<p>Just now read the President’s statement on the Close to Home page…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601495.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601495.html</a></p>
<p>And something of a rebuttal to the study that he cites, in particular, arguing that the methodology of using Pell Grant admissions is seriously flawed:
<a href=“http://www.people.virginia.edu/~set5h/SarahPapers/tebbs_turner.pdf[/url]”>http://www.people.virginia.edu/~set5h/SarahPapers/tebbs_turner.pdf</a></p>
<p>Although I can’t find the original in its entirety, at least one reviewer stated the paper characterized the problem as underfunded state colleges increasing out-of-state admissions to increase the tuition taken in, to the detriment of in-state and poor students. Obviously since W&M “reserves” a fixed number of admissions slots to in-state students, that’s not the case here.</p>
<p>I have to have serious reservations about the methodology, when JMU, UVA, and W&M are all called out. An in-state student eligible for a Pell Grant should be able to afford to attend any of these schools, when Pell and need-based school aid is added to work and loan programs. </p>
<p>While I see the need for need-based aid programs, my father and I both attended school under the GI Bill. Now, as someone who scrimped and saved and worked extra jobs to ensure that my kids could attend public universities, I can’t help but feel punished for being responsible. </p>
<p>If we want to make higher education more accessible, make it more accessible for everyone. Lower the tuition bar for everyone. Or at least start with the mythical creature “merit aid” - god knows there’s never a shortage of money for football “scholarships” …</p>
<p>While the data and study methodology may leave lots of room for questions, one would have to have been in a coma or otherwise oblivious over the last 60 years to fail to recognize the elitist para-public, even private posture taken notably among the Virginia public institutions of higher education. It’s stunning that the taxpayers have allowed this to prevail. Undoubtedly to their children and grandchildren’s collective detriment. This often broad perspective has been nurtured by many things, I’m sure. The institutions would be quick to suggest its the “quality” of these cavalier (note small “c”) campuses that fuels the peception that their reputations are indeed merited. </p>
<p>I’m confident that however the study was done, flawed or otherwise, Nichols has a valid point. The poor of Virginia are getting stiffed when it comes to pursuing their dreams of going to any one of these institutioins. Sadly, the South has been ingenious in establishing law and policy that subtley (sp?) but effectively fosters the perpetuation of the caste system. And Virginia may be the elite leader of the pack in this unfortunate scheme.</p>
<p>And as for your scrimping and saving Squiddy, you too may be getting stiffed by the system. But I’m betting your offsprung are winners. Welcome to the unlucky middle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>good… blame the people who have money. It’s obviously their fault.</p>
<p>No, it’s the fault of those @ Wm&Mary … and every other school … that want a transfer of that cash to their coffers. Remember, $$ is not evil, but rather the love of it. They all LOVE it!</p>
<p>But W&M has LONG been not only an elite public, but also an elitist institution, which is perjurative for any taxpayer underwritten institution. So, while I concur with Pres Nichol’s theme and concern, and find him to be an attractive college prexy, his wandering, wondering finger needs a 180 degree swing to his own well-fed belly. That’s a starting point for W&M. </p>
<p>But I suspect his first cry would be … “I need more $$ to enable them po folks to come to this place where we take great pride in an 11-1 faculty:student ratio, but that (and more so THEY) don’t come cheap citizens of VA. Send $$ and we’ll go hunting for those poor Virginians and poor New Mexicans and poor South Dakotans. And oh, by the way, it costs 2X as much for the latter po folks as the first bunch, so lest I didn’t mention it, send LOTS of $$.”</p>
<p>Whistle Pig…continue on wallowing in your negativity while the rest of us worry about the things we can change. Your character is transparent despite all the fluffable verbage. Your post amounted to a bunch of nothing.</p>
<p>Rock on.</p>
<p>off topic/this might sound silly…but does anybody else think that the W&M website needs a redesign? websites at other schools are so much more attractive, informative, and easier to navigate. the website frontpage becomes many people’s first impression of the college (as sad as it is), and it just inst attractive at all.</p>
<p>Yeah it sucks. That’s why they are redoing the whole thing.</p>
<p>[frequently</a> asked questions | re.web](<a href=“http://www.wm.edu/reweb/faq.php]frequently”>http://www.wm.edu/reweb/faq.php)</p>
<p>It does not reflect the nature and quality of the institution it presents. The athletic site is better than the College site.</p>
<p>Is that a surprise to anyone…lol?</p>