<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that was Brown…or is Friedman a serial pie victim?</p>
<p>True, that did happen at Brown. It was extremely awkward for all of us. No one understood why anyone would do that or what the hell was going on. Two idiots, basically. It’s pretty baffling to this day.</p>
<p>
It was at Brown, but the gal, Margot Little, was from Colby.<br>
Love the caption in this photo.
[Brown</a> Student Throws Pies at Tom Friedman, Shoots Guns in Spare Time > Brown, firearms, thomas friedman | IvyGate](<a href=“http://www.ivygateblog.com/2008/04/brown-student-throws-pies-at-tom-friedman-shoots-guns-in-spare-time/]Brown”>http://www.ivygateblog.com/2008/04/brown-student-throws-pies-at-tom-friedman-shoots-guns-in-spare-time/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Minnesota’s population is expected to continue to grow by somewhere between 15-20% over the next couple of decades. Most of that growth is expected to be in the Twin Cities metro, expected to grow by another million people or so over the next 25 years, and in a larger corridor that extends from St. Cloud in the north (about 90 miles north-northwest of Minneapolis) to Rochester in the south (about 80 miles south-southeast of St. Paul). </p>
<p>Most of the rural Midwest is being depopulated, as are the aging Rustbelt industrial cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, and Milwaukee. But the Twin Cities economy has more of a “new economy” character. Like Indianapolis, Columbus, Ann Arbor, and Madison it is expected to continue to show vigorous growth. The difference is that Madison is growing off a much smaller base, so that it can’t grow fast enough to offset declines in rural Wisconsin and in Milwaukee and the other old Rustbelt towns in eastern Wisconsin. (If it’s any consolation, Ann Arbor is in pretty much the same boat, only perhaps worse). </p>
<p>The Twin Cities metro, on the other hand, already constitutes roughly 60% of Minnesota’s overall population and a larger fraction of its jobs and wealth. Its growth rate, coupled with that of Rochester and St. Cloud, is more than enough to offset population declines in rural Minnesota. In fact, a lot of the Twin Cities growth is internal migration from rural Minnesota to the more dynamic economy of the Twin Cities, coupled with interstate migration from declining neighboring states. We get a lot of Wisconsinites moving here, including as you note a lot of University of Wisconsin grads, thank you very much.</p>
<p>As for the idea that people from the Coasts and internationals just won’t stay here—I don’t buy it. They’re already staying, in very high numbers. Most of the people I work with are not native Midwesterners. Many of my neighbors and other people I interact with, especially professionals like doctors, for example, came from somewhere else. They like it here, and there are good reasons they should. Many would like Madison, too, if Madison had a big enough economy to support them, but it doesn’t. And I think that’s going to be a huge difference in the two schools going forward. The University of Wisconsin will continue to facilitate that state’s decline by giving Wisconsin residents a ticket out. The University of Minnesota will facilitate this state’s growth by serving as a “talent magnet” to attract bright, talented, and well educated people from every corner of the country and the globe.</p>
<p>Ms. Little was a student enrolled at Brown when she threw her pie, and was
suspended for this action. She was a transfer from Colby. I doubt if
either school will be stigmatized for the action of one person. But if middsmith wants to set herself on fire as she states, if her children enroll at Colby, or I assume Brown,
well…</p>
<p>I’ve seen you make numerous digs at Madison being Minnesota’s “safety school,” Clintock. You’ve seemed like an overall pretty rational person, but do you really believe this? Even if your acceptance rate is getting lower, you still trail Madison by quite a bit in many important categories, although like you said, this is closing (but not yet close in many aspects). I’m not saying Minnesota is still UW-Madison’s safety school like it used to be, but it will just never exist the other way around. Just because Minnesota is becoming more competitive doesn’t mean that its becoming the next Michigan or Cal (as you so apparently think). These schools, for one, have never had to pretty explicitly bribe out of state students to apply with practically in-state tuition (while at the same time raising in-state tuition almost every year and putting their own residents in more and more serious debt).</p>
<p>All I was saying is that Minnesota is actually showing a population decline if you take out immigration and new births. From 2000 until 2007, they lost an estimated 30,000 to other states. I don’t doubt highly qualified people are moving there, though, as like you said, Minnesota has got what it takes to be a “new economy.”</p>
<p>It’s time for the FAQ again: </p>
<p>DEMOGRAPHICS </p>
<p>Population trends in the United States are not the only issue influencing the competitiveness of college admission here. The children already born show us what the expected number of high school students are in various years, but the number of high school students in the United States, which is expected to begin declining in a few years, isn’t the whole story. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp</a> </p>
<p>First of all, if more students who begin high school go on to college, there will be more applicants to college even with a declining number of high school students. And that is the trend in the United States and worldwide. </p>
<p>Second, colleges in the United States accept applications from all over the world, so it is quite possible that demographic trends in the United States will not be the main influence on how many students apply to college. The cohorts of high-school-age students are still increasing in size in some countries (NOT most of Europe). </p>
<p>Third, even if the number of applicants to colleges overall stays the same, or even declines, the number of applicants to the most competitive colleges may still increase. The trend around the world is a “flight to quality” of students trying to get into the best college they can in increasing numbers, and increasing their consensus about which colleges to put at the top of their application lists. I do not expect college admission to be any easier for my youngest child than for my oldest child, even though she is part of a smaller birth cohort in the United States. </p>
<p>And now I would add to this that at the very most selective colleges that have just announced new financial aid plans, next year’s (and the following year’s) crush of applicants will be larger than ever. When colleges that are already acknowledged to be great colleges start reducing their net cost down to what the majority of families in the United States can afford, those colleges will receive more applications from all parts of the United States, and very likely from all over the world. </p>
<p>The Economist magazine published a brief article about these trends in April 2008. </p>
<p>[University</a> admissions in America | Accepted | The Economist](<a href=“Accepted”>Accepted) </p>
<p>P.S. to the FAQ: What will happen to colleges and universities that are not indisputably in the national top 25 is a little more debatable, but is also sensitive to how those colleges compare to colleges nearby geographically at other levels of desirability.</p>
<p>It’s time for the FAQ again: </p>
<p>DEMOGRAPHICS </p>
<p>Population trends in the United States are not the only issue influencing the competitiveness of college admission here. The children already born show us what the expected number of high school students are in various years, but the number of high school students in the United States, which is expected to begin declining in a few years, isn’t the whole story. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp</a> </p>
<p>First of all, if more students who begin high school go on to college, there will be more applicants to college even with a declining number of high school students. And that is the trend in the United States and worldwide. </p>
<p>Second, colleges in the United States accept applications from all over the world, so it is quite possible that demographic trends in the United States will not be the main influence on how many students apply to college. The cohorts of high-school-age students are still increasing in size in some countries (NOT most of Europe). </p>
<p>Third, even if the number of applicants to colleges overall stays the same, or even declines, the number of applicants to the most competitive colleges may still increase. The trend around the world is a “flight to quality” of students trying to get into the best college they can in increasing numbers, and increasing their consensus about which colleges to put at the top of their application lists. I do not expect college admission to be any easier for my youngest child than for my oldest child, even though she is part of a smaller birth cohort in the United States. </p>
<p>And now I would add to this that at the very most selective colleges that have just announced new financial aid plans, next year’s (and the following year’s) crush of applicants will be larger than ever. When colleges that are already acknowledged to be great colleges start reducing their net cost down to what the majority of families in the United States can afford, those colleges will receive more applications from all parts of the United States, and very likely from all over the world. </p>
<p>The Economist magazine published a brief article about these trends in April 2008. </p>
<p>[University</a> admissions in America | Accepted | The Economist](<a href=“Accepted”>Accepted) </p>
<p>P.S. to the FAQ: What will happen to colleges and universities that are not indisputably in the national top 25 is a little more debatable, but is also sensitive to how those colleges compare to colleges nearby geographically at other levels of desirability.</p>
<p>An “increase in people applying for college” means nothing if they are less qualified than the people before. Typically, over the last few decades, the most qualified have always been the ones applying for college anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve mentioned that I’d like to have my own D consider Wisconsin as a safety, which I honestly think it would be for her, as would Minnesota. But she’s got her sights set on some fancy private schools in the Northeast. I think a lot of kids in the Twin Cities with high-end stats use both of these schools as safeties. Others decide to take advantage of in-state tuition rates and prefer the atmosphere of a Big Ten school. Fine with me either way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said Minnesota was about to become the next Michigan or Cal. I hold both those schools in extremely high regard, having graduated from one and having taught at the other. My only point is that there’s not nearly so large a gap between Wisconsin and Minnesota as there once was, and Minnesota’s rapidly and aggressively closing what remains of the gap. It’s moving up the US News charts pretty rapidly, and as the new OOS tuition policy takes effect, selectivity increases, and steps it’s taking to boost its graduation rate take hold, it’s hard to see many areas where Wisconsin will maintain an advantage. The President and Provost at Minnesota have pretty high ambitions for the place—they’ve said publicly they want to make it one of the “top three public research universities,” which would put it ahead of Wisconsin and in the same ballpark with Cal and Michigan. Personally I think that’s overly optimistic, but it’s probably just stated that way as an aspirational goal—aim high, and even if you fall short you may boost yourself up. But that’s their goal, not mine. All I ever said was that Minnesota is poised to make a real run at Wisconsin. And I say this with all due respect—that’s a pretty high mark to achieve. </p>
<p>Just stop being so defensive.</p>
<p>Perhaps I do have a problem admitting that Minnesota is catching up on us quite quickly. Us intelligent Wisconsinites who stayed in our state are jealous of Minnesota as a state, which leads to being competitive about things we really shouldn’t be all that competitive about. What I wouldn’t give for a Medtronic, 3M, Target, Best Buy, etc to be located here in Wisconsin… luckily, Epic Systems is looking like it may finally be the answer.</p>
<p>I love the Twin Cities, though, and I suppose there is no reason why a huge university located in such an city wouldn’t eventually flourish. Even back in 2003 when I was applying for colleges, I was shocked that it was (at that time) such an easy school to get into.</p>
<p>[The</a> Scientist magazine names Madison “hotspot” for biotechnology (WTN News)](<a href=“http://wistechnology.com/articles/1955/]The”>http://wistechnology.com/articles/1955/)</p>
<p>So Madison continues to branch into private job creation.</p>
<p>And with Chicago just a couple hours away it hardly matters that it’s across a state line. Much of southeastern Wisconsin has already become part of the Chicago metroplex. I’d take the range of opportunities of Chicago over Minny anyday.</p>
<p>Indeed, SE Wisconsin is slowly getting better. For the first time ever, there is a very noticeable pride in Milwaukee; residents are finally realizing “Hey, our city doesn’t suck. It’s actually pretty cool.” It’s gotten cleaner, livelier, hipper, and there have been tons of redevelopment projects. Not to mention it’s metro area is much more “compact” than almost any other in the Midwest. It also has some beautiful suburbs, lake Michigan, and is developing it’s own “feel” as a city that is actually quite apart of its industrial past.</p>
<p>Of course, there are enormous racial problems in the city, something Minneapolis is quite lucky not to have</p>
<p>^ I’m not sure what you mean by “racial problems” but Minneapolis is no race-relations nirvana. Its neighborhoods and schools are actually quite highly segregated by race, and predominantly black North Minneapolis is a very distressed place. Saint Paul, on the other hand, is just about perfect . . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last time I looked Madison was 150 miles and a good 2-1/2 hours drive from Chicago, a lot more if traffic gets backed up on the expressway which it frequently does. Not exactly commuting distance. It’s true there’s some exurban spillover from metropolitan Chicago into southern Wisconsin. It’s also true that Chicago is a major job center with lots of opportunities for Wisconsin grads. But in a way, that’s just my point. The University of Wisconsin is a taxpayer-assisted vehicle by which the state of Wisconsin educates then exports its young people out of state. This may be partially offset by exurban growth spilling over into southern Wisconsin, but I’ll bet there’s still a very large net export of well-trained talent. It’s great for those Wisconsinites who as individuals get a quality education at a cut-rate price and move on to Chicago or the Twin Cities. But it seems to me it’s got to be an unsustainable model for the state of Wisconsin in the long run unless it finds a way to reverse the brain drain and capture more of that talent at home. Yes, Madison’s economy is diversifying and there’s some high-tech growth; same as Ann Arbor. But it’s growing off such a small base that it will be many years, if ever, before Madison can absorb any substantial fraction of that homegrown talent. </p>
<p>Believe me, I don’t say this to gloat; as a native Michigander and an alum of the University of Michigan I’ve seen the same thing there, and I’m sympathetic with the problem. It worked for me to take my Michigan degree to the East Coast and eventually back to the Midwest, first in Chicago then later in the Twin Cities—both places with far more economic opportunities than Michigan. But I don’t think it worked out so well for the state of Michigan, and I think Wisconsin has perhaps only a slightly milder case of the same disease.</p>
<p>Top universities will probably continue to get their slice of the pie. If a flagship doesn’t want to lose selectivity, then it can hustle more and draw more of the applicants that are currently only applying to regional publics. Believe me, they are out there–there are top kids that for whatever reason don’t apply to the flagship, but would with the right encouragement or incentives. Flagships can waive application fees or beef up recruiting or whatever, and go after the students they’d previously been letting get by them. Less-selective publics (non-flagships) may be the most affected, because the flagships will poach their best prospects.</p>
<p>I would not call it “slightly milder.” Same disease, maybe, but barely. Michigan is a unique case in America an even the worl, and it’s unemployment rate as of December is almost twice that of Wisconsin’s. Drive around Detroit or Gary, then drive around Milwaukee and a similar Wisconsin city like Racine. They are worlds apart. Wisconsin was the only midwestern state in 2007 to show a net gain in interstate population. Contrarily, I believe Michigan lost the most (or 2nd most). Furthermore, Wisconsinites were name the 3rd (or 5th?) “stickiest” residents in the nation, meaning that only two more states retained their residents better than Wisconsin (although admittedly, the number would be different if you looked at college graduates). However, we did fare poorly when it came to people moving in from out of states - 40th or something - but that is getting better. As for our declining and dying economy, in Forbe’s recent “Top 10 Cities for Job Growth,” Madison was #1 and Milwaukee was #5.And it isn’t talked about much, but Forbes does mention it: There is definitely a pipeline from Chicago to Milwaukee, and in the coming years, I believe it will become much more evident.</p>
<p>And of course Madison won’t be able to provide jobs to all its grads, but it is at least getting much better at at least capturing quite a few, especially if you are a qualified and coming out with a science degree. No one ever said it would be a magnet like the Twin Cities, but it is doing one very important thing: Setting up a significant high-tech economy within the state of Wisconsin. </p>
<p>Don’t write Wisconsin off just yet.</p>
<p>The Chicagoland area now extends to Huntley which is midway between Rockford and dowtown Chicago. When I say Chicago I mean the greater Chicagoland area. And I’m not talking about actually commuting to work from Madison to Chicago. Just that Chicagoland is not very far from Madison–closer than the northern half of Wisconsin–and moving to Chicago is hardly a move out of the region. Many Chicagoland people use Wisconsin as its playground with second homes and other recreation. That brings in significant revenue with little cost in public services. If UW had a similar tuition deal with Illinois there would be thousands more Illinois students at UW than there currently are Minny kids.</p>
<p>Barrons is absolutely correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If anything, it would have been a horror story letting those kids in Amherst… :p</p>