I received a 4 year Army ROTC scholarship to Duke University. I only can go to Duke with the scholarship. I have good grades and a good ACT score. 4.42 gpa and 32 act with 36 on science and 35 on math. But Duke is a very difficult school to get into. So will I automatically get in because of my scholarship? What happens if I do not get in? Thanks
Army ROTC scholarship getting accepted to college
- Thread starter apsbraves
- Start date
Dad
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,132
You might want to contact the detachment at Duke (today) and see if they have any conversations about admissions. Some detachments do and some do not. Contact the detachment and ask. Congrats on the 4 year!
and good luck.
Marist College ROTC
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 413
Duke is also an expensive school. This will make it easier for you if you choose to transfer the scholarship to another school if you are not accepted to Duke.
There are other threads about how to transfer a scholarship.
There are other threads about how to transfer a scholarship.
as a rule, the more competitive and prestigious the school is, the less the ROTC scholarship status matters. And, the less influence the battalion cadres have over the admission scene. Their attitude seems to be "all of our viable candidates how something outstanding anyway", and they seem to treat ROTC scholarship status as an EC, and not particularly an attribute that will make the candidate a knock out applicant. At the level of a school like Duke, there are kids who interned at Microsoft as a high school student and won a prestigious national level scholarship competition (I know a few of these kinds). In this context, an ROTC scholarship is a par. Good one at that, but not something that will totally make the adcoms awestruck.
A couple of years back, a friend of my son's got 4 year scholarship to Duke. The PMS tried his best to be his advocate vis-a-vis the dealings with the admissions office. Did not work.
One PMS whose battalion draws students from an elite school, and a couple of less competitive schools once told my son that he had a great deal of influence at the less competitive schools, but NO influence at the ultra competitive school.
In my son's school, which is considered highly competitive, 3-4 scholarship winners from the first board last year who chose this school to apply their scholarship to failed to gain admissions. My son was the only 4 year scholarship cadet who managed to get accepted.
Note that you are applying RD, whose acceptance rate is actually MUCH, MUCH lower than the overall acceptance rate published since the overall acceptance rate includes both ED and RD, and ED acceptance rate is MUCH higher. It's highly likely that close to half of the matriculating class has been already filled with the ED admits (this is the case with most Ivy and Ivy-class elite schools that have ED rounds), so you need to look at your odds in terms of how many they are likely to admit in the RD round and how many are applying in the RD round.
U chicago, currently ranked 5 in USNWR (I paid attention since my S1 goes there), which has EA, not ED, and hence the acceptance rate differential should be lower between EA and RD, still managed to produce 3:1 rate difference between the acceptance rate of EA vs. RD (meaning, EA acceptance rate close to 30% and RD acceptance rate in the less than 10% range). If I remember correctly the U Penn acceptance rate between ED and RD was either on that scale or even worse in terms of "mislead" acceptance rate published that combine ED and RD.
I am not saying that you won't get admitted. Not at all. I am just giving you a realistic view on the hyper competitive admissions dynamics among elite schools in the RD round, so that you can make your decision with all the realistic data and input.
Do you feel that you are a very competitive and very viable candidate with very good odds of getting admitted to Duke, considering the ROTC scholarship as a solid ED (but not something that will close the deal)? If so, then act accordingly.
But, I don't think you should assume that the scholarship will close the deal.
A couple of years back, a friend of my son's got 4 year scholarship to Duke. The PMS tried his best to be his advocate vis-a-vis the dealings with the admissions office. Did not work.
One PMS whose battalion draws students from an elite school, and a couple of less competitive schools once told my son that he had a great deal of influence at the less competitive schools, but NO influence at the ultra competitive school.
In my son's school, which is considered highly competitive, 3-4 scholarship winners from the first board last year who chose this school to apply their scholarship to failed to gain admissions. My son was the only 4 year scholarship cadet who managed to get accepted.
Note that you are applying RD, whose acceptance rate is actually MUCH, MUCH lower than the overall acceptance rate published since the overall acceptance rate includes both ED and RD, and ED acceptance rate is MUCH higher. It's highly likely that close to half of the matriculating class has been already filled with the ED admits (this is the case with most Ivy and Ivy-class elite schools that have ED rounds), so you need to look at your odds in terms of how many they are likely to admit in the RD round and how many are applying in the RD round.
U chicago, currently ranked 5 in USNWR (I paid attention since my S1 goes there), which has EA, not ED, and hence the acceptance rate differential should be lower between EA and RD, still managed to produce 3:1 rate difference between the acceptance rate of EA vs. RD (meaning, EA acceptance rate close to 30% and RD acceptance rate in the less than 10% range). If I remember correctly the U Penn acceptance rate between ED and RD was either on that scale or even worse in terms of "mislead" acceptance rate published that combine ED and RD.
I am not saying that you won't get admitted. Not at all. I am just giving you a realistic view on the hyper competitive admissions dynamics among elite schools in the RD round, so that you can make your decision with all the realistic data and input.
Do you feel that you are a very competitive and very viable candidate with very good odds of getting admitted to Duke, considering the ROTC scholarship as a solid ED (but not something that will close the deal)? If so, then act accordingly.
But, I don't think you should assume that the scholarship will close the deal.
one more thing: scholarship transfer is not a guaranteed thing.
Suppose you did not get admitted to Duke but were successful with Cornell. You could request scholarship transfer to Cornell. It may or may not work. Cornell battalion's quota may have been already filled by the time you make that request (in April) - in that case, scholarship transfer won't work.
In your case, since your scholarship is only to Duke, you must apply. At the same time, you need to hedge your bet. If you were my son, I would advise you to apply to a couple of schools that are matches and safeties that have the Army ROTC programs and belong to the same bridge as the Duke battalion does. The scholarship transfer within the same bridge is an easier thing to pull off. It's all about building scenarios that allow you maximum choices.
For instance, since Duke is in NC, UNC would be a good safety school for you - if you are a viable candidate at Duke, you are a highly competitive candidate at UNC. I am sure there are a couple of more schools like that in the same brigade - level geographical area
I am not trying to be a downer. I am trying to give you some advice that will "protect" you choices and allow you to have some wiggle room just in case the best scenario (Duke admission) may not work out.
Good luck. I hope you get accepted by Duke.
Suppose you did not get admitted to Duke but were successful with Cornell. You could request scholarship transfer to Cornell. It may or may not work. Cornell battalion's quota may have been already filled by the time you make that request (in April) - in that case, scholarship transfer won't work.
In your case, since your scholarship is only to Duke, you must apply. At the same time, you need to hedge your bet. If you were my son, I would advise you to apply to a couple of schools that are matches and safeties that have the Army ROTC programs and belong to the same bridge as the Duke battalion does. The scholarship transfer within the same bridge is an easier thing to pull off. It's all about building scenarios that allow you maximum choices.
For instance, since Duke is in NC, UNC would be a good safety school for you - if you are a viable candidate at Duke, you are a highly competitive candidate at UNC. I am sure there are a couple of more schools like that in the same brigade - level geographical area
I am not trying to be a downer. I am trying to give you some advice that will "protect" you choices and allow you to have some wiggle room just in case the best scenario (Duke admission) may not work out.
Good luck. I hope you get accepted by Duke.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,994
Ahh, Duke - or to those of us in RTP, the University of New Jersey at Durham. I'm not sure UNC is a good safety school. UNC is very selective, although perhaps not quite as selective. NC State might be a better safety choice if OP has to pick between the two. DS was rejected by UNC but accepted at NC State. He opted for an out of state school. DS did not have a ROTC scholarship.
Good luck. Accept the scholarship and plan to attempt to transfer if necessary.
Good luck. Accept the scholarship and plan to attempt to transfer if necessary.
To which other schools did you apply?
My MS I decided against GaTech (as out of stater) and AROTC transferred scholarship to a Big 10 public, (with a little proding from admissions). It was A OK with central command (less $). The decision was left to the battalion.
BTW I think your chances are pretty good unless you are an Asian male.
OP,
one thing you could do, if you have not done so already, is to contact not only the battalion cadre but also the admissions office and/or regional admissions officer for Duke in charge of your geographical area and make it very clear to them that you are committed to Duke by the fact that you got the 4 year scholarship.
Duke has been very aggressive last couple of year to get their "mojo" back - they got pushed out of the top 10 range for a few years in a row and they are doing their best to claw their way back into that list.
One of the considerations for a so called "prestige factor "is a number called yield: the rate of admitted students who actually matriculate in the fall. A part of the reason why the acceptance rate is much higher is because in a way they are giving you better odds for the commitment they get from you (binding early decision).
Your acceptance of the 4 year scholarship to Duke should have a similar effect as applying ED. Still no guarantee but every bit that ups your odds will likely to give you better chance.
(I don't know how your HS calculate GPA so can't interpret your number without the background reference. I don't know what other outstanding ECs and what not are included in your application other than ROTC, so hard to have an opinion on this. Your ACT is in the dead middle zone for Duke's incoming freshman body. Usually, admitted (not necessarily matriculating) student body tends to have a little higher numbers. So, I assume your stat will put you on a dead middle zone or a slightly lower than that. So, if you don't have any other sticky items like first generation college applicant, under-represented minority, under-represented geographical area, etc, etc: your stats kind of puts on a zone where it could easily go one way or the other in terms of the admissions decision outcome. At this point, anything you can do makes a difference. Read your essays over and over again and again and see if you can make adcoms stop and pay attention. The best theme in my mind is your ROTC angle in terms of the "differentiated" marketing angle since among all the kids applying to Duke, only a handful can make that claim : the desire to serve the country and all that jazz.
Good luck.
one thing you could do, if you have not done so already, is to contact not only the battalion cadre but also the admissions office and/or regional admissions officer for Duke in charge of your geographical area and make it very clear to them that you are committed to Duke by the fact that you got the 4 year scholarship.
Duke has been very aggressive last couple of year to get their "mojo" back - they got pushed out of the top 10 range for a few years in a row and they are doing their best to claw their way back into that list.
One of the considerations for a so called "prestige factor "is a number called yield: the rate of admitted students who actually matriculate in the fall. A part of the reason why the acceptance rate is much higher is because in a way they are giving you better odds for the commitment they get from you (binding early decision).
Your acceptance of the 4 year scholarship to Duke should have a similar effect as applying ED. Still no guarantee but every bit that ups your odds will likely to give you better chance.
(I don't know how your HS calculate GPA so can't interpret your number without the background reference. I don't know what other outstanding ECs and what not are included in your application other than ROTC, so hard to have an opinion on this. Your ACT is in the dead middle zone for Duke's incoming freshman body. Usually, admitted (not necessarily matriculating) student body tends to have a little higher numbers. So, I assume your stat will put you on a dead middle zone or a slightly lower than that. So, if you don't have any other sticky items like first generation college applicant, under-represented minority, under-represented geographical area, etc, etc: your stats kind of puts on a zone where it could easily go one way or the other in terms of the admissions decision outcome. At this point, anything you can do makes a difference. Read your essays over and over again and again and see if you can make adcoms stop and pay attention. The best theme in my mind is your ROTC angle in terms of the "differentiated" marketing angle since among all the kids applying to Duke, only a handful can make that claim : the desire to serve the country and all that jazz.
Good luck.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
Kinnem I almost had my soda come out my nose with the University of NJ at Durham comment....so true.
The UNCCH issue is different because Duke is private and UNCCH is state, yes top tier and as close as you can get, but we don't know where the poster is from. IS he has a much higher chance than OOS since I believe their selection rate is 70-75% IS and 25-30% OOS. It is not a safety, just because it is a state college. NCST, ECU and Appalachian are safeties for AROTC. UNCCH is ranked as the number 5 Public University in the NATION. Number 1 for east coast, after UVA. OOS for both is equivalent to applying to Duke.
There are still too many unknown factors, for example a 4.42 on a 4.5 7 pt scale for APs is insanely good, 4.42 on a 5.0 10 pt scale is a different story.
If he is IS NC, UNCCH should be a match.
Duke in selection process also tends to give an edge to minorities for diversity reasons, so this may be a factor for the OP.
Finally, as other's have stated talk to the ROTC commander and ask do they "talk" with admissions.
Duke is a great school, and if I was a betting person, I AM NOT, I would say you have a 50/50 chance. Reason why...you have a 32 ACT, but your Math and Science would be @35/36, that means R and Writing were in the 28 realm to give the 32 composite. The question now is why the low verbal with such a high gpa? Is there a language barrier or did you load up your curriculum with all Math and Science APs to inflate your gpa?
The UNCCH issue is different because Duke is private and UNCCH is state, yes top tier and as close as you can get, but we don't know where the poster is from. IS he has a much higher chance than OOS since I believe their selection rate is 70-75% IS and 25-30% OOS. It is not a safety, just because it is a state college. NCST, ECU and Appalachian are safeties for AROTC. UNCCH is ranked as the number 5 Public University in the NATION. Number 1 for east coast, after UVA. OOS for both is equivalent to applying to Duke.
There are still too many unknown factors, for example a 4.42 on a 4.5 7 pt scale for APs is insanely good, 4.42 on a 5.0 10 pt scale is a different story.
If he is IS NC, UNCCH should be a match.
Duke in selection process also tends to give an edge to minorities for diversity reasons, so this may be a factor for the OP.
Finally, as other's have stated talk to the ROTC commander and ask do they "talk" with admissions.
Duke is a great school, and if I was a betting person, I AM NOT, I would say you have a 50/50 chance. Reason why...you have a 32 ACT, but your Math and Science would be @35/36, that means R and Writing were in the 28 realm to give the 32 composite. The question now is why the low verbal with such a high gpa? Is there a language barrier or did you load up your curriculum with all Math and Science APs to inflate your gpa?
Could you please explain the "Asian male" remark, just so were all clear.
I'll let this piece explain.
12/3/11 Associated Press: "Some Asians' college strategy: Don't check 'Asian'"
by Jesse Washington
Lanya Olmstead was born in Florida to a mother who immigrated from Taiwan and an American father of Norwegian ancestry. Ethnically, she considers herself half Taiwanese and half Norwegian.
But when applying to Harvard, Olmstead checked only one box for her race: white.
"I didn't want to put 'Asian' down," Olmstead says, "because my mom told me there's
discrimination against Asians in the application process."
http://news.yahoo.com/asians-college-strategy-dont-check-asian-174442977.html
What often goes unmentioned is that being the first in one's family to go to college is a huge plus at the elite schools (don't know about the SA's), more than offsetting the Asian disadvantage.
I certainly didn't mean to offend or stereotype. I am white male and as far as my kids know, I have absolutely zero opinion about affirmative action or reverse discrimination. In the competitive environments in which my kids operate, even those who get the "unfair" advantage for a choice spot, probably worked as hard as my kids did to get it.
Moral of the story: leave nothing to chance.
12/3/11 Associated Press: "Some Asians' college strategy: Don't check 'Asian'"
by Jesse Washington
Lanya Olmstead was born in Florida to a mother who immigrated from Taiwan and an American father of Norwegian ancestry. Ethnically, she considers herself half Taiwanese and half Norwegian.
But when applying to Harvard, Olmstead checked only one box for her race: white.
"I didn't want to put 'Asian' down," Olmstead says, "because my mom told me there's
discrimination against Asians in the application process."
http://news.yahoo.com/asians-college-strategy-dont-check-asian-174442977.html
What often goes unmentioned is that being the first in one's family to go to college is a huge plus at the elite schools (don't know about the SA's), more than offsetting the Asian disadvantage.
I certainly didn't mean to offend or stereotype. I am white male and as far as my kids know, I have absolutely zero opinion about affirmative action or reverse discrimination. In the competitive environments in which my kids operate, even those who get the "unfair" advantage for a choice spot, probably worked as hard as my kids did to get it.
Moral of the story: leave nothing to chance.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
I am sorry to go off-topic, but here's something that really burns me. I mean, REALLY burns me.
Most colleges like to "talk the talk" about how they are so into "social justice" and bending over backwards to bring about equality, etc. But I think they are the worst offenders of "social injustice."
The fact of the matter is that colleges collectively have been raising their tuition rates at an alarming rate, way beyond inflation, and that -- in my humble opinion -- is probably the biggest contributing factor between the increasing divide between rich and poor in this country. A college education is increasingly becoming a luxury for the "haves" and shutting out the "have nots." Frankly, despite the many public pronouncements from so-called "elite" schools about scholarships being offered for first-time college attendees, attendees from lower income families, and minorities, you can bet that the vast majority of attendees at these schools are students paying full-freight tuition from wealthy family backgrounds.
So any college that professes to be about social justice should look very hard in the mirror. If the colleges, as a group, want to do something about social equality, they need to band together and do something about it. Yes, that means reducing the bloated salaries of many college professors.
Also, while I believe in the free market, our education system spends a lot of time educating the rest of the world. I suspect this explains the saturation of Asians in many colleges, to the extent that it has now become somewhat of a "negative" attribute among colleges seeking to rebalance their student bodies to be reflective of our society. But if the US wants to maintain its lead as a knowledge-based world economy, it should be designed to educate our citizenry (effected perhaps by withholding federal research grants if the graduate-level student body population does not reflect a certain percentage of U.S. citizens). I do recognize that many "elite" colleges don't view themselves as "American" colleges but as "world" colleges, but we may need a national policy about this in the coming years.
There's something amiss in our education system today. The "Occupy" protesters should not be looking at Wall Street but should be directing their anger at Harvard Square. IMHO.
I suppose this is why I am so supportive of the ROTC scholarship and service academy opportunties that are available and why it makes me feel good to help those who are trying to avail themselves of these programs.
apsbraves: Dad provided some very excellent in Post #2 of this thread. That would be my recommendation as well.
Most colleges like to "talk the talk" about how they are so into "social justice" and bending over backwards to bring about equality, etc. But I think they are the worst offenders of "social injustice."
The fact of the matter is that colleges collectively have been raising their tuition rates at an alarming rate, way beyond inflation, and that -- in my humble opinion -- is probably the biggest contributing factor between the increasing divide between rich and poor in this country. A college education is increasingly becoming a luxury for the "haves" and shutting out the "have nots." Frankly, despite the many public pronouncements from so-called "elite" schools about scholarships being offered for first-time college attendees, attendees from lower income families, and minorities, you can bet that the vast majority of attendees at these schools are students paying full-freight tuition from wealthy family backgrounds.
So any college that professes to be about social justice should look very hard in the mirror. If the colleges, as a group, want to do something about social equality, they need to band together and do something about it. Yes, that means reducing the bloated salaries of many college professors.
Also, while I believe in the free market, our education system spends a lot of time educating the rest of the world. I suspect this explains the saturation of Asians in many colleges, to the extent that it has now become somewhat of a "negative" attribute among colleges seeking to rebalance their student bodies to be reflective of our society. But if the US wants to maintain its lead as a knowledge-based world economy, it should be designed to educate our citizenry (effected perhaps by withholding federal research grants if the graduate-level student body population does not reflect a certain percentage of U.S. citizens). I do recognize that many "elite" colleges don't view themselves as "American" colleges but as "world" colleges, but we may need a national policy about this in the coming years.
There's something amiss in our education system today. The "Occupy" protesters should not be looking at Wall Street but should be directing their anger at Harvard Square. IMHO.
I suppose this is why I am so supportive of the ROTC scholarship and service academy opportunties that are available and why it makes me feel good to help those who are trying to avail themselves of these programs.
apsbraves: Dad provided some very excellent in Post #2 of this thread. That would be my recommendation as well.
Last edited:
I am equally burned or my son was until we realized that its a game. They are not into social justice. They are into believing they can create an ideal community. Not only do they want a certain number of D1 athletes, they also want a certain number of electrical engineers and a certain number of Asians and a certain number of 17th century Haitian poetry majors.
I need to correct you. Most of the elites are need based, which is part of why tuition keeps going up. At any of the private elites the total cost is $55-60k/yr. A combined family of four income of $80-100K will pay tuiton of about $12K, under $60k they pay nothing. If your dad is a cardiologist it's full freight. No merit. No nothing. To my knowledge, MIT is the only elite which offers blind need based scholarships to non-Americans. One of them, from Greece, is friend of mine who teaches mech eng at our Big State U. My state is better off for it.
The student union at GA Tech had more Asians than I have ever seen in one place. Why? It's public, cheap, no quotas and hard to get in. In GA there is the HOPE scholarship which offers free tuition at any State school to any GA kid in the top 10% of his class, i.e. everyone at GA Tech other than athletes. So what are you going to do if your Dad is a Patent attorney in Atlanta? Duke for $55k or GA Tech for $10K.
My son's roommate is a classic example. Parents from India, make $200k+, 2400 SAT. Their choioces: Princeton $60k, GA Tech $40k (out of State), Big 10 U $10k after merit scholarships. He is studying Chem Eng. There are enough folks out there that are willing pay anything to get to the elites, so why not charge out the yazoo. Don't forget the higher the price the greater the perceived value.
I really differ with you here. Non-Americans, except at MIT, pay full freight. At our big State U, they pay an extra $5k.
It is not the job of Universities to balance out. That's what the elites try to do. It is our job a parents and the job of our schools to prepare the kids to compete with the best. These immigrant kids have been the fire under my kids' butts from day 1.
My younger son's middle school science bowl team won the state contest and went to the nationals in Washington DC. I missed the opening rounds and only saw the elimination rounds--a total of 4 matches. I saw a total of five teams of 4 plus an alternate=25 kids. The teams were from the Sillicon Valley to Arkansas. Of the 25 kids, 20 were either East Asian or South Asian. Since my son's team had only one Asian, 19 of the other 20 competitors were Asian.
Of the 5 coaches/teachers, no Asians.
My MIT Mech Eng friend says, when they hire, they would kill for (in order of preference), white or black American females, white or black American males, any American. They can't find them. Grad TA's are like migrant workers and the universities are like labor racketeers.
Sorry, I think they should look in the mirror. The anger at Wall Streeters who took bonuses after we taxpayers paid off AIG's bad bets is righteous, but it has nothing to do with them being out of work. Nor did Harvard Square induce them to get expensive degrees with no market value.
That is the bottom line. I would only add that even without the scholarship, it is a fabulous experience and the programmers themselves are valuable in the mix. They are like walk-ons at D1 athletic programs.
Now we're really off topic. Time for an adult beverage.
Deo volente
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 9
University of NJ??
I am a graduate of the University of Virginia and a resident of New Jersey...Chris Christie country...what is with the NJ comments?
I am a graduate of the University of Virginia and a resident of New Jersey...Chris Christie country...what is with the NJ comments?
patentesq's post is SO SO SO misguided, I can't let this pass without a rebuttal, though I try mostly to limit my contribution in this board to strictly ROTC related issues.
Especially, the following:
OMG. where do I begin. Nobody is invading US elite colleges and steal the precious spots American students should be rightfully occupying.
(1) Most of the Asians's in America's elite colleges are Asian AMERICANS. Something like 20-30% of MIT student body are Asian AMERICANS. Foreign nationals, Asians or not, are counted separately, and they total about 9 %. The MIT has the highest % of Asians in all elite colleges except Berkeley and there they are about 50%, and that's because Cal system decided to enforce race blind admissions policy. AND, they are MOSTLY Asian Americans.
Are you saying there are too many Asian Americans in USA elite colleges and we should balance it out better, as in reduce Asians and accept more whites, blacks and hispanics? If so, you and I am in agreement, and I am an Asian and my kids are half Asians. My reason is, the America's future elite class should better represent the overall population. What's yours? But you realize my reason is not about resenting the fact that so many foreigners are "occupying" seats at US elite colleges.
(2) Most foreign nationals must have HIGHER scores and qualifications to get a seat a elite US colleges. If you think the elite colleges are giving seats to less qualified foreign nationals. you are wrong.
(3) Scholarships are very hard to get for foreign nationals. If anything, most of them pay full pay. At state schools, they pay through the nose. Please note that foreign nationals with green cards are still considered foreign nationals, and though they pay taxes through their nose: everything, state, local, social security, medicare insurance, local real estate tax, they do NOT get in state college tuition at their public schools. So, because they lack the citizenship, they are in fact subsiding citizen's education at public school.
(4) Most of the "foreign nationals" who come and occupy seats at elite colleges fall into two categories:
(a) elites from their home countries who go back and become elites of their own countries with very favorable opinions about USA and implement USA style policies, values, and what not. In fact, in many countries, a ruling class in their countries are US educated.
THIS IS VERY BENEFICIAL for American interest on the long term basis. If anything we should ENCOURAGE more foreign nationals who will come and imbibe US values, policies, and culture and go back to their country to become the decision makers in their own country.
(b) the top brains from their own country who come to USA, get top quality education, and STAY in USA to become the engine of growth for knowledge industry. Both my husband and I work in high tech industry, and about 30-40% of the engineers and company leaders of ALL ELITE tech companies are foreign born professionals who came to USA's top elite Ph.D. programs and stayed on and became naturalized and raise their family as American citizens. Most of the foreign born Ph.D. actually want to stay in USA and become citizens but post 9 11 immigration quotas are making it difficult for a lot of them, and they are going to Europe instead to enrich THEIR competitiveness. What a shame.....
Do you know that the founders of Sun Microsystem, Google, Yahoo, Youtube, etc are ALL foreign born professionals? Do you think these people are stealing university seats at elite schools and employment positions at elite companies that would have been well staffed by equally well qualified natural born US citizens??? Can you imagine USA without Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc without foreign born nationals who were educated at elite USA universities' PH.D. program and stay on? If you can, you are deluded.
Without top quality brains we managed to lure to USA from all over the world, you will be left with decaying manufacturing industry but without the globally dominant knowledge industry companies like the likes of Google and Apple.
If anything, we should ENCOURAGE more of the top biologists, chemists, software engineers from all over the world to come and educated here in USA and STAY.
The true strength of USA lies in its ability to continuously lure the very best from the rest of the world.
Get rid of all the foreign born brain talents, you will be signing your name on the decline of American in a short order.
PS
Both my husband and I are foreign born. We came to USA to get Ph.D. we got married, stayed on, and played a rather meaningful role in ensuring this this country stayed as a dominant force in global knowledge industry. We raised two kids who are incredibly exemplary young men in this country, the kind any nation would love to have as part of their future generation. And yes, one of them is willing to risk his life to defend and serve this country. Do you feel that we invaded the American elite educational institutions and occupied the seats better deserving American students should have occupied?
By the way, both my husband and I are very proud Americans and very grateful that this country provided all the opportunities for us to excel and contribute without prejudice and discrimination, and for that, our son will be dedicating his life to serve. My goal is in a few years to retire from my primary career and become a public advocacy lawyer to give back to this society by helping the least privileged among us.
Especially, the following:
OMG. where do I begin. Nobody is invading US elite colleges and steal the precious spots American students should be rightfully occupying.
(1) Most of the Asians's in America's elite colleges are Asian AMERICANS. Something like 20-30% of MIT student body are Asian AMERICANS. Foreign nationals, Asians or not, are counted separately, and they total about 9 %. The MIT has the highest % of Asians in all elite colleges except Berkeley and there they are about 50%, and that's because Cal system decided to enforce race blind admissions policy. AND, they are MOSTLY Asian Americans.
Are you saying there are too many Asian Americans in USA elite colleges and we should balance it out better, as in reduce Asians and accept more whites, blacks and hispanics? If so, you and I am in agreement, and I am an Asian and my kids are half Asians. My reason is, the America's future elite class should better represent the overall population. What's yours? But you realize my reason is not about resenting the fact that so many foreigners are "occupying" seats at US elite colleges.
(2) Most foreign nationals must have HIGHER scores and qualifications to get a seat a elite US colleges. If you think the elite colleges are giving seats to less qualified foreign nationals. you are wrong.
(3) Scholarships are very hard to get for foreign nationals. If anything, most of them pay full pay. At state schools, they pay through the nose. Please note that foreign nationals with green cards are still considered foreign nationals, and though they pay taxes through their nose: everything, state, local, social security, medicare insurance, local real estate tax, they do NOT get in state college tuition at their public schools. So, because they lack the citizenship, they are in fact subsiding citizen's education at public school.
(4) Most of the "foreign nationals" who come and occupy seats at elite colleges fall into two categories:
(a) elites from their home countries who go back and become elites of their own countries with very favorable opinions about USA and implement USA style policies, values, and what not. In fact, in many countries, a ruling class in their countries are US educated.
THIS IS VERY BENEFICIAL for American interest on the long term basis. If anything we should ENCOURAGE more foreign nationals who will come and imbibe US values, policies, and culture and go back to their country to become the decision makers in their own country.
(b) the top brains from their own country who come to USA, get top quality education, and STAY in USA to become the engine of growth for knowledge industry. Both my husband and I work in high tech industry, and about 30-40% of the engineers and company leaders of ALL ELITE tech companies are foreign born professionals who came to USA's top elite Ph.D. programs and stayed on and became naturalized and raise their family as American citizens. Most of the foreign born Ph.D. actually want to stay in USA and become citizens but post 9 11 immigration quotas are making it difficult for a lot of them, and they are going to Europe instead to enrich THEIR competitiveness. What a shame.....
Do you know that the founders of Sun Microsystem, Google, Yahoo, Youtube, etc are ALL foreign born professionals? Do you think these people are stealing university seats at elite schools and employment positions at elite companies that would have been well staffed by equally well qualified natural born US citizens??? Can you imagine USA without Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc without foreign born nationals who were educated at elite USA universities' PH.D. program and stay on? If you can, you are deluded.
Without top quality brains we managed to lure to USA from all over the world, you will be left with decaying manufacturing industry but without the globally dominant knowledge industry companies like the likes of Google and Apple.
If anything, we should ENCOURAGE more of the top biologists, chemists, software engineers from all over the world to come and educated here in USA and STAY.
The true strength of USA lies in its ability to continuously lure the very best from the rest of the world.
Get rid of all the foreign born brain talents, you will be signing your name on the decline of American in a short order.
PS
Both my husband and I are foreign born. We came to USA to get Ph.D. we got married, stayed on, and played a rather meaningful role in ensuring this this country stayed as a dominant force in global knowledge industry. We raised two kids who are incredibly exemplary young men in this country, the kind any nation would love to have as part of their future generation. And yes, one of them is willing to risk his life to defend and serve this country. Do you feel that we invaded the American elite educational institutions and occupied the seats better deserving American students should have occupied?
By the way, both my husband and I are very proud Americans and very grateful that this country provided all the opportunities for us to excel and contribute without prejudice and discrimination, and for that, our son will be dedicating his life to serve. My goal is in a few years to retire from my primary career and become a public advocacy lawyer to give back to this society by helping the least privileged among us.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
educateme and cb7893: You folks have totally misread my post. That was my fault for being unclear.
1. The fact is, in the US, the child of a billionaire from China has a better chance of receiving a quality education in the U.S. than a poor child born of Chinese immigrants in Chinatown, San Francisco, CA. That is wrong in my view, and my message was not anti-immigrant at all. In fact, my parents are both immigrants, and my father came to this country and spent a lifetime in the U.S. Army (as a doctor) and contributed to this nation and fought in every single war (on the U.S. side) since Korea. As an immigrant-AMERICAN, he commanded a MASH unit in Vietnam through and including participating in the Panama invasion. My father was in the Middle East when Syria invaded Jordan, at a time when the Palentinians placed a contract out to murder my entire family, including myself (thank goodness for Secret Service protection!), simply because my father had decided to answer -- as an immigrant -- the call of the U.S. government to support the Jordanian people during that conflict. Please do NOT make this an immigration issue, because it is not.
2. I also did not suggest that our nation's colleges offer an education for free to foreigners -- foreigners pay full freight. But the fact is that a child of humble Muslim-American immigrants in Detroit has greater challenges to receiving a quality education in the U.S. than the child of an Arab sheik from Kuwait.
I happen to believe that a nation's education system is an element of its infrastructure just as vital as that nation's roadways or medical care system. If someone wants to immigrate to the U.S. and become a vital contributor to our country, then she or he should be entitled to participate in the best that our nation has to offer (in fact, she or he should be ENCOURAGED through scholarships to participate).
However, if a college grants admission to a foreign applicant simply because he or she can afford to pay top-dollar, I think it is hurtful to this country -- in the long run and in the aggregate -- if that knowledge, imparted to the highest bidder, is then withdrawn to another country when the foreign student graduates. I understand and have heard the arguments that education is to benefit "all Mankind", but what actually seems to be happening is that education is benefiting the rich (for the most part), without regard to national origin. Sure, many of the parents here on SAF work hard to help their children have a better life than their prior generation, but we are not the norm in my view.
So . . . every time I hear about our nation's higher education system professing to do good and helping people, I simply shrug my shoulders and know they are principally a business aimed at making a dollar. This means giving opportunity to those who can pay for it. The non-ROTC merit scholarships that are frequently dispensed are NOT being offered to high-performers because they deserve it; rather, in large part, merit scholarships are offered to attract higher-scoring applicants and thus increase the college's standing and prestige in U.S. News & World report. This, in turn, will enable the so-called "do-gooder" college to receive even more applicants who can afford to pay full freight. It is almost like a professional sports team -- top athletes receive top dollars not as a recognition for their talents, but rather, to increase the sports team's standing in the game and thus generate more revenue. In short, it's a business.
Frankly, none of us has any greater knowledge about the educational transformation we are currently witnessing than the other, because this is all happening in real time (the whole shift of education becoming a "business" is happening before our eyes). History will determine whether my concerns were misguided, but I do not see why the cost of education has to outpace the cost of inflation -- to astronomical levels at this point -- unless there is some other reason for it. The only answer I can see at present, although my attitude about this changes by the day, is that many colleges are, despite their proclamations to the contrary, simply motivated by money (or a desire to have the "best of the best" that education can offer).
In short, my complaint with our increasingly problematic education system has NOTHING to with race, national origin, creed or anything else of that nature -- it is pure economics.
If anyone can explain why the cost of education is FAR exceeding the current rate of inflation, I would be very interested in hearing it. I am not set in my ways and am eager to learn the answer to that question. So far, my perception is that "education" has transformed into a "business", but I could be entirely wrong in that perception.
1. The fact is, in the US, the child of a billionaire from China has a better chance of receiving a quality education in the U.S. than a poor child born of Chinese immigrants in Chinatown, San Francisco, CA. That is wrong in my view, and my message was not anti-immigrant at all. In fact, my parents are both immigrants, and my father came to this country and spent a lifetime in the U.S. Army (as a doctor) and contributed to this nation and fought in every single war (on the U.S. side) since Korea. As an immigrant-AMERICAN, he commanded a MASH unit in Vietnam through and including participating in the Panama invasion. My father was in the Middle East when Syria invaded Jordan, at a time when the Palentinians placed a contract out to murder my entire family, including myself (thank goodness for Secret Service protection!), simply because my father had decided to answer -- as an immigrant -- the call of the U.S. government to support the Jordanian people during that conflict. Please do NOT make this an immigration issue, because it is not.
2. I also did not suggest that our nation's colleges offer an education for free to foreigners -- foreigners pay full freight. But the fact is that a child of humble Muslim-American immigrants in Detroit has greater challenges to receiving a quality education in the U.S. than the child of an Arab sheik from Kuwait.
I happen to believe that a nation's education system is an element of its infrastructure just as vital as that nation's roadways or medical care system. If someone wants to immigrate to the U.S. and become a vital contributor to our country, then she or he should be entitled to participate in the best that our nation has to offer (in fact, she or he should be ENCOURAGED through scholarships to participate).
However, if a college grants admission to a foreign applicant simply because he or she can afford to pay top-dollar, I think it is hurtful to this country -- in the long run and in the aggregate -- if that knowledge, imparted to the highest bidder, is then withdrawn to another country when the foreign student graduates. I understand and have heard the arguments that education is to benefit "all Mankind", but what actually seems to be happening is that education is benefiting the rich (for the most part), without regard to national origin. Sure, many of the parents here on SAF work hard to help their children have a better life than their prior generation, but we are not the norm in my view.
So . . . every time I hear about our nation's higher education system professing to do good and helping people, I simply shrug my shoulders and know they are principally a business aimed at making a dollar. This means giving opportunity to those who can pay for it. The non-ROTC merit scholarships that are frequently dispensed are NOT being offered to high-performers because they deserve it; rather, in large part, merit scholarships are offered to attract higher-scoring applicants and thus increase the college's standing and prestige in U.S. News & World report. This, in turn, will enable the so-called "do-gooder" college to receive even more applicants who can afford to pay full freight. It is almost like a professional sports team -- top athletes receive top dollars not as a recognition for their talents, but rather, to increase the sports team's standing in the game and thus generate more revenue. In short, it's a business.
Frankly, none of us has any greater knowledge about the educational transformation we are currently witnessing than the other, because this is all happening in real time (the whole shift of education becoming a "business" is happening before our eyes). History will determine whether my concerns were misguided, but I do not see why the cost of education has to outpace the cost of inflation -- to astronomical levels at this point -- unless there is some other reason for it. The only answer I can see at present, although my attitude about this changes by the day, is that many colleges are, despite their proclamations to the contrary, simply motivated by money (or a desire to have the "best of the best" that education can offer).
In short, my complaint with our increasingly problematic education system has NOTHING to with race, national origin, creed or anything else of that nature -- it is pure economics.
If anyone can explain why the cost of education is FAR exceeding the current rate of inflation, I would be very interested in hearing it. I am not set in my ways and am eager to learn the answer to that question. So far, my perception is that "education" has transformed into a "business", but I could be entirely wrong in that perception.
Last edited:
Before going OT with the rest of the gang here, I would like to suggest that the best the OP can do is accept the scholarship to Duke (given the lack of other choices based upon OP's input) and hope for the best - either acceptance to Duke or the ability to transfer the scholarship to another school where OP gains acceptance. In that light, if it isn't too late to apply, OP might consider applying to another strong academic school with his/her major of interest within the same ROTC reporting structure to maximize the options for transfer.
Others have suggested working with the PMS to see what if any help may or may not be available. Won't hurt to try.
Now to throw my $.02 about the criticisms of higher ed in this thread that may (or most likely may not) affect this poster's situation...
As to the cost of education far outstripping the general inflation rate, I see 2 factors here that can explain most of that.
1) The content of higher education today is not the same as the content of higher education a generation ago. Let's face it, facilities were more spartan (I remember taking many a class in buildings without AC and labs with less equipment than today's high schools). R&B is not the same with far more food options, air conditioning in every room. Even the recreational and sports facilities are miles ahead of what I experienced a quarter century ago. There are even psychological counseling services available (back in the day, those things didn't exist).
As to why that is, ask your child whether s/he would tolerate an un-air-conditioned dorm room or classroom in a southern climate? Ask them whether they think a chem lab equipment setup should be shared by 4 or more students in the same lab? Ask them if they would go to a school without a fitness center?
2) The second reason I will cite for the faster growth of higher ed costs vis-a-vis the CPI is that the inputs to Higher Ed are things that have not fallen in cost as fast as other inputs to other products measured in the CPI. Most labor-intensive products (typically services) have also risen faster than less labor-intensive products. For example, the cost of a phone line has dropped tremendously, as fewer and fewer operators are required to maintain or telecom networks.
Higher ed has cut some of the staffing in overhead areas (clerical functions for example), but these were relatively lower paid employees who made up a small percentage of the overall cost of the classroom product. I will admit professors in some fields (medicine and engineering in particular) are handsomely paid (as compared to the same disciplines back in the day), but those professions' overall payscale has also grown compared to the labor force in general. Tenured Philosophy professors at 2nd tier state universities often 1/2 as much as engineering graduates with wet ink on their diplomas from the same institution.
So while we'd like to rail at higher ed for making our ROTC candidates choose between a scholarship at a school they might not be able to be admitted to and taking a low-cost path through a bi-directional without the ROTC scholarship, let's look a little more deeply at the underlying economics of the situation instead of getting excited about what all the yellow journalism says about the subject.
Others have suggested working with the PMS to see what if any help may or may not be available. Won't hurt to try.
Now to throw my $.02 about the criticisms of higher ed in this thread that may (or most likely may not) affect this poster's situation...
As to the cost of education far outstripping the general inflation rate, I see 2 factors here that can explain most of that.
1) The content of higher education today is not the same as the content of higher education a generation ago. Let's face it, facilities were more spartan (I remember taking many a class in buildings without AC and labs with less equipment than today's high schools). R&B is not the same with far more food options, air conditioning in every room. Even the recreational and sports facilities are miles ahead of what I experienced a quarter century ago. There are even psychological counseling services available (back in the day, those things didn't exist).
As to why that is, ask your child whether s/he would tolerate an un-air-conditioned dorm room or classroom in a southern climate? Ask them whether they think a chem lab equipment setup should be shared by 4 or more students in the same lab? Ask them if they would go to a school without a fitness center?
2) The second reason I will cite for the faster growth of higher ed costs vis-a-vis the CPI is that the inputs to Higher Ed are things that have not fallen in cost as fast as other inputs to other products measured in the CPI. Most labor-intensive products (typically services) have also risen faster than less labor-intensive products. For example, the cost of a phone line has dropped tremendously, as fewer and fewer operators are required to maintain or telecom networks.
Higher ed has cut some of the staffing in overhead areas (clerical functions for example), but these were relatively lower paid employees who made up a small percentage of the overall cost of the classroom product. I will admit professors in some fields (medicine and engineering in particular) are handsomely paid (as compared to the same disciplines back in the day), but those professions' overall payscale has also grown compared to the labor force in general. Tenured Philosophy professors at 2nd tier state universities often 1/2 as much as engineering graduates with wet ink on their diplomas from the same institution.
So while we'd like to rail at higher ed for making our ROTC candidates choose between a scholarship at a school they might not be able to be admitted to and taking a low-cost path through a bi-directional without the ROTC scholarship, let's look a little more deeply at the underlying economics of the situation instead of getting excited about what all the yellow journalism says about the subject.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
goaliedad, thank you for your incredibly poignant and informative post. It will take some time for me to digest, but you may have something here. Still, maybe I'm just in a cynical mood at present, but the cost of education's rise in excess of the rise in the cost of medicine (see graph below) seems like more than a trend (rather, it seems like a transformation). Admittedly, however, you did raise points in your post that I had not contemplated. I have to give this more thought.
breadcrumbs
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 58
Apologies in advance to apsbraves for adding to the threadjack.
Hot off the press:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ut-asian-americans-at-california-schools.html
Hot off the press:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ut-asian-americans-at-california-schools.html