The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report

[immamac 42388]

Microsoft.

Revenue ending March 2006 (end of graph) starting at ~190M - 11 Billion

vs

Revenue ending march 2024 start around 10Bish to 61 Billion

[immamac 42388]

coca cola

 

[immamac 42388]

 

[Surly Bevo 24686]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe I should have been more clear.  His bitch was the forced stagnant enrollment at elite universities.  I'd be interested to know if UCLA was as elite when he was there as now (assuming not), same as UT, and many others. He had UH grades and was able to attend a university that became more highly regarded after his departure, and magically thinks that's how things should work now.  It's not.  The universities have gotten better because they have cherry picked the best kids.  Can a 2.3 become an outlier, of course.  How many brilliant kids should they pass on to take the 2.3's of the world?  Where are those passed over brilliant kids going to study?  Or is he suggesting there should be no limit to enrollment at any "elite" university?  We have a glaring example within a 100 mile radius of home.  There is a pretty stark difference between top 6% and top 10%, and another between the top 10% down to having acceptance letters you never requested mailed to you ala Tech.   You can be fucking brilliant and if you choose UH over Cambridge, well, you got yourself a UH degree. If Harvard quadrupled their class size tomorrow, it would still be made up of valedictorians and the like, not 2.3's that might make something of themselves 20 years down the line.   

I did like several of his other ideas.  But a Berkeley grad fussing about why everyone can't have elite degrees is just showboating, or bullshit.   Really groundbreaking stuff with the stocks, too.  You mean to tell me someone at the height of their career earnings bought in on some stocks that did well 20 years later? Crazy.  I bet that's never happened in the history of the market.   I'm sure there was never someone who was in the height of their earnings when (name any dow 50) stock was getting started and they bought in cheap - nope, just Gen X.   

He proposed action for the top 500 universities to take, not just a few of them.  

[BabaYaga 15190]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe I should have been more clear.  His bitch was the forced stagnant enrollment at elite universities.  I'd be interested to know if UCLA was as elite when he was there as now (assuming not), same as UT, and many others. He had UH grades and was able to attend a university that became more highly regarded after his departure, and magically thinks that's how things should work now.  It's not.  The universities have gotten better because they have cherry picked the best kids.  Can a 2.3 become an outlier, of course.  How many brilliant kids should they pass on to take the 2.3's of the world?  Where are those passed over brilliant kids going to study?  Or is he suggesting there should be no limit to enrollment at any "elite" university?  We have a glaring example within a 100 mile radius of home.  There is a pretty stark difference between top 6% and top 10%, and another between the top 10% down to having acceptance letters you never requested mailed to you ala Tech.   You can be fucking brilliant and if you choose UH over Cambridge, well, you got yourself a UH degree. If Harvard quadrupled their class size tomorrow, it would still be made up of valedictorians and the like, not 2.3's that might make something of themselves 20 years down the line.   

I did like several of his other ideas.  But a Berkeley grad fussing about why everyone can't have elite degrees is just showboating, or bullshit.   Really groundbreaking stuff with the stocks, too.  You mean to tell me someone at the height of their career earnings bought in on some stocks that did well 20 years later? Crazy.  I bet that's never happened in the history of the market.   I'm sure there was never someone who was in the height of their earnings when (name any dow 50) stock was getting started and they bought in cheap - nope, just Gen X.   

I'd push back on the "best kids" statement.  Best at playing the game to get into prestigious schools, maybe.  Best at looking great on paper.  I get that it's a circular argument, but I think the point is that schools are not really vetting the "best" kids.  Many seem to be following the same script Fat-Mack did late in his tenure at Texas and just getting starry-eyed at rankings and other people’s reviews and rubber stamping kids without doing his own evals. 

The stock argument is just basic math.  So many of these megalithic companies juice their earnings and shareholder returns for the ever-escalatory upward trajectory of their all important stock price.  They will almost always be on an upward path, so all you need to add is time, and the returns on paper are significant.  It’s the age old adage of “time in market” vs “timing the market”

[fattyflattie 4636]

52 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

He proposed action for the top 500 universities to take, not just a few of them.  

I get it. How many of the top 500 have this problem?   Many (most) of the mid tier are already expanding, college is big business after all. The elites are stagnant or regressing in enrollment.  That part of what keeps them elite.   Double their enrollment and all that happens is they get 2x the amount of elite kids and the next tier has fewer, and so on and so on. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'd push back on the "best kids" statement.  Best at playing the game to get into prestigious schools, maybe.  Best at looking great on paper.  I get that it's a circular argument, but I think the point is that schools are not really vetting the "best" kids.  Many seem to be following the same script Fat-Mack did late in his tenure at Texas and just getting starry-eyed at rankings and other people’s reviews and rubber stamping kids without doing his own evals. 

Not in full disagreement, as I fall squarely into the “other” category.  But I also have a lot of respect the kids who get perfect scores on the SAT, show brilliance, etc etc. I don’t think schools #75-1000 have this issue for the most part.  I don’t think anyone disagrees that the Cal system needs/should be replicated where it can be.  But there’s plenty of mid tier schools that are doing fine, along with most of their graduates.  

[BabaYaga 15190]

49 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

who get perfect scores on the SAT

It's not perfect, as a system gatekeeper for collegiate aptitude - but all the SAT tests for is how well kids can take the test.  

 

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I get it. How many of the top 500 have this problem?   Many (most) of the mid tier are already expanding, college is big business after all. The elites are stagnant or regressing in enrollment.  That part of what keeps them elite.   Double their enrollment and all that happens is they get 2x the amount of elite kids and the next tier has fewer, and so on and so on. 

In the case of Texas, the school is running out of space.  I'm sure they'd love to grow somewhat, but unlike the ATM campus, they have nowhere else they can build.  The ags are out in the middle of BFE, so they can grow to 80K kids easily (and will)

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

It's not perfect, as a system gatekeeper for collegiate aptitude - but all the SAT tests for is how well kids can take the test.  

 

In the case of Texas, the school is running out of space.  I'm sure they'd love to grow somewhat, but unlike the ATM campus, they have nowhere else they can build.  The ags are out in the middle of BFE, so they can grow to 80K kids easily (and will)

Correct. There are many schools in that position. And let’s pretend UTSA or UTD could be just as good as UT tomorrow, and people would still value the Austin campus more.  And that translates to more competition to get there, making it more elite, completing the circle. 

[MissingInAction 24746]

Millions of people under 40 with nothing to lose. 

What could go wrong?

[YGIFS 19447]

And now, even with emphasis on STEM fields, the college population has gone----in just one generation----from 60/40 male to 60/40 female.  The males have historically easy access to drugs, pornography, firearms, and a lower standard of living than any American males have had in over a century.  What could possibly go wrong with that list of ingredients?  

[Surly Bevo 24686]

Just now, YGIFS said:

And now, even with emphasis on STEM fields, the college population has gone----in just one generation----from 60/40 male to 60/40 female.  The males have historically easy access to drugs, pornography, firearms, and a lower standard of living than any American males have had in over a century.  What could possibly go wrong with that list of ingredients?  

[fattyflattie 4636]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

and a lower standard of living than any American males have had in over a century.

Not sure I buy this. 

[YGIFS 19447]

You can't buy it buy it because of inflation  

I meant in terms of buying power with COLA factored in.  I phrased it quickly as I'm trying to short-post these days as un-Lobo as that sounds.  We can break it down more from a macroeconomics standpoint if you'd like.  But the writ-large thematics are there...the average 20-40yo male simply won't do as well overall---adjusted for time (earnings, education, women, family, spending power, retirement savings, housing equity, leisure capability, etc.) as his father or grandfather did.  There's a 100 ways to break it down but invariably it's just one of those things that "you know it when you see it."  Mix that with a shit ton of national vitriol, online bullshit, lots and lots of guns, alcohol, drug abuse, and women escaping their reach because they don't want to date 'down' but 'up.'  It's a potent formula for bad stuff down the road.  It's nobody's fault, it just is demography.  And we are already seeing 'leaders' prey on this set of circumstances.  Hell, I even went to the same high school as one of the visionaries who saw it coming and is monetizing the hell out of it.  And his name?  You guessed it...

[SydneyCarton 47809]

17 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I get it. How many of the top 500 have this problem?   Many (most) of the mid tier are already expanding, college is big business after all. The elites are stagnant or regressing in enrollment.  That part of what keeps them elite.   Double their enrollment and all that happens is they get 2x the amount of elite kids and the next tier has fewer, and so on and so on. 

Tell me you didn't watch the fucking video at all with this post. For starters, your Top 500 doesn't have this problem is flat out wrong. There's a reason many large, well regarded public universities are SEEKING droves of students from other countries, namely China, to have their kids attend. Iowa is one example. Because as you point out, college is big business. Which is exactly what the video pointed out THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE. It should be about education and opportunity, not making money. Which is why he suggested schools like Harvard lose their fucking tax status becuase they won't grow enrollment compared to their endowment. 

The fact of the matter is that colleges are struggling, and they're turning to education foreign nationals for more money than allowing and educating people in this own country. It's not that different than the middle eastern countries buying our land, using our water to farm, and then shipping the fucking crops back home. 

Education isn't supposed to be business, STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S BUSINESS. 

9 hours ago, BeardIP said:

Now he feel he undefeated
He mean it
"Nothing To Lose", tattooed around his gun wounds

The rare pos-rep from me for probably my favorite fucking Biggie track of all time. Everything to gain, imbedded in his brain. 

[immamac 42388]

21 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Tell me you didn't watch the fucking video at all with this post. For starters, your Top 500 doesn't have this problem is flat out wrong. There's a reason many large, well regarded public universities are SEEKING droves of students from other countries, namely China, to have their kids attend. Iowa is one example. Because as you point out, college is big business. Which is exactly what the video pointed out THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE. It should be about education and opportunity, not making money. Which is why he suggested schools like Harvard lose their fucking tax status becuase they won't grow enrollment compared to their endowment. 

The fact of the matter is that colleges are struggling, and they're turning to education foreign nationals for more money than allowing and educating people in this own country. It's not that different than the middle eastern countries buying our land, using our water to farm, and then shipping the fucking crops back home. 

Education isn't supposed to be business, STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S BUSINESS. 

The rare pos-rep from me for probably my favorite fucking Biggie track of all time. Everything to gain, imbedded in his brain. 

"It's a hedge fund that offers courses"

[Captainant 27250]

30 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Education isn't supposed to be business, STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S BUSINESS. 

This sentiment applies equally across a number of industries, namely healthcare and medicine

[SydneyCarton 47809]

26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This sentiment applies equally across a number of industries, namely healthcare and medicine

You're not wrong. 

[YGIFS 19447]

35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This sentiment applies equally across a number of industries, namely healthcare and medicine

You left off a big one on your list.  A 2,000 year old bank depository offering you salvation.  It's primarily a cash business.  I think there's some songs mixed in though.  And some real estate.  And some pamphlets.  But mostly money

[Brisketexan 104226]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

The fact of the matter is that colleges are struggling, and they're turning to education foreign nationals for more money than allowing and educating people in this own country.

That's also what is happening in other western nations.  My two kiddos have attended university in other countries (Canada and UK), and those universities absolutely have that strategy: admit foreign students because their higher tuition helps pay the bills.  U of Glasgow's student body is something like 25% Chinese nationals, which is a huge portion of the university's budget.  How we fund higher ed in the west (and how those dollars are spent as well) is broken.  

[SydneyCarton 47809]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's also what is happening in other western nations.  My two kiddos have attended university in other countries (Canada and UK), and those universities absolutely have that strategy: admit foreign students because their higher tuition helps pay the bills.  U of Glasgow's student body is something like 25% Chinese nationals, which is a huge portion of the university's budget.  How we fund higher ed in the west (and how those dollars are spent as well) is broken.  

It didn't used to be broken, is the point. It worked just fine for any of us about 45 or older. We just let slip on the fucking predatory lending. Honestly, that guy's video spelled a lot of it out fairly well. 

[Brisketexan 104226]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It didn't used to be broken, is the point. It worked just fine for any of us about 45 or older. We just let slip on the fucking predatory lending. Honestly, that guy's video spelled a lot of it out fairly well. 

That's part of the story.  But Canada and the UK really didn't have that same dynamic, and they're in a similar funding crunch.

[SydneyCarton 47809]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's part of the story.  But Canada and the UK really didn't have that same dynamic, and they're in a similar funding crunch.

Their economies also look fucking NOTHING like our economies. We have resources. The cost of public school at the University of Texas can draw a line directly to the culture war with the GOP and refusing to become a diploma mill and lower educational standards. There are a dozen other reasons. But "we don't have the money" isn't one of them. "We won't spend money on education" is absolutely one of them. 

[956 Worldwide 34241]

@SydneyCarton is absolutely correct on this. It’s also a real national security issue to have our top research facilities dependent on funding from authoritarian states and their citizens.  Education was never meant to be a business, it’s meant to be an affordable service that is offered to citizens of Texas. 
 

FWIW we should absolutely make private school endowments taxable if they don’t meet an enrollment to endowment ratio. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

49 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But "we don't have the money" isn't one of them. "We won't spend money on education" is absolutely one of them. 

Correct. His suggestion was to quit bailing out deadbeats who’ve already attended college with their loans, and help kids who are are fighting today’s problems. One of his better suggestions tbh. 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Correct. His suggestion was to quit bailing out deadbeats who’ve already attended college with their loans, and help kids who are are fighting today’s problems. One of his better suggestions tbh. 

He made about 20 different suggestions, but of course that's the one you take to heart. 

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

His suggestion was to quit bailing out deadbeats who’ve already attended college with their loans, and help kids who are are fighting today’s problems.

1) the reason to reduce/forgive existing loans is economic, not educational (crippling debt means that consumer spending and ability to get ahead for millions of people is fucked).

2) almost all of the people you're calling "deadbeats"....aren't.  They've paid on their loans for years and years, and are still carrying a large debt load.  Which, per point 1, is not good for us as a society.

These things aren't mutually exclusive.  And our solutions as to higher ed are going to have to be multi-faceted....so don't worry your pretty little head, nothing good will actually happen. We only try simple, one-dimensional things in this country.  You know, the things that won't work or solve a damned thing.

[fattyflattie 4636]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He made about 20 different suggestions, but of course that's the one you take to heart. 

Yeah the socialist bullshit doesn’t make me cum as hard as most of y’all.   I WaS AbLe 2 BuY AmAzOn At LoW PrIcEs!!1!  ThAtS NoT FaIR!!1!

[YGIFS 19447]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Correct. His suggestion was to quit bailing out deadbeats who’ve already attended college with their loans, and help kids who are are fighting today’s problems. One of his better suggestions tbh. 

This reminds me of a scene in "Animal House", a very thoughtful think-piece of socio-political commentary plus booze and handjobs. 

My father finished his U.S. Navy service.  And went on the G.I. Bill to a little private school with a great transporation/logistics program called Tri-State University in Angola, Indiana.  He only did two years because he was called back home by my grandfather to help reboot the family business.  But there's a scene with Dean Wormer, which ends up being hilarious, where he sternly tells the frat guys that he has informed their local draft boards of their expulsion and that they are all now eligible for military service.  And I was a teenage watching with my dad, and I asked him why that such a big deal.  He finished his service out with one year off the coast of Vietnam.  And went to school with a lot of guys what would end up not being able to afford college/flunked out/etc.  And he told me that those kind of young men were ideal draftees because while they dropped out/flunked out, at least they made it into college and the Military knew they could at least read and write and do some basic tasks.  

The tectonic shift in college demography is being done intentionally.  We're forgiving loans because it's good for the economy and workforce in the long-run.  In the meantime, young men are being 'encouraged' to not attend university, to not take out 'deadbeat loans', to not engage in a holistic, classical education.  For the very simple reason, that's how to keep men in the dark.  Hungry, starved for female connection, and collegial bonding.  That's how you raise an army.  Get them just smart enough to do basic shit and follow orders, deny them interpersonal interaction.  And then turn them loose.  You think this last round of student loans is dangerous, wait until I release millions of barely-educated, sex-starved, frustrated young men who think the future has been taken from them by Asian and Latino students and girls who won't return their texts.  First I convinced their grandfathers that America has been taken over by elites.  Then i convinced their fathers that America has been taken over by immigrants.  Now I will convince the youngest generation that America and its educated system and job opportunities has been denied to them because of deadbeat students of loan relief programs and college just isn't for them, it's for Art History and African Studies pussies.  That's how we raise an army of stupids.  We have done this a thousands times throughout history.  It's so easy, it's not even fair...

[SydneyCarton 47809]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah the socialist bullshit doesn’t make me cum as hard as most of y’all.   I WaS AbLe 2 BuY AmAzOn At LoW PrIcEs!!1!  ThAtS NoT FaIR!!1!

What exactly is the "socialist bullshit" that is espoused in that video? The guy literally talks about the changes that would need to be made to make sure a dollar is worth the same as it was for prior generations. That's not socalism, that's called "Maintaining the status quo." Be specific. 

[safe sex 11628]

Poorer people receiving any fraction of the government's largesse that is regularly extended to capital is socialism, duh

Edited May 8 by safe sex

[Captainant 27250]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What exactly is the "socialist bullshit" that is espoused in that video? The guy literally talks about the changes that would need to be made to make sure a dollar is worth the same as it was for prior generations. That's not socalism, that's called "Maintaining the status quo." Be specific. 

You forget, if it's a public program that benefits poor people it's socialism. If it's a public program that benefits corporations and billionaires, it's free market capitalism 

[Brisketexan 104226]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What exactly is the "socialist bullshit" that is espoused in that video? The guy literally talks about the changes that would need to be made to make sure a dollar is worth the same as it was for prior generations. That's not socalism, that's called "Maintaining the status quo." Be specific. 

You have to understand that these are people who very, very, very much want to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"....but when called upon to actually implement policies that tie to specific situations and metrics from when we were "great".....they are 100% opposed to doing so.

"Make college affordable to someone working a 20 hour a week job again" just doesn't get any traction, even though that's EXACTLY what they are talking about (they're just too dumb to know it) when they say "Make America Great Again."

[fattyflattie 4636]

53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Make college affordable to someone working a 20 hour a week job again" just doesn't get any traction, even though that's EXACTLY what they are talking about (they're just too dumb to know it) when they say "Make America Great Again."

I don’t have any issue with that, I’d love to throw less into the 529’s each month.  What I want, is for him to explain how UCLA and Berkeley should be available to everyone, as he stated.  Spewing bullshit is the easy part.  You could spend 150m a year on UH or Tech, and it will never in 10 generations be on that level.  He didn’t bring up a single point that @Captainant doesn’t regularly discuss on these boards.   Regurgitated stats with a few hyperbolic and anecdotal statements sprinkled in 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

13 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t have any issue with that, I’d love to throw less into the 529’s each month.  What I want, is for him to explain how UCLA and Berkeley should be available to everyone, as he stated.  Spewing bullshit is the easy part.  You could spend 150m a year on UH or Tech, and it will never in 10 generations be on that level.  He didn’t bring up a single point that @Captainant doesn’t regularly discuss on these boards.   Regurgitated stats with a few hyperbolic and anecdotal statements sprinkled in 

He didn't say "everyone." He said more people. First he separated out Harvard as a hedge fund that offers classes, as an example of a school who's edowment should offer a percentage of that # per student every year. You make 400 million a year, you better have more than 7k undergrads on campus. Endownment should be a percentage applied to every student. The rest is just teacher salaries and new buildings, otherwise. And the "elitism" factor shouldn't matter. 

In regards to public schools, his point was specifically that UCLA AND BERKLEY USED TO BE MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MORE PEOPLE. He literally fucking showed very simple graphs and charts from when his mediocre ass got accepted to what they were when his assistant applied. It's not make them available to everyone, it's make them available to the SAME PERCENTAGE of people who had access before. Again, it's called maintaining the status quo. And if you stop making it availble to 20% fucking students from literal fucking foreign adversaries by spending more at home so Americans can go, guess what, you're haflway there and you're also solving a fucking national security problem. 

[956 Worldwide 34241]

The foreign student to university pipeline gets less warm and fuzzy the deeper you scratch at it. State legislators get foreigners to fund schools.  University administrators get feted and donated to by entities like PRC and Qatar.  You get a captive labor pool for labs and teaching that have to have university support to maintain their visas. Everyone gets ahead except for a state resident who sees their spot given to an apparatchik or sheikh’s kid. They will all kick and scream and claim that this is needed to be competitive.  
 

The simple fact is that we have 330 million people in this country and more than enough talent to fill our top universities.  We don’t to it because we don’t want to collectively pay to do that, we’d prefer to collectively pay a bit less to provide the infrastructure to foreign adversaries. 

[Captainant 27250]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We don’t to it because we don’t want to collectively pay to do that, we’d prefer to collectively pay a bit less to provide the infrastructure to foreign adversaries. 

Gotta increase those margins bro

[Brisketexan 104226]

12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

In regards to public schools, his point was specifically that UCLA AND BERKLEY USED TO BE MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MORE PEOPLE. He literally fucking showed very simple graphs and charts from when his mediocre ass got accepted to what they were when his assistant applied. It's not make them available to everyone, it's make them available to the SAME PERCENTAGE of people who had access before. Again, it's called maintaining the status quo.

In fairness to the "top tier publics," there are some limitations due to simple logistics, geography, space, growing population, etc.  The answer isn't to have 100k students at UT Austin.  The answer is to have the University of Texas system offer the quality of education that UT Austin offered in the 80s and 90s to a similar percentage of students (as a percentage of overall Texas population) as it did in the 80s and 90s.  And....that is happening, to a reasonable degree.  Look at UT Dallas - I'd wager that the caliber of students they are getting, and the education they are getting there, is on par with the middle of the bell curve of students at UT in, say, 1988.  That's good.  That's what university systems should do.  Hell, that's what the California system has done - there are multiple damned fine schools in the state system.

Due to simple logistics, not everyone who USED to qualify can go to UT or Berkely today.  As many of us have noted, we wouldn't get into UT today.  That means that we weren't god-level prospects back then, either -- UT had enough space where it wasn't as selective.  So long as those good (but not god-level) prospects can get the same quality of education that they could have gotten at UT in 1988 SOMEWHERE in the system, then the system is doing its job.

 

[F250 28623]

13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

In regards to public schools, his point was specifically that UCLA AND BERKLEY USED TO BE MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE TO MORE PEOPLE. He literally fucking showed very simple graphs and charts from when his mediocre ass got accepted to what they were when his assistant applied. It's not make them available to everyone, it's make them available to the SAME PERCENTAGE of people who had access before. Again, it's called maintaining the status quo. And if you stop making it availble to 20% fucking students from literal fucking foreign adversaries by spending more at home so Americans can go, guess what, you're haflway there and you're also solving a fucking national security problem. 

The Surly Kids that can't get into UT thread feels this.

[fattyflattie 4636]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In fairness to the "top tier publics," there are some limitations due to simple logistics, geography, space, growing population, etc.  The answer isn't to have 100k students at UT Austin.  The answer is to have the University of Texas system offer the quality of education that UT Austin offered in the 80s and 90s to a similar percentage of students (as a percentage of overall Texas population) as it did in the 80s and 90s.  And....that is happening, to a reasonable degree.  Look at UT Dallas - I'd wager that the caliber of students they are getting, and the education they are getting there, is on par with the middle of the bell curve of students at UT in, say, 1988.  That's good.  That's what university systems should do. 

That is all correct. And we have posters on this board paying to send their kids to Austin that had rides at UTD.  Because UTD will never be the campus is Austin. At least when it comes time to get an actual job.  Right, wrong, indifferent - big name state school > city spin offs everywhere but Cali (and still some there, too)

[fattyflattie 4636]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Surly Kids that can't get into UT thread feels this.

This is right.  What I’d love for him to solve is how to fit another 25-40k high quality kids in Austin. Oh, no space?  Well, no shit Ted talk guy.  And they leave to other high quality state schools because 100 years from now UTSA will still not have the clout as any random big state school.  

[Brisketexan 104226]

2 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I have to disagree on a point of order that a university is more than just the academic experience and that just because you have an inferior substitute which is "acceptable" like a UTD or UC Santa Barbara, you miss out on the soft skills, benefits, and experiences offered by a UT or Cal Berkely and that sucks for kids who would love what UT has to offer.

Sucks for those kids who have to go live in Tyler for a year and rush as a weird sophomore when the eventually become history majors at UT (as a best case) or live at home and go to UTD or have to pretend to be a serious person and be a diehard Roadrunners football fan (as a worst case).

Cool.  

Texas population in 1988: 16.67 million

Texas population in 2024: 31 million

It's damned near DOUBLE what it was when I started at UT.  That means, by basic extrapolation, the pool of similarly qualified applicants is twice as big.  But the campus isn't.  The resources to teach those students aren't.  If you have a school that can handle 50k students, and the pool of applicants doubles....that necessarily means that those non-god-level candidates who would have gotten into UT in 1988 have much lower chances of getting in today.  And of course, the very FACT that UT Austin is more selective INCREASES its cachet -- seriously, having a degree from UT today means more than it did back in my day.  It was a good state school in the early 90s.  But now, due to the fact that its student body is made up of top 5% and such, it's an elite-level school.  It's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg thing.

And from what I know of friends whose kids have gone to UTD, and UT Arlington....they're getting damned solid jobs out of school.  The kind of jobs that the middle tier of students at UT got when they graduated back in my day.

I mean, I get that everyone would love to walk on the UT Austin campus.....but it's not feasible.  Shit, everyone would like to buy a modest home within a couple of miles of campus.  You could do that easily through the 1960s.  Today....not so much.  Geography, and the fact that there is a finite supply of such properties with 5X as many people who want them now means that no, you aren't going to be able to buy a cheap house in Hyde Park.

[fattyflattie 4636]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And from what I know of friends whose kids have gone to UTD, and UT Arlington....they're getting damned solid jobs out of school.  The kind of jobs that the middle tier of students at UT got when they graduated back in my day.

Raiseshand.gif 

But, it does get more difficult as you progress. I reckon by then most of the time people are looking at your grad school, but still. 

[F250 28623]

38 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This is right.  What I’d love for him to solve is how to fit another 25-40k high quality kids in Austin. Oh, no space?  Well, no shit Ted talk guy.  And they leave to other high quality state schools because 100 years from now UTSA will still not have the clout as any random big state school.  

The Surly kid thread can be resolved by implementing legacy preference.

[Brisketexan 104226]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Surly kid thread can be resolved by implementing legacy preference.

Sure.  You think Surly legacies are all like "I'm a third generation longhorn, from a family of successful and esteemed longhorns."

Nope.  Most Surly legacies are like this legacy:

[BabaYaga 15190]

Interesting older article about the enrollment crisis the school faced in the late 80's.  Enrollment was close to what it is today, meaning they've squeezed and squeezed admissions tighter and tighter

Too many damn kids

Quote

As the Texas population burgeoned, it was clear that UT and other universities faced the prospect of significant enrollment growth. Most of the state’s universities were eager for this growth, but UT–Austin was about as large as it could be without compromising quality. This meant we needed to take serious steps to control admissions.

Too many of them damn kids

Quote

Four major concerns led us to revise these admissions policies in 1987, effective with the freshman class in fall 1989. First, the 1982 policy had brought overall enrollment down below 48,000, but growth pressures were returning. By late spring in 1987, undergraduate applications were up 5 percent and admissions were up 11 percent, and enrollment in 1987 was 47,743, up from 46,140. The University was rapidly moving back up to an enrollment level at which economies of scale no longer continued to add value.

Second, the admissions policies had produced a situation in which the campus actually had two freshman classes, one highly competitive and well-prepared academically, the other only marginally prepared for the challenge of UT’s academic programs.

Third, there was a growing concern that the SAT was being given too much weight in admissions decisions. At the extremes of very high and very low scores, the SAT was a good predictor of academic success. For students in the middle the test was not a very effective indicator of academic success or failure.

The crisis was one of the clearest signals up to that time that the University’s enrollment and the quality of services provided to students were intimately connected.

Fourth, in keeping with its comprehensive mission as a major research institution, the University had been placing increasing emphasis on its graduate programs, and we expected growth in the number of graduate students in most fields. Enrollment needed to strike a balance between resources employed in graduate and undergraduate programs.

 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

In fairness to the "top tier publics," there are some limitations due to simple logistics, geography, space, growing population, etc.  The answer isn't to have 100k students at UT Austin.  The answer is to have the University of Texas system offer the quality of education that UT Austin offered in the 80s and 90s to a similar percentage of students (as a percentage of overall Texas population) as it did in the 80s and 90s.  And....that is happening, to a reasonable degree.  Look at UT Dallas - I'd wager that the caliber of students they are getting, and the education they are getting there, is on par with the middle of the bell curve of students at UT in, say, 1988.  That's good.  That's what university systems should do.  Hell, that's what the California system has done - there are multiple damned fine schools in the state system.

Due to simple logistics, not everyone who USED to qualify can go to UT or Berkely today.  As many of us have noted, we wouldn't get into UT today.  That means that we weren't god-level prospects back then, either -- UT had enough space where it wasn't as selective.  So long as those good (but not god-level) prospects can get the same quality of education that they could have gotten at UT in 1988 SOMEWHERE in the system, then the system is doing its job.

 

Someone above shit on the concept of going to UC Santa Barbara, which alone is laughable. Santa Barbara is one of the most beautiful and expensive places in America. But yes, not everyone can go to UT. Or UCLA. But the Texas system has done a good job at this, and California has crushed this; their "secondary" system schools are still fucking outstanding. UC San Diego doesn't get a lot of run. It's actually ranked higher than Texas nationally in US News (I know, I know). UC Davis. San Luis Obispo. They're all good schools now one raises their eyebrow with at all when resumes from there cross their desks. Thats how you fucking do it. 

[BabaYaga 15190]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

And they leave to other high quality state schools because 100 years from now UTSA will still not have the clout as any random big state school.  

Which is also the point.  School can charge outrageous sums to incoming classes on the premise that it will be justified by the prestige of the school and career advancement opportunities later.  While they are hedge funds offering classes, they are also marketing behemoths scrambling for the best/brightest and charging astronomical prices in the process.  Most of us have line of sight into the the escalation of sports facilities.  Bigger and bigger stadiums, etc.  This is happening in every facet of the schools to both attract and justify better students and higher prices.  

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is also the point.  School can charge outrageous sums to incoming classes on the premise that it will be justified by the prestige of the school and career advancement opportunities later.  While they are hedge funds offering classes, they are also marketing behemoths scrambling for the best/brightest and charging astronomical prices in the process.  Most of us have line of sight into the the escalation of sports facilities.  Bigger and bigger stadiums, etc.  This is happening in every facet of the schools to both attract and justify better students and higher prices.  

Correct.  And it’s laughable for me to hear a guy ((Ted speaker) who attended a good school, performed at average (or below) but benefitted from the classes after him, boosting his prestige in the process. If anything, students like his assistant did more heavily lifting for his educational bonafides than he did.   This has naturally happened to many older UT grads as the selection process became more stringent.   Other than money, what are the incentives for universities to grow attendance at the mercy of the quality of incoming students (ideally the goal is to be elite tier). 

[Hefeweizen 5306]

The funny thing about the people bashing UCLA or Cal is California is doing a good job expanding its tier 1 university system.  The opened Merced recently and Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine are excellent.  Santa Cruz, Riverside, and Merced aren’t that level and probably won’t ever be, but they have a lot of room to grow enrollment.  UCSD is right up with the two older flagships now in everything but athletics.