DePaul Attendance

[SJU65]

Joe3. Times have certainly changed, like the beer inflation factor. When I was a student 2 or 3 beers was enough for me. Now the quotient is 8. So instead of 8 beers have 7, thereby saving $5 per beer. Over 20 weeks you'd have the money for a season ticket, and then you could go back to 8 beers.

 

[tom in salem]

If you were unhappy with the crowd last night, your expectations are too high. First of all CA is not a nice arena at all. Second of all it was against DePaul. Besides those facts, the place still looked 90% packed. Of course no one sits all the way at the top, because you are literally staring at beams in the ceiling. The crowd was great.

Hard for you to believe, but for years on end we nearly sold the entire arena out on season tickets. I recall sitting in my seats in a sold out alumni hall before we even had a student section wondering if they were losing future fans since students couldn't get into the place without buying a season ticket.

All the way at the top in a place that seats less than 6,000? You really have to be kidding. Try watching a game from the cheap seats in the Carrier Dome when there are 30,000 in attendance and see how tiny the players from the upper reaches. You can make all the excuses you want, but when your school plays in one of the top three conferences in the US, has a winning streak, and a winning record, and you can't draw 5,000 for an in conference opponent, something is wrong.

There are far worse places to play than CA. I just read a very fine book by Kriegel on Pistol Pete Maravich. The gym at LSU was a horrible dump, but given a reason to come out (Maravich) even very deep in football country at a school that never drew for basketball, people mobbed the place. He was so heralded asa freshman, the freshman game would be packed and people would leave before the varsity game.

The problem with most dumb fans is, well, they are dumb. As soon as we break the top twenty five or top 15, beat some ranked opponents, then all of a sudden fans will flock to the games. Most fans can only tell great basketball by the team's record, and will ignore the ascent from fair to mediocre to good to great. They will only show up for a great, and then proclaim their forever undying allegiance.

Students will find the money for travel, expensive food and drink, and tickets. Workers in NYC will suddenly plan their day around a St John's game again, stay in the city after work to fill the Garden. All of this nonsensical talk about bleachers, crappy arenas, cost of travel, etc. will all go away. Right now, even if we had a Staples Center on campus, we wouldn't draw many more fans for SJU-DePAul than we did last night.

I wasn't around in the days you're talking about when students couldn't get tickets but is it possible that students not being able to buy tickets back then decimated the ticket-buying student fanbase that would currently be middle-aged alums (which should be our prime season ticket holder audience) and is why most fans you see at the games are either ancient or current students?

I believe that its absolutely correct that students who couldn't buy tickets to an SRO Alumni Hall never became fans of the program after graduation. Some of my best memories as a student was to be at a game with 30-50 friends in the same section. Road trips became small caravans, whether to Philly, Georgetown, Providence, BC, or shorter midweek trips to Rutgers or West Point.

Even at the height of our success, like the Final Four season, there wasn't this incredible buzz on campus about the team, because by and large students weren't engaged. In St. Albert's Hall, home of the pharmacy school, allied health professions, and science students, you'd hardly know there was a team.

The school only woke up to the need for a student section after the program was in decline. Unfortunately, the school wiped out a major number of season ticket holders by making the entire lower bleachers across from the baskets a student section and moved all long time season ticket holders upstairs. Most dropped their tickets and have not returned. As the school learned, students don't show up unless the team wins. So the joke was that they destroyed a huge part of their loyal season ticket base (people who bought tickets every season habitually) to create an empty student section. They completed the dismantling of the base by going to the point system, again during a down era, and relocating loyal alumni in the lower bleachers on the side of the team benches.

The seat back chairs now owned by bigger donors, remain unoccupied even for good games. I suspect many big donors also have big job responsbilities that keep them away from games.

An inequity rarely discussed is how the poitn system has been perverted by groups of season ticket holders consolidaitng the order by aggregating the total points of 6-10 alumni and ordering the seats as a package. As a small group with a lot of points, they get better seats without having to make substantial donations. The school should tweak this, and come up with a point value per seat, which would eliminate this.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Students are now being kicked out of the "student section". Behind each basket is now only for season ticket holders as general admission. I was turned away at one end, tried the other and got the same response. This really confused me because I was able to sit in the student section before with no problems. Also, they only gave towels out to the fans in those 2 sections, not to the first 500 fans as was advertised. SJ completely botches promotions, advertising, seating, etc. I already wrote a nasty letter to one of the head guys dealing with ticket sales how I (a student) was basically forced to sit high up in the middle section of the court instead of in the student section. The whole place should be rebuilt, because they aren't real sections anyway...they hold like 30 people comfortably. My student section was quadruple the size undergrad at a school with only 5,000 students and I never got turned away to general admission areas. They really need to get these kinks taken care of.

Is your post an obfuscation? You do mean student season ticket holders - the kids that come to every game and as a unit, scream their heads off. Season tickets are a measly $100 - please don't complain about $20,000 tuition per semester and then say that $100 for close to 20 games with prime seating is too much. On a per game basis, it's still only about $5 per game INCLUDING the garden, with seats as good as the $100-plus premium seats offered to RW club members who also need to donate several thousand per year to get close to the court.

Marist averages 1700 fans per game in 2011, St Johns 8500. Two different animals. With 1700 fans, every seat is a good seat. My guess is that there are about 200 students behind each basket at CA. If your student section at Marist was 4 times as large, well, the entire arena would be students, no?

Can you really be as unhappy a person as your posts make you appear?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you make at least 70k and are in little to no debt. In other words, good financial standing. I don't think older generations understand just how broke college students are these days. The most you can get is a part time job making 7-10 per hour which you get biweekly living paycheck to paycheck, then you go to get your textbooks...boom...instant 500-800 bucks each semester right there. What about weekends going to bars and such? Cab fees to and from ($10), cover (at some bars) ($5), 8 beers with your buddies ($40), gas in your car ($50 to fill up), groceries (easily $100 every 2 weeks), bills, utilities, etc. etc. After all of that you think students have $100 bucks for basketball games to pay out? Maybe some, but many do not. Finding a job in itself is not even a given like it was when you guys went to school. You can't even get a job at Costco or Best Buy these days. The quick money "BS" jobs part time just to make a quick buck are not available like they used to be. If you work for the school you make minimum wage.

There is no way 200 people sit behind each basket. Eyeballing it, I'd say about 60-75 at most behind each basket and that's if you really pack in. They are very small sections...I sat there. Also, you assume that for $100 you go to every game. The life of a student is extremely busy especially working part time, going to club meetings, school work, socializing, etc. so most people definitely don't go to all games. By the way, ontop of all of the costs I listed above, I forgot $25 round trip on the train if it's at MSG. It may seem like little things but you know how quickly things add up. As an undergrad I would work full time over summers to save up for the coming semester. I would start the semester with about $2,500. You would be shocked how quickly that goes. Some students can still easily pay the $100 and good for them...I can't, so I pick a few big games to attend. So we've established both hoops sections are for season ticket holders. Fine. What about everyone else? I could see if non-season ticket holding students were seated at court level along the sides maybe 5 rows back, but they put you a few levels up. Essentially there is no "student section" because it's for a very specific group of season ticket holders and they can't be very numerous (the student ones at least). If you look at a CA seating chart it will say "Student Section" behind each hoop. That is false. Is it routine to put most students in random high up places for games? I've never heard of such a thing before.

Case and point of the sense of entitlement plaguing my generation.

Please read through this entirely and you tell me who was truly spoiled: the boomers, or us. The pool of resources and opportunity that was America has been dried up by the boomers and left bone dry for the millenials. Ironic how boomers make fun of us saying "me me me!", yet that's exactly what their mindset was and got fat eating at the 5 star restaurant while handing us the bill.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/are-millennials-the-screwed-generation.html

We will be the first generation to have it WORSE than our parents even though we are way more educated.

The reason you are way more educated is BECAUSE of your parents.

 

[terrificboss]

So we went from a Depaul recap, to why no alumni come to an argument between generations.
Btw- I hope we pull off a huge upset win at Georgetown

 

[beast of the east]

Maher, I won't try to change your opinion, it seems very informed, but I'll at least give you a different perspective on the numbers.

You are correct in the sense that if you break it down, foreign investment is the largest categorical debt holder. But when you combine the other categories which are essentially all held here in the US... fed's holdings, private pensions, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments (including their pensions) it's more. My exaggeration was just to make the point that a lot of the debt is held by institutions regular Americans get a return from.

And to your larger point - the debt is a concern, but it shouldn't top your list. 8 percent unemployment is a larger concern.
The rise in the deficit is almost entirely the result of the financial crisis. Automatic payments like unemployment, food-stamps, temporary tax cuts etc caused a temporary spike in the deficit. The path we were on in 2006, if it had not been interrupted, would have led to a surplus right now.
(Ignore the commentary, but these charts show you all you need to know about the deficit - there wouldn't be one right now were it not for the financial sector collapse in '07, and it's on the decline again http://bit.ly/SdryN8 )

And the debt, for one thing, is vastly misunderstood. The total debt is an essentially meaningless number. What should be considered is our annual interest payments on the debt, which are comparatively very low. I know you're a street guy, just look at the borrowing rates in recent years as our deficit has blossomed - near record low interest rates. The US is borrowing at less than the rate of inflation. We're borrowing $1 and on a 20 year note we're paying back 90 cents.


Following WWII the US never paid back it's debt, it became insignificant - because the size of our economy grew over the next half century. There are 30million more Americans today than there were in 1990. $50k in debt is a lot if you make $50k a year; it's chump change when you make $1 million annually. That's what happened to the US economy, and continues to happen. Unlike Europe which has relatively stagnant populations, our country continues to grow exponentially. Meaning our borrowing power will only continue to grow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita.PNG

Further, the scary debt in the future that analysts talk about is entirely a result of rising healthcare costs. That's it. And we already spend far more than comparable countries, our spending on HC simply can't continue to rise at the rate it has; there's going to be a plateau. Health care costs in the US have risen 700% percent in the last 30 years - that's incredible growth, but it can't continue. There will be a market reaction. No one thinks when I'm 60 I'll be paying $3,500 for what is a $500 Dr visit now.
And along similar lines, it's entirely possible health care costs start to decline as a % of gdp. Like I said we spend twice what other advanced countries spend on health care, and with no tangible difference in quality. I'm not talking Canada... take Germany, in every measurable way there health care is equivalent or better than ours... but they pay half as much for it. If we were to start to reform the health care system (even more so than the ACA) the debt would plummet. Our debt is because of ridiculous health care costs; that's it. http://bit.ly/TZQg2E

In summary, the deficit and debt aren't a catastrophic threat. There would be no deficit were it not for the recession, and in a few years we'll return to that trend and it'll be gone. Temporary spike.
And the future debt is simply an issue of health care costs, which will partly fix itself through market forces (consumers refusing to pay higher costs), and the remainder of which can be corrected with reasonable political reforms.

Anyway, that's my case for easing your fears B-)
And for what it's worth these aren't optimistic ideas I pulled from my ass - Goldman's chief economist Hatzius said as much in a series of interviews after the new year, and the editors at the financial times said the same thing last week.

Thanks for an artful explanation of US debt. there are several things I'd like your impression of. First, the US debt on a per capita basis has been reported as something in the tune of $60,000 per US citizen, or at best per US family. To me, that's a staggering amount. Second of all, your supposition that servicing the interest on the debt, or at least the interest cost on the debt is very low. That may be true when interest rates are low, but what will the cost be as interest rates rise. I've heard that some favor inflation, which will shrink the debt in relative terms. Third, when you compare the WWII debt as compared tot he growth of the economy, we are living in a very different world where goods and services can be delivered by global foreign entities that could not do that efficiently 50 years ago.

All in all I detest debt. I run my life that way, run my business that way, and although it may be very old school and short sighted, I've always maintained that a well run government is no different that a well run business: 1) Spend less money than you take in, and 2) Make all personnel productive. With our wasteful spending far in excess of revenue, the federal solution is always to raise tax revenue in eveyr place it can. Are you aware that as a small business owner, I am responsble to pay my share of the interest states borrow from the fed to pay unemployment. Despite being in Nassau County and having no NYC employees, I have to play an MTA commuter tax. Some states, like Florida, charge a tax on physical assets such as desks and computers - assessed on an annual basis. on and on. 2) Put people back to work. Your unemployment rate of 8% is overly generous, as the effective rate when you consider those who simply stopped looking for jobs (those mostly over 50 years old) is more like 14%. You can't have an economy where 50% of the working public are supporting through federal taxes the 14% unemployed and the 50% of working Americans who pay no federal taxes.

 

[simplyred]

This is the worst thread since the one about how stupid Norm was for wearing sneakers with his suit on the sidelines.

 

[Class of 72]

This is the worst thread since the one about how stupid Norm was for wearing sneakers with his suit on the sidelines.

I think our newly minted Mod Maher should split this thread and call the other "Beer Rants". LOL!

 

[LINY89]

If you were unhappy with the crowd last night, your expectations are too high. First of all CA is not a nice arena at all. Second of all it was against DePaul. Besides those facts, the place still looked 90% packed. Of course no one sits all the way at the top, because you are literally staring at beams in the ceiling. The crowd was great.

Hard for you to believe, but for years on end we nearly sold the entire arena out on season tickets. I recall sitting in my seats in a sold out alumni hall before we even had a student section wondering if they were losing future fans since students couldn't get into the place without buying a season ticket.

All the way at the top in a place that seats less than 6,000? You really have to be kidding. Try watching a game from the cheap seats in the Carrier Dome when there are 30,000 in attendance and see how tiny the players from the upper reaches. You can make all the excuses you want, but when your school plays in one of the top three conferences in the US, has a winning streak, and a winning record, and you can't draw 5,000 for an in conference opponent, something is wrong.

There are far worse places to play than CA. I just read a very fine book by Kriegel on Pistol Pete Maravich. The gym at LSU was a horrible dump, but given a reason to come out (Maravich) even very deep in football country at a school that never drew for basketball, people mobbed the place. He was so heralded asa freshman, the freshman game would be packed and people would leave before the varsity game.

The problem with most dumb fans is, well, they are dumb. As soon as we break the top twenty five or top 15, beat some ranked opponents, then all of a sudden fans will flock to the games. Most fans can only tell great basketball by the team's record, and will ignore the ascent from fair to mediocre to good to great. They will only show up for a great, and then proclaim their forever undying allegiance.

Students will find the money for travel, expensive food and drink, and tickets. Workers in NYC will suddenly plan their day around a St John's game again, stay in the city after work to fill the Garden. All of this nonsensical talk about bleachers, crappy arenas, cost of travel, etc. will all go away. Right now, even if we had a Staples Center on campus, we wouldn't draw many more fans for SJU-DePAul than we did last night.

I wasn't around in the days you're talking about when students couldn't get tickets but is it possible that students not being able to buy tickets back then decimated the ticket-buying student fanbase that would currently be middle-aged alums (which should be our prime season ticket holder audience) and is why most fans you see at the games are either ancient or current students?

I believe that its absolutely correct that students who couldn't buy tickets to an SRO Alumni Hall never became fans of the program after graduation. Some of my best memories as a student was to be at a game with 30-50 friends in the same section. Road trips became small caravans, whether to Philly, Georgetown, Providence, BC, or shorter midweek trips to Rutgers or West Point.

Even at the height of our success, like the Final Four season, there wasn't this incredible buzz on campus about the team, because by and large students weren't engaged. In St. Albert's Hall, home of the pharmacy school, allied health professions, and science students, you'd hardly know there was a team.

The school only woke up to the need for a student section after the program was in decline. Unfortunately, the school wiped out a major number of season ticket holders by making the entire lower bleachers across from the baskets a student section and moved all long time season ticket holders upstairs. Most dropped their tickets and have not returned. As the school learned, students don't show up unless the team wins. So the joke was that they destroyed a huge part of their loyal season ticket base (people who bought tickets every season habitually) to create an empty student section. They completed the dismantling of the base by going to the point system, again during a down era, and relocating loyal alumni in the lower bleachers on the side of the team benches.

The seat back chairs now owned by bigger donors, remain unoccupied even for good games. I suspect many big donors also have big job responsbilities that keep them away from games.

An inequity rarely discussed is how the poitn system has been perverted by groups of season ticket holders consolidaitng the order by aggregating the total points of 6-10 alumni and ordering the seats as a package. As a small group with a lot of points, they get better seats without having to make substantial donations. The school should tweak this, and come up with a point value per seat, which would eliminate this.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Students are now being kicked out of the "student section". Behind each basket is now only for season ticket holders as general admission. I was turned away at one end, tried the other and got the same response. This really confused me because I was able to sit in the student section before with no problems. Also, they only gave towels out to the fans in those 2 sections, not to the first 500 fans as was advertised. SJ completely botches promotions, advertising, seating, etc. I already wrote a nasty letter to one of the head guys dealing with ticket sales how I (a student) was basically forced to sit high up in the middle section of the court instead of in the student section. The whole place should be rebuilt, because they aren't real sections anyway...they hold like 30 people comfortably. My student section was quadruple the size undergrad at a school with only 5,000 students and I never got turned away to general admission areas. They really need to get these kinks taken care of.

Is your post an obfuscation? You do mean student season ticket holders - the kids that come to every game and as a unit, scream their heads off. Season tickets are a measly $100 - please don't complain about $20,000 tuition per semester and then say that $100 for close to 20 games with prime seating is too much. On a per game basis, it's still only about $5 per game INCLUDING the garden, with seats as good as the $100-plus premium seats offered to RW club members who also need to donate several thousand per year to get close to the court.

Marist averages 1700 fans per game in 2011, St Johns 8500. Two different animals. With 1700 fans, every seat is a good seat. My guess is that there are about 200 students behind each basket at CA. If your student section at Marist was 4 times as large, well, the entire arena would be students, no?

Can you really be as unhappy a person as your posts make you appear?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you make at least 70k and are in little to no debt. In other words, good financial standing. I don't think older generations understand just how broke college students are these days. The most you can get is a part time job making 7-10 per hour which you get biweekly living paycheck to paycheck, then you go to get your textbooks...boom...instant 500-800 bucks each semester right there. What about weekends going to bars and such? Cab fees to and from ($10), cover (at some bars) ($5), 8 beers with your buddies ($40), gas in your car ($50 to fill up), groceries (easily $100 every 2 weeks), bills, utilities, etc. etc. After all of that you think students have $100 bucks for basketball games to pay out? Maybe some, but many do not. Finding a job in itself is not even a given like it was when you guys went to school. You can't even get a job at Costco or Best Buy these days. The quick money "BS" jobs part time just to make a quick buck are not available like they used to be. If you work for the school you make minimum wage.

There is no way 200 people sit behind each basket. Eyeballing it, I'd say about 60-75 at most behind each basket and that's if you really pack in. They are very small sections...I sat there. Also, you assume that for $100 you go to every game. The life of a student is extremely busy especially working part time, going to club meetings, school work, socializing, etc. so most people definitely don't go to all games. By the way, ontop of all of the costs I listed above, I forgot $25 round trip on the train if it's at MSG. It may seem like little things but you know how quickly things add up. As an undergrad I would work full time over summers to save up for the coming semester. I would start the semester with about $2,500. You would be shocked how quickly that goes. Some students can still easily pay the $100 and good for them...I can't, so I pick a few big games to attend. So we've established both hoops sections are for season ticket holders. Fine. What about everyone else? I could see if non-season ticket holding students were seated at court level along the sides maybe 5 rows back, but they put you a few levels up. Essentially there is no "student section" because it's for a very specific group of season ticket holders and they can't be very numerous (the student ones at least). If you look at a CA seating chart it will say "Student Section" behind each hoop. That is false. Is it routine to put most students in random high up places for games? I've never heard of such a thing before.

Case and point of the sense of entitlement plaguing my generation.

Please read through this entirely and you tell me who was truly spoiled: the boomers, or us. The pool of resources and opportunity that was America has been dried up by the boomers and left bone dry for the millenials. Ironic how boomers make fun of us saying "me me me!", yet that's exactly what their mindset was and got fat eating at the 5 star restaurant while handing us the bill.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/are-millennials-the-screwed-generation.html

We will be the first generation to have it WORSE than our parents even though we are way more educated.

The reason you are way more educated is BECAUSE of your parents.

Parenting plays a big role, but so does self-determination. My mother has her associate's...I surpassed her education level when I was like 19. She had no clue about graduate school...that's all me. After what happened to me as a 14 yr old I could easily have chosen destructive paths hanging around the wrong people, but I sucked it up and stayed on track. Your parents don't do your homework, take your tests, take your classes, take the SAT, take the GRE, the Praxis, get into schools, or graduate for you. I'd say it's a 70/30 split parenting/self-determination.

 

[tom in salem]

If you were unhappy with the crowd last night, your expectations are too high. First of all CA is not a nice arena at all. Second of all it was against DePaul. Besides those facts, the place still looked 90% packed. Of course no one sits all the way at the top, because you are literally staring at beams in the ceiling. The crowd was great.

Hard for you to believe, but for years on end we nearly sold the entire arena out on season tickets. I recall sitting in my seats in a sold out alumni hall before we even had a student section wondering if they were losing future fans since students couldn't get into the place without buying a season ticket.

All the way at the top in a place that seats less than 6,000? You really have to be kidding. Try watching a game from the cheap seats in the Carrier Dome when there are 30,000 in attendance and see how tiny the players from the upper reaches. You can make all the excuses you want, but when your school plays in one of the top three conferences in the US, has a winning streak, and a winning record, and you can't draw 5,000 for an in conference opponent, something is wrong.

There are far worse places to play than CA. I just read a very fine book by Kriegel on Pistol Pete Maravich. The gym at LSU was a horrible dump, but given a reason to come out (Maravich) even very deep in football country at a school that never drew for basketball, people mobbed the place. He was so heralded asa freshman, the freshman game would be packed and people would leave before the varsity game.

The problem with most dumb fans is, well, they are dumb. As soon as we break the top twenty five or top 15, beat some ranked opponents, then all of a sudden fans will flock to the games. Most fans can only tell great basketball by the team's record, and will ignore the ascent from fair to mediocre to good to great. They will only show up for a great, and then proclaim their forever undying allegiance.

Students will find the money for travel, expensive food and drink, and tickets. Workers in NYC will suddenly plan their day around a St John's game again, stay in the city after work to fill the Garden. All of this nonsensical talk about bleachers, crappy arenas, cost of travel, etc. will all go away. Right now, even if we had a Staples Center on campus, we wouldn't draw many more fans for SJU-DePAul than we did last night.

I wasn't around in the days you're talking about when students couldn't get tickets but is it possible that students not being able to buy tickets back then decimated the ticket-buying student fanbase that would currently be middle-aged alums (which should be our prime season ticket holder audience) and is why most fans you see at the games are either ancient or current students?

I believe that its absolutely correct that students who couldn't buy tickets to an SRO Alumni Hall never became fans of the program after graduation. Some of my best memories as a student was to be at a game with 30-50 friends in the same section. Road trips became small caravans, whether to Philly, Georgetown, Providence, BC, or shorter midweek trips to Rutgers or West Point.

Even at the height of our success, like the Final Four season, there wasn't this incredible buzz on campus about the team, because by and large students weren't engaged. In St. Albert's Hall, home of the pharmacy school, allied health professions, and science students, you'd hardly know there was a team.

The school only woke up to the need for a student section after the program was in decline. Unfortunately, the school wiped out a major number of season ticket holders by making the entire lower bleachers across from the baskets a student section and moved all long time season ticket holders upstairs. Most dropped their tickets and have not returned. As the school learned, students don't show up unless the team wins. So the joke was that they destroyed a huge part of their loyal season ticket base (people who bought tickets every season habitually) to create an empty student section. They completed the dismantling of the base by going to the point system, again during a down era, and relocating loyal alumni in the lower bleachers on the side of the team benches.

The seat back chairs now owned by bigger donors, remain unoccupied even for good games. I suspect many big donors also have big job responsbilities that keep them away from games.

An inequity rarely discussed is how the poitn system has been perverted by groups of season ticket holders consolidaitng the order by aggregating the total points of 6-10 alumni and ordering the seats as a package. As a small group with a lot of points, they get better seats without having to make substantial donations. The school should tweak this, and come up with a point value per seat, which would eliminate this.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Students are now being kicked out of the "student section". Behind each basket is now only for season ticket holders as general admission. I was turned away at one end, tried the other and got the same response. This really confused me because I was able to sit in the student section before with no problems. Also, they only gave towels out to the fans in those 2 sections, not to the first 500 fans as was advertised. SJ completely botches promotions, advertising, seating, etc. I already wrote a nasty letter to one of the head guys dealing with ticket sales how I (a student) was basically forced to sit high up in the middle section of the court instead of in the student section. The whole place should be rebuilt, because they aren't real sections anyway...they hold like 30 people comfortably. My student section was quadruple the size undergrad at a school with only 5,000 students and I never got turned away to general admission areas. They really need to get these kinks taken care of.

Is your post an obfuscation? You do mean student season ticket holders - the kids that come to every game and as a unit, scream their heads off. Season tickets are a measly $100 - please don't complain about $20,000 tuition per semester and then say that $100 for close to 20 games with prime seating is too much. On a per game basis, it's still only about $5 per game INCLUDING the garden, with seats as good as the $100-plus premium seats offered to RW club members who also need to donate several thousand per year to get close to the court.

Marist averages 1700 fans per game in 2011, St Johns 8500. Two different animals. With 1700 fans, every seat is a good seat. My guess is that there are about 200 students behind each basket at CA. If your student section at Marist was 4 times as large, well, the entire arena would be students, no?

Can you really be as unhappy a person as your posts make you appear?

I'm going to go ahead and assume you make at least 70k and are in little to no debt. In other words, good financial standing. I don't think older generations understand just how broke college students are these days. The most you can get is a part time job making 7-10 per hour which you get biweekly living paycheck to paycheck, then you go to get your textbooks...boom...instant 500-800 bucks each semester right there. What about weekends going to bars and such? Cab fees to and from ($10), cover (at some bars) ($5), 8 beers with your buddies ($40), gas in your car ($50 to fill up), groceries (easily $100 every 2 weeks), bills, utilities, etc. etc. After all of that you think students have $100 bucks for basketball games to pay out? Maybe some, but many do not. Finding a job in itself is not even a given like it was when you guys went to school. You can't even get a job at Costco or Best Buy these days. The quick money "BS" jobs part time just to make a quick buck are not available like they used to be. If you work for the school you make minimum wage.

There is no way 200 people sit behind each basket. Eyeballing it, I'd say about 60-75 at most behind each basket and that's if you really pack in. They are very small sections...I sat there. Also, you assume that for $100 you go to every game. The life of a student is extremely busy especially working part time, going to club meetings, school work, socializing, etc. so most people definitely don't go to all games. By the way, ontop of all of the costs I listed above, I forgot $25 round trip on the train if it's at MSG. It may seem like little things but you know how quickly things add up. As an undergrad I would work full time over summers to save up for the coming semester. I would start the semester with about $2,500. You would be shocked how quickly that goes. Some students can still easily pay the $100 and good for them...I can't, so I pick a few big games to attend. So we've established both hoops sections are for season ticket holders. Fine. What about everyone else? I could see if non-season ticket holding students were seated at court level along the sides maybe 5 rows back, but they put you a few levels up. Essentially there is no "student section" because it's for a very specific group of season ticket holders and they can't be very numerous (the student ones at least). If you look at a CA seating chart it will say "Student Section" behind each hoop. That is false. Is it routine to put most students in random high up places for games? I've never heard of such a thing before.

Case and point of the sense of entitlement plaguing my generation.

Please read through this entirely and you tell me who was truly spoiled: the boomers, or us. The pool of resources and opportunity that was America has been dried up by the boomers and left bone dry for the millenials. Ironic how boomers make fun of us saying "me me me!", yet that's exactly what their mindset was and got fat eating at the 5 star restaurant while handing us the bill.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/are-millennials-the-screwed-generation.html

We will be the first generation to have it WORSE than our parents even though we are way more educated.

The reason you are way more educated is BECAUSE of your parents.

Parenting plays a big role, but so does self-determination. My mother has her associate's...I surpassed her education level when I was like 19. She had no clue about graduate school...that's all me. After what happened to me as a 14 yr old I could easily have chosen destructive paths hanging around the wrong people, but I sucked it up and stayed on track. Your parents don't do your homework, take your tests, take your classes, take the SAT, take the GRE, the Praxis, get into schools, or graduate for you. I'd say it's a 70/30 split parenting/self-determination.

Remind me to readdress this in about 30 years.

 

[pdcjay]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

 

[mjmaherjr]

Maher, I won't try to change your opinion, it seems very informed, but I'll at least give you a different perspective on the numbers.

You are correct in the sense that if you break it down, foreign investment is the largest categorical debt holder. But when you combine the other categories which are essentially all held here in the US... fed's holdings, private pensions, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments (including their pensions) it's more. My exaggeration was just to make the point that a lot of the debt is held by institutions regular Americans get a return from.

And to your larger point - the debt is a concern, but it shouldn't top your list. 8 percent unemployment is a larger concern.
The rise in the deficit is almost entirely the result of the financial crisis. Automatic payments like unemployment, food-stamps, temporary tax cuts etc caused a temporary spike in the deficit. The path we were on in 2006, if it had not been interrupted, would have led to a surplus right now.
(Ignore the commentary, but these charts show you all you need to know about the deficit - there wouldn't be one right now were it not for the financial sector collapse in '07, and it's on the decline again http://bit.ly/SdryN8 )

The thing is the deficit wouldnt have been gone now because what was the main reason it went down the couple of years right before the financial crisis ? The housing bubble. It was unstainable on so many different levels. Wasnt just housing itself but it was people using the equity in their houses to buy things and using it to fund new businesses. When that dried up it affects everything.

And there is no way on earth we are heading to no budget deficit's. Not even a remote chance.

You pick the time frame you think it will be gone ( no ridiculously long predicitons ) and I will make you a simple bet. If you are wrong you owe me 1 beer at capital grill.( or comparable steakhouse if Capital is out of business. lol ) If I'm wrong I owe you a 3 pound lobster there.

This website has been around forever so I'm sure it will be here by the time the bet is over

 

[mjmaherjr]

This is the worst thread since the one about how stupid Norm was for wearing sneakers with his suit on the sidelines.

I think our newly minted Mod Maher should split this thread and call the other "Beer Rants". LOL!

I like that idea although I didnt even know I was a mod until 3 or 4 days ago when I logged on and the layout was different.

Being that I'm technology inept I would even know how to split a thread. lol

But I do like the idea of a new forum called " Beer Rants "

+1 karma for 72

 

[beast of the east]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

What is I'm sure unintentionally offensive is how you think just because someone is over the age of 40 that they are out of touch with the realities in the job market, or on the cost of education. Do you think an age group that is extremely vulnerable to job layoffs because they are middle or upper managers, with little to no chance to gaining employment at the same salary, if at all, is unaware how bad the job market is? Do you think this group is not affected by the exploding real estate taxes on Long Island and other areas. In my case, school taxes increased 100% last year over the previous.

Do you really think that as parents of kids that we are unaware of college tuition costs, and the subsequent job prospects for students. On the east coast, and in NYC metro area, we have this overvaluation of private college education, and even a college degree to a lesser extent. Do you really think that pensions still exist in the private sector for people in their 40s or 50s? Most 401K contributions are self funded, with some companies offering matching contirbutions up to a certain extent (typically 5% or less), or safe harbor 401Ks where the company contributes 3%. This is all for a group who cannot depend on social security being there for them since there are already means based propositions on the table. Medicare is also an iffy proposition at this point as well.

All in all, we are all struggling in this economic climate. The folly of youth has always been that they think they are wiser and more knowledgable than those older than themselves.

When I was a young college student, I worked in a supermarket that had a large adult full time staff. As I came to know these WWII and Korean war vets, i realized that many of them would have been white collar executives who were very bright guys if only cirucmstances had been different for them. They respected us as college kids, and didn't begrudge out opportunitiy, but their lack of an education would have been a foolish reason for me to devalue their intellect.

 

[LINY89]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

What is I'm sure unintentionally offensive is how you think just because someone is over the age of 40 that they are out of touch with the realities in the job market, or on the cost of education. Do you think an age group that is extremely vulnerable to job layoffs because they are middle or upper managers, with little to no chance to gaining employment at the same salary, if at all, is unaware how bad the job market is? Do you think this group is not affected by the exploding real estate taxes on Long Island and other areas. In my case, school taxes increased 100% last year over the previous.

Do you really think that as parents of kids that we are unaware of college tuition costs, and the subsequent job prospects for students. On the east coast, and in NYC metro area, we have this overvaluation of private college education, and even a college degree to a lesser extent. Do you really think that pensions still exist in the private sector for people in their 40s or 50s? Most 401K contributions are self funded, with some companies offering matching contirbutions up to a certain extent (typically 5% or less), or safe harbor 401Ks where the company contributes 3%. This is all for a group who cannot depend on social security being there for them since there are already means based propositions on the table. Medicare is also an iffy proposition at this point as well.

All in all, we are all struggling in this economic climate. The folly of youth has always been that they think they are wiser and more knowledgable than those older than themselves.

When I was a young college student, I worked in a supermarket that had a large adult full time staff. As I came to know these WWII and Korean war vets, i realized that many of them would have been white collar executives who were very bright guys if only cirucmstances had been different for them. They respected us as college kids, and didn't begrudge out opportunitiy, but their lack of an education would have been a foolish reason for me to devalue their intellect.

Honestly, yes I think boomers are quite disconnected from life as a millenial. You got jobs immediately at solid salaries right away whether it was only with a HS diploma or a BA. You had a great economy around you, gas was cheap, housing was cheap, education was dirt cheap, and you had security. If you did things the same way, up until graduating college today, you would be shocked at the lack of opportunity compared to what you had. Almost every job posting especially for business requires 5 years experience for a decent position. This is the catch 22 the youth faces...to get a job we need years of experience, but to get years of experience we need someone to give us a chance as our first real job. This means advantage older generation, because you guys have the experience and thus your more educated millenial counterparts are stuck waiting in line or being unpaid interns. I understand you may not get paid at one company what you were getting at your old one, but hey you still have a job. You guys did not grow up in an era of terrorist attacks, school shootings, a terrible economy, inflation, student loan debt, the collapse of family structure, longer and more competitive testing, more competitive colleges, and a nonexistent job market...you would also have no idea what to do in terms of dating because that's completely different as well.

It just seems that the older guys see us as "you kids and your iPhones...hah!". Utilizing technology only makes you smarter, not more ignorant contrary to popular belief. It's easy to sit back and say "oh suck it up...just work harder" when you come from a time when doing the right thing automatically translated to success. These days you can do the right thing i.e. getting great grades, going to grad school, etc. and end up waiting in line for 5 years or just crap out of luck. The fact is that, more education and training is needed these days for the same jobs that previously required much less in the 70's. Back then, companies and other places would give you a chance as a young guy out of school. Now they tell you that you need 5 years experience before even thinking about applying, or they just outsource jobs oversees and pay some Indian guy. I still hear stories from my family about how companies used to pay for relocation fees and even vacations and other things. If you asked a company today if they paid a relocation fee for you to move, they would probably have a good laugh these days. Things today are much more complicated, much more regulated, and much more expensive and competitive. BA's mean nothing anymore unless you went to Harvard or Yale. Even graduate degrees are common and many of them don't even get you far.

 

[beast of the east]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

What is I'm sure unintentionally offensive is how you think just because someone is over the age of 40 that they are out of touch with the realities in the job market, or on the cost of education. Do you think an age group that is extremely vulnerable to job layoffs because they are middle or upper managers, with little to no chance to gaining employment at the same salary, if at all, is unaware how bad the job market is? Do you think this group is not affected by the exploding real estate taxes on Long Island and other areas. In my case, school taxes increased 100% last year over the previous.

Do you really think that as parents of kids that we are unaware of college tuition costs, and the subsequent job prospects for students. On the east coast, and in NYC metro area, we have this overvaluation of private college education, and even a college degree to a lesser extent. Do you really think that pensions still exist in the private sector for people in their 40s or 50s? Most 401K contributions are self funded, with some companies offering matching contirbutions up to a certain extent (typically 5% or less), or safe harbor 401Ks where the company contributes 3%. This is all for a group who cannot depend on social security being there for them since there are already means based propositions on the table. Medicare is also an iffy proposition at this point as well.

All in all, we are all struggling in this economic climate. The folly of youth has always been that they think they are wiser and more knowledgable than those older than themselves.

When I was a young college student, I worked in a supermarket that had a large adult full time staff. As I came to know these WWII and Korean war vets, i realized that many of them would have been white collar executives who were very bright guys if only cirucmstances had been different for them. They respected us as college kids, and didn't begrudge out opportunitiy, but their lack of an education would have been a foolish reason for me to devalue their intellect.

Honestly, yes I think boomers are quite disconnected from life as a millenial. You got jobs immediately at solid salaries right away whether it was only with a HS diploma or a BA. You had a great economy around you, gas was cheap, housing was cheap, education was dirt cheap, and you had security. If you did things the same way, up until graduating college today, you would be shocked at the lack of opportunity compared to what you had. Almost every job posting especially for business requires 5 years experience for a decent position. This is the catch 22 the youth faces...to get a job we need years of experience, but to get years of experience we need someone to give us a chance as our first real job. This means advantage older generation, because you guys have the experience and thus your more educated millenial counterparts are stuck waiting in line or being unpaid interns. I understand you may not get paid at one company what you were getting at your old one, but hey you still have a job. You guys did not grow up in an era of terrorist attacks, school shootings, a terrible economy, inflation, student loan debt, the collapse of family structure, longer and more competitive testing, more competitive colleges, and a nonexistent job market...you would also have no idea what to do in terms of dating because that's completely different as well.

It just seems that the older guys see us as "you kids and your iPhones...hah!". Utilizing technology only makes you smarter, not more ignorant contrary to popular belief. It's easy to sit back and say "oh suck it up...just work harder" when you come from a time when doing the right thing automatically translated to success. These days you can do the right thing i.e. getting great grades, going to grad school, etc. and end up waiting in line for 5 years or just crap out of luck. The fact is that, more education and training is needed these days for the same jobs that previously required much less in the 70's. Back then, companies and other places would give you a chance as a young guy out of school. Now they tell you that you need 5 years experience before even thinking about applying, or they just outsource jobs oversees and pay some Indian guy. I still hear stories from my family about how companies used to pay for relocation fees and even vacations and other things. If you asked a company today if they paid a relocation fee for you to move, they would probably have a good laugh these days. Things today are much more complicated, much more regulated, and much more expensive and competitive. BA's mean nothing anymore unless you went to Harvard or Yale. Even graduate degrees are common and many of them don't even get you far.

I'll make one assessment many around here would agree with: You are going to have a very difficult time landing a job, and it won't be for lack of education or opportunity.

 

[pdcjay]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

What is I'm sure unintentionally offensive is how you think just because someone is over the age of 40 that they are out of touch with the realities in the job market, or on the cost of education. Do you think an age group that is extremely vulnerable to job layoffs because they are middle or upper managers, with little to no chance to gaining employment at the same salary, if at all, is unaware how bad the job market is? Do you think this group is not affected by the exploding real estate taxes on Long Island and other areas. In my case, school taxes increased 100% last year over the previous.

Do you really think that as parents of kids that we are unaware of college tuition costs, and the subsequent job prospects for students. On the east coast, and in NYC metro area, we have this overvaluation of private college education, and even a college degree to a lesser extent. Do you really think that pensions still exist in the private sector for people in their 40s or 50s? Most 401K contributions are self funded, with some companies offering matching contirbutions up to a certain extent (typically 5% or less), or safe harbor 401Ks where the company contributes 3%. This is all for a group who cannot depend on social security being there for them since there are already means based propositions on the table. Medicare is also an iffy proposition at this point as well.

All in all, we are all struggling in this economic climate. The folly of youth has always been that they think they are wiser and more knowledgable than those older than themselves.

When I was a young college student, I worked in a supermarket that had a large adult full time staff. As I came to know these WWII and Korean war vets, i realized that many of them would have been white collar executives who were very bright guys if only cirucmstances had been different for them. They respected us as college kids, and didn't begrudge out opportunitiy, but their lack of an education would have been a foolish reason for me to devalue their intellect.

You're right I used the age argument to show the difference in thinking between the two groups, not to insult their intelligence. Simply put, not all people change and recognize differences so quickly and sometimes hold on to their older ways of thinking. The same can be said for a lot of millenials who think some of the same way they did when they were 18. My generation will never be able to match some of the experiences of our parents and grandparents which may completely change our outlook on our future but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Getting back to the conversation at hand, why can't St John's add an "additional student activity fee" option onto tuition which is basically student tickets for all sports? Only mens basketball has seats and everything else is a general admission. Leave an option for other student tickets and general admission single game tickets. I completely understand that as a student its not always easy to scrounge up $100+ at once for season tickets yet alone transportation and food/drink for each game.

 

[beast of the east]

All I have to say is that those people who are 40 and 50 have no problem paying back their student loans. The cost of college was relatively cheap in the 80s and if you had to borrow you were aided by the booming economy which greatly increased pay and interest rates both of which made paying back your education a joke.

Now a college education is so ridiculously expensive it's almost not worth it when you look at job placement rates. What do law school grads come out making now? $30k? I'm not talking in the tri state area where most of you guys live but in the rest of this country. Add in some student loan debt and that salary will not only get you nowhere…you'll be in a bigger hole every year. It's something my 60 year old parents don't quite understand. "Oh take out student loans, you'll be able to pay them when you graduate" is what they always said. This is from the generation who have pensions for retirement (and additional 401k's in some cases), routinely had affordable healthcare up until the last decade or so, never had to pay student loans in their lives, and live in a house that has at least doubled in value from when they purchased it. All this economic growth the millenials grew up with isn't going to be there when they're grown up. It's just something most boomers can't put their arms around.

What is I'm sure unintentionally offensive is how you think just because someone is over the age of 40 that they are out of touch with the realities in the job market, or on the cost of education. Do you think an age group that is extremely vulnerable to job layoffs because they are middle or upper managers, with little to no chance to gaining employment at the same salary, if at all, is unaware how bad the job market is? Do you think this group is not affected by the exploding real estate taxes on Long Island and other areas. In my case, school taxes increased 100% last year over the previous.

Do you really think that as parents of kids that we are unaware of college tuition costs, and the subsequent job prospects for students. On the east coast, and in NYC metro area, we have this overvaluation of private college education, and even a college degree to a lesser extent. Do you really think that pensions still exist in the private sector for people in their 40s or 50s? Most 401K contributions are self funded, with some companies offering matching contirbutions up to a certain extent (typically 5% or less), or safe harbor 401Ks where the company contributes 3%. This is all for a group who cannot depend on social security being there for them since there are already means based propositions on the table. Medicare is also an iffy proposition at this point as well.

All in all, we are all struggling in this economic climate. The folly of youth has always been that they think they are wiser and more knowledgable than those older than themselves.

When I was a young college student, I worked in a supermarket that had a large adult full time staff. As I came to know these WWII and Korean war vets, i realized that many of them would have been white collar executives who were very bright guys if only cirucmstances had been different for them. They respected us as college kids, and didn't begrudge out opportunitiy, but their lack of an education would have been a foolish reason for me to devalue their intellect.

You're right I used the age argument to show the difference in thinking between the two groups, not to insult their intelligence. Simply put, not all people change and recognize differences so quickly and sometimes hold on to their older ways of thinking. The same can be said for a lot of millenials who think some of the same way they did when they were 18. My generation will never be able to match some of the experiences of our parents and grandparents which may completely change our outlook on our future but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Getting back to the conversation at hand, why can't St John's add an "additional student activity fee" option onto tuition which is basically student tickets for all sports? Only mens basketball has seats and everything else is a general admission. Leave an option for other student tickets and general admission single game tickets. I completely understand that as a student its not always easy to scrounge up $100+ at once for season tickets yet alone transportation and food/drink for each game.

I hope you didn't think my reply was not intended to lecture you. It wasn't, but it struck a chord of overgeneralization as to the lack of challenges middle aged Americans face.

In terms of student tickets being offered for free and being absorbed intot he activity fee, I believe schools with stronger followings do this. I am guessing SJU wants kids in the student sections who are the most ardent fans. Schools like Villanova offer student seats for free, and the demand is so great it is done via a lottery system. If you want to go to a game, you submit your name, and its not guaranteed you get a seat. I'm not sure of the other parameters that guide the system, but could find out. There is also the concept of perceived value, and if something is free, will even less students come out and support the team? Of course, some would argue that raising the student activity fee for something they have no interest in, is unfair in itself.

 

[redmaninalbany]

So, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that graduating from SJU meant a likely, career path job for the baby boomers. There are common, significant social transformations all of us go through. Check out the struggles during the 60s and the economic situation in the early to mid 70s; check out the following10 years of essentially flat equity markets until Reagan got into power. All generations face major, seemingly unique struggles as today's young generations do...yet that is what is most common.
No matter how hard we worked at being successful, those who graduated in the late 60s through the mid 70s heard exactly same story. "We are in a recession, we aren't hiring." The jobs came back years later after several years of super high inflation and recession simultaneously. There were no job offers, unless you had experience, which as you note, you couldn't have as a graduate...we called it the catch 22.
I was an early boomer...born '48, graduated SJU undergrad in 69... several friends died while I was still in school during our major war (50,000 of us did). I had joined the two year, SJU ROTC to keep the assistantship and graduated w/an MBA in '71..
I graduated with several SJU academic (natl honor society; top marketing graduate etc) and military honors. I have never mentioned them before but do here just to make the point that despite that record, I also have kept a three inch folder of well over 100 entry level rejection letters from corporations across the northeast. It took me over one year to find an opening. I appreciate it is very difficult today as well. I"m grateful when one of my 4 children secure a position, but very few of us could find jobs easily then either.
I'm also aware the my life and my peers was still better than my parents from that "greatest generation"..with the depression they faced as children, world war 2, Korea, and their self imposed mandate to build America's economic engine, sacrifice for their children, and sustain the nation's strength through the cold war.
The point is EVERY generation has its challenges. For some, it is frankly better today. Minorities and women and disabled today have a significantly enhanced chance of success because of the social struggles of their peers in that baby boomer generation. Yet, my generation should have done a lot better in a lot of other areas. But personal and community-wide economic and civic struggles are a common experience of all of us no matter what decade.
I appreciate I am way off the sports track. So to conclude, the constant refrain of highly judgmental even personal commentary that permeates the board so much the last few years, whether it's about the players, the coach, the fans, now even other generations, is diminishing what should be the pleasure of reading interesting and different points of view of people, with the skill to engage in debate objectively and insightfully, but also respectfully for the views and the journey of others.

 

[LINY89]

So, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that graduating from SJU meant a likely, career path job for the baby boomers. There are common, significant social transformations all of us go through. Check out the struggles during the 60s and the economic situation in the early to mid 70s; check out the following10 years of essentially flat equity markets until Reagan got into power. All generations face major, seemingly unique struggles as today's young generations do...yet that is what is most common.
No matter how hard we worked at being successful, those who graduated in the late 60s through the mid 70s heard exactly same story. "We are in a recession, we aren't hiring." The jobs came back years later after several years of super high inflation and recession simultaneously. There were no job offers, unless you had experience, which as you note, you couldn't have as a graduate...we called it the catch 22.
I was an early boomer...born '48, graduated SJU undergrad in 69... several friends died while I was still in school during our major war (50,000 of us did). I had joined the two year, SJU ROTC to keep the assistantship and graduated w/an MBA in '71..
I graduated with several SJU academic (natl honor society; top marketing graduate etc) and military honors. I have never mentioned them before but do here just to make the point that despite that record, I also have kept a three inch folder of well over 100 entry level rejection letters from corporations across the northeast. It took me over one year to find an opening. I appreciate it is very difficult today as well. I"m grateful when one of my 4 children secure a position, but very few of us could find jobs easily then either.
I'm also aware the my life and my peers was still better than my parents from that "greatest generation"..with the depression they faced as children, world war 2, Korea, and their self imposed mandate to build America's economic engine, sacrifice for their children, and sustain the nation's strength through the cold war.
The point is EVERY generation has its challenges. For some, it is frankly better today. Minorities and women and disabled today have a significantly enhanced chance of success because of the social struggles of their peers in that baby boomer generation. Yet, my generation should have done a lot better in a lot of other areas. But personal and community-wide economic and civic struggles are a common experience of all of us no matter what decade.
I appreciate I am way off the sports track. So to conclude, the constant refrain of highly judgmental even personal commentary that permeates the board so much the last few years, whether it's about the players, the coach, the fans, now even other generations, is diminishing what should be the pleasure of reading interesting and different points of view of people, with the skill to engage in debate objectively and insightfully, but also respectfully for the views and the journey of others.

Trivializing the situation the youth of today face only furthers the stereotypes that the older generation cannot just admit things were better for them. Do you read the headlines? Do you follow the crisis? Things haven't been this bad since the GREAT DEPRESSION! That's it! Not this bad since 1970...this bad since about 1930! I don't know why it's so hard to admit things are harder for our generation economically, educationally, opportunity wise, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible and there is no hope and of course there are plenty of lazy youth not looking for jobs when they should be, but the facts remain and it's a bleak outlook. How can you literally see headlines telling you it hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression, yet you ignore that and pretend you had the same bleak prospects in the 70's or whenever? It's just not true. Jobs used to be picked off trees. Now you can't find even an entry level one with plenty of education. In schools if you find a job, it's usually as a leave replacement and you likely get kicked out when they come back. Consider yourselves lucky you signed on with companies and stayed for life, because those days are over for new prospects. Pensions will also be history and people will work until death. But, no. Cheap gas, cheaper housing, cheap education, no debt, and easily attainable good paying jobs was just so hard.

 

[beast of the east]

So, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that graduating from SJU meant a likely, career path job for the baby boomers. There are common, significant social transformations all of us go through. Check out the struggles during the 60s and the economic situation in the early to mid 70s; check out the following10 years of essentially flat equity markets until Reagan got into power. All generations face major, seemingly unique struggles as today's young generations do...yet that is what is most common.
No matter how hard we worked at being successful, those who graduated in the late 60s through the mid 70s heard exactly same story. "We are in a recession, we aren't hiring." The jobs came back years later after several years of super high inflation and recession simultaneously. There were no job offers, unless you had experience, which as you note, you couldn't have as a graduate...we called it the catch 22.
I was an early boomer...born '48, graduated SJU undergrad in 69... several friends died while I was still in school during our major war (50,000 of us did). I had joined the two year, SJU ROTC to keep the assistantship and graduated w/an MBA in '71..
I graduated with several SJU academic (natl honor society; top marketing graduate etc) and military honors. I have never mentioned them before but do here just to make the point that despite that record, I also have kept a three inch folder of well over 100 entry level rejection letters from corporations across the northeast. It took me over one year to find an opening. I appreciate it is very difficult today as well. I"m grateful when one of my 4 children secure a position, but very few of us could find jobs easily then either.
I'm also aware the my life and my peers was still better than my parents from that "greatest generation"..with the depression they faced as children, world war 2, Korea, and their self imposed mandate to build America's economic engine, sacrifice for their children, and sustain the nation's strength through the cold war.
The point is EVERY generation has its challenges. For some, it is frankly better today. Minorities and women and disabled today have a significantly enhanced chance of success because of the social struggles of their peers in that baby boomer generation. Yet, my generation should have done a lot better in a lot of other areas. But personal and community-wide economic and civic struggles are a common experience of all of us no matter what decade.
I appreciate I am way off the sports track. So to conclude, the constant refrain of highly judgmental even personal commentary that permeates the board so much the last few years, whether it's about the players, the coach, the fans, now even other generations, is diminishing what should be the pleasure of reading interesting and different points of view of people, with the skill to engage in debate objectively and insightfully, but also respectfully for the views and the journey of others.

Trivializing the situation the youth of today face only furthers the stereotypes that the older generation cannot just admit things were better for them. Do you read the headlines? Do you follow the crisis? Things haven't been this bad since the GREAT DEPRESSION! That's it! Not this bad since 1970...this bad since about 1930! I don't know why it's so hard to admit things are harder for our generation economically, educationally, opportunity wise, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible and there is no hope and of course there are plenty of lazy youth not looking for jobs when they should be, but the facts remain and it's a bleak outlook. How can you literally see headlines telling you it hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression, yet you ignore that and pretend you had the same bleak prospects in the 70's or whenever? It's just not true. Jobs used to be picked off trees. Now you can't find even an entry level one with plenty of education. In schools if you find a job, it's usually as a leave replacement and you likely get kicked out when they come back. Consider yourselves lucky you signed on with companies and stayed for life, because those days are over for new prospects. Pensions will also be history and people will work until death. But, no. Cheap gas, cheaper housing, cheap education, no debt, and easily attainable good paying jobs was just so hard.

You are correct. Entry level jobs are extremely hard to find unless as a new grad oyu can make an extremely good account of yourself on an interview. I know - I routinely interview new grads for positions. One thing I would suggest to universities is that they offer a 1 credit course on how to prepare a resume, and how to interview for a job. That would help a little. Honestly, the quality of students coming from schools is so horrendous, that you qould question just how diluted a college education is today. I've interviewed kids that are poorly dressed, poorly groomed, have poor verbal skills, haven't bothered to prepare by finding out about our company, know little about the position for which they are applying, and don't follow up post-interview by e-mail, phone, or gasp, a handwritten note.

Two of my kids are recent college grads, and both have secured good playing jobs in their chosen market sectors. They speak well, studied hard, dress well, and are hard workers. I have c lose friend's some who just graduated from Amherst. He landed a job in 4 months, after accepting a low paying internship with the same company to get his foot in. I asked him how many of his classmates had gotten jobs, and he responded that all of them had.

Unfortunately, now AND then, a college degree is not a guarantee of anything. You must bring real talent to the table, because frankly, businesses have too many top notch recent grads competing for entry level jobs. If any recent grad here is having trouble securing a job, I'd be glad to spend some time helping you prepare for an interview.

 

[LINY89]

So, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that graduating from SJU meant a likely, career path job for the baby boomers. There are common, significant social transformations all of us go through. Check out the struggles during the 60s and the economic situation in the early to mid 70s; check out the following10 years of essentially flat equity markets until Reagan got into power. All generations face major, seemingly unique struggles as today's young generations do...yet that is what is most common.
No matter how hard we worked at being successful, those who graduated in the late 60s through the mid 70s heard exactly same story. "We are in a recession, we aren't hiring." The jobs came back years later after several years of super high inflation and recession simultaneously. There were no job offers, unless you had experience, which as you note, you couldn't have as a graduate...we called it the catch 22.
I was an early boomer...born '48, graduated SJU undergrad in 69... several friends died while I was still in school during our major war (50,000 of us did). I had joined the two year, SJU ROTC to keep the assistantship and graduated w/an MBA in '71..
I graduated with several SJU academic (natl honor society; top marketing graduate etc) and military honors. I have never mentioned them before but do here just to make the point that despite that record, I also have kept a three inch folder of well over 100 entry level rejection letters from corporations across the northeast. It took me over one year to find an opening. I appreciate it is very difficult today as well. I"m grateful when one of my 4 children secure a position, but very few of us could find jobs easily then either.
I'm also aware the my life and my peers was still better than my parents from that "greatest generation"..with the depression they faced as children, world war 2, Korea, and their self imposed mandate to build America's economic engine, sacrifice for their children, and sustain the nation's strength through the cold war.
The point is EVERY generation has its challenges. For some, it is frankly better today. Minorities and women and disabled today have a significantly enhanced chance of success because of the social struggles of their peers in that baby boomer generation. Yet, my generation should have done a lot better in a lot of other areas. But personal and community-wide economic and civic struggles are a common experience of all of us no matter what decade.
I appreciate I am way off the sports track. So to conclude, the constant refrain of highly judgmental even personal commentary that permeates the board so much the last few years, whether it's about the players, the coach, the fans, now even other generations, is diminishing what should be the pleasure of reading interesting and different points of view of people, with the skill to engage in debate objectively and insightfully, but also respectfully for the views and the journey of others.

Trivializing the situation the youth of today face only furthers the stereotypes that the older generation cannot just admit things were better for them. Do you read the headlines? Do you follow the crisis? Things haven't been this bad since the GREAT DEPRESSION! That's it! Not this bad since 1970...this bad since about 1930! I don't know why it's so hard to admit things are harder for our generation economically, educationally, opportunity wise, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible and there is no hope and of course there are plenty of lazy youth not looking for jobs when they should be, but the facts remain and it's a bleak outlook. How can you literally see headlines telling you it hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression, yet you ignore that and pretend you had the same bleak prospects in the 70's or whenever? It's just not true. Jobs used to be picked off trees. Now you can't find even an entry level one with plenty of education. In schools if you find a job, it's usually as a leave replacement and you likely get kicked out when they come back. Consider yourselves lucky you signed on with companies and stayed for life, because those days are over for new prospects. Pensions will also be history and people will work until death. But, no. Cheap gas, cheaper housing, cheap education, no debt, and easily attainable good paying jobs was just so hard.

You are correct. Entry level jobs are extremely hard to find unless as a new grad oyu can make an extremely good account of yourself on an interview. I know - I routinely interview new grads for positions. One thing I would suggest to universities is that they offer a 1 credit course on how to prepare a resume, and how to interview for a job. That would help a little. Honestly, the quality of students coming from schools is so horrendous, that you qould question just how diluted a college education is today. I've interviewed kids that are poorly dressed, poorly groomed, have poor verbal skills, haven't bothered to prepare by finding out about our company, know little about the position for which they are applying, and don't follow up post-interview by e-mail, phone, or gasp, a handwritten note.

Two of my kids are recent college grads, and both have secured good playing jobs in their chosen market sectors. They speak well, studied hard, dress well, and are hard workers. I have c lose friend's some who just graduated from Amherst. He landed a job in 4 months, after accepting a low paying internship with the same company to get his foot in. I asked him how many of his classmates had gotten jobs, and he responded that all of them had.

Unfortunately, now AND then, a college degree is not a guarantee of anything. You must bring real talent to the table, because frankly, businesses have too many top notch recent grads competing for entry level jobs. If any recent grad here is having trouble securing a job, I'd be glad to spend some time helping you prepare for an interview.

I think the whole "these kids coming in for interviews are dumb and not prepared at all" blanket statements are just a way of validating the interviewer's education to themselves. I find it hard to believe that many recent grads don't know that dressing professionally, grooming properly, being professional, having good resumes, and researching the company are essential parts of a successful interview. In almost every college curriculum you are forced to take a class that teaches you these things as a core requirement. Maybe your standards are just too high for someone young coming out of school. You can't expect them to know the ins and outs of everything in your business from day one. So many employers complain that the quality of applicants is low because they have unrealistic expectations. Colleges don't teach you what YOU want them to do specifically. That's why every company should just train their own kids to fit in whatever role you want, and then if at the end of the training they still can't do it, then dump em. Chances are they can perform the duties though if you make their role clear and train them. It's not the student's fault that most college curriculums are very general and don't really get too specific in developing skills. Good for your kids, but unfortunately they are the exception, not the rule so you should be really proud of them. Plenty of kids can give great interviews but if the experience isn't there, companies say "NEXT".