| Subject: Re: no choice |
Author:
wcpurple
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Thursday, December 12, 10:44:42am
Author Host/IP: syn-071-080-194-159.res.spectrum.com/71.80.194.159
In reply to:
RCM
's message, "Re: no choice" on Thursday, December 12, 05:58:00am
I disagree. NU could actually build a "city within a city" similar to what Notre Dame has done, which could save a lot of money and should have been done 30 years ago when crime went up. They could specifically target students with families, and the return on investment (ROI) would likely take 20+ years to fully materialize—by then, most of the staff will be long gone.
As for partnering with a dead city like NF, that doesn't make sense to me. NF ceased being a viable city in the early '90s (80s?), so why would NU invest in something that's already long gone?
NU has three options: they can cater to their existing access base (which has a very low turn-away rate, with 90% already in), go lower 99%, or take a risk by raising admission standards. But they can't realistically do the latter without potentially jeopardizing enrollment. So, the real question is whether they want to devalue their degree further or just maintain the status quo. What’s their move?
I personally moved my grandmother out of city 30 years ago due to safety concerns, and I can't imagine living near that area now. There was far too much traffic on her street—people are coming and going all day and night, and not staying long, which just adds to the instability and safety risks.
I'm baffled that, with an international destination like the Falls and a reliable energy source, we couldn't make it work.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 