TUITION INCREASE - da University of Hawaii system

Eddie wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:25:04 -0000, "Quante981"
>
> Just read that Stanford will have tuition-free policy for any student
> that qualifies for the school *if* parents make less than $45,000 a
> year.

I think I read that their endowment fund is more than $10 billion so
their automatic tuition waiver policy isn't too surprising.


> Understand Harvard has had similar policy in place for some time.
> Eddie, UH 1971

Harvard's is about twice is large so not much surprise there either.

Great if your kid is in the top 1% of the top 1%.

Ke'iko..
I accept the challenge..
The Board of Governors, supported by a select group of
alumni and a representative number of leading members
of industry and finance, could issue the mandate that
the various departments in the univeristy, undertake a
review of the curriculum, with the stated objective,
to make the curriculum relevant to the 21st century.
I would propose a fast-track methodology and critical
path monitoring of the progress with specific deadlines
for reports from the uiniversity departments.
These studies will provide an overview of the future needs
of the students to best prepare them for the extarordinary
challenges of the 21st century.

The above are my first ideas on the subject.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

Quante981 Apr 19, 1:30 am

> Just read that Stanford will have tuition-free policy for any student

> that qualifies for the school *if* parents make less than $45,000 a
> year.

I think I read that their endowment fund is more than $10 billion so
their automatic tuition waiver policy isn't too surprising.

> Understand Harvard has had similar policy in place for some time.
> Eddie, UH 1971

Harvard's is about twice is large so not much surprise there either.

Great if your kid is in the top 1% of the top 1%.

Ke'iko
THE RICH GETS RICHER WHILE THE POOR GETS POORER! or should it be
THE RICH GETS SMARTER WHILE THE POOR GETS DUMMER?

What the world is, is but a fact and we cannot choose what it should
be. But we can choose to see it differently (ACIM).

So how differently are you seeing it?

I heard that the County meeting was a success. . . .

Ke'iko

Mahalo John.

I will present your proposal to my school's student government (Hawai'i
Community College). Thanks much.

Ke'iko

ke'iko wrote:
> Ke'iko
> THE RICH GETS RICHER WHILE THE POOR GETS POORER! or should it be
> THE RICH GETS SMARTER WHILE THE POOR GETS DUMMER?
>
> What the world is, is but a fact and we cannot choose what it should
> be. But we can choose to see it differently (ACIM).
>
> So how differently are you seeing it?
>
> I heard that the County meeting was a success. . . .
>
> Ke'iko

I guess we see the world differently. Under $45,000 per year is not
rich. I don't see how a tuition-free policy for families making under
$45,000 at those universities translates into the rich getting richer.

Quante981

I guess we see the world differently. Under $45,000 per year is not
rich. I don't see how a tuition-free policy for families making under
$45,000 at those universities translates into the rich getting richer.

No, it's just that I didn't make my point understandable. So let
me try again. My comment was in relation to your Apr 19, 2005 post
(see below). My focus was the 1% of the top 1% because their clout has
always shaped our children's future. In my parent's days it was
called plantation mentality. In other words, a Harvard &/or a Stanford
experience certainly makes a difference when it appears on a job
resume, for it signals a certain kind of lifestyle and thinking. The
unfortunate thing about Harvard and Stanford is that they drive the
cost of higher education higher, and perhaps a thing or two more.

Reactions!
Ke'iko


Quante981 Apr 19, 1:30 am
Eddie wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:25:04 -0000, "Quante981"
> Just read that Stanford will have tuition-free policy for any student

> that qualifies for the school *if* parents make less than $45,000 a
> year.
I think I read that their endowment fund is more than $10 billion so
their automatic tuition waiver policy isn't too surprising.
> Understand Harvard has had similar policy in place for some time.
> Eddie, UH 1971
Harvard's is about twice is large so not much surprise there either.
Great if your kid is in the top 1% of the top 1%.

Notwithstanding the excellent education one obtains at
such prestigeous institutions of higher learning as
Harvard and Stanford, an increasing number of graduates
are not successful in finding employment in their field
of expertise.
This is a growing problem and must be addressed by
university administrators, industry leaders and government
officials.
The skyrocketting costs of the university fees and the
extensive investment of the students'time and energy
are discouraging future students due to facing the
prospect of not having the opportuinity to work in
their chosen profession.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, John W. Bienko wrote:

> Notwithstanding the excellent education one obtains
> at such prestigeous institutions of higher learning
> as Harvard and Stanford, an increasing number of
> graduates are not successful in finding employment in
> their field of expertise. This is a growing problem
> and must be addressed by university administrators,
> industry leaders and government officials. The
> skyrocketting costs of the university fees and the
> extensive investment of the students'time and energy
> are discouraging future students due to facing the
> prospect of not having the opportuinity to work in
> their chosen profession.

I would like to see more intern programs. They help to
interest and motivate students to go into areas where
there are jobs. There are still many fields in which
there are shortages of American students. We actually
do not have enough students going into science and math
for example. What makes it worse is that there is a
shortage of qualified teachers in this area in our
public schools. Most of the new hires in these science,
math, and engineering in this country are foreigners.

An especially extensive investment is in medicine. I
would think that we should be able to train many more
doctors and nurses in this country, but here again we
find many foreigners. For example, it seems that in the
mainland I see some Indian doctors interning in the ER.
They are actually practicing doctors in India that are
trying to get licensed in this country. IIRC, I once
even chatted with an American who took his medical
training in Italy because it was much cheaper and his
Italian was good. He also needed to get licensed in
this country, but I think his GI benefits also worked
in Italy-- and it was feasible for him to study there
rather than in the States.

I think that we will never train enough of these for
the expensive tuition. Like dentists, perhaps only when
we have the analogue of flouride treatments for
preventing tooth decay, in preventive medicine will we
find the demand for doctors decreasing. For example, if
obesity could become a thing of the past, then a lot of
demand for doctors would subside. Medical costs would
go down.

--alvin

On Sun, 1 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1114833604-sch@news.lava.net...

>> Of course,[outside forces affect our economy].
>> Recall it was due to the meltdown of the Japanese
>> economy. But the state responded in a humane way. It
>> was also nice to have a huge speical retirement fund
>> to save spending from the general fund.
>
> Wasn't living here back then. How did the State
> respond in a "humane way:?

early retirement....

>> Of course, if it's a matter of starving to death,
>> then people will travel that distance [to find new
>> jobs]. But this is just unemployment-- not a matter
>> of life or death. We are a civilized society now.
>>
> If you are "unemployed" that means you have no source
> of funds to live on, other than what the Government
> provides. That only means you can "survive" by
> sitting on your butt, and doing relatively nothing
> about your current situation.

You mean unemployment insurance? That's its purpose.
For example, if there is no construction work, then
carpenters etc, are laid off. What can the average
construction worker do to get work when there is none?
We really should have opportunities for these workers
to train for other employment in areas where we need
workers.

For example, there could be free training as computer
technicians in the evenings while they can be looking
for work in the computer field and studying during the
day. IIRC these benefits run out in 6 months, so the
worker has a real strong motivation to switch fields in
that time. The training benefits should probably
continue indefinitely if we would hope that workers can
continually adapt to a changing economy. It's probably
not hard for the state to set up cheaper alternative
certificantion programs with the cooperation of unions
and business. It's after all, what the educators of the
DOE and UH are really good at doing.

--alvin

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, ke'iko wrote:

> this string, let us speculate on a particular comment
> Dylan Nonaka said at his Senate confirmation hearing
> for student board of regent, April 27, 2005. At his
> hearing Dylan said something about the Mauna Kea
> observatories $1.00/yr fee. I believe, and you'll
> need to confirm this yourself, he was suggesting that
> the current re-evaluation of increasing its yearly
> fee would "provide more resources for the UH."
>
> If my memory is correct, in the 80s when the Hawaiian
> sovereignty movement regained its energy, an article
> written in the Star-Bulletin talked about the fact
> that the Hawaiians were supposed to be the richest
> people in Hawai'i. I've forgotten why (the author
> was a haole man).
>
> The point that I'm raising is, of course, the ceded
> lands issue, that is, its misappropriation - if Dylan
> has correctly stated his point. While on the other
> hand, and again - you need to confirm this yourself,
> the ceded land issue, increasing Mauna Kea
> observatory $1.00/yr fee, raised by the UH stop the
> tuition increase caucus is responding to the State's
> judicial responsibility "to foster the well-being of
> Hawaiians."

I think this issue will be revisited. If they pay only
$1 a year, then should or should not the state
re-imburse the builders for the expense of building and
maintaining the observatories? And if the state wishes
to change the conditions of the lease, then what is the
state willing to give up so that the observatories will
continue to contribute to our knowledge?

But there is a larger question: Doesn't the state have
the choice of using the gift to Hawaii that is Mauna
Kea, for the benefit of man (that includes Hawaiians),
or not. If you believe that there is a purpose of this
gift, then isn't that purpose the use and fullfillment.
The new knowledge is both sacred and priceless. Doesn't
this resonate at some level?

--alvin