I went to a school like that. They provided grant-only aid to cover tuition and living expenses for students from most of the US income distribution. I think you will have a harder time finding sob stories about my classmates (at least since the no-loan policies were enacted).
It doesn't seem like the selectivity/prestige effect applies to people who go to for-profit schools. Since prestige is subjective, for-profit schools can market themselves as prestigious while expanding to provide seats to anyone who can obtain a student loan. The government should not be complicit in this deception, hence the action here.
>Since Smith is 2 lanes each direction with a dedicated turn lane and is parallel to and has the same speed limit as Mimosa, while Mimosa cuts through several residential neighborhoods, has the same speed limit but is one lane each way with no dedicated turn lane: Why not Smith St. instead of Mimosa Ln.?
I'm not sure which side you were arguing for in this case, but Mimosa seems like a good candidate for a bike lane. Look at Berkeley's bicycle boulevards if you want to see an example of how driving-unfriendly roads are a great place to put bicycles.
I'm against making already cramped roads smaller, especially when the cyclists are going to ride in the middle of the road, regardless. I will definitely look into it though, any good write ups or should I just check the city's webpage?
The boulevards do not actually block out a section of the road for bicyclists. They are entire roads that optimize for low-speed neighborhood traffic where cars don't need to blast past cyclists.
Based on your description of your situation, short-distance traffic (people entering and leaving their homes) would use Mimosa along with cyclists. Long-distance car traffic would be free to use the full two lanes of Smith at high speed without dodging cyclists.
I had a grant-funded summer internship at a military institute. They gave me a 1099, with all the money filled in to a box that indicated I didn't owe tax. Got hit with self-employment taxes and a penalty two years after. Pretty sure I fit the requirements for W2 and they should have paid but I'm not about to report the military to the IRS or sue them.
> I'm not about to report the military to the IRS or sue them.
Suing them is not a good idea, but why not report them? It's not like retribution will come your way and it could be interesting, if not better (as in "less contradictory") for future people in your position.
>Undergraduates don't have the specialized knowledge required to teach or to contribute substantially to research. Graduate students, however, do both of these jobs.
I don't think grad/undergrad is the right distinction here. I was employed by my undergrad-only liberal arts alma-mater as a teaching assistant and research assistant. And the college employed many of my classmates in other positions. We weren't exploited like many graduated students are, but another institution could have treated us worse.
To this point and the point below about undergrads and specialized knowledge: yes, you're absolutely right. I should not have said that undergrads don't have the specialized knowledge to teach. Plenty of undergrads make great TAs, and teaching assistants are a critical part of the learning process at most universities. What I should have said is that courses are not taught by (the role of the teacher is held by) undergraduates but by professors and graduate students, who are responsible for the planning, content, and instruction, and for the TAs that assist them. The only point I'm trying to make is that graduate students are given substantial full-time-equivalent jobs and that there place and role in the university ought to reflect this.
> college employed many of my classmates in other positions
And how many classmates were not employed? Far more. So yes, the grad/undergrad distinction is valid. Undergrads are often assigned boring research jobs and are paid less.
> Undergrads are often assigned boring research jobs and are paid less.
I agree paid less, but disagree about "boring" research jobs. It probably depends on your school and your major. Nuclear Engineering at NC State got me to research molecular dynamics GPU techniques (this was around 2010) to simulate rare events (such as radiation-resistant material interactions) in order to get real-world simulation times to the order of milliseconds, which is a whopping 1000x speedup from the usual microseconds. I got access to the school's supercomputers just like any other physics grad.
My work later moved to the CASL (Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs[0]) umbrella, and I was not the only one. None of the topics were boring, and the general impression I got from the department head was that undergrads were as capable but just requiring slightly more guidance.
It was a great funnel for getting undergrads to continue their research to grad school and ultimately to a PhD. I did not continue, but still have several friends that are pursuing their PhDs.
So if it costs 1% of the budget to move .1% of the population in 1 year, it would cost 10% of the budget to move 10% of the population in 10 years. Clearly a major expenditure but totally doable.
The statement is ambiguous, so it can still be valid. However the use of "length" twice in the same sentence to describe both the dimensions parallel and perpendicular to the crack is likely to confuse some readers. Some people's brains are not going to free the "length" pointer halfway through the sentence.
Office space is about twice as expensive in SF as it is in San Jose. And it seems to me there are more people attached to living there, whether it's the city lifestyle, rent control, or prop 13, to the extent that people are commuting from there to jobs in the peninsula suburbs.
