I’ve received some feedback from my loyal blog readers that one of the neat things about this site is the constant update of posts. From “The Countdown Kid” (or whatever the hell he or she is named) to the harassing e-mails I receive commanding me to post, when I slack over the weekends, the public disapproval is quite apparent. Along with the updates, another popular component of this blog is the freedom to discuss topics that may not be kosher for traditional campus press or other media forums. Thus, in order to combine the two, I want to introduce a new weekly post for my blog: The Weekend Question.
On Friday’s I will post a (hopefully) thought-provoking question about life here at UW. Maybe it’ll be on politics, our social scenes, or something trivial about Scanner Dan. On the comments, I hope all of my readers will get their Critical Badger fill by giving some feedback, providing some analysis, or use this blog as a post-modern form of drug abuse by electronically trolling the hell out of each other. This serves to balance the problem of lackluster weekend posts and something of note to discuss.
And now, for the question:
This past week, a BH editorial argued for more out-of-state enrollment at this university. In addition, last year, a frequently cited (look! Mark Green!) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article noted that UW-Madison has easier admission standards for out-of-state students, citing GPA and class rank. While this is much debated, and in the opinion of this blog to be untrue, I have also heard the argument that these students are frequently less “involved” on campus than their Wisconsin or Minnesota counterparts (MN is considered “in state” for this definition, based on the 75%/25% division of in vs out-of-state admission standards). Is this the case? Are out-of-state students lowering the “intellectual capital” of the undergraduate experience at UW? Looking at some recent “campus leaders” (Varney, VerStandig, Judge, Woods, Lapidus, Kumar) you’ll find some significant out-of-state presence, but on the whole, I’m not sure how well represented these students are in adding something to this campus outside of Langdon Street Greek life and dropping cash at Johnny O’s on a Thursday night.
Let’s get to the bottom of this.
27 Comments
October 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm
[...] You’ll find more information about this here [...]
October 12, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Most “campus leaders” are from Wisconsin. I think you get a lot of OOS kids who are more interested in partying than studying or meeting kids on campus.
October 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Are most “campus leaders” from Wisconsin because OOS kids are less involved or is it a proportional representation of IS/OOS students in leadership positions? Faulting OOS people for not holding a significant number of “campus leadership positions” (whatever that means) is equatable (this may be a bad analogy) with expecting 30% of the Wisconsin student population to be minorities.
October 12, 2007 at 7:54 pm
First I’ll start with what I posted on the BH message board:
“While many in-state students really don’t deserve to be here, I think an equal number of out-of-state students fall in the same camp.
After being in class with many a coastie (the j school will do that to you) I can say that maybe roughly half of them are dumb as rocks.
Also, the animosity between coasties and sconnies is not because of their damn Uggs — it’s their abrasive, stuck up personalities that we can’t stand.”
I think it depends on the type of out-of-state student you’re talking about. The one’s you cited are obviously great leadership examples, but then you have a lot of people from the coast who just drink too much and sound really stupid when they speak in class. I think that lowers the intellectual capital of the university, so I’m wondering how they got in.
I don’t have anything to add to the discussion really, except stuck-up coasties annoy the hell out of me and rarely have anything interesting to say. So if we could limit the OOS students to those who take their education seriously then we shouldn’t have a problem. (Obviously, the same goes for in-state students as well though.)
October 12, 2007 at 8:36 pm
You forgot to include yourself among the significant contributions by OOS students. I’m just sayin’, is all…
October 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“Most “campus leaders” are from Wisconsin. I think you get a lot of OOS kids who are more interested in partying than studying or meeting kids on campus.”
Shut the hell up, ‘Sconnie.
Out of state, what.
(I was born in Madison. But that doesn’t really count as Wisconsin).
October 13, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Minnesota doesn’t count as out of state in my opinion. And neither does Illinois. Face it, we’re talking about coasties here.
October 13, 2007 at 10:35 pm
You kidding me? Chicago ‘burb kids are total coasties. Jappy-ass-bitches.
October 13, 2007 at 11:12 pm
OOS students bring a unique drive to this campus. I do not think most OOS came here set to lead large organizations or make it to the top of their class. They are here for a good education and a great experience. They are not the ultra driven top of their class ISS that use college as the ultimate extension of their resume to the White House, but smart students that want to do well (proportionality does matter here, so does the fact that many more ultra driven students stay in-state in Wisconsin versus other states because of the excellent cheap education it affords – hopefully this remains).
OOS drive here represents their drive in life. They did well in HS, but had fun; they will do well in college, but have fun; they will do well in life, but will have fun. There isn’t anything wrong with this. UW-Madison does not equal Harvard: people do not have to give their heart and soul to be admitted, to be good students, to contribute. This should not change.
Yet, these OOS were students willing to leave the confounds of the east coast for a Midwestern education. They had the confidence to fly the coop, to learn something new. This confidence, as well as the characteristics of where and how they were raised are represented – diversity! (They also bring in a lot of money – something to bitch about). Interestingly, there is a pool of students at UW that behaves just like these OOS. These ISS get a good education and have a good time, make up a much larger proportion of the student body than OSS, but bring no diversity. UW wasn’t created as a place to harbor overachievers, but to represent and serve the world. I certainly would not want a hoard of OOS students that act just like all of the valedictorians that got in to UW on scholarship, discussion would definitely suck if we talked about Fond du LACK and Bariboo all day.
The drive that OOS have is the same as that of a vast majority of ISS, but one that brings an element of diversity most Wisconsin students cannot afford. Even if these students are on average slightly less academically rigorous than the average ISS the diversity and money makes the winners. And anyways, why the hell would Mark Green want smarter OSS here, wouldn’t that make Wisconsin look stupider? Good thing he’s in Tanzania … sure that’s good for Wisconsin. Bitch.
October 14, 2007 at 4:00 am
We need to restrict OOS enrollment because they are only here to party and talk shit about Wisconsin students. At the last, admit less of the bottom 10% kids. The ones who were below our 25% admission standards but get in because of their location. That’d help the bottom feeders go away.
October 14, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“Yet, these OOS were students willing to leave the confounds of the east coast for a Midwestern education. They had the confidence to fly the coop, to learn something new.”
You just argued that they did well in high school and had fun without trying too hard and will continue to do that for the rest of their lives. Tell me, how is this learning something new?
What they need to do is learn not to be lazy. Same goes for lazy ISS’s too.
October 14, 2007 at 5:31 pm
First, we need to be very careful about assigning greater societal value to students that are “campus leaders” as defined here. The fact that I chose to pursue activities that have placed me in this category for some does not mean I am automatically placed in an elite category of “better contributors” to the world (in fact it can mean the exact opposite, I could just be a big media whore who accomplishes absolutely nothing). There are plenty of students, OOS and not, whom I bet will contribute a ton to the world, and that are currently not publicly visible. This is especially true for academically and/or professionally focused students (although there are plenty of exceptions to this) in areas that do not correspond at all with contemporary UW activities that would mark them as “campus leaders”.
Second, I would prefer to not to make absolute statements assigning worth to all OOS or in in-state students. Societal greats can come from anywhere in the country – the next Einstein, the next Nash, the next Reagan, the next Bill Clinton, the next Paul Douglas, the next Buffet, the next Curie – they can come from in or out of state sources and single handedly alter the reputation and endowment of the university. For this reason, I do not think we should even consider any extreme “ban all OOS” or “ban all in-state” measures.
NOTE: Any in-state students need to be careful of absolutist no-OOS logic turning on them, since I bet I could construct a study showing students from certain areas of Wisconsin generally get a higher GPA at UW-Madison than students from other areas. Should we ban people from attending UW who originate from these “lesser areas” of the state then?
Taking all this into account, the question before us remains a game of statistics. The university should keep in mind the holistic performance, at UW-Madison, of students from OOS and in-state origins and adjust accordingly (assuming its mission is to accept students who are more likely to perform successfully). By accordingly I mean in a very general, non-absolutist, manner (lower percentage from regions out of state that perform worse, higher percentage from regions out of state that perform worse and vice versa for in state). The university should not judge an individual student’s value based off their “campus leader” status alone, nor act upon grand absolutist conclusions about entire geographic demographics.
Additionally, notice I keep saying: “based on a student’s performance at UW-Madison”, what I mean by this is that the university needs to judge holistic success at university, success by region, based off of how students from different regions perform one they’re here. It would be a logical fallacy to place all secondary schools at the same level in predicting university performance, since not all secondary schools are at the same level. Once again, this is all assuming the goal of the university is to get the highest predicted performers in the country and the world attending. If the goal is diversity (racial, economic, geographic, ideology, activity), solving for economic inequality, etc. that is an entirely different discussion (and one where you can probably guess my views on being that I lean conservative).
Finally, on the issue of “coasties” we have to be very careful in defining this word if we want to make it a truly useful phrase. To make the word more than just a hateful and counter-productive slur (against geography, or unfortunately… sometimes against Jews), and actually a meaningful insult, I propose a different definition of coastie, a definition that has worked wonders for me so far. I define a coastie as: an individual who displays supreme hedonism, ignorance, apathy, arrogance, and self-indulgence in their college life style and interactions with other people (the stereotype of the worst individuals we imagine meeting from the west or east coasts of the US as well as the suburbs of Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, or Milwaukee). I prefer to define the term as a lifestyle, since this is where I think the word is most productive in usage. I consider the practiced lifestyle of this definition of “coastie” to go against a multitude of my values, thus, it is a great term of dismissal for someone I know should immediately go on my ignore list.
Interestingly enough, however, many “sconnies”, if the term is defined in a similar manner to “coasties”, albeit with different geography, can appear to differ very little from “coasties” if the calculus is lifestyle. This probably explains why my ignore list has great geographical diversity of both in state and OOS individuals. After all, just like societal greats, asshats can come from anywhere.
October 14, 2007 at 5:59 pm
CORRECTION
The first sentence of the second paragraph of my post should read: “Second, I would prefer not to make absolute statements assigning worth to all OOS or in-state students.”
NOT
“Second, I would prefer to not to make absolute statements assigning worth to all OOS or in in-state students.”
I must have not edited this sentence or done so too quickly, since the sentence in my post makes no sense. My apologies.
October 14, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Lapidus is such a hack.
October 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Chop Woods, Vote OBAMA!!!
October 14, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Coming to a new region of the country instead of comfortably slipping into an east/west coast school is something new/different.
October 14, 2007 at 11:57 pm
You’re right that it is something new/different, but going to college should be more about changing your location.
To Lapidus, I completely agree with your coastie definition, which is why I was emphasizing lazy students, both OOS and ISS. I’m technically dating a coastie, but she doesn’t fit under that definition, so I obviously don’t think of her as one. You know…she’s actually a nice person who has goals besides getting wasted haha.
October 15, 2007 at 11:39 am
It seems that it’s not so much a matter of IS or OOS status, as much of a matter of whether a student has mommy & daddy’s credit card. Obviously the so-called “coasties”, whether they be from Boston or Racine, who have enough of their parents money are going to have more time to dedicate to extra-curriculars, above average academic success, etc etc. The average middle-class Wisconsinite that doesn’t receive an adequate amount of financial aid but who’s parents can’t afford to pay their bar tab every weekend isn’t going to be able to dedicate the amount of time needed to a “leadership” position as those that have parents that do. Like stated above, its not where the person is from, but more so their attitude and lifestyle that determine their “coastie” status.
October 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I am surprised how uncritical of a critical badger you are being right now, having absolutely nothing on Obama this morning in Madison. I mean, Andy Gordon couldn’t even get the guy to show up on time and had us waiting there for 40 minutes after he was supposed to start speaking listening to music being blasted so no “we want obama” chants could start? Where is the leadership? Or, what about the fact that they oversold tickets for the event, which meant many people were stuck behind the camera crews raised up high, so the couldn’t see anything? Andy Gordon should resign over the disgrace of an appearance that Obama made today!
October 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Chop Raised Camera Crews, Vote Obama!!!
October 15, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“To Lapidus, I completely agree with your coastie definition, which is why I was emphasizing lazy students, both OOS and ISS. I’m technically dating a coastie, but she doesn’t fit under that definition, so I obviously don’t think of her as one. You know…she’s actually a nice person who has goals besides getting wasted haha.”
There is no need to defend her honor or your own. I am sure if she were the lifestyle definition of a coastie you two would not be together for very long. For a moment, let us assume that the requirements of a successful romantic relationship are mutual mental stability, trust, understanding, physical attraction, and emotional attraction. If true, a romantic relationship with a coastie would be something very difficult for many on this board to handle for an extended period (I know I could not do it). Keep in mind that I do not mean this just for female coasties. Male coasties, also defined by lifestyle/attitude, are just as reprehensible and frequent in numbers.
“It seems that it’s not so much a matter of IS or OOS status, as much of a matter of whether a student has mommy & daddy’s credit card. Obviously the so-called ‘coasties’, whether they be from Boston or Racine, who have enough of their parents money are going to have more time to dedicate to extra-curriculars, above average academic success, etc etc. The average middle-class Wisconsinite that doesn’t receive an adequate amount of financial aid but who’s parents can’t afford to pay their bar tab every weekend isn’t going to be able to dedicate the amount of time needed to a “leadership” position as those that have parents that do. Like stated above, its not where the person is from, but more so their attitude and lifestyle that determine their ‘coastie’ status.”
Yes, but we must be careful, the coastie attitude is not exclusive to individuals from a wealthy background. It is an attitude that knows no distinction between class, race, sexuality, and sex. Being a coastie is the ultimate act of being ungrateful and transcends these categories. Coasties and non-coasties form the dichotomy of attitude that separates the wealthy Paris Hiltons of the world from the Warren Buffets, and the lazy poor from many hard working lower income individuals around the world.
October 15, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I know you were at BRawk’s event.
Post about the illegal text message campaigning!!!
October 15, 2007 at 10:08 pm
David, defend why coastie behavior is “reprehensible.” By whose standards but your own? If that is the lifestyle I chose to lead, and I believe it is right, who are you to judge me?
October 15, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Post, you lazy fuck! It has been 3 days!
October 16, 2007 at 1:12 am
Thanks for that, Steve.
October 16, 2007 at 2:01 am
“David, defend why coastie behavior is ‘reprehensible.’ By whose standards but your own? If that is the lifestyle I chose to lead, and I believe it is right, who are you to judge me?”
I am a moral absolutist so when I sincerely say something deserves censure and blame (i.e. it is reprehensible) I absolutely believe it does. Who am I to judge a person who chooses to be a coastie? I am a person whose values directly conflict with the coastie lifestyle and so who has a moral obligation (otherwise I would be a philosophical fraud) to condemn coastie attitudes.
Five quick general reasons why I call coastie (as I define the term here) attitudes reprehensible:
1. It is giving up the self to the will of others and nature. Being a hedonist coastie means to be significantly governed by pleasure triggers external to the self. In the process a coastie loses all free will and the ability to act towards their philosophical preferences. In effect, coastie hedonism turns a person into a pleasure-zombie and I am not a big fan of the undead.
2. A coastie’s self-indulgence creates a major opportunity cost for the society I live and participate in. A coastie consumes value, without creating any value that assists the economy and marketplace of ideas that services me every day. There are few things I dislike more than unnecessarily wasting value (why do you think I was so conservative on the SSFC?) and coasties by their very nature have to waste value and create nothing to remain coasties. Try to convince me that Paris Hilton is not wasting the opportunity her life has presented to her…
3. The propagation of the coastie stereotype inflames anti-semitic and classisist tendencies. For the more frequent use of coastie (not the way I defined it here) often has very classist and anti-semetic overtones. I don’t think we need to discuss why this is bad.
4. Ignorance and apathy are forces that can corrupt and destroy nations. Thus, in no way can I condone behavior that harms the interests of a country (USA) I love so dearly.
5. Arrogance is fine in certain situations and small doses. Personally, I am a huge advocate of confident humility (essentially arrogance lite). A coastie’s arrogance approaches epic levels of condescension, however. Their arrogance gives them delusions of grandeur that easily become harmful to others and their own self.
October 16, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Post, you lazy fuck! It has been 4 days!