Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Education Medicine

NYU Offers Full-Tuition Scholarships for All Medical Students (wsj.com) 167

New York University said Thursday that it will cover tuition for all its medical students regardless of their financial situation, a first among the nation's major medical schools and an attempt to expand career options for graduates who won't be saddled with six-figure debt [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled]. From a report: School officials worry that rising tuition and soaring loan balances are pushing new doctors into high-paying fields and contributing to a shortage of researchers and primary care physicians. Medical schools nationwide have been conducting aggressive fundraising campaigns to compete for top prospects, alleviate the debt burden and give graduates more career choices. NYU raised more than $450 million of the roughly $600 million it estimates it will need to fund the tuition package in perpetuity, including $100 million from Home Depot founder Kenneth Langone and his wife, Elaine. The school will provide full-tuition scholarships for 92 first-year students -- another 10 are already covered through M.D./PhD programs -- as well as 350 students already partway through the M.D.-only degree program.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYU Offers Full-Tuition Scholarships for All Medical Students

Comments Filter:
  • Great news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @11:48AM (#57138044)
    We need more home grown doctors. I don't know about the rest of /. but I'm getting older. Right now we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries but those countries are modernizing so that's not going to last forever.
    • we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries

      I suspect this topic is more complicated than you realize. The Caribbean medical schools are oddly enough considered to be US medical schools, and US citizens who for whatever reason don't get accepted to a mainland medical school tend to go those schools. The supply of doctors is artificially lowered by a number of factors, not the least of which is congressional funding for residency spots. Roughly 10% of people who finish medical school and apply f

      • But Caribbean is a lot better then the high cost of living in hollywood

      • Re:Great news (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @01:31PM (#57138806)
        My sister went to Ross University on Nevis/St. Kitts. Strangely, her graduation ceremony was at Lincoln Center in New York City! They do both human and veterinary medical degrees. They are just slightly easier to get into than the few schools in the states (e.g. U.C. Davis).
        • Yep, there's also a school in Israel (Sackler, named after the Sacklers of Purdue Pharma infamy) that's technically a US school.

          For the more adventurous, programs in Europe (Czech, Poland, Ireland), accept US students and teach in English. Even though they're not "US" schools, students from there generally do get residencies in the US if they do well.

          The advantage of some of the European programs is that they can also lead to work or residency in Europe should the student decide that returning to the USA i

    • That's good news for medical students who, as doctors, easily earn well over 6 figure salaries. However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers who, while they generally have less debt, have far lower 5/maybe 6-figure salaries. The UK, which recently tripled student tuition to 9,000 pounds/year (~$15,000 Canadian) is suddenly finding that it is really hard to recruit science teachers. With a science degree and a large debt teaching becomes far less attractive compared to industry. With
      • in the 70's medical students used bankruptcy to get there loans wiped out.

        So why are doing stuff that they really do not need at the cost of others who own 50K+ and have little hope working Starbucks to pay it off?

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @12:45PM (#57138498)
        we've got a big problem with getting Primary Care Physicians. They don't earn a lot, especially if they've got their own practice. A big part of that it our crap insurance system that fights against paying them every step of the way, but given our political environment switching to a single payer system isn't going to happen any time soon. That's left a lot of them unable to pay their crazy high student loans. Which in turn means doctor shortages, especially in rural communities

        That's where importing doctors comes in. They're trained overseas where education is usually paid for by tax dollars. That's made up for a lot of the supply issues. We could fix those issues with better pay but given our insurance system that's not an option. So if we take away those imports and we don't fix the pay problems we're going to have massive shortages.
        • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @12:52PM (#57138558) Journal

          The problem is that the United States isn't the only jurisdiction trying to grab foreign-trained doctors. A lot of industrialized countries are looking at foreign talent to fill skilled labor pools that, for a variety of reasons, can't be filled by domestic labor supplies. The UK, for instance, has a very large shortage of doctors, and is soaking up talent anywhere it can find it, so right away you start with inter-jurisdictional competition to lure qualified doctors.

          • we pay a _lot_ for specialists, but when it comes to PCPs by the time your done fighting it out with our insurance system you're pretty broke. My kid's PCP shut down their practice about a year ago because they just plain couldn't get paid. Not sure whatever happened to him either.
      • However, it does nothing for good students wanting to become teachers

        1. Teaching does not require an advanced degree. A BA/BS is sufficient. Some teachers get advanced degrees, but there is no evidence that these degrees make them better teachers.

        2. There is no general shortage of teachers. Some schools in bad areas have trouble recruiting, but most schools have plenty of applicants for open jobs.

        My daughter is in college. In-state tuition+books+boarding is costing me about $20k/yr, or about $80k total. If she had gone to community college for the first 2 years, I wou

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > teachers who

        who don't have to go to a very expensive grad school on top of their undergraduate degree in underwater basket weaving.

        There have been state programs to pay for teacher tuition since when I was an undergrad. Same goes for reimbursement programs for teaching in less than desirable districts.

    • As long as the U.S. (or any other western country for that matter) maintains a higher degree of economic and personal freedom than other countries, it's going to draw in people. There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries, but it's quite hard to blame anyone who wants a better life for themselves or their family.
      • There's a bit of a dark underside to that as we're taking some of the most highly skilled individuals from those countries

        Poor countries tend to squander talent. That is why they are poor.

        So don't feel too bad about "brain drain". It is often beneficial for both the sending and receiving countries. The remittances sent home by overseas workers often far exceeds what they would contribute to the economy if they had stayed home.

        When Deng Xiaoping first opened up China's economy in 1979, he decided on an explicit policy of exporting talent that China's domestic economy could not effectively utilize. He figured that China woul

        • China doesn't have much a problem with this as their massive population means that even if they lose 1% (and even if brain drain pulls disproportionately from the the top, it doesn't take specifically from it) which is a staggering number of people with respect to the populations of some other countries, it doesn't impact China much at all.

          I think that China's success had much, much less to do with talent returning in the long term (though this has happened) and more to do with a market economy and outsi
      • US hardly has the highest levels of either. High personal freedom in a country that locks up almost 1% of their population at a given time? Where everything has a warning sign, everything is subject to rules. Go to Italy, you can park a car anywhere without being ticketed, speed limits on motorways are the equivalent of 90 mph, and no one asks too many questions from anyone. In most of Europe, kids as young as 8 walk or take public transport to school. They're expected to be independent; no one calls f

        • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

          > Economic freedom in the US?

          The fact that you're too much of an indoctrinated moron to take advantage of it doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. Southern Italy has a nice layabout culture. That's about it.

          There are plenty of OTHER places in Europe that will make you fell like you are living in a police state. HELL, just the machine guns toted around by local cops in Italian cities should give you the creeps if you're American.

          French speeding cameras are very efficient (oddly enough) and you need to take

          • I like a layabout culture -- all work and no play makes boys and girls dull.

            Italian police: the issue isn't the machine guns. The issue is the willingness to use firearms that exists in the US. I'd much rather have cops with machine guns with restricted rules of engagement and strict training (Carabineri are military) than poorly-trained, trigger-happy cops with pistols.

            French speed cameras: at least the rules are known (10 km/h over the limit and a fine in the mail), but the actual limits are much more r

    • We need more home grown doctors. I don't know about the rest of /. but I'm getting older. Right now we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries but those countries are modernizing so that's not going to last forever.

      We are facing a shortage of doctors, but training more doctors is unlikely to be the best answer to the problem. We need to offload work currently done by doctors to other staff who don't need as much training. I doubt it takes 6 years of post-bachelor training to diagnose a toddler's ear infection. It won't be easy to make such a transition in our medical industry, but it may be less painful than medical costs increasing 5%+ higher than inflation every year.

      • what about cutting down pre med time?
        What about 2 years general study's or some pre med AA/AS? and then med school with the BS/BA stuff mixed in?

        • There are combined 6 and 7 year programs that get students a medical degree out of high school in the US. Incidentally, this is the way most of the world outside of the US does things -- medicine is a 6-year university degree out of high school.

          The problem is that the admission process in the US is too competitive in the wrong ways. They focus too much on extracurriculars, seeing an applicant as a "whole person", volunteering for religious groups, etc. Whereas in France, anyone can get in, and as long as

      • Various schemes like nurse practitioners certainly can help, but the chief problem is aging demographics in most industrialized nations, which means patients are getting older, with more complex conditions, and that means you need doctors, and not just doctors, but more specialists. So sure, you can take some load off of the system by looking at alternative delivery methods, but that's not likely to get anywhere near enough to solving the primary issues.

      • by tsstahl ( 812393 )

        We are facing a shortage of doctors, but training more doctors is unlikely to be the best answer to the problem. We need to offload work currently done by doctors to other staff who don't need as much training. I doubt it takes 6 years of post-bachelor training to diagnose a toddler's ear infection. It won't be easy to make such a transition in our medical industry, but it may be less painful than medical costs increasing 5%+ higher than inflation every year.

        You are paying the doctor to diagnose. Non-invasive treatment is almost always handed off to more appropriately skilled staff.

        The diagnostic expertise is what takes years to hone. Nine people in ten can spot the zebra in the horse corral, but they can't find the lame horse with similar success (or substitute a car analogy, I'm lazy today).

        I don't disagree with you. Turning out Nurse Practitioners by the dozen is not a panacea, however. The medical industry recognizes the shortages and action is happenin

    • We need more home grown doctors. I don't know about the rest of /. but I'm getting older. Right now we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries but those countries are modernizing so that's not going to last forever.

      I think there's a larger point here that people are missing.

      The school is putting aside enough money to fund the scholarships in perpetuity.

      If you have enough wealth gathered in one spot, you can use it to fund things forever. We could gradually extend this model to cover other universities and other disciplines, and eventually reach the point where all university education is funded this way.

      (Would require a *lot* of invested money - probably more than the current GDP - but we could do it incrementally ove

  • by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @11:48AM (#57138048)

    Is this really the best way to spend the generous donations of your alumni? Surely there is a better way to spend this money, like a lazy river in an event center.

    • You are right on point. I had to chuckle at the School officials worry that rising tuition and soaring loan balances part of the summary. It is obvious that the only reason that tuition has gone up is because there is more money available (in the form of federally subsidized grants and loans, among other thing). Else, why would the cost of tuition grow so much fast than inflation?

      Seriously, most universities are not paying their faculty more money, but they are hiring loads more administrators (look at t

      • There were two main things that enabled the rise in college cost. You are right that the availability of cheap federally backed (and non-bankruptable) loans is part of it. The second is that less and less public money is going to subsidize education. It's a surprisingly little recognized fact that state universities used to be subsidized by the states. Over time that subsidy has been diminished to almost 0. When your boomer parents claim they paid for college working the night-shift, they are delusional.

  • You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.

      So.....instead of relying on government to handle necessary services and programs you feel we should just rely on the generosity of billionaires.....I fail to see how that could go wrong in any way.

      • If it weren't for the actions of government which have largely created this problem in the first place, I think some people would be more willing to trust them.

        Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but
        • Most developed countries have a tuition free public university system for all students who qualify for entrance. They do this because they want their brightest and hardest working to get educated not just those that can afford it. This is issue is too important for the long-term prosperity of the country, it can't be left up to the whims of billonaries
          • they also have trades / apprenticeship Germany is good and it's not college for all.

            https://www.dw.com/en/germany-... [dw.com]

            • by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @01:39PM (#57138850)

              Except Germany's extremely biased and social class enforcing stratification starting in early education fails to produce the kind of highly skilled workers that the modern economy demands. Germany is experiencing a shortage of workers with the complex skills gained in tertiary education [dw.com]. Specifically "managers, researchers, engineers, doctors, nurses and medical assistants".

              Being bracketed into the "easy" path dooms students to failure in the rest of their academic careers. Despite efforts to expand access, drop out rates are increasing especially for those previously bracketed onto lower paths, and total time until graduation is increasing for those who do finish [llcsjournal.org]. This is while the same high skill jobs go unfilled.

              For the US though, the reality [theatlantic.com] is that making college free in the US would be cheaper for the federal government than its current programs.

              • Oh that's nothing. Uneven access to pre-k in the U.S, especially for the those of lower socio-economic status means that many kids are already falling behind before they even start school. The U.S is nearly at the top of high-school drop-out rates among the developed nations
          • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

            > Most developed countries have a tuition free public university system

            So fucking what? You failed to address the original point. Public universities are the responsibilities of the states and they have dropped the ball. Republican and Democrat state governments alike have screwed the pooch already here.

            Pointing to some other jurisdiction as justification as treating the government as your lord and savior is not really terribly compelling here. It doesn't even if we take your blind worship of those parti

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @01:12PM (#57138688)

          Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but someone else might point out that no one really needs a car and can just take a bicycle to work and that it's morally wrong to make them pay to subsidize the automotive industry and all the pollution in creates.

          We should subsidize both. Society needs skilled mechanics just as it needs skilled doctors, especially modern society. Of course, to do that would mean actually taxing people to pay for education rather than forcing people to take out exorbitant loans or depend on the generosity of those that have money. Because everyone benefits from an educated, trained society it therefore stands to reason that everyone would have a responsibility to help pay for it.

          • by tsstahl ( 812393 )

            We already have free k-12 education nationwide. How is that working out for us?

            • Pretty well in places and states that actually set standards and whose educational systems aren't either corrupt or controlled by hyper-religious whackjobs.
              • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

                So the blue states where all of the Occupy Wall Street protests were held have no problems in this area? That's some serious reality distortion field you're sitting in there.

          • I think you're missing the point. Someone will just come along and say that we need something else, say tax accountants. At what point do you draw a line (and how fair or arbitrary is your line) and what prevent its it from becoming a case of "let's subsidize everything" that we currently have, which leads to the exact same situation. Maybe you get a slightly better designed system, but we're back to square one.

            Subsidizing anything raises the price. You might think that you're getting it cheaper by playi
    • You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.

      True, this works well for medicine where people are very cognizant of the fact that at some point they are going to need good doctors. It is far less likely to work for fields like teaching or science where, although the entire population benefit, the benefit is not so direct.

      • Why not? Rich people are capable of understanding society's need for these things, are they not?

        Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline. They are just not ballyhooed in the press.

        Maybe the problem here is the lack of interest by the press and then the public? Hmmm. Why isn't such philanthropic activity held in high esteem? Seems to me we spend more time engaged in class warfare than encouraging such giving.

        • Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline.

          Yes they do, but at nowhere near the levels required to actually operate all the teaching and research facilities that society needs to function. The problem with relying on giving is that only things which interest rich people get funded. In addition, some rich people will not fund anything at all which seems somewhat unfair.

          This is why we have taxes to ensure that everyone pays something into the common kitty which is then used to fund things that society needs...or at least that is the theory, in pra

    • You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.

      So instead of a government program with some measure of accountability, you prefer hand outs from wealthy donors with no accountability? Nothing wrong with private donations but depending on fickle handouts from rich people who may have ulterior motives isn't a very sensible way to run a society.

      • You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.

        So instead of a government program with some measure of accountability, you prefer hand outs from wealthy donors with no accountability? Nothing wrong with private donations but depending on fickle handouts from rich people who may have ulterior motives isn't a very sensible way to run a society.

        And forcible confiscations of taxes from the poor, middle class and rich alike to support such programs IS sensible?

        To each their own I guess.

        You used government and accountable in the same sentence, implying that one gives you the other. Somehow I don't think you understand what "accountable" means because one doesn't give you the other. Besides, if doctors are getting trained and are able to meet the certification standards to get their licenses, what more accountability do you need in this case?

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          And forcible confiscations of taxes from the poor, middle class and rich alike to support such programs IS sensible?

          It's the definition of sensible. Randians always squawk about how there INSTAAFL but think living in a first world civilization is free.

          Why not? Rich people are capable of understanding society's need for these things, are they not?

          And they DGAF as long as they can set sail on one of their ten yachts that cost $40 million. For most of human history, the dominance of the rich and the misery o

          • Ah... The socialist pull is strong with this one.. Shall we just go full communist then so you can just take all the rich have and give it to others? After all, your rhetoric is basically that.

            I don't mind taxes for the provision of services like law enforcement, fire, roads and other public infrastructure, but I do generally object to taking money from one person just to give it to another in an effort to "even out" wealth or provide services to people for free. There are a few exceptions to this rule,

      • by tsstahl ( 812393 )

        A government always has an ulterior motive: to grow. Three universal laws are not to be messed with: speed of light, gravity, and self interest.

        Private people giving money away adds to the economy. Government money by definition sucks from the economy. A private person managing their wealth does not need any 'accountability'. The point of accountability is to REIGN IN excess, waste, graft, name your moral failing.

        • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @02:27PM (#57139154)

          Libertarian claptrap.

          Plenty of instances where government largesse contributed to the economy. Giving railroads free land in the 1860s. Building the US and Interstate Highway systems in the 1920s through 1960s. Basic research that wouldn't otherwise be funded. Military research (unfortunately) with civilian applications -- Internet, telecommunications, nuclear power, etc.

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > So instead of a government program with some measure of accountability,

        It cracks me up when anyone tries to say something like this.

        WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY? When have you EVER seen genuine government accountability? At least with any market not dominated by a single monopoly player I can go elsewhere.

        We are quite literally living in the age of Trump and all of the media narrative surrounding him and you have the epic gall to claim that government is "accountable". That's utterly deranged.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by lengel ( 519399 ) on Thursday August 16, 2018 @12:02PM (#57138162)

    I would be very interested in seeing the books on this program after a few years. The school realized it would not take much fundraising to cover their costs of educating the students. Note they do not have to cover the tuition they charge students; only their costs.

    These days since colleges and universities have turned into money printing machines instead of educational entities, the difference between tuition and how much it actually costs the schools is so large they determined let's raise the money to cover our costs and live off the PR of providing free tuition. They have basically admitted the difference between the two amounts of money is ridiculous in this day and age.

    • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      If Harvard simply kept their endowment in an index fund, the increased growth vs their current management of the endowment would be enough to cover all tuition and protect for inflation.

  • Use that money to lower the cost of tuition for EVERYONE, maybe it won't be free, but if you lower the cost, then everyone can benefit. Also, perhaps they could put part of the money into research (and implementation) on how they can make their operations more efficient so that they don't have to charge such huge tuitions.

  • Higher education costs are increasing at rates [cnbc.com] much higher than inflation and wage growth. My pet blame target is the expense of suit-weasel administrators who don't do anything but make rules for other people. Now, when it comes to doctors, is someone really going to to defend one of the highest paid professions [healthleadersmedia.com] in the country from high education costs?
    Personally, after their repeated failures to help my wife, me, and everyone I know with just about everything they've ever gone to see a fucking worthless
    • Sounds like you could really use that "benzos" perscription
      • Yeah, because anyone who feels strongly about something with which they have extensive experience ought to be medicated right? Heaven forbid someone have some strong feelings that could end in "GASP* ...... someone getting offended. Oh my heavens, we can't have that.
    • . Everything else they do will either kill you, maim you, give you a worse health problem, addict you to opioids or benzos and/or completely bankrupt you. I'm not going to their filthy MRSA-filled office or hospital unless I get shot or break a bone (maybe). Remind me again who the fuck is supposed to cry for these people and why? I got a whole long list of people to feel a helluva lot sorrier for.

      I love your passion, but you're an idiot.

      • Says the 20 year old who never had a health problem in his privileged snowflake life. I can't wait for you to have your first ER visit. Hear me now and remember me later.
        • Says the 20 year old who never had a health problem in his privileged snowflake life. I can't wait for you to have your first ER visit. Hear me now and remember me later.

          It is true, I'm 20 and I've had perfect health all my life. That may change someday, but you will always be an idiot.

          • Well, up until now, only one of us putting pejorative labels on the other without citing a single fact or making any argument whatsoever. I can even the score, though. How's this: I'm not an idiot I'm just slow. I could have been your father, but the dog beat me up the stairs. Then it looks like grandma took a couple of shots at your brain with a coat hanger while you were in vitro. Too bad she didn't finish the job.
  • Let's pay the tuition of a bunch of students who are ALREADY PLANNING ON BECOMING DOCTORS. That's sure to increase the number of doctors willing to accept reduced pay as general practitioners or researchers. I'm sure doctors are avoiding those underpaid, underappreciated positions because they are saddled with debt, not because they desire high-paying, prestigious positions. It can't be because our insanely high tuition has scared everyone away from even considering the profession, creating an ever-shrin
    • Some people like to do research and teach -- if lack of student loans gives students more options after medical school, great for them. This is funded with private money, so it's not as if you and I are paying for it.
      • "Private money" is an illusion of capitalism. Money is a representation of means. This money is privately CONTROLLED. It will no longer be taxed after this "charitable" incompetence, meaning it IS me paying for it. You want to have more doctors do research or go into general practice? Increase the number of doctors or make those positions more desirable to the limited pool of candidates. Those are literally the only two conceivably viable options in a free society.
        • By eliminating student loans, they're essentially making the positions more desirable. Not having to deal with student loans is an effective pay raise.
          • These are students who were already committed to paying tuition. Nobody with a passion for research/general practice is enrolled at NYU unless they are independently wealthy. The best you can hope is that a laughable percentage of students switch to research/general practice out of gratitude (we all know how many people changed career goals motivated by gratitude). Make no mistake, this is a rote exercise in the rich getting richer at the expense of the regular taxpayer. Rescind the charitable tax wri
            • It may not influence currently-enrolled students, but it may influence the next incoming classes. Also, being a research physician and professor isn't a bad life. Decent pay, interesting research and people, good work/life balance. Better quality of life than being (say) a surgeon on-call 25/8/366.
              • Since I can't read the article, I can't tell, but the summary suggests to me that the money is being used only on the currently enrolled students, so your point is moot. I haven't suggested research is bad. I would say general practice is miserable for the pay. Insurance is a PITA, most of your patients are old and it'll only get worse. The whole world should be looking at Japan and trying to focus on solving their problems. If Japan can't figure something out with all their resources, the other mega c
  • After you graduate, you'll most likely be a "ward of the government" and required to work where THEY tell you to work, until THEY feel you've paid back what it cost to train you. THAT means, you'll be assigned to a slum area, or high crime area.
  • The UK loans system - where you pay a higher rate of income tax collected by the tax authorities - until you pay off your loan or 30 years have elapsed since graduation, when it disappears, is a better model here; if the doctors do well, they repay the loan rather than merely being subsidised permanently. If they choose a low paying medical career, they don't.

  • Very very generous indeed of the donors, although I have to wonder:

    - Any plans for the recipients to be encouraged to pay this back?
    - Will, or should, they ban DNFs from this program? (I've always had mixed feelings about the flood of foreigners coming into our educational systems, whether they plan to practice here or return home.)

    (DNFs = "Dirty Nasty Foreigners", a running joke on one of my favorite forums, which incidentally is full of DNFs who find it funny)

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...