rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dan Rose) (11/11/85)
Where is everybody? Last year this newsgroup was a hotbed of net.activity! Well, I'll bite. Here are a few topics I'd like to throw out for consideration: [1] Whatever happened to the fuss a couple years ago about all these colleges forcing their students to buy PCs? CMU got the most press; they were going to develop some special network with IBM or something. Anyone know what became of these plans? [2] How do people out there feel about the athletic scholarships/recruiting/exceptions controversy? Some say that enforcing some arbitrary standard (GPA of x.y, for example) or cutting back on scholarships takes away opportunities from students who might not otherwise be able to go to college. Others say that some schools have put the cart before the horse by allowing their athletes to graduate without even learning to read (extreme cases). Is there a happy medium? (If anyone wants to get into this dis- cussion, I'll be happy to put in my own opinions . . .) [3] There seems to be a big difference in atmosphere between schools which have a large commuter population (say, less than half the students live on campus) and those which don't. My feeling is that there is more sense of community in the non- commuter places, not just because everyone is around more, but because the local area develops more campus-oriented places -- both on-campus (student lounges, game rooms, libraries offering more services or staying open longer, etc.) and off (pizza places, movie theaters, bookstores open late, coffee places where they don't hassle you to leave right away, local-talent clubs, etc.) Anyone want to submit a responsible (or irresponsible) opposing viewpoint? Looking forward to some healthy debate . . . -- Dan (not Broadway Danny) Rose rose@UCSD
ins_asac@jhunix.UUCP (Stephan Alexa Cooper) (11/15/85)
> [3] There seems to be a big difference in atmosphere >between schools which have a large commuter population (say, less >than half the students live on campus) and those which don't. >My feeling is that there is more sense of community in the non- >commuter places, not just because everyone is around more, but >because the local area develops more campus-oriented places -- >both on-campus (student lounges, game rooms, libraries offering >more services or staying open longer, etc.) and off (pizza places, >movie theaters, bookstores open late, coffee places where they >don't hassle you to leave right away, local-talent clubs, etc.) I don't know about this totally. Here at JHU some of what you say applies. This is not billed as a commuter school, however the school only provides guaranteed housing for freshman. The majority of the upperclassmen live off campus. This tends to give JHU the appearance of a commuter school. However, most of the students ARE within walking distance, so this point is not entirely true. But, in comparison with other schools, the interaction among students is low compared to other colleges in this area... i.e. - Univ of Maryland... and for that matter, any larger University. I think this is one drawback that JHU has - the (unintentional) repression of frosh-upper- class interaction. Let me clarify, though, in saying that the above "dilemma" can be overcome by a socially outward personality. The above environment is the reason why Hopkins is not labelled a "Party School." Granted, it shouldn't be, in light of its excellent academics. But it does make social life a challenge! Anyone else have any opinions, either here or out on the net? Steve Cooper: ------------- ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!ins_asac@jhunix
eric@uvacs.UUCP (Eric Holtman) (11/18/85)
> can be overcome by a socially outward personality. The above environment > is the reason why Hopkins is not labelled a "Party School." Granted, it > shouldn't be, in light of its excellent academics. But it does make social > life a challenge! > Anyone else have any opinions, either here or out on the net? > > Steve Cooper: > ------------- > ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!ins_asac@jhunix WHAT??? You can't be a "Party School" and have excellent academics??? I beg to differ. Here at U. Va. we seem to capture the best of both worlds... we have >35 ACTIVE fraternities on campus, and every weekend there are hundreds of people crawling around in bushes because of incredible revelry. we useed to (4 years ago), have the biggest college party on the East Coast ("EASTERS"), but the administration canned it because it got way out of hand..... on the flip side, we have an excellent Economics department, a killer graduate business and law school, and we made Time magazine's top choice (actually, not theirs, but a book which they reviewed) of "best buy", not Ivy priced but Ivy education schools. We also made New York Times Magazine last year as a "hot school" to attend..... come on!! eric .
cuccia@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Nick "Coosh" Cuccia) (12/21/85)
In article <1191@sdcsvax.UUCP> rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dan Rose) writes: > > [2] How do people out there feel about the athletic >scholarships/recruiting/exceptions controversy? Some say that Two sides to this one. There are those that feel that good athletes, regardless of their academic background, are a benefit to the school that they go to. They help provide entertainment and, depending upon the team quality, revenues from alums, boosters, and television. I've always said that USC's football team is the best money can buy... 8-). On the other hand, Some schools subsidize this through easier admissions and scholarships, and turn a blind eye towards academic progress. I feel that the costs to the "student-athlete" are greater than the benefits to the university. Cal's football program was on NCAA probation in the late 60s or early 70s due to recruiting violations. Now the graduation rate of Cal's football players (approx. 62% of those who start here graduate) is higher than the national average for student in general. The view- point of the administration here is that if the student can't make the grade, then he should leave. That's also the view of the athletic director and the head football coach. That's also the way that it should be. I'd rather hear that my school leads the nation in Nobel laureates than hear that it leads the nation in collegiate football. > [3] There seems to be a big difference in atmosphere >between schools which have a large commuter population (say, less >than half the students live on campus) and those which don't. >My feeling is that there is more sense of community in the non- >commuter places, not just because everyone is around more, but >because the local area develops more campus-oriented places -- >both on-campus (student lounges, game rooms, libraries offering >more services or staying open longer, etc.) and off (pizza places, >movie theaters, bookstores open late, coffee places where they >don't hassle you to leave right away, local-talent clubs, etc.) >Anyone want to submit a responsible (or irresponsible) opposing >viewpoint? Fewer than twenty percent of Cal's students live on campus. Many, like myself, live in cooperative housing, most of the rest commute from as far away as San Francisco, Concord, Vallejo and San Jose. Berkeley, outside of the libraries, doesn't have much to on-campus after dinner, but the surrounding community has a great deal to do after dark. > Looking forward to some healthy debate . . . >-- > Dan (not Broadway Danny) Rose > rose@UCSD Pardon me if this is an old topic; haven't read netnews since October... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --Nick "Coosh" Cuccia --{...}!ucbvax!cuccia (USENET) --cuccia@ucb-arpa.arpa (Arpanet) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The University wouldn't dare say some of the things that I say... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^