patrick.net

If there is a bailout, here is how I would like it to go:

1. Fill out form FB-2185. Be sure to include schedule FB-A19 and FB-C34 (but only if you meet the qualifying rules).
2. Check with an attorney or qualified FB assistant to see if you meet the test as a "Qualified Domestically Challenged FB" (QDCFB). If so, attach schedules A through R.
3. Include your SS#, DOB, amount of your last political contribution, names and addresses of all your lenders, a personal balance sheet (audited), contact information for 5 character references, and at least 3 affidavits attesting to your stupidity and naivete.
4. Mail form FB-2185 to Orem, Utah and allow 6-12 months for processing.
5. A package will be sent back to you with forms FB-1632 through FB-1691. Complete and mail the forms......

@skibum,

Thanks for that Bloomberg link. I think I'm going to be sick.

No bonuses this year for Wall Street paper-pushers?? Man the bailout pumps --call Bernanke and tell him to drop rates back to 1%! Turn those machines back on.... TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!!...

Skibum,

Thanks for Bberg. Ack.

I notice traders involved in distressed debt are expecting to do well.

Just wanted to take a moment and acknowledge all the religous freaks nationwide……..no need to give the southerners special treatment….

..but of course you're not referring to me because of the handle I go by; right?

people like to blame the republicans, but its really these faux democrats who are to blame. Wall st. + Hollywood + Silicon Valley.

Hey, I never implied the blame lay with the Republicans. I have no love for either party these days. The point was that Wall Street realizes they may not get a whomping bonus this year, and they start crying. How about the fact that their reckless investment practices have led to a major financial crisis? Or that many HFs are flat to negative for the year? Why do they even think they deserve a bonus? They should feel lucky the HF they work for hasn't folded yet and that they still have a job.

Tainted fish, tainted pet food, tainted toothpaste, tainted toys, baby bibs, etc.

But from what I'm reading, they've gotten tainted CDO's or whatever you call those things, tainted investments, tainted debt.

Sounds like an even exchange to me.

Bill Gross from PIMCO is advocating government sponsored bailout of distressed homeowners:

Where’s Waldo? Where’s W?

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2007/IO+September+2007.htm

The ultimate solution, it seems to me, must not emanate from the bowels of Fed headquarters on Constitution Avenue, but from the West Wing of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Fiscal, not monetary policy should be the preferred remedy, one scaling Rooseveltian proportions emblematic of the RFC, or perhaps to be more current, the RTC in the early 1990s when the government absorbed the bad debts of the failing savings and loan industry. Why is it possible to rescue corrupt S&L buccaneers in the early 1990s and provide guidance to levered Wall Street investment bankers during the 1998 LTCM crisis, yet throw 2,000,000 homeowners to the wolves in 2007? If we can bail out Chrysler, why can’t we support the American homeowner? The time has come to acknowledge that there are precedents aplenty in the long and even recent history of American policy making. This rescue, which admittedly might bail out speculators who deserve much worse, would support millions of hard working Americans whose recent hours have become ones of frantic desperation. And for those who would still have them eat some Wall Street cake as opposed to Midwest meat & potatoes (The Wall Street Journal editorial page suggested they should get darn good and used to renting once again) look at it this way: your stocks and risk-oriented levered investments will spring to life like the wild flowers in Death Valley after a flash flood. And if you’re a Republican office holder, you’d win a new constituency of voters – “almost homeless homeowners” – for generations to come. Get with it Mr. President and Mr. Treasury Secretary. This is your moment to one-up Barney Frank and the Democrats. Reestablish not the RFC or the RTC, but create an RMC – Reconstruction Mortgage Corporation. If not, make some modifications in the existing FHA program, long discarded as ineffective. Write some checks, bail ‘em out, prevent a destructive housing deflation that Ben Bernanke is unable to do. After all “W”, you’re “the Decider,” aren’t you?

>> a lot of it has to do with the fact that our universities have been gutted.

Please read:

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
The frenzy surrounding college admissions has spawned a vast and profitable industry. Especially among affluent families, the hiring of private tutors to prepare for the SAT, coaches to nurture athletic skills, and college consultants to help prepare the right application portfolio have become familiar features of adolescence. Of late, the pressure on Junior to get on the track to Harvard has been pushed to ever-younger ages. In large cities, it is not uncommon for parents to hire counselors to coach their toddlers for the interview for admission to pre-school. In a bizarre foreshadowing of what is to come later, some pre-schools now proudly offer early decision programs for 2-year-olds. And just when it seemed that all the possibilities for satire had been exhausted, parents began to push for enrollment in the best play groups for 6-month-olds.
Stepping into this cauldron of anxiety about admission to elite colleges is Daniel Golden, a Wall Street Journal reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for a series of articles on the inner workings of college admissions offices. In his provocative and stimulating book, The Price of Admission, Golden makes a powerful case that the number of well-to-do whites given preference to highly selective colleges dwarfs that of minorities benefiting from affirmative action. He follows this central theme in a wide-ranging series of case studies of systematic preference for the wealthy, the privileged and the famous, as well as legacies, faculty children and -- most innovatively -- athletes in such patrician sports as rowing, horseback riding, fencing and even polo. A tough investigative reporter, Golden does not hesitate to name names -- not only of specific institutions (including Harvard, Duke, Brown, Notre Dame, the University of Virginia, Princeton, Stanford and Amherst) and administrators, but also of individual students (including the sons of Al Gore and Sen. Bill Frist) whom he deems to be beneficiaries of preferences for the privileged. The result is a disturbing exposé of the influence that wealth and power still exert on admission to the nation's most prestigious universities.

That virtually all elite private colleges give preference to the sons and daughters of alumni will come as a surprise to no one. But preference also extends to wealthy applicants whose families have been identified as potential donors -- "development cases" in the parlance of the trade. Golden documents that even Harvard, with its $25.9 billion endowment, is not above giving preference to the scions of the super-rich. His primary example, however, of development cases being central to the admissions process is Duke, where the university embarked on a systematic strategy of raising its endowment by seeking out wealthy applicants. Golden estimates that Duke admitted 100 development applicants each year in the late 1990s who otherwise would have been rejected. Though this may be something of an extreme case, special consideration for applicants flagged by the development office is standard practice at elite colleges and universities.

Also enjoying substantial preference at elite colleges, both public and private, are varsity athletes. In a fascinating case study of women's sports at the University of Virginia, Golden shows how the effort to comply with Title IX, a gender equity law that has the praiseworthy goal of ensuring equality between female and male athletes, has had the unintended effect of giving an admissions edge to female athletes who play upper-class sports. Between 1992 and 2002, the number of college women nationwide in rowing, a sport highly concentrated in private schools and affluent suburbs, rose from 1,555 to 6,690; more recently, the number of female varsity horseback riders increased from 633 to 1,175 between 1998 and 2002. The net effect of the rise of these overwhelmingly patrician sports, Golden argues, has been to further advantage already advantaged women.

After spending most of the book roundly criticizing the admissions practices of many of the nation's most prestigious colleges, Golden turns to what he considers a model institution: The California Institute of Technology. Unlike other leading colleges, Caltech does not allow the prerogatives of privilege -- whether wealth, fame or legacy status -- to affect who gets in. In stark contrast to other top institutions, Caltech believes that it is possible to raise the funds necessary to maintain a great university without using admission as a bribe, and its own distinguished history supports that belief.

But the Caltech admissions policy, though exemplary in its integrity, is not without problems. In no small part because of its narrowly conventional definition of merit (primarily scores on standardized tests, grades and rank in class), it has been notoriously unsuccessful in enrolling African Americans; in 2004, just one out of 207 Caltech freshmen was black (for purposes of comparison, the black proportions of the undergraduate student body at MIT, Stanford and Harvard -- all of which use a more flexible definition of merit -- were 6, 10 and 8 percent, respectively).

A recent study by the Century Foundation estimated that only 3 percent of freshmen at highly selective colleges came from the bottom socioeconomic quartile, compared to 74 percent from the top quartile. Growing awareness of this shocking disparity has led a number of leading private colleges and universities, including Amherst, Harvard and Princeton, to take measures to increase the number of low-income students. But Golden is surprisingly ambivalent about these efforts, fearing (perhaps justifiably) that the admission of more poor and working-class students will be accompanied not by a reduction of preference for the rich, but by a decline in the number of middle-class students. The Caltech model that he finds so appealing is utterly inadequate to address the problem. Given the magnitude of class disparities in educational achievement, only affirmative action for the disadvantaged -- what former Princeton president William Bowen has called a "thumb on the scale" for low-income students -- promises to produce significant results.

The Price of Admission estimates that the end of affirmative action for the privileged would open up roughly 25 percent of the places in the freshman class at elite colleges and, in so doing, free up spaces for aspiring students of modest origins. Based on my own research, I would estimate a figure of 10 to 15 percent -- still a considerable number. But the main beneficiaries of such a shift -- absent a more profound change in the prevailing definition of merit -- would not be the socioeconomically disadvantaged, but rather the children of the upper-middle class.

In his final chapter, Golden issues a series of sensible and hard-hitting recommendations -- among them, ending legacy preference (already a fait accompli at Oxford and Cambridge universities in supposedly class-bound Britain), abolishing preference for athletes in upper-crust sports and for faculty children, and developing conflict-of-interest policies for the staff of the admissions offices. Equally important is his suggestion that a firewall be constructed between the admissions office and the development office -- a change of no small moment in institutions where the link between the two now looks more like an autobahn. But if the past is any guide, change is unlikely to come from within and will await a social movement with the strength and clarity of purpose to demand that our colleges and universities, at long last, live up to their professed ideals.

Reviewed by Jerome Karabel
Copyright 2006, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

That's an interesting article.

And that kinda thing's been going on for a long time.

It's probably why most of the really important disruptive innovations continue to come from the un-elite in our society.

people like to blame the republicans, but its really these faux democrats who are to blame. Wall st...

When did Wall Street become Democratic or even faux democrat?

Yeah, bankster. And do you know what they do after having those kids?

You guessed it. If it isn't flipping fixer-uppers in Palo Alto, they go all out and get themselves a license. To sell Real Estate.

fucking faggot haterz, of course web 2.0 will change your life, i mean look at all the money you have spent on facebook. Fuck facebook changed my life, I read the newsweek cover story on the gen-y fuckbag that "started" it, and my god I was changed. Imagine connecting with your friends and their friends. You could then do nothing oh so much more efficiently. It's amazing, a new paradigm. The future is here.

Fuck the factories that actually produce stuff, that's so yesterday. It's all services now. And everyone is rich, squawk everyone is rich.

It was a good day, didn't have to use my AK

HARM the Mrs. was serious, let us know when you what the omelet.

-what
+want

I heard a suggestion on Thursday afternoon's MarketPlace broadcast [I really hate the cheery slickness of MarketPlace, but I sometimes listen . . . hating] that the best FOMC move in September would be to drop the discount rate an additional 50bp, continuing the present 30-day renewable policy, and leave the overnight target at 5.25%.

Not sure what to make of it. It would probably increase traffic at the discount window. Might buy another bit of time for the ratings guys to rip the tapes and do the job they should have done long ago - for IBs to unearth and return the out-of-contract stuff to LOs - for LOs to see what paper is sound enough for workouts with the original borrowers and returned to market as legacy MBS - and for all to get a grip on what is beyond recovering. Maybe.

The real sand in the machine is the inability to identify the toxic, non-performing, out-of spec material and get it written off so quality CP can move, and pension fund/institutional buyers can do their damage control. No one has confidence in the ratings guys - they're going to have to redeem themselves or we continue to experience falling velocity/freezes.

I don't think for a minute that buying some time lets the HF guys off the burner or that it would bring M&A back from the grave, but it might permit quality capital flows to resume something resembling normal traffic.

Well, you see what happens when musicians start thinking aloud. :oops:

Further thought...

With conditions deteriorating constantly, ratings for RMBS CMBS CDO CDO squared synthetic CDO CDS are worthless unless current. Can Fitch, Moody and S&P even do this job? Hell if I know.

"..but of course you’re not referring to me because of the handle I go by; right?"

no, not at all,

but while I'm at it,

praise you to!

FWIW (and I realize she doesn't have a huge fan base here) but Michelle Malkin is running the "Democrat clamor for a housing bail-out" as her lead story! And get this, (she's using quotes from Another F@cked Borrower! God love her for not toning it down by referring to him as "SoCalMtgGuy"!

Since much of her argument is in alignment with posters here, it's worth a read. Oh, btw (she thinks Bill Gross is off his rocker too).

@SFWoman,
...the middle is increasingly being pushed downward economically while at the same time living an aspirationally driven lifestyle financed by easy credit.

As that easy credit is withdrawn, I wonder about the deflationary impact and how it will impact the income generation potential of the middle class. At the same time, over the next three decades we will see demographic pressures boost wage inflation as the size of the working population falls in the developed world (and the developing world is not producing enough skilled workers to make up the difference). It will be a crucial tug-of-war between these (and other, like technology) deflationary and inflationary pressures. BTW, what kind of income and assets do you consider middle class?

@Randy H,
If so I propose FS, which is what many of us are likely to become if there’s a giant bailout funded on the backs of our savings and larger tax burden).

If bailout legislation of that magnitude passes, then I'm hiring you to help me work out the most tax-efficient and timely way to strike 90% of my dollar-denominated positions and redomiciling my business offshore. The way I see it, if the U.S. turns hostile against savers, investors and businesses almost to the degree of various second- and third-rate economies around the world, I might as well move to a location where there is an up, instead of staying where the trend is down for the forseeable future.

apostasy said:
what kind of income and assets do you consider middle class?

That's easy.

If you have a comfortable life and can afford all your necessities (food, shelter, transport, clothing AND savings), but still have to work for a living, you're middle class.

Even if you can survive several months without a job, but eventually will run out of money, then you are middle class.

SP

My understanding of the Fed's approach currently is that they aren't really denying that there will be failures or that they can save any hedge fund, most mortgage firms and ALL the banks.

They are simply trying to control "the failure rate".

I haven't read all the posts on this thread (not enough time right now) so this may have already been suggested.

You can get the plot ID# for any property off of zillow. Then go to the county (wherever the property is) assessors website and there's a good chance you can do a search which will give you the property owner's name. I do it all the time.

Did anyone else see the Chicago bond-guy market reporter on CNBC this morning hold up the "Mr. Housing Bubble" logo t-shirt?

I guess it's officially mainstream now.

Randy H,

Seriously? Rick Santelli? Good for you Rick! Tell it like it is baby!

Peter P,

Hot off the presses is today's Idaho Statesmen annual best-of reviews here in Boise.

Best Shusi

Shige Japanese Cuisine, 100 N. 8th St.

Hon. Mention Shusi

Koi, 800 W. Idaho St.
Zutto Japanese REstaurant, 615 W. Main St.
Fujiama, 283 N. Milwaukee St.

Make that "Sushi".

Hey, did anyone note that the skull and crossbones image on the "F the Rich" thread has changed? I'm betting the shirt shop changed it without telling anyone.

DinOR

It was the Rickster. I can imagine him wearing Mr. Bubbles as he orders his cheeseburger at Bill Goat.

It's times when I see the talking heads argue on CNBC and Santelli is the only one telling it like it is, that I really start to miss Chi-town. The winters are cold, but the people are real.

You know real estate's in trouble when even the sheeple are complaining about the prices!

*Billy

Hot off the presses is today’s Idaho Statesmen annual best-of reviews here in Boise.

Thanks... if I visit Boise, I know where to go...

I do want to visit Coeur d'Alene.

Today I heard new housing sales for juli were up against june. A while ago you explained how this number does not really reflect true new housing sales. I can vaguely remember you sad something about buying options that are included in the number but I am not sure. Could you please tell me the name of the indicator and what it tells? Thank you.

>> our universities have serious problems. ive been around these VC firms here in SV, all these golden startups are is a bunch of rich kids who played volleyball at Stanford. blah blah Web 2.0 blah blah startup blah blah Social Networking.

Original Bankster,

The more selective the school, the greater the admissions advantage enjoyed by recruited athletes. And once in college, recruited athletes in golf, fencing, crew, squash, polo, and other upper class sports often sink to the bottom of their classes academically.

Please read:

http://bensbookblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/price-of-admission-by-daniel-golden.html

This is a sad but true tale about the reality of college admissions at some of the most elite universities in America. It proves what we've all come to know, that money talks, its who you know, and it pays to be famous. Working hard is for stiffs, especially if you're Asian. There are some beacons of hope to help root out such instituionalized corruption. Caltech is cited as the school setting the trend. But don't hold your breath for the system to change anytime soon.

The number of whites enjoying preference [for college admissions] far outweighs the number of minorities aided by affirmative action. At least 1/3 of the students at elite universities, and at least ½ at liberal arts colleges are flagged for preferential treatment in the admissions process. P6

Students without any non-academic preference are vying for only 40% of the slots at Ivy League schools. P7

Only 3 to 11% of students at America’s most selective universities come from the lowest income quartile. Asian American are disproportionately affected – rebuffed by what appears to be an informal quota system. P11

Senator Bill Frist, who opposes affirmative action for minorities, apparently did not object to preferential treatment for his eldest son… Princeton admission officers were taken aback [Frist’s son background]: his grades and test scores fell far below university standards. On a 1 to 5 scale (5 being lowest) – he was a 5… Frist was a Princeton alumnus and his family donated $25M in 1997… No wonder that the newly appointed Princeton president advised her admissions staff that Frist’s son was a high priority. His son was admitted. In 2004, his Sophomore year he was arrested for drunk driving in. At the time of publication, he had not yet graduated. P12-6

Harvard looks out for its own
Harvard admits fewer than 1 in 10 applicants, turning down more than ½ of candidates with perfect SAT scores. P25 So even if you ace the SAT with a 1600, you’ve only got a 50% chance of being accepted at Harvard. How do you like them apples?

Harvard enrolled 336 children of about the 340 eligible children from the families who serve on its fund raising committee – an astonishing enrollment rate. P26

Legacies [alumni chidren, donor children, famous children] account for 13% of the student body. P28

72% of the students on the z-list [admission is deferred by 1 year] are alumni children… For Harvard, deferral was a no-lose proposition: either it would discourage underqualified legacies from enrolling without actually rejecting them, thus preserving academic quality and donor goodwill, or the students would mature in their year off, readying them for Harvard. It turns out however that most z-listers are willing to wait for a Harvard education. P39 Why do the wait? Because their 2nd choice option – without having the alumni or donor connection to leverage– will be a huge step down from Harvard for most academically weak students.

For well connected students, the z-list isn’t the only roundabout route to Harvard. Harvard typically admits only 5% of its transfer candidates – but children of alumni and donors enjoy a marked preference. P40

It’s much tougher to get into Harvard than to graduate from it; 97% of those who matriculate emerge with a degree. Therefore honors awarded upon graduation offer a better yardstick for measuring academic prowess. Data show that donor children were far more likely to graduate without honors than the Harvard average. P42

Duke's fundraising engine
Great universities profess to safeguard the quality of their student bodies by constructing a firewall between fundraising and admissions. In reality there is no such wall – not even a shallow trench. Almost every university takes development admits… Like other nonprofits, seeking funding, they’ve discovered the easiest way is to admit the children of the rich. P55

Duke relaxed its standards to admit more than 100 applicants a year, with more than ½ enrolling (3 to 5% of the incoming class). Many of their grateful parents joined Duke’s fundraising group, which led all universities in 1990s in unrestricted gifts from non-alumni parents. P57 Quid pro quo alive and well in North Carolina.

Eager to place as many graduates as possible at top institutions, prep school counselors help colleges identify development admits, often through an unobtrusive phrase or two in a letter of recommendation stating that the parents have been generous to the prep school and are likely to give to their child’s college as well. The prep school’s fund raising office may call the college to reinforce the message. P59

How much does it really cost to buy your child’s way into college? $20,000 is enough to draw the attention of a liberal arts college with an endowment in the $100M range. At an exclusive college, it can take at least $50,000 with some assurance of future, greater donations. At a top 25, a minimum of $100,000; for the top 10, at least $250,000 and often over $1M. p60

For celebrity applicants like Lauren Bush – niece of President GW Bush, there’s no such thing as a deadline. A month after the Princeton deadline had passed, Lauren contacted the university. And despite SAT scores considerably below average for Princeton, and a ‘B’ high school GPA, she was admitted. P93

Brown: Hollywood U
Brown is the college of the famous and celebrity children. However, these celebrity students lag behind their more obscure classmates. 20% of Brown seniors graduate with high honors. 0% of the celebrity children do. 30% of Brown graduates receive distinction, but only 12% of celebrity kids achieve the same. P94

Notre Dame’s average of 1394 for admitted students is artificially deflated by the lower scores of legacies, athletes, and donors. Applicants without preference actually need a 1470 (that is the Harvard average by the way). P120

50% of legacy applicants to selective colleges boasted incomes in the top 25%, as against 39% of nonlegacy applicants. Princeton President William Bowen states “Legacy preference serve to reproduce the high income/high education/while profile that is characteristic of these schools.”… Legacies are more likely to afford private schools, tutors, test prep courses, etc. that usually translate into higher test scores… Alumni children should be high achievers; by definition, they start with the advantage of having at least one college educated parent. To equalize opportunity, alumni children would need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. P121

Penn explicitly links alumni child preference and early decision, urging alumni children to apply early for maximum consideration for the legacy affiliation. P122

Alumni contributed $7.1B to higher education in 2005, representing nearly 28% of all private giving to colleges… You gotta believe that some of that is donated in thanks for children already admitted to the alma mater, or in the expectation that a sizeable check will smooth future acceptance. P126

In 1952, Harvard admitted 63% of all applicants. In 2002, it admitted only 11% of overall applicants, but 40% of legacy candidates. P129

The more selective the school, the greater the admissions advantage enjoyed by recruited athletes. And once in college, recruited athletes in golf, fencing, crew, squash, polo, and other upper class sports often sink to the bottom of their classes academically. Why do colleges compromise their admission standards for athletes in marginal sports that don’t enhance ethnic diversity and rarely generate media revenues? The kindest explanation is that they are simply pursuing excellence in all their endeavors. P156 Or could it be that these sports preferentially filter out low income, minority candidates, allowing the university to recruit a wealthy, white student body? Nah.

Since most universities have faculty committees overseeing undergraduate admissions, and since it’s easier to replace an administrator than a professor with lifetime tenure, the last thing any admissions staff wants is to alienate faculty… Faculty children often receive an edge bigger than that given to alumni offspring. P179

33% of faculty children at research universities attend the parent’s institution if offers them a financial incentive to do so. If the institution pays the same share of tuition no matter where the child goes, then only 13% stay. P184

Are you smart enough to be rejected by Vandy?
Vanderbilt’s tuition reimbursement plan had a bizarre twist. It would pay 94% of tuition at any other institution only if the Vanderbilt had rejected the child. The concept was that a faculty child who aspired to Vanderbilt should not be penalized for being turned down, but in practice it offered a perverse incentive to fail. Brilliant Vanderbilt offspring contrived ways of being rebuffed so they could go to Harvard or Yale on Vanderbilt’s dime. Some students would apply to the music program when they couldn’t play a note, knowing that entry required an audition. One conniver showed up purporting to be proficient at the oboe, then surveyed an array of wind instruments before asking ‘Which one is the oboe?’. P186

An asian applicant needs to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants just to have the same chance of admission. Being an alumni child, by contrast, confers a 160 point advantage… Black and Hispanic lag 100-125 points below whites. P204

UC Berkeley turned down 1421 Californians with SAT scores above 1400. 662 were Asian. Of the 359 students accepted with scores below 1000, 231 were Black, Hispanic or Native American. The UC Regents chairman accused his flagship campus of ‘blatantly’ discriminating against Asians. P211

We're number 1!
In 1999 US News anointed the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) as the nation’s best university. How could a tiny engineering school surpass Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and even MIT? Yielding to critical pressure from the established elite, the magazine changed its criteria. Caltech, which otherwise, might have stayed on the top for years, instead slid back to the bottom half of the top 10, saving the Ivies and other powerhouses from perennial embarrassment. Yet there’s good reason for putting Caltech a notch above the rest: the Pasadena school comes closer than any other major American university to admitting a student body purely on academic merit. Caltech doesn’t compromise admissions standards to attract donations or foster to a wealthy alumni base. Nobody gets into Caltech because their families are rich, famous, or well connected; they get because of their talent, period. P261 I could not have said it better. – Ben Sharma, Caltech Grad, class of 1988.

Caltech admissions committees hold alumni and faculty children applicants to a higher standard. Being a legacy could have a negative effect. P262

Without underperforming rich kids dragging down the overall quality, the average SAT score in 2003 was 1505, including a remarkable 775 in math… About 85% of the students graduated from public high schools vs. 40-45% at the Ivies. P263

Caltech’s grueling curriculum leaves no refuge for less than brilliant minds – white, black, rich, poor. Caltech students take 6 classes per semester – 2 more than at most colleges. Rarely is credit granted for AP courses [I took over 8 AP courses in high school and receive only 1 semester credit in one course while the University of Arizona granted me admission into the 2nd semester of Sophomore year via AP credits]. Nor is a failing grade erased from a student’s transcript, as it is from some universities, if a person retakes the class and passes. ‘Everyone understands the enormous challenge represented by admission to Caltech’ Nobel laureate David Baltimore told me in his office. ‘Only the rare, special student can handle Caltech.’ Caltech professor David Polizter, 2004 Nobel prize winner in physics, said he would not have survived as an undergraduate: ‘I’m too slow. The pace here is outrageous.’ He is a Univ of Mich undergraduate, and Harvard PhD graduate. Caltech demands more gray matter than an Ivy League. ‘At Harvard and Yale, grades don’t mean squat. The goal is to become CEO of some Fortune 500 or President of the US. At Caltech, there isn’t much else besides academics.’ P278 [I can personally tell you that I never worked harder, or suffered more than my four years at Caltech.]

Today I heard new housing sales for juli were up against june. A while ago you explained how this number does not really reflect true new housing sales. I can vaguely remember you sad something about buying options that are included in the number but I am not sure. Could you please tell me the name of the indicator and what it tells? Thank you.

Sales are up, BUT prices are DOWN

@DinOR,

I'm no big fan of Michelle Malkin or any demagogue either right or left, but sometimes, just sometimes... she hits the nail right on the head.

@DennisN,

Yup, the t-shirt site moved that jpeg. Np- I just used anopther.

@Surfer-X,

Thanks --the Mrs. & I will get back to you very soon.

@HARM,

Yeah, I hear ya. In our house she isn't so much popular for her "views" as the fact that she's a Filipina AND opinionated! What ISN'T an emotional issue for her!? From a cultural standpoint she's bridge between the sterotypical "submissive asian female" and reality. It seems many asian cultures interpret an out-spoken female in public as crude and unrefined.

Evidently *astrid was absent for these "grooming" sessions as well!

MM's responses weren't so much "knee-jerk" bail-out=liberal policy, b/c she lambasted "William" Gross as well. Do these guys have an exaggerated sense of self importance or what? Where does some bond guy come off like that!? Dude, go back to toiling in anonymity.

HARM the Mrs. was serious, let us know when you what the omelet.

What omelet? :)

You went to CalTech, too PermaRenter? When were you there? I agree it is a grueling place: the incredible workload, along with my general upreparedness for it, led to me failing out after two years.

I was generally unhappy there, due to the amazingly bad "ratio" but that was probably really only ancillary to my academic issues.