untgirl04

Sometimes it's not so much that the Master's degree increases your salary, but that it opens up other career paths. (You know this, but I'm posting to make the point for others.) My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I was pre-med, but then decided I wanted a different career path, so I got a Master's degree in English (Language, not Literature). I started out as a technical writer but through my experiences and being willing to stretch to other fields, am now a software designer. At the same time, I work with a gal who is about 5 years older than me, doesn't have a bachelor's degree, and was a software designer 4 years before I became one. It's about your experiences and your willingness to try new things - whether that experience is academic or worldly. When I first entered the workforce, I was frustrated with my salary. Because I had a Master's degree (and that means even more in student loans), I thought I ought to make a little more than what I got hired at. And I was underpaid. By a lot. But I just kept working hard and within a few years, I asked for a 27% raise and got one. I'm still annoyed by people who just think they can walk off the stage at graduation and command a large salary. Ultimately, a degree is just potential. You get paid because you actually earn it.

Apparently, you didn't look at the link. Most of these sources who quote the source of the deficit as being tax cuts and wars are looking only at the GDP and percentages, and are often partisan links. That's fine, everyone has their own spin. However, more recent studies suggest that aside from our GDP numbers, there's a large sum of money that is legally owed to the government, which people choose not to pay. That money that the government is expecting based on reported income isn't coming in (kinda like budgeting paycheck to paycheck only to find out that your salary got cut without you knowing it). The source I referenced has the lost income sitting at between $400B and $500B. I think that's still a statistically significant number. I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense to cut IRS funding when we have a lot of money that needs collecting. Of course, if people were just honest, this wouldn't be an issue. But that's utopia, and we don't live there.

Jumping into the frying pan on this one, but oh well. About me: 25-30 yr old female, Moderate Conservative, typically vote Republican. -- Newt Gingrich fascinates me too. I don't honestly believe that any party at this point has the moral high ground, so to me, I'm most concerned with who can handle the growing Iranian/Israeli diplomatic hornet's nest (another term suits this better, but it's a PG board) and who can get our debt under control. Newt's wives aside, I think it's possible he's learned a lot since his Speaker days, and right now, he's probably the best candidate. If he makes a smart choice for his running mate, I think he could also take the women's vote. Now, if he makes a bone-headed decision like McCain did, all bets are off. I ended up voting for Obama in the last election because of that mistake. Of all the qualified, intelligent women in Washington, he has to go pick a backwards idiot who makes me embarrassed for my entire gender. But I digress... -- I haven't paid attention to every debate, but ultimately, I would give Gingrich more credit for fiscal spending and balanced budget than I would Clinton. It's the House that controls Ways and Means. I think part of the reason spending went down during the Clinton years was that Congress and the White House could never agree enough to get things passed through. That's the beauty and sometimes the frustration of a separation of powers. -- I've seen several reports lately stating that it's not the tax cuts that have cost us so much, but that it's tax evasion (thinkprogress.org is one source). We agree somewhat, about the need for taxation to run the government, but I think we should take a hard look at what we're taxing and why. Ultimately though, I'm not in favor of raising any taxes until Congress shows me it can be responsible with the money I already give them.

Are these the same awful refs we had for the UALR game?

There's actually a pretty large number of Penn State alums who live in the area. I had a boss once who was a letterman for them.

Cobbs's is also correct.

I dunno... Charlie Weiss keeps getting jobs. He hasn't really been successful since he left the pros. Guess his genius is still too great for the college game.

To a point, but there are other things people value. For example, some people will take a job with average pay in exchange for less stress, quality of living, location, or any number of other factors. For most people, I think money only plays in so much as the salary is competitive based on the level of responsibility.

Nope. That's not it. There are many students who have never played sports or who didn't grow up with a culture of sports who get caught up in the college atmosphere. The operative word here is atmosphere. Winning is great, yes, but that's not really what brings people to games. During the early 2000s, we had the longest conference winning streak in the nation, and attendance wasn't horrible, but it wasn't as good as this year. What got people starting to come out was the atmosphere. I was president of Clark Hall during those years, and we consistently brought 30-40 residents per game (those are just the ones who sat with us). We didn't start out with that number initially, but we hung out in the entry way and common rooms before the games, offering to paint students up, loan a t-shirt, and just become involved. Many of the students had never really been interested in sports, but they became some of the most rabid fans. Yes, they were music majors, art majors, or other majors you think are the "weirdos" who don't care about sports. Rather than ostracize what you perceive as the super majority of students on campus, maybe you could focus your efforts on finding ways to help those students connect to sports.

Game Day final also handed out a helmet sticker to Lance for the game.

Where's UNTPlaymaker when you need him?

D Speaking of which... I haven't seen this posted yet, but props to the band last night for the sign and "what's a hill topper" chant. That was awesome.

Just thinking this through... I'm not sure what the current apartment housing rates are, but I would guess $600 or so per month (for a cheap place). That would leave $158 per month for groceries. I spend ~$300 per month for a family of three (although the little one doesn't really eat that much yet). Now, my husband and I are active, but not elite athletes, so I could find it reasonable that an athlete would need ~$200 per month for adequate food. That would put players at around a $50 deficit for each month. Just out of curiosity, do scholarship athletes who do choose to stay on campus past freshman year lose weight as well? I'd be very interested to look at average weight gain/loss of on campus vs off campus athletes. I'm with KRAM1 - if the students are underfunded and undernourished, then that needs to be corrected immediately.

28 (for the week), female, Carrollton Married to forevereagle. B.A. in Biology 2004 M.A. English (Technical Writing) 2006 I'm currently a software designer for GE Healthcare.

All students have the opportunity to purchase a meal plan with the school, even if they don't live on campus. Many students in apartments choose the "8's Enough" plan, which gives the students 8 meals per week at any cafeteria. I'm sure that if the players preferred to have a meal plan on campus, that could be arranged. I don't know how much the players receive, but I imagine it's more than enough to feed them, as long as they don't eat at Outback every night. I understand the struggle/concern for living expenses when you aren't allowed to have a separate source of income, so if the players are truly struggling, they should bring it to the attention of the AD. If they're just being frivolous with their money, then perhaps the AD could provide a class to teach them about budgeting and spending their money wisely. It's a life lesson that is well worth learning early anyway.

Wait... When I was in school, there was at least one cafeteria open 7 days a week (Kerr), and all cafeterias were all-you-can-eat. So at least one cafeteria was open 24/7. When my sister was in school a few years later, they moved to a healthier selection, so nutrition shouldn't be as much of an issue. My understanding was that athletes get a 7 day meal plan. Is that not the case?

We have special noise canceling headphones for him, and in general, he has a great disposition (and already loves football). His first game was the FAU game, and he did really well. It just didn't work out this time. The only reason I brought it up is that there were at least 4 other families that I saw with young kids in my section alone (207, so it's not even the family section), and thought it might be an issue for more than one family.

That's an incredibly generous offer. The point of my post was just to ask a general question, not to complain. My husband and I are diehard fans and yesterday's experience in no way changes that. It's just part of being a parent that sometimes you see the game and sometimes you don't. My concern is for those more casual fans who may choose not to attend games after such an experience. I fully intend to contact RV and see what options are available, but wanted to post my experience on the board to see if there was just something we didn't know about.

It has nothing to do with a public display one way or another. If my son were just hungry, I would have just fed him in the stands, like I did the week before. But he was frightened by all the noise and couldn't calm down. Putting this into perspective, I'm 5'1" and my son (at 5.5 months) is 21 lbs and darn close to half my height. I just can't hold him for an extended period of time - he's too heavy. Secondly, how many of you eat in a bathroom? There's a reason every medical body, regardless of patient (animal, baby, adult) says to keep the "pooping area" away from the "feeding area". I've been in the family bathroom at the stadium, and while it's clean, there's a toilet directly across from a changing table, and a sink. And that's it. If there were an anteroom, slightly separated from the toilet area, then that would have been an appropriate place to feed a baby. I understand that I can use the family bathroom for an unlimited amount of time, but there were at least three other babies sitting in my section. What if those parents needed the room? What then are they supposed to do? Having a community "quiet" room where folks can go to calm a child would make more sense and would accommodate a larger crowd, which is what we're hoping to eventually have.

Yeah, me too. I think maybe this woman didn't know where it was? Either way, suggesting a bathroom is unacceptable.

So we attempted to attend today's game, but ended up having to leave due to a fussy baby. As I was under the stands trying to calm him, I thought I might be able to calm him down if he ate. I approached guest services to see if I could just go inside to feed him (he weighs nearly 21 lbs so standing the whole time isn't really an option) and I was told no. The woman helpfully suggested that I could always sit down in a bathroom... So my question is two-fold: what is gust services for and who can enter, and if calming a crying baby isn't appropriate there, where in the stadium is? I'm not terribly upset, just curious. Although I do believe there is a coaching opportunity with that young lady.

I think there's an NCAA rule about playing as the play begins.

I went down and talked to the event staff during the pre-game because the noise level was actually painful. There were a bunch of other people down there asking about the same thing. They got it corrected shortly thereafter. Props to Guest Services for promptly addressing the issue.

Unless I'm reading that post incorrectly, he was talking about IU's backup QB who was put into the game in the 4th quarter and, based on my observation, *was* in fact a more accurate passer than the starter. Which would make his comment relevant and a good observation about the success of the defense in the first three quarters versus the last. Geez.

Victory doesn't have public restrooms. My advice would be to get all the kids into the bathrooms around 4 then wrap up tailgating and head into the game around 5:15. It gives everyone a chance to check out the stadium (and hopefully get some gear at the team shop). This should help address the bathroom dilemma.