Back to modal, I hope. At least week in and some activity.
On which note, I was a bit abashed by an article [Link] on some work at U Chicago about a practice I was unaware of and am not sure I understand. The lead paragraph states, of the study,
“More than 30 percent of high school graduates were offered state financial aid if they went to college in state, but less than 3 percent changed their decision about where to go to school or where to live once they graduated”
I think this says that of the population offered scholarships at in-state colleges, 0.1 were unmoved. But that wayward “and” is confusing.
I think I can comprehend the mechanics of offering top ranked (by whatever idiosyncratic metrics) high shule students scholarships to attend in-state colleges in hopes of retaining them. But what is not clear is whether the scholarship has a covenant requiring such. And that seems to be a critical factor in this presentation that got left out.
But leaping into a series of unjustified assumptions< let us suppose that most of these students are going to major in the employable disciplines: business; STEM; medicine; or law. Success in all of these is a matter of as good an educations as possible so if there is a perception that a better education is available elsewhere, then go there. The same goes for career.
So where’s the drama coming from? Why the wonder?