>
<p>Relatedly a complaint has been filed by the group LawSchoolTransparency against Reuters Camden Law School based on the story here:</p>
<p>[Group</a> Seeks Resignation of Rutgers-Camden Law Official | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/05/22/group-seeks-resignation-rutgers-camden-law-official]Group”>Group Seeks Resignation of Rutgers-Camden Law Official)</p>
<p>Essentially the school sent out solicitations to students to get them to attend the law school by inflating the percentage of graduates who get jobs and and how much they are paid (" with many top students accepting positions with firms paying in excess of $130,000"- it is alleged that none of the class is making that much). </p>
<p>The solicitation letter ends with a a statement of how efficiently the school can process loan applications. </p>
<p>[Law</a> School Sales Pitch Doubles Down On The ‘Getting Rich’ Rationale For Law School « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts](<a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/law-school-sales-pitch-doubles-down-on-the-getting-rich-rationale-for-law-school/#more-159991]Law”>http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/law-school-sales-pitch-doubles-down-on-the-getting-rich-rationale-for-law-school/#more-159991)</p>
<p>Creating more transparency between the value of what the student is purchasing and is costs would be a good thing.</p>
<p>You just argued against yourself. A degree in law doesnt guarantee employability, especially form a lower ranked school</p>
<p>eh? its the same argument. </p>
<p>Students are born free and are everywhere kept in blinders:</p>
<p>-here is a fake price
-here is fake aid
-we are awarding you this loan!
-the average college grad makes more than the average high school grad- it costing you money not to go here</p>
<p>I’d like to see some Truth in Lending for this giant purchase that 18yos are expect to make when information is being concealed:
-You will be working for us 35 hours per week for the next four years
-You and your family will pay us $50K and you will incur another $50K in loans
-In exchange you will get room and board during the school year and a degree in Sociology
- 80% of our graduates with a Sociology degree find jobs in the field in the first 6 months and their average starting salary is $33K/yr.</p>
<p>Ok- now we can better evaluate if it is worth 4 years of our time and $100K to buy a degree that gets you a shot at a $33K job.</p>
<p>Bel, I did not have you in mind when I referred to cake- you aren’t the only one who did. In fact, it was more back at arg, who answered my “perfect U” question with “free cake.” Had to be there, I guess.</p>
<p>truly private (not government-backed) student loan market where lenders charged risk-based interest rates based on a student’s grades, test scores, college attended, college major, and college GPA so far. Good students with good job prospects would pay low interest rates, and bad students with poor job prospects would be priced out of the market.</p>
<p>So, different standards for kids on aid than for kids who are not?</p>
<p>Who picks which ccupations will have the most employability in 4-5 years? And, who’s going to guarantee those loans by private lenders? It all just cycles like the talke of the “hydra.” Lob of one arm and seven grow in its place.</p>
<p>There was an article on some states moving more towards merit of need in the WSJ today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few of the <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/internships-careers-employment/1121619-university-graduate-career-surveys.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/internships-careers-employment/1121619-university-graduate-career-surveys.html</a> do list by-major survey results. Unfortunately, most universities do not. Lots of students and parents are “flying blind” in this respect, not knowing if their assumptions about major-specific job prospects are correct (seems that biology majors are in for the biggest let-downs, since many people seem to assume that any STEM major has good major-specific job prospects).</p>
<p>Beliavsky, I seriously wonder why the system you’re advocating hasn’t already been established. Almost like buying stock in a person.</p>