I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 2 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
|12 weeks 2 days ago||Idk, 133 + 72 = 205, divided||
Idk, 133 + 72 = 205, divided by ~115,000 people in the stadium = less than two-tenths of one percentage point of those in attendance. I have to think that more than 0.18% of the South Quad population is hospitalized, treated, arrested, or cited on a normal Saturday night.
|23 weeks 19 hours ago||And yet somehow the laws of||
And yet somehow the laws of supply and demand don't bend to your fiat.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, because every individual||
Yes, because every individual college football team exists in a vacuum, and the level and depth of talent at our chief rival and perennial conference competitor has zero bearing on the outlook for our program...
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Where do you think Professor||
Where do you think Professor Needs A Raise is going to get his raise from?
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Thoughts on the Common App?||
First of all, awesome post, maizeonblueaction. I love pieces on here that focus on the academic/institutional side of the university in the off-season.
Second, a question - do you have any sense (intuitive or empirical) of how Michigan's belated accession to the Common Application has affected raw application numbers, acceptance rate, and yield rate? The 40% yield seems somewhat lower than it was when I started, and I'm wondering how much of that can be attributed to the ease of just checking one more box on the Common App when you're applying to schools, as opposed to the selection bias introduced when people have to proactively search out and separately apply for admission to Michigan.
Of course, none of that is to say that financial aid wouldn't meaningfully affect our yield of admitted students. But it might make the low yield a little bit "stickier" just because you're engaging with a pool of applicants who are applying to UMich out of convenience but may not have applied without Common App accessibility.
|24 weeks 3 days ago||Probably both, but one of||
Probably both, but one of those (financial aid) is almost entirely endogenous to UMich, while the other (the nationwide higher education bubble) is exogenous and thus much more difficult to tackle from a single institution's perspective.
|24 weeks 4 days ago||Is "oomph" here used in the||
Is "oomph" here used in the Michael Bay sense (i.e. forgoing character development, compelling dialogue, and a coherent narrative in favor of just indiscriminately blowing stuff up)? Because if so, you probably could've saved $20 by just staying home and microwaving a ball of tin foil.
|25 weeks 1 day ago||I don't think you really||
I don't think you really grasped what I was saying.
"Trust them, they have more access than you" is not an availing argument when used to justify criticisms of the person with the most access to the program.
Again, none of this is to say that Brian & Bacon's critiques are unfounded or incorrect. But their purported access to the program is probably the poorest measuring stick by which to evaluate their claims.
|25 weeks 1 day ago||Without getting into the||
Without getting into the Brandon/Bacon/Brian ballyhoo, I have to say this is a pretty nonsensical and self-defeating line of argument. If we're going to say that Bacon & Brian's opinions carry some sort of enhanced credibility because of their amorphous "access" to the program, wouldn't the same logic then immunize Dave Brandon from criticism, since presumably he has significantly MORE access to the Michigan program than Bacon and Brian combined, and therefore can speak more authoritatively than a sports writer and a blogger, respectively?
Why don't we just evaluate these criticisms on their own merits and against our own experiences as fans rather than appeal to baseless assertions of esoteric knowledge to buttress the arguments we happen to favor?
|25 weeks 1 day ago||This.||
I'm in law school at Yale, and professional/graduate programs have, as a rule, LESS generous financial aid than their undergraduate counterparts. Still, with the amount of grant and scholarship aid I've gotten, I'm paying roughly the same amount it would cost me to go to UMich Law (as an in-state student, no less).
Ivy financial aid is awesome for those of us in the 99%.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||lol. I think if I were going||
lol. I think if I were going to maintain two mgousernames, I'd be a little bit less outwardly sycophantic when posting on my own stuff (no offense to PW, glad you enjoyed the diary)
|26 weeks 2 days ago||All right, Hoke vs. Meyer,||
All right, Hoke vs. Meyer, the ultimate recruiting battle: who's going to snag the consensus 5-star president?
|26 weeks 3 days ago||Great work. You mind if I||
Great work. You mind if I include this in the table?
(Edit: I went ahead and incorporated it anyway, with attribution of course)
|26 weeks 3 days ago||Alternating Maryland/Rutgers||
Alternating Maryland/Rutgers home/away is actually ideal for those of us on the East Coast, since we'll always have at least one game that's only a short train ride away.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Added to the table. Thanks||
Added to the table. Thanks for the help. (Though it looks like both Marcus Allen and Conor Sheehy are 4* to 247 Composite.)
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Not sure how Jalyn Powell||
Not sure how Jalyn Powell even enters this discussion, since he had offers from MSU and no one else.
Reschke was an MSU legacy, but I do think the coaching staff sort of botched that one. Given his relationship with Morris, it could've at least been competitive if we had been working him from day 1. Instead, he got the offer almost as an afterthought (I can't find a link, but I know a lot of speculation at the time was that we offered Reschke to maintain our relationship with the coaching staff at Brother Rice).
Burbridge and, to a lesser extent, Madaris certainly hurt in 2012, but isn't that just illustrative of how far Hoke's recruiting has come in the last two years? Assuming that Burbridge freely chose MSU and wasn't academically subpar for UM (huge assumption not backed up by history), can anyone seriously envision that recruitment turning out the same way in 2014 or 2015?
|30 weeks 1 day ago||Their aggregate recruiting||
Their aggregate recruiting class ranking to Rivals has put them in the top 3 of the Big Ten for the last four seasons (every year since 2009). So while they might not be recruiting well by historic Nebraska standards, they are still consistently outrecruiting 75% of the Big Ten.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||True, but isn't there||
True, but isn't there something to the idea that Nebraska just feels isolated? I mean, it's Nebraska fergodsakes... home of Children of the Corn. Not to mention that Madison is a well reputed college town while Lincoln is... ehm... have I mentioned Children of the Corn?
|31 weeks 1 day ago||"Not every bit of info in the||
"Not every bit of info in the world has links involved"
Ah, so it's one of those bits of info that's been successfully kept off the Internet.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||Well, there was a whole lot||
Well, there was a whole lot in there that I think is wrong (including the absurd notion that we should channel our own presumption of the moral instincts of the Framers any time we confront a matter of constitutional law), but I think the stare decisis point is well taken.
The only sort of unifying theory of Kennedy's stare decisis jurisprudence that I would offer is the idea that individuals have a greater interest in the consistency of rights-expansive caselaw than they do in the consistency of rights-restrictive caselaw. Presumably, no one has taken actions or made decisions in reliance on rights-restrictive caselaw that would then harm them if those cases were overturned and rights were expanded. But the converse is not true - many people would be hurt (even if only in a dignitary injury) by a rights-restrictive departure from prior precedent. And that distinction actually fits pretty neatly into Kennedy's famous opening for Casey: "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt."
|31 weeks 3 days ago||I think the implicit point||
I think the implicit point was that if something is so unoffensive to you that you shrug your shoulders over it, it's an insufficient basis for denying people equal rights under the law.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||I can understand why he||
I can understand why he decided to include that example, but I hold to the reading that Scalia was intentionally caricaturing the LGBT movement as a sort of bogeyman - a well-connected conspiracy set on rending the moral fabric of the nation by judicial fiat rather than political action.
There's just no reason to even include that whole commentary otherwise. You don't see Ruth Bader Ginsburg punctuate her dissents with "Today's opinion is the product of a Court held in the thrall of the historical-revisionist Federalist Society movement that has pervaded America's law schools through generous corporate largesse." It may be true, but it's immaterial to the issue in dispute. A Supreme Court justice is certainly a generalist, but the gamut of his responsibilites doesn't extend to providing specious color commentary on the campus politics of law schools.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||Torturous, but sadly not||
Torturous, but sadly not tortious.
(Gonna go cut myself now.)
|31 weeks 3 days ago||I think the bigger issue with||
I think the bigger issue with Scalia's Lawrence dissent is that he repeatedly alludes to this menacing behemoth of "the homosexual agenda." Maybe characterizing the LGBT community as politically powerful and insidiously effective doesn't seem like such a big deal, but imagine if it had been "the Jewish agenda" or "the Latino agenda."
(But I'm just a second-year law student so I'm basically talking out of my ass here.)
|31 weeks 3 days ago||He's the first active *team*||
He's the first active *team* athlete. The team part is critical, because the whole "locker room mentality" is one thing that has kept LGBT athletes in the closet for so long.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||Please stop making this about||
Please stop making this about you. Thanks.
|31 weeks 4 days ago||"We've had at more than 0||
"We've had at more than 0 posts." <--- This is a winner.
|32 weeks 1 day ago||Agreed, but||
there's a strong argument that Late Carr directly precipitated RichRod.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||Yes, the monitoring costs of||
Yes, the monitoring costs of watching a line will certainly far exceed the burden of monitoring individually ticketed spectators for each one of the several thousand student section seats.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||Sorry but if we're going to||
Sorry but if we're going to talk about "shitty experiences," let's talk about how INVARIABLY a gaggle of drunk, obnoxious sorority girls would show up halfway through the second quarter (or later) of every game demanding that security remove whoever was standing in "their seats."
This is long overdue.