| Author |
Message |
Hank Murphy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:57 am
Post subject: Re: Best Undergraduate Economics Programs. |
|
|
thc wrote in message ...
You may remember a thread about one of the professors named at that site
last year. Without going over that old ground, I did notice that they had
two Nobel laureates listed at the time. I can't remember if I posted that
or not (I think I did). Now, you are correct if you are implying that they
shouldn't count because they did their work elsewhere. However, were I in
that general area, I'd at least look at them for an undergraduate econ
degree. They are trying. Certainly not going to challenge Chicago too
soon, of course.
Hank Murphy
speaking only for myself |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:08 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
| Quote: | "Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at
Cal.
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities.
|
No one said only. However, as you'll notice, if you read another posting
from the WSJ, legacy admissions are being curtailed.
| Quote: | What about athletes, alumni, big donors (or
"regent inquiries" as the UCs call them), and geographic preferences, just
|
Geographic preference is another form of discrimination I have often spoken
out against.
| Quote: | to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status
surely
gave you a few bonus points.
|
IIRC, I don't believe the qusetion ever came up in any of the admissions
forms at the time.
| Quote: |
And Cal still has merit scholarships. I, personally, think merit
scholarships are ridiculous. Financial aid should be the only
scholarships
available. Getting into a good college should be reward enough (although
|
Why? Getting into Cal was not a reward in and of itself. I selected Cal
because my wife was also accepted as a transfer student, and of all the
schools which accepted both of us and offerred funding, Cal had the best
climate.
| Quote: | some schools like Wash Univ need those merit scholarships to get top
students -- heh, I admittedly applied there for undergrad b/c they had a
great scholarship that was very alluring).
We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our
lazy
asses.
Unfortunately, many people don't realize this, and they're not sitting on
their lazy asses. They're working their asses off in jobs -- it's hard to
|
During periods in which I was laid off from Wall Street, I worked as a math
teacher in two different inner city high schools. I did have some students
who worked - and I both accomodated them and motivated them. But that was a
tiny minority. The majority of students who I taught were not working. I did
"reach" quite a few of them. But getting students to do HW was extremely
difficult. Support in the home was there for maybe 5-10% of the students.
However when support was there, I helped students fight peer pressure.
| Quote: | realize the present value of college. And it's not so easy to pay for
college if you do realize it when financial aid these days is hardly
supportive (even when colleges claim to provide full aid).
It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton,
who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
And many Americans do work very hard. Unfortunately, working hard does
not
necessarily equal success.
|
Ok, if you want jingoism, work hard AND smart.
| Quote: |
This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it
to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be
held
to a lower standard.
There are many benefits to education beyond the obvious one for the
educated
person (externalities, much?). Education provides socialization which is
necessary for any functioning democracy (maybe that's why California
politics are out of hand??) and society in general; there are human
capital
spillovers, which (by definition) benefit those around the educated
person;
balances capital market failures (in that, unfortunately, parents may not
make the best decisions for their children in investing in their futures);
and on and on.
Furthermore, I think that you're confusing financial aid with affirmative
action here. When you say "they" in "they have another 25 years...", I'm
assuming you mean minorities and women.
|
No, not women. Just so-called minorities.
| Quote: | Well, affirmative action may help
minorities and women in admissions,
|
No, affirmative action is not targeted at women.
| Quote: | but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're referring.
|
You missed the thread on CMU financial aid?
| Quote: |
And, as a person that went to Cal, who do you think subsidized your
education? Taxpayers.
|
Of which I was one. The fellowship, OTOH, came from private funds set up by,
I assume the family of one CAEK (name withheld).
| Quote: |
You mentioned before that you were a "poor boy". Would you have been able
to afford a private school as a child? If yes, you weren't that poor. If
no, then how can you criticize public education?
|
I attended parochial school. I think my mom paid $10 a month, which she
could ill afford. When I was admitted to a top-notch parochial high school,
I could not attend, as my Mom could not afford their assisted tuition. I
went to a high school where few, if any, went on to college.
Abe
| Quote: |
But really no one
cares about that issue.
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
I'm in grad school in education policy.
The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
Abe
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:11 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"kile" <ceoc@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3a638a24.0401150131.45ec845d@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it
to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be
held
to a lower standard.
I have a feeling that you've never spent time in one of the many
public schools in which the majority of students were poor (by the
federal definition of poverty). If you did, you would know that
whatever happens in these institutions, it certainly could not be
called education.
|
While some of my laid off colleagues from Wall Street attempted daytrading,
I taught in 2 different inner city high schools. (I also did other things,
some concurrently.)
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:31 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
| Quote: | "Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at
Cal.
You honestly think we had a meritocracy ever in this country? Abe,
|
Yes, we did.
| Quote: | are you really that naive or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?
You really seem to have that Ann Coulter type of perspective.
We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our
lazy
asses.
Yeah, tell that to all the people that busted their butts, but had to
support their brothers and sisters. Tell that to people who couldn't
go home to study, because of their parents drug habits.
|
And tell that to middle and upper class blacks, who have no such problems,
but are automatically granted mental welfare in college admissions.
| Quote: | Sure that is the real world. Just like the real world in Germany in
30s didn't look so great for the Jews, nor the real world in 1800s for
Blacks. You seem to excuse injustice by shrugging and saying "that's
the real world".
|
The holocaust as over by 1945, and we have made great strides since then.
Slavery was over by 1865. Segregation by the mid 1960s. Some blacks have
made great strides.
| Quote: | If it weren't for people who stood up to the system,
you probably wouldn't be here today.
|
Actually, this is a very difficult issue for me. Odds are that I owe my life
(or better yet, my mother hers) to a Jewish hero/villain by the name of
Kasztner, a mistake made by some Nazis and a penchant for order by the
Germans, wherein my mother's train destined for Auschwitz was rerouted to
Vienna, in place of another train which should have headed for Vienna but
was misrouted to Auschwitz.
The infamous and very powerful Jew York Times did nothing to stand up up for
European Jewry. Shame on them.
| Quote: | that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton,
who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
Ah yes, the hard work line. As my dad puts it... it's the biggest lie
his mom ever told him. If you think yuo get ahead with hard work, let
me introduce you to the janitor at my office who literally works 16
hours a day (two janitorial jobs, and the nicest guy you could meet).
There are millions of people that work harder than you (or me for that
matter) by 6am than you've ever done in your whole life, but they
couldn't afford Paris's lip liner. I think we both know quite a few
millionaires... I can safely say that none I've met has the work ethic
of the people in my family -- of course they all had lighter skin than
my family though.
|
There isn't any work that I have ever shunned. I cleaned women's bathrooms,
cleaned up cow manure, ...
During my last two years of high school I worked 4 hours of physical labor a
day. And I always did my homework.
Skin color had nothing to do with it. Time to get rid of the crutch and walk
on your own. Time to give black people credit for their own accomplishments.
| Quote: |
This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it
to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be
held
to a lower standard.
Who exactly are these people? I want examples of these people who put
their education to WASTE and then received a handout.
|
The sub 900 SAT students who were recruited by Princeton.
| Quote: |
But really no one
cares about that issue.
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
Well if you've ever read my posts, you'd see I've done a bit, although
I could always do more. I've done free SAT tutoring, I've also
mentored science programs elementary school programs, ran the Southern
California Camping Conference for high school students.
|
I stand corrected and you are to be commended for it.
| Quote: |
The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
Do you hold rich white males to a higher standard? Do you factor in
societal benefits to measure what people really have achieved or to
measure potential? I didn't think so. You only want to make sure
that you get into your business school of choice, because of course
Abe deserved it... you worked hard.
|
That's right, I worked hard and I deserved it. That's the American way.
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SJG
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:08 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
On 1/17/04 7:08 PM, in article buctae$ggkac$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at
Cal.
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities.
No one said only. However, as you'll notice, if you read another posting
from the WSJ, legacy admissions are being curtailed.
|
Ah, but you refer to previous times -- when legacy admission preferences
(amongst other non-race and gender preferences) were rampant. Hardly a
"meritocracy"
....
| Quote: | to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status
surely
gave you a few bonus points.
IIRC, I don't believe the qusetion ever came up in any of the admissions
forms at the time.
|
But they don't have to have the question on the application for them to know
(where you're from, what HS you went to (which you later mention was an
underperforming school), parents' occupations and educational levels, what
you may write in your essay, etc.)
.....
| Quote: | During periods in which I was laid off from Wall Street, I worked as a math
teacher in two different inner city high schools.
|
Ah! An incidental teacher! There are many in education field who think
that people who don't treat teaching like a profession (eg those who work as
teachers when laid off or teach immediately after college while trying to
figure out what they *really* want to do) do nothing more than hurt our
educational system.
| Quote: | There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton,
who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
And many Americans do work very hard. Unfortunately, working hard does
not
necessarily equal success.
Ok, if you want jingoism, work hard AND smart.
|
Sure, working hard and being smart does not necessarily equal success.
....
| Quote: | No, affirmative action is not targeted at women.
|
Uh, yeah it is. Generally AA refers to minorities and women. Although, it
could refer to most any group -- at Cal we had a group that campaign for AA
for "hot chicks" :)
....
| Quote: | but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're referring.
You missed the thread on CMU financial aid?
|
CMU, when using race to determine financial aid (not scholarships), is
highly unusual. Most college determine financial aid solely on need, which
is how I think financial aid should be done. And scholarship monies should
be put towards need-based financial aid -- no race, gender, or "merit"
involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:41 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
| Quote: | "Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of
quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies
at
Cal.
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities.
No one said only. However, as you'll notice, if you read another posting
from the WSJ, legacy admissions are being curtailed.
Ah, but you refer to previous times -- when legacy admission preferences
(amongst other non-race and gender preferences) were rampant. Hardly a
"meritocracy"
|
Legacies were often used as tie breakers, which is what the original AA was
supposed to do.
In numerical terms, legacy status added about 1 point, while AA status added
25 points.
| Quote: | to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status
surely
gave you a few bonus points.
IIRC, I don't believe the qusetion ever came up in any of the admissions
forms at the time.
But they don't have to have the question on the application for them to
know
(where you're from, what HS you went to (which you later mention was an
underperforming school), parents' occupations and educational levels, what
you may write in your essay, etc.)
|
I think college apps changed significantly since my days.
| Quote: | During periods in which I was laid off from Wall Street, I worked as a
math
teacher in two different inner city high schools.
Ah! An incidental teacher! There are many in education field who think
that people who don't treat teaching like a profession (eg those who work
as
teachers when laid off or teach immediately after college while trying to
figure out what they *really* want to do) do nothing more than hurt our
educational system.
|
From what I saw, such "incidental" teachers were usually more energetic and
enthusiastic (independent of age) and were more likely to try different
methods to teach and motivate than the "professional" teacher.
| Quote: |
No, affirmative action is not targeted at women.
Uh, yeah it is. Generally AA refers to minorities and women.
|
Actually check Cal's policies and the supreme court decisions. We're talking
minorities, and in Cal's case:
1. Af-Am
2. Indians
3. One kind of Hispanic/Latino
4. Another class of Hispanic/Latino.
Nothing to do with gender.
| Quote: | Although, it
could refer to most any group -- at Cal we had a group that campaign for
AA
for "hot chicks" 
|
From what I saw in my days at Cal and in my last two visits (including one a
few weeks ago), there is no shortage of hot chicks at Cal.
| Quote: | but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're referring.
You missed the thread on CMU financial aid?
CMU, when using race to determine financial aid (not scholarships), is
highly unusual.
|
Not at all unusual. WSJ had a list of schools that were turning from race
based fin-aid to need based.
| Quote: | Most college determine financial aid solely on need, which
is how I think financial aid should be done. And scholarship monies
should
be put towards need-based financial aid -- no race, gender, or "merit"
involved.
|
I agree with you on no race and no gender, however, I believe fellowships
are important in attracting high caliber candidates.
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram Lau
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: [Way Off Topic: Follies of Daytrading] [was:] CMU more a |
|
|
| Quote: | Notice, I have not yet mentioned bid-ask spreads and round-trip
transaction/clearing costs, which further erode your purely imaginary
profit.
|
$7 per trade using Scottrade. Active stocks' bid-ask spreads are rarely wide.
For instance, I managed to buy CIEN at $7.05 on a market order on Friday. I sold
way too earlier at $7.85 in that afternoon.
| Quote: | Oops, if you bought CBMX on Monday between 9:30-10am, 4.70 was the absolute
best price you could have bought it for, 5.5 is the best you could have sold
it for (between 3-4 pm), so (5.5 - 4.7)/4.7 = 17%, before spreads and
round-trip transaction costs. Oops. Oops. Oops. No 26.24% at all!
|
I DID NOT say they made 26.24% out of CBMX. It's just one of the stocks they
picked Monday morning which turned out to be a winner. CBMX went up 26.24% from
Friday's close to Monday's close, that's all it means. Like you said, the best
intra-day gain would have been 17%. Had one bought at $4.85 and sold at $5.35,
it would still have been a 10% gain. Now assuming the money losing picks are
bounded by a -8% stop loss, and half of their picks are money losing. The
average of "6% gain" as I mentioned is still a very conservative estimate.
| Quote: | I could of course pick apart all your post-race "picks," but I'll leave it
to the student as an exercise.
|
They were neither my nor "post-race" picks, the team figures out 15-20 daily
picks before 7:30am everyday. They do not decide which and how many out of the
15-20 stocks to buy until the market opens. Then they choose what to buy
according to their TA analyses.
These are their original picks before market opens on Monday:
gap,asia,symm,itig,aho,kerx,ingp,cbmx,jmar,gnsc,pkd,spab,sgi,ipi,smra,vaso,als,s
spx,cmrc,smtx,vitx
(I keep track of what they pick when I get to speak with them.)
Many were eliminated before 9:45am because of signs of weakness. Usually, those
go up on high volume and those repeatedly hit day-high are they ones they buy.
That's why stocks like KERX and SYMM were chosen. (CBMX was another story, one
of them saw very strange actions on Level 2/3 and decided to buy. Moreover, I
doubt they didn't sell any when they saw it hit the $5.70s.)
| Quote: | Assume there is $45k as
initial capital, i.e. $15k for each trading day, one can make at least
$45K -> 15K per day? 25% haircut?
|
"T+2" and keeping the margin account dry. Thus $45k/3 = $15k. One should
daytrade with settled cash only.
| Quote: | A more likely "gain" for daytraders, is between 0 and negative. This
reflects the lack of a crystal ball.
|
I don't disagree.
| Quote: | Even professional statistical arbitrage traders cannot pick ALL winners.
|
They can't either. But after eliminating the potential losers during the 15
minutes of TA before 9:45am, they have been consistently picking more winners
than losers. They have their own SAS server and TA tools written by themselves.
(Some are programmers.) That's why I somewhat agree with you that they are
"losers" because of their nerdiness.
| Quote: | You need a crystal ball or a time machine to do what you claim they do.
|
My guess is that they have a crystal ball (mind?), for they can't afford a time
machine (yet).
| Quote: | It's been very profitable to them since April
03.
Who is "them?"
|
The people I have been talking about!
| Quote: | Let's not forget the Atlanta daytrader who went postal after losing about
$400K.
|
He/she should have recognzied he/she wasn't good at daytrading and stopped doing
it after losing $4k.
Ram Lau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SJG
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
On 1/17/04 8:41 PM, in article bud2oq$fp02c$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of
quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies
at
Cal.
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities.
No one said only. However, as you'll notice, if you read another posting
from the WSJ, legacy admissions are being curtailed.
Ah, but you refer to previous times -- when legacy admission preferences
(amongst other non-race and gender preferences) were rampant. Hardly a
"meritocracy"
Legacies were often used as tie breakers, which is what the original AA was
supposed to do.
In numerical terms, legacy status added about 1 point, while AA status added
25 points.
|
Tempted to let this one drop, but...
It's more than just legacies we're talking about here. And the amount of
preference varies from school to school, year to year, reader to reader...
....
| Quote: | to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status
surely
gave you a few bonus points.
IIRC, I don't believe the qusetion ever came up in any of the admissions
forms at the time.
But they don't have to have the question on the application for them to
know
(where you're from, what HS you went to (which you later mention was an
underperforming school), parents' occupations and educational levels, what
you may write in your essay, etc.)
I think college apps changed significantly since my days.
|
I assume they knew your HS, though, which would have indicated that your SES
wasn't the highest since you said that very few from your HS went on to
college. Granted, it's not 100% accurate, but a great indicator.
....
| Quote: | During periods in which I was laid off from Wall Street, I worked as a
math
teacher in two different inner city high schools.
Ah! An incidental teacher! There are many in education field who think
that people who don't treat teaching like a profession (eg those who work
as
teachers when laid off or teach immediately after college while trying to
figure out what they *really* want to do) do nothing more than hurt our
educational system.
From what I saw, such "incidental" teachers were usually more energetic and
enthusiastic (independent of age) and were more likely to try different
methods to teach and motivate than the "professional" teacher.
|
Research has shown that a teacher's teaching experience is the
characteristic most highly correlated with higher student performance.
Although anecdotal evidence is fun
....
| Quote: | No, affirmative action is not targeted at women.
Uh, yeah it is. Generally AA refers to minorities and women.
Actually check Cal's policies and the supreme court decisions. We're talking
minorities, and in Cal's case:
1. Af-Am
2. Indians
3. One kind of Hispanic/Latino
4. Another class of Hispanic/Latino.
Nothing to do with gender.
|
Ah, but these are only the preferences that were challenged. Trust me,
gender's a plus-factor in UC admissions. There are many categories that you
don't list above, either. What about geographic diversity (which at Cal
would be central and northern-northern, as opposed to Bay Area-northern, CA
people)? The athletes? The Regents' Inquiries?
I did my undergraduate research on the effect of the dissolution of
(race-based) affirmative action at the UCs and feel very comfortable with
the UC application and admissions process.
....
| Quote: | but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're referring.
You missed the thread on CMU financial aid?
CMU, when using race to determine financial aid (not scholarships), is
highly unusual.
Not at all unusual. WSJ had a list of schools that were turning from race
based fin-aid to need based.
|
That's great. I'd love to see this list, if you still have it.
....
| Quote: | Most college determine financial aid solely on need, which
is how I think financial aid should be done. And scholarship monies
should
be put towards need-based financial aid -- no race, gender, or "merit"
involved.
I agree with you on no race and no gender, however, I believe fellowships
are important in attracting high caliber candidates.
|
True. But it'd be better if no schools had scholarships that weren't
need-based that way students would make decisions based on the quality of
the school, not based on money. Like the way that the Ivies have agreed to
not offer non-need financial aid.
But, as I stated in my original reply with the Wash U example, this is a
good way for "lesser" schools to attract "better" students. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SJG
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
On 1/17/04 8:41 PM, in article bud2oq$fp02c$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
Not at all unusual. WSJ had a list of schools that were turning from race
based fin-aid to need based.
Most college determine financial aid solely on need, which
is how I think financial aid should be done. And scholarship monies
should
be put towards need-based financial aid -- no race, gender, or "merit"
involved.
|
OK. Just read the WSJ article you just posted. I think there may be some
confusion over terminology here. What I define as financial aid, I consider
it to be the grants and loans that a student receives from the school and/or
government outside of scholarships. Basically, the report that a student
receives as a response to the FAFSA form s/he filled out.
For example, I would be shocked that a minority student received a larger
Pell Grant than a non-minority student with the same financial background.
Of course, I know there are race-based scholarships. There are
everything-based scholarships. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrf
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BC2F76EE.5D28%ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com...
| Quote: | On 1/17/04 8:41 PM, in article
bud2oq$fp02c$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"SJG" <ucb_gal@pleaseremove.yahoo.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of
quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was
able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies
at
Cal.
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities.
No one said only. However, as you'll notice, if you read another
posting
from the WSJ, legacy admissions are being curtailed.
Ah, but you refer to previous times -- when legacy admission
preferences
(amongst other non-race and gender preferences) were rampant. Hardly a
"meritocracy"
Legacies were often used as tie breakers, which is what the original AA
was
supposed to do.
In numerical terms, legacy status added about 1 point, while AA status
added
25 points.
Tempted to let this one drop, but...
It's more than just legacies we're talking about here. And the amount of
preference varies from school to school, year to year, reader to reader...
...
to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status
surely
gave you a few bonus points.
IIRC, I don't believe the qusetion ever came up in any of the
admissions
forms at the time.
But they don't have to have the question on the application for them to
know
(where you're from, what HS you went to (which you later mention was an
underperforming school), parents' occupations and educational levels,
what
you may write in your essay, etc.)
I think college apps changed significantly since my days.
I assume they knew your HS, though, which would have indicated that your
SES
wasn't the highest since you said that very few from your HS went on to
college. Granted, it's not 100% accurate, but a great indicator.
...
During periods in which I was laid off from Wall Street, I worked as a
math
teacher in two different inner city high schools.
Ah! An incidental teacher! There are many in education field who
think
that people who don't treat teaching like a profession (eg those who
work
as
teachers when laid off or teach immediately after college while trying
to
figure out what they *really* want to do) do nothing more than hurt our
educational system.
From what I saw, such "incidental" teachers were usually more energetic
and
enthusiastic (independent of age) and were more likely to try different
methods to teach and motivate than the "professional" teacher.
Research has shown that a teacher's teaching experience is the
characteristic most highly correlated with higher student performance.
Although anecdotal evidence is fun :)
...
No, affirmative action is not targeted at women.
Uh, yeah it is. Generally AA refers to minorities and women.
Actually check Cal's policies and the supreme court decisions. We're
talking
minorities, and in Cal's case:
1. Af-Am
2. Indians
3. One kind of Hispanic/Latino
4. Another class of Hispanic/Latino.
Nothing to do with gender.
Ah, but these are only the preferences that were challenged. Trust me,
gender's a plus-factor in UC admissions. There are many categories that
you
don't list above, either. What about geographic diversity (which at Cal
would be central and northern-northern, as opposed to Bay Area-northern,
CA
people)? The athletes? The Regents' Inquiries?
|
I can't comment on the role of gender in UC admissions pre-Prop209, but what
I can say is that it's unclear one way or another what the effect of gender
is nationwide. The simple fact is that women are now far more academically
successful than men, both in terms of the number of women who are in
college, and the number who graduate. This has led some schools to adopt
the Bizarro-world tactic of giving affirmative action preference to men.
"...At colleges and universities across the United States, the proportion of
bachelor's degrees awarded to women reached a post-war high this year at an
estimated 57 percent. The gender gap is even greater among Hispanics -- only
40 percent of that ethnic group's college graduates are male -- and African
Americans, who are now seeing two women earn bachelor's degrees for every
man....Girls have been getting stronger and stronger and boys weaker, in
almost all the ways that count academically," Sommers said....In the late
1990s, the University of Georgia began giving an edge in admissions to male
applicants, hoping to balance an enrollment that was then about 55 percent
female...data collected by the College Board indicate that more female
students than male students are enrolled in high school academic or college
prep programs, that girls are more likely than boys to take high school
honors courses in most subjects and that girls report having higher academic
aspirations than boys.
"I hesitate to say this, but it seems that women have an orientation not
only toward achievement, but also toward being good and pleasing others,"
said Linda Sax, a UCLA education professor, who is writing a book about how
women and men develop differently in college. "I think that accounts for
some of women's higher achievement rates.""
http://fact.on.ca/news/news0206/wp020625.htm
"Males now make up just 44% of undergraduate students nationwide. And
federal projections show their share shrinking to as little as 42% by 2010.
This trend is among the hottest topics of debate among college-admissions
officers. And some private liberal arts colleges have quietly begun special
efforts to recruit men - including admissions preferences for them. ....U.S.
Census measures indicating that the gap cuts across racial and income
groups. Moreover, he and others argue, boys as a group trail girls at many
stages of K-12 achievement: boys tend to earn lower grades and are less
likely to earn a high school diploma. They score marginally higher on the
SAT, but only 65% of boys who apply are admitted to college, vs. 69% of
girls.
Some private liberal arts colleges are making it easier for men to get in.
At Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., this year's freshman class is 43%
male - up from 36% last year - in part because the school gave preference to
"qualified male candidates on the margin," says Robert Massa, vice president
for enrollment and student life. The idea gets mixed reviews among
Dickinson's students. "It reeks of affirmative action," says physics major
Michelle Edwards. But Massa emphasizes that "the men we admitted were as
qualified as the women."
Last July the University of Georgia lost a lawsuit filed by female students
who were denied admission because of an affirmative-action policy that
favored men. Says junior Shanna Norris, 20: "It's not fair that a boy would
get extra weight (in the admissions index) over a girl, but it would be
better if there were more boys on campus." "
http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,90446,00.html
| Quote: |
I did my undergraduate research on the effect of the dissolution of
(race-based) affirmative action at the UCs and feel very comfortable with
the UC application and admissions process.
...
but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're
referring.
You missed the thread on CMU financial aid?
CMU, when using race to determine financial aid (not scholarships), is
highly unusual.
Not at all unusual. WSJ had a list of schools that were turning from
race
based fin-aid to need based.
That's great. I'd love to see this list, if you still have it.
...
Most college determine financial aid solely on need, which
is how I think financial aid should be done. And scholarship monies
should
be put towards need-based financial aid -- no race, gender, or "merit"
involved.
I agree with you on no race and no gender, however, I believe
fellowships
are important in attracting high caliber candidates.
True. But it'd be better if no schools had scholarships that weren't
need-based that way students would make decisions based on the quality of
the school, not based on money. Like the way that the Ivies have agreed
to
not offer non-need financial aid.
|
Well, I don't know if I can really go along with this line of thinking. If
you take this road to its logical endpoint, you have to conclude that
colleges can no longer offer scholarships to, say, athletes, that are
identifiably "merit-based" (good athletes get scholarships, bad athletes
don't - I don't believe you can contend that it's OK for schools to run
athletic scholarships but not any other sort of merit scholarship and remain
logically consistent). I understand I'm opening a huge can of worms here,
but the reality is that for many underprivileged African-American males, an
athletic scholarship is about the only chance that they will ever have of
getting exposed to an academic environment. Yes, we can talk about the
problems with the NCAA and the hypocrisy and semi-professionalism of college
basketball and football and whatnot for the rest of eternity, but I think we
both know that the truth is, for a young poor African-American boy who plays
ball well and sees athletics as his ticket out of the ghetto, if colleges
were not allowed to offer athletic scholarships, this boy probably wouldn't
care about an education at all. All those kids have dreams of getting to
the NBA or NFL even though the odds of that happening are vanishingly small.
So in a world without athletic scholarships, we both know what would happen.
These kids wouldn't bother going to high school or elementary school at all,
they would just spend all their time playing ball in the hopes of pulling
off a Kobe or Kevin Garnett-style jump straight to the pros. The college
athletic system is flawed, no doubt about it, but it at least makes the
athletes care a little bit about academics while in high school, if perhaps
only to keep themselves eligible for scholarships. And while it is
undeniable that Division 1 football and basketball athletes do graduate at
lower rates than the overall student bodies, a decent portion do graduate.
It's better than nothing, and nothing is probably what you would get in a
world without athletic scholarships, where I think it's safe to say that
almost none of them would even go to college, never mind actually
graduating. What I'm saying is that while the present situation is
undoubtedly flawed, it's still better than a situation where no athletic
scholarships existed at all.
I also want to see how far you'd take this idea of banning merit
scholarships. So you're saying you'd also ban the Rhodes Scholarship, the
Marshall Scholarship, the Fulbright program, and all other related programs?
Or does your ban extend only to undergraduate merit-based scholarships, and
if so, why?
| Quote: |
But, as I stated in my original reply with the Wash U example, this is a
good way for "lesser" schools to attract "better" students.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrf
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:40 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f55f01d6.0401151102.332b16eb@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:<bu4rjc$du771$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at
Cal.
You honestly think we had a meritocracy ever in this country? Abe,
are you really that naive or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?
You really seem to have that Ann Coulter type of perspective.
We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our
lazy
asses.
Yeah, tell that to all the people that busted their butts, but had to
support their brothers and sisters. Tell that to people who couldn't
go home to study, because of their parents drug habits.
Sure that is the real world. Just like the real world in Germany in
30s didn't look so great for the Jews, nor the real world in 1800s for
Blacks. You seem to excuse injustice by shrugging and saying "that's
the real world". If it weren't for people who stood up to the system,
you probably wouldn't be here today.
It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton,
who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
Ah yes, the hard work line. As my dad puts it... it's the biggest lie
his mom ever told him. If you think yuo get ahead with hard work, let
me introduce you to the janitor at my office who literally works 16
hours a day (two janitorial jobs, and the nicest guy you could meet).
There are millions of people that work harder than you (or me for that
matter) by 6am than you've ever done in your whole life, but they
couldn't afford Paris's lip liner. I think we both know quite a few
millionaires... I can safely say that none I've met has the work ethic
of the people in my family -- of course they all had lighter skin than
my family though.
|
Well, I don't want to start a firestorm of controversy here, but hard work
and initiative does play a large role in determining success. Does that
mean that every single person who works hard will succeed, and every single
lazy person will fail? No, of course not. It's a statistical argument.
For example, I think we all agree that smoking is bad for your health. Does
that mean that every single smoker suffers from bad health? Does that mean
that every single non-smoker enjoys good health? No of course not. A guy
who smokes 3 packs a day can live to be a 100. But what are the odds? All
other things being equal, smoking is bad for you, and the proof of this has
been based on statistical arguments. Nobody has ever been able to
demonstrate the biochemical mechanism of how smoking damages health. But
it's not necessary - statistical studies have shown that after you control
for other factors, smokers tend to die younger and enjoy worse health than
nonsmokers.
For example, I see that you want to talk about racism against
African-Americans. No doubt such racism exists. However, what about the
"West-Indian" question. It's been a widely reported fact that within the
African-American community, immigrants from the West Indies and their
descendents tend to do significantly better than the African-American
community as a whole. If racism is the key determinant for success, then
why would white America discriminate less against African-Americans who are
West-Indian immigrants than against African-Americans as a whole? Most
whites wouldn't even know that a particular African-American is a
West-Indian immigrant, much less care to find out.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/upj/weupjo/93-20.html
| Quote: |
This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it
to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be
held
to a lower standard.
Who exactly are these people? I want examples of these people who put
their education to WASTE and then received a handout.
But really no one
cares about that issue.
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
Well if you've ever read my posts, you'd see I've done a bit, although
I could always do more. I've done free SAT tutoring, I've also
mentored science programs elementary school programs, ran the Southern
California Camping Conference for high school students.
The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
Do you hold rich white males to a higher standard? Do you factor in
societal benefits to measure what people really have achieved or to
measure potential? I didn't think so. You only want to make sure
that you get into your business school of choice, because of course
Abe deserved it... you worked hard.
|
Any discussions of affirmative action ultimately runs into the perennial
problem - what about the Asian Americans? If you state that rich white
males should be held to a higher standard to combat previous present
discrimination, then why should Asian Americans be held to an even higher
standard? And why is that fair? Are Asian Americans responsible for the
problems with this society? If not, then why punish them?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KSG
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:58 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<bucumj$ftppa$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | "KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at
Cal.
You honestly think we had a meritocracy ever in this country? Abe,
Yes, we did.
|
So when exactly was this period of time when blacks, white, men,
women, good looking, ugly, were all treated equally?
| Quote: | If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our
lazy
asses.
Yeah, tell that to all the people that busted their butts, but had to
support their brothers and sisters. Tell that to people who couldn't
go home to study, because of their parents drug habits.
And tell that to middle and upper class blacks, who have no such problems,
but are automatically granted mental welfare in college admissions.
|
Well I'm sure they're just following the path of our president. But
in any case, that doesn't change my statement. Rich blacks and rich
whites exploit poor people. There is no meritocracy that you claim.
| Quote: | Sure that is the real world. Just like the real world in Germany in
30s didn't look so great for the Jews, nor the real world in 1800s for
Blacks. You seem to excuse injustice by shrugging and saying "that's
the real world".
The holocaust as over by 1945, and we have made great strides since then.
|
Of course... because your skin is light. At the end of the day,
light/white skin trumps all...
| Quote: | If it weren't for people who stood up to the system,
you probably wouldn't be here today.
Actually, this is a very difficult issue for me. Odds are that I owe my life
(or better yet, my mother hers) to a Jewish hero/villain by the name of
Kasztner, a mistake made by some Nazis and a penchant for order by the
Germans, wherein my mother's train destined for Auschwitz was rerouted to
Vienna, in place of another train which should have headed for Vienna but
was misrouted to Auschwitz.
The infamous and very powerful Jew York Times did nothing to stand up up for
European Jewry. Shame on them.
|
Actually I meant the US with respect to military action... and I
didn't mean specifically you (as I didn't even know if your family was
from Europe during that time period).
| Quote: | There isn't any work that I have ever shunned. I cleaned women's bathrooms,
cleaned up cow manure, ...
During my last two years of high school I worked 4 hours of physical labor a
day. And I always did my homework.
Skin color had nothing to do with it. Time to get rid of the crutch and walk
on your own. Time to give black people credit for their own accomplishments.
|
Absolutely. I agree with your last line. And if a person goes to
worse schools, with worse teachers, around gang members and shootings,
with no library, no SAT prep program, no family structure, and no
notion of what college is about... if that person scores a 1000 on the
SAT and another person who has all the luxuries in life scores a 1200
-- well I'm not so certain the person with the 1200 has accomplished
as much as the person with the 1000.
You seem to be the one that wants to give whites credit for their
parents and their surroundings, rather than judging what they do.
| Quote: | Do you hold rich white males to a higher standard? Do you factor in
societal benefits to measure what people really have achieved or to
measure potential? I didn't think so. You only want to make sure
that you get into your business school of choice, because of course
Abe deserved it... you worked hard.
That's right, I worked hard and I deserved it. That's the American way.
|
C'mon Abe... look at who our president is. This country was founded
on slavery. The American way is to exploit the less fortunate and
then be self-righteous.
KSG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrf
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:42 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f55f01d6.0401181658.397e5058@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:<bucumj$ftppa$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of
quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was
able
to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies
at
Cal.
You honestly think we had a meritocracy ever in this country? Abe,
Yes, we did.
So when exactly was this period of time when blacks, white, men,
women, good looking, ugly, were all treated equally?
|
Here, I think you're taking the concept of equality too far. The fact is,
the world will always discriminate against certain people. For example, the
world discriminates against stupid people. Let's face it - people who are
born with high mental capabilities will tend to do better than people who
are born with low mental capabilities. Is that unfair? In the past, the
world discriminated against physically weak people. Back in those days, if
you were tall and strong and could bale more hay or carry more things on
your back, you would tend to get paid more than a guy who was short and
weak. Professions where physical strength is important still will
discriminate against the physically weak - for example, I would say that
there's nobody in the NFL who can't lift 50 pounds. Is that unfair to the
physically weak? If you have an annoying personality, the world will
discriminate against you. For example, if you're always saying insulting
things to people, nobody will like you. Is that unfair?
It is actually an oxymoron to have a fair meritocracy, because any
meritocracy must be inherently unfair to whoever doesn't have the merit.
Professional sports is a meritocracy and is exceedingly unfair to those who
don't have any sports skills. If you can't play football well for whatever
reason, then you're not going to get into the NFL. So you could say that
the NFL is exceedingly unfair to anybody who's small, short, weak, slow, and
can't tolerate pain.
| Quote: |
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on
our
lazy
asses.
Yeah, tell that to all the people that busted their butts, but had to
support their brothers and sisters. Tell that to people who couldn't
go home to study, because of their parents drug habits.
And tell that to middle and upper class blacks, who have no such
problems,
but are automatically granted mental welfare in college admissions.
Well I'm sure they're just following the path of our president. But
in any case, that doesn't change my statement. Rich blacks and rich
whites exploit poor people. There is no meritocracy that you claim.
|
But there is a meritocracy to some degree. Is it a perfect meritocracy.
No, of course not, not even close. But there is one to some degree.
American history is replete with examples of immigrant groups who arrived
with little wealth and starting from a lower socioeconomic standpoint than
Americans who were already here, and had to fight discrimination, lack of
language skills, and lack of understanding of American society, and after
some period of time were outearning the average. Asian-Americans,
German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and other groups exhibited this
behavior.
| Quote: |
Sure that is the real world. Just like the real world in Germany in
30s didn't look so great for the Jews, nor the real world in 1800s for
Blacks. You seem to excuse injustice by shrugging and saying "that's
the real world".
The holocaust as over by 1945, and we have made great strides since
then.
Of course... because your skin is light. At the end of the day,
light/white skin trumps all...
|
That doesn't explain the profound success of the Asian-Americans. What of
the Asian-Americans - why have they been so successful? If discrimination
is the key, then wouldn't white America want to discriminate against Asians
also?
| Quote: |
If it weren't for people who stood up to the system,
you probably wouldn't be here today.
Actually, this is a very difficult issue for me. Odds are that I owe my
life
(or better yet, my mother hers) to a Jewish hero/villain by the name of
Kasztner, a mistake made by some Nazis and a penchant for order by the
Germans, wherein my mother's train destined for Auschwitz was rerouted
to
Vienna, in place of another train which should have headed for Vienna
but
was misrouted to Auschwitz.
The infamous and very powerful Jew York Times did nothing to stand up up
for
European Jewry. Shame on them.
Actually I meant the US with respect to military action... and I
didn't mean specifically you (as I didn't even know if your family was
from Europe during that time period).
There isn't any work that I have ever shunned. I cleaned women's
bathrooms,
cleaned up cow manure, ...
During my last two years of high school I worked 4 hours of physical
labor a
day. And I always did my homework.
Skin color had nothing to do with it. Time to get rid of the crutch and
walk
on your own. Time to give black people credit for their own
accomplishments.
Absolutely. I agree with your last line. And if a person goes to
worse schools, with worse teachers, around gang members and shootings,
with no library, no SAT prep program, no family structure, and no
notion of what college is about... if that person scores a 1000 on the
SAT and another person who has all the luxuries in life scores a 1200
-- well I'm not so certain the person with the 1200 has accomplished
as much as the person with the 1000.
You seem to be the one that wants to give whites credit for their
parents and their surroundings, rather than judging what they do.
Do you hold rich white males to a higher standard? Do you factor in
societal benefits to measure what people really have achieved or to
measure potential? I didn't think so. You only want to make sure
that you get into your business school of choice, because of course
Abe deserved it... you worked hard.
That's right, I worked hard and I deserved it. That's the American way.
C'mon Abe... look at who our president is. This country was founded
on slavery. The American way is to exploit the less fortunate and
then be self-righteous.
KSG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:10 pm
Post subject: Re: [Way Off Topic: Follies of Daytrading] [was:] CMU more a |
|
|
"Ram Lau" <ramlau@cc.no-spam.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:bud9nf$l8h$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
| Quote: | Notice, I have not yet mentioned bid-ask spreads and round-trip
transaction/clearing costs, which further erode your purely imaginary
profit.
$7 per trade using Scottrade. Active stocks' bid-ask spreads are rarely
wide.
For instance, I managed to buy CIEN at $7.05 on a market order on Friday.
|
Ok, you paid 7.05, what was the market at the time? (Bid, Bid Size, Ask, Ask
Size).
| Quote: | I sold
way too earlier at $7.85 in that afternoon.
|
How many shares did you buy?
| Quote: |
Oops, if you bought CBMX on Monday between 9:30-10am, 4.70 was the
absolute
best price you could have bought it for, 5.5 is the best you could have
sold
it for (between 3-4 pm), so (5.5 - 4.7)/4.7 = 17%, before spreads and
round-trip transaction costs. Oops. Oops. Oops. No 26.24% at all!
I DID NOT say they made 26.24% out of CBMX. It's just one of the stocks
they
picked Monday morning which turned out to be a winner. CBMX went up 26.24%
from |
Where are the losers "they" picked?
| Quote: | Friday's close to Monday's close, that's all it means. Like you said, the
best
intra-day gain would have been 17%. Had one bought at $4.85 and sold at
$5.35,
it would still have been a 10% gain. Now assuming the money losing picks
are
bounded by a -8% stop loss,
|
Ah-ha! The old fallacy of the stop-loss.
Suppose you bought a stock for $30. It drops $2 to $28, for a 6.7% loss,
then the stock is HALTED. News is disseminated and the stock REOPENS at $15.
Now your stop is elected, and you sell the stock for $14.95. Was your loss
limited to 8%? No! You just suffered a 50.17% loss. Does this happen? You
betcha!
| Quote: | and half of their picks are money losing. The
|
Oops! Half of their picks are losers! Wow! You didn't show this in your
initial post.
| Quote: | average of "6% gain" as I mentioned is still a very conservative estimate.
|
Even granting an "only 8%" loss on the losers and 10% (highly unlikely)
gains on the winners, how do you come up with a "conservative 6%" gain?
I'll repeat: I recommend that you do not daytrade.
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram Lau
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [Way Off Topic: Follies of Daytrading] [was:] CMU more a |
|
|
| Quote: | Ok, you paid 7.05, what was the market at the time? (Bid, Bid Size, Ask, Ask
Size).
|
How would I remember? I had more than 50 stocks on my screen. The stock closed
with 45 million shares traded that date, bid and ask must have been within $7.04
and $7.06 at the moment my market order executed.
| Quote: | How many shares did you buy?
|
How much money do you have in your bank accounts?
| Quote: | Where are the losers "they" picked?
|
Friday:
dcgn,amcc,sons,vtss,bba,cien,omni,jade,stxn,scmr,ctra,nr,fnsr,roxi,lu,fibr,tmta,
insg,aola,abp,ison
About 5 of them closed red.
| Quote: | Suppose you bought a stock for $30. It drops $2 to $28, for a 6.7% loss,
then the stock is HALTED. News is disseminated and the stock REOPENS at $15.
Now your stop is elected, and you sell the stock for $14.95. Was your loss
limited to 8%? No! You just suffered a 50.17% loss. Does this happen? You
betcha!
|
We are talking about DAYTRADING. You sell your stocks before market closes even
though you suffer a loss. So at most you can only loss 6.7% in your case, not
50.17%. Holding a stock after 4pm is NOT daytrading. No wonder you lose money
doing this.
You are trying hard to point out my "fallacies" and that just doesn't make you
look smart.
| Quote: | Oops! Half of their picks are losers! Wow! You didn't show this in your
initial post.
|
I said EVEN IF half of their stocks are money losing. The record has been much
better than 50/50, otherwise they wouldn't have made millions last year.
| Quote: | average of "6% gain" as I mentioned is still a very conservative estimate.
Even granting an "only 8%" loss on the losers and 10% (highly unlikely)
gains on the winners, how do you come up with a "conservative 6%" gain?
|
Assume you buy 5 stocks out of the 20 picks a day. Usually a few move up at
least 15% by 4pm. If you buy three of those and they are already up 5%, 4%, and
3%. Then sell at the time when they are up 18%, 16%, and 15%. The other two drop
5% and 6% upon the buy points. (Very few breakout stocks that are up on high
volume in the morning tank in the afternoon unless they are extended after days
of rally, which wouldn't have been considered to begin with. And trailing stops
can prevent a loss because of a sudden drop. You may not have heard of it but
it's a very nice trading feature.) Actually, those two would have been sold
before 3pm if they have had stayed red most of the day. Meanwhile, if a stock is
up 30% before 3pm, they would have taken the profit instead of letting it slip
later that day. (CBMX is a very good example.) Taking a 15% profit on a
daytrading pick instead of taking chances of losing it is one of the rules that
I learned. Often there are explosive stocks that run up more than 30% in hours
in these days, but I don't feel bad making less out of them. (SIRI and NGEN are
two recent favorites earlier this month. One day I saw NGEN went up from low $9
to high $11.) Greed and emotions are the worst enemies in daytrading.
I must say that 10% gains on the winners are highly likely, especially if you do
your homework finding them. One could have made a 10% gain on more than a
handful of their Friday picks. (AMCC, SONS, VTSS, CIEN, SCMR... and you find the
rest.) Anyway, the above example nets (1.124 + 1.115 + 1.165 + .95 + .94) / 5 =
1.0588. That's about 5.88%. Sometimes they do better, sometimes they do worse.
But they claim they've never lost more than 3% any date since April 03. The best
date they had a 19% profit.
| Quote: | I'll repeat: I recommend that you do not daytrade.
|
I rarely do it, unless I know exactly what the gainers are in the morning.
Ram Lau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in