April 12, 2005
Posted by Jeff A. Taylor at 5:05 PM
I admit to being confused here.
The current state policy seems to be, in the absence of proof of immigration status, we will charge you the highest rate. The bill in question would, I assume, change that to be, in the absence of proof of status, you may still qualify for the lower rate if you provide a transcript from a in-state institution.
Would there be any other proof of residency required? Would you even need to be a current resident of the state to qualify? How do other states handle this?
Like I said, I'm confused.
Re: In-State Tuition
Posted by Dr. Karen Y. Palasek at 2:53 PM
To go along with the in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, I suggest in-state tax refunds for documented taxpayers.
Update on In-State Tuition/Illegals
Posted by Chad Adams at 1:43 PM
Bill LuMaye will be discussing this futher on his show at 3pm (WPTF AM680).
There are currently 31 co-sponsors (including Rep. Sauls) and folks from El Pueblo are pushing this for quick passage.
You read more about the bill here at the N&O.
Illegal residents to get In-State Tuition rates
Posted by Chad Adams at 12:10 AM
Rep. John Sauls (Republican, Lee/Harnett)is co-sposoring legislation that would allow any resident (regardless of legal status) to receive In-State Tuition if they attend public education from 9th-12th grades.
As presented this morning on WPTF.
This also would apply to scholarships and grants.
Fledgling corrupt politicos watch
Posted by Jon Sanders at 09:55 AM
The UNC Association of Student Governments is getting an increased budget for cell phones and officers' stipends because the poor dears do so much work for their UNC peers. Consider this year, for example. First they angered their peers into thinking the student fee that they coerced to pay to fund the ASG is the "biggest waste of student money imaginable", then they treated themselves to a junket to D.C., then they held a rally that barely anyone attended, and then they said tuition increases might be OK after all (so long as we continue to get our cut of student fees).
How to handle the academic Inquisitors
Posted by George Leef at 09:26 AM
This article by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe details his battle with the administration at UNLV over his "insensitive" remarks in an economics class. It's quite astounding how far the school was willing to go to mollify a member of a politically influential minority group (gays) over what was, to any reasonable observer, a perfectly sensible example of a factor that may affect an individual's time preference.
The point that's worth taking from this episode is that retreat and groveling in the face of an attack by university inquisitors is not the right strategy. Hoppe refused to apologize and launched a strong counter-attack against UNLV for its position that academic freedom isn't for profs who say things that make members of "protected groups" feel hurt. In the end, UNLV had to back down.
Hoppe's case should be instructive for all professors who in the future will face similar accusations.
It would even be a good idea for Larry Summers to pay attention to it.
News from the Univ. of North Carolina at C[uts] H[urt]
Posted by Jon Sanders at 08:59 AMThe Chronicle of Higher Education (subscriber site) reports this morning that UNC-CH raised $16.7 million in the month of February and has raised $1.432 billion (that's $1,423,000,000) in its capital campaign whose goal it is to raise $1.8 billion by 2007.
Such success might explain why the university can allows certain conservative donors to be treated with contempt — and why they couldn't get any students independently to support that silly "Save Our System — SOS!" rally (my crowd estimate was around 20 — but I found out later all UNC system schools' student body presidents came).
Nevertheless, it doesn't explain why university leaders continue to act the part of Chicken Little every budgeting season, year after year after year after year ...
Districts for religious schools too
Posted by Andrew Cline at 05:25 AM
In England, you can't just pick up and move your kid to a religious school. They have districts too. And guess what? People are giving false addresses in hopes of having their children placed in the better sectarian schools. How do we know? Because the Church of England sends snoops to spot-check addresses, the Daily Telegraph reports.
"Margaret Morrissey, the spokesman for the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: 'These days the first question many people ask concerns a school's catchment area rather than if it is a nice place to live. Is that any way to run an education system?'
Cell phone radiation
Posted by Andrew Cline at 05:19 AM
Another study shows they radiate nothing but conversations, so people can continue to annoy columnist Roger Simon at airports.
Posted by Andrew Cline at 05:16 AM
This morning's NY Times has further proof that relying on racino money is a poor bet.
<< Last Entry