Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello all, I am a working adult (in accounting) and a junior in college, recently relocated to Northern California. I have two Associate’s degrees from the Community College of the Air Force (Transportation Mgmt. & Financial Mgmt.) I want to complete my Bachelor’s degree ASAP, my first interest is accounting and have interviewed two private universities in the area; National University and DeVry University (both in Sacramento CA). National U. offers a degree in accountancy which I can finish in two 20 months and DeVry U. offers me a Technical Mgmt. degree with an accounting concentration which I can finish up in 16 months. National U. has CPA, CMA, CFA tracks and job placement; DeVry U. has 99% job placement for Tech Mgmt. grads ($50K/yr avg.). I need your professional advice: (I feel I am being passed over by not having a degree)    Which degree makes most sense to take-Accountancy or Tech Mgmt. w/accounting concentration.    What do you know/have heard on these Universities, are their programs good & solid.    How would YOU evaluate the situation and make your decision? This newsgroup has been a great source of information for me, and I do appreciate your advice and support. Jack Garabito Professional in Training.

Jack, You should definitely go for a Bachelor’s degree if you can fit the extra class time into your work schedule and budget.  Which degree to get, accounting or technical management, really depends on what type of job you would like to eventually have.  But I’ve always felt that out of all the business degrees, the accounting degree was the most universal and also the most challenging.  Also, if you have aspirations to become a CPA, you probably need to take the accounting degree route to make sure that you get all of the core classes needed to sit for the CPA exam.   I’m really not familiar with the technical management degree or what kind of company a person would work for with this degree.  You said that DeVry is placing their graduates at a starting salary of $50k average salary though, which sounds pretty good.  Salaries for accountants vary from city to city and type of company, but starting salaries are comparable to starting salaries for teachers.  Pay does however accelerate much faster as you gain experience than a teachers salary does.  You said you are already working in accounting, so maybe you’re not going to have to come in at the ground level anyway. Preston Singleton, CPA Austin, Texas

Response:

Hello all, I am a working adult (in accounting) and a junior in college, recently relocated to Northern California. I have two Associate’s degrees from the Community College of the Air Force (Transportation Mgmt. & Financial Mgmt.) I want to complete my Bachelor’s degree ASAP, my first interest is accounting and have interviewed two private universities in the area; National University and DeVry University (both in Sacramento CA). National U. offers a degree in accountancy which I can finish in two 20 months and DeVry U. offers me a Technical Mgmt. degree with an accounting concentration which I can finish up in 16 months. National U. has CPA, CMA, CFA tracks and job placement; DeVry U. has 99% job placement for Tech Mgmt. grads ($50K/yr avg.). I need your professional advice: (I feel I am being passed over by not having a degree)     Which degree makes most sense to take-Accountancy or Tech Mgmt. w/accounting concentration.     What do you know/have heard on these Universities, are their programs good & solid.     How would YOU evaluate the situation and make your decision? This newsgroup has been a great source of information for me, and I do appreciate your advice and support. Jack Garabito Professional in Training.

Response:

Question:

You can do it with QuickBooks using iif (QB import/export files) files or using XML if you have QB 2002 Pro and the free SDK. I find the iif easier to work with and have an application that imports 1600 invoices per month (using iif) from a custom maintenance work order system. The monthly iif files has about 10,000 lines in it and imports into QB 2001 in about 10 minutes.

Yes, thanks… I’ve had a look at QB and though it will take a bit to figure out what’s important in the IIF files and what isn’t it appears that this might well do the job (and within our modest budget as well)

Response:

The SDK is free and works with QuickBooks 2002 Pro and above. Although it doesn’t work as quickly as iif, it is less error prone. Also, the SDK forum has had postings form Intuit employees saying iif will eventually be phased out.  So by using the SDK, you’ll probably create a more long lived tool.  You can find the SDK forum at http://developer.intuit.com/forums . IDN Member – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You can do it with QuickBooks using iif (QB import/export files) files or using XML if you have QB 2002 Pro and the free SDK. I find the iif easier to work with and have an application that imports 1600 invoices per month (using iif) from a custom maintenance work order system. The monthly iif files has about 10,000 lines in it and imports into QB 2001 in about 10 minutes. Yes, thanks… I’ve had a look at QB and though it will take a bit to figure out what’s important in the IIF files and what isn’t it appears that this might well do the job (and within our modest budget as well)

Response:

The SDK is free and works with QuickBooks 2002 Pro and above. Although it doesn’t work as quickly as iif, it is less error prone. Also, the SDK forum has had postings form Intuit employees saying iif will eventually be phased out.  So by using the SDK, you’ll probably create a more long lived tool.  You can find the SDK forum at http://developer.intuit.com/forums .

Thanks. It isn’t clear at first glance what SDK is, but if they are phasing out IIF files then I suppose it is something to look at right away.

Response:

The SDK is free and works with QuickBooks 2002 Pro and above. Although it doesn’t work as quickly as iif, it is less error prone. Also, the SDK forum has had postings form Intuit employees saying iif will eventually be phased out.  So by using the SDK, you’ll probably create a more long lived tool.  You can find the SDK forum at http://developer.intuit.com/forums . Thanks. It isn’t clear at first glance what SDK is, but if they are phasing out IIF files then I suppose it is something to look at right away.

Software Developers Kit (SDK).  SDK’s are tools, usually offered for a particular piece of software by that software’s vendor e.g. M$ has a solution referred to as a Digital Dashboard.  One may obtain the SDK for the Digital Dashboard and develop customized solutions in-house. Customizations are a double-edged sword, and that is the reason I cautioned earlier about getting a package that requires writing/modifying existing code to get the functionality you need out of the software in question. Unless you have deep pockets, or in-house staff to develop the customizations with the SDK, you may not be any better off in the long run.  I can see why developers like the package…job security. Theoretically, getting exactly what your business needs from a software package sounds ideal, but weigh the contraindications as well as the benefits derived.  I am not saying that this is not a viable solution, but I do recommend analyzing the decision thoroughly before heading down the customization road. Regards, Dan Edwards, President JnD Consulting, Inc.

Response:

You can do it with QuickBooks using iif (QB import/export files) files or using XML if you have QB 2002 Pro and the free SDK. I find the iif easier to work with and have an application that imports 1600 invoices per month (using iif) from a custom maintenance work order system. The monthly iif files has about 10,000 lines in it and imports into QB 2001 in about 10 minutes. — Karl E Irvin, CPA Arlington, Texas

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does there exist an accounting software package for small businesses that will allow transaction information to be imported from an external file? For (a bad) example, Simply Accounting will allow importation of invoice totals to the Accounts Receivable part of the General Ledger, but will NOT import the invoice detail information (client, invoice#, # of units, etc) to the AR details subledger. This makes invoice-payment reconciliation all but impossible. The alternative so far is to hire some poor erk to read the information off the actual invoice (generated automatically from our processing database) and then retype it all by hand into the accounting program.

Response:

Does there exist an accounting software package for small businesses that will allow transaction information to be imported from an external file? For (a bad) example, Simply Accounting will allow importation of invoice totals to the Accounts Receivable part of the General Ledger, but will NOT import the invoice detail information (client, invoice#, # of units, etc) to the AR details subledger. This makes invoice-payment reconciliation all but impossible. The alternative so far is to hire some poor erk to read the information off the actual invoice (generated automatically from our processing database) and then retype it all by hand into the accounting program.

Response:

Question:

John Edward is the real deal. Most of you haven’t burdened yourself with his story. He was tested by a Harvard researcher in Arizona where I used to live and the results.. ..you guessed it. John Edward didn’t guess.

Response:

Norton Internet Security detected the Backdoor Trojan Virus in this file. Do not download and definitely do not unzip if you do. Remember – the person posting this might not be the guilty party. he might have picked it up from somebody else.

Will you please try to research Rhyanon’s personality profile a little more before you imitate her again? This is annoying.

Response:

stop forging me Randy the man whore – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You credulous sap. Norton Internet Security detected the Backdoor Trojan Virus in this file. Do not download and definitely do not unzip if you do. Remember – the person posting this might not be the guilty party. he might have picked it up from somebody else.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? Hmm  I missed these There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies!

Bullshit. I can name dozens of professions not controlled or regulated by any governing body. Thre out of three posts dead flat wrong.. Why do you even bother when you end up looking like a mass of vapid knee jerk blindergusting. BirdTribe Psycics are not. Plus this guy is a FAKE. If he is SO good then he will let the sceptics society test him. He does not …. thus it may be shown FAKE FAKE FAKE

– "Clowns are attracted to any number of absurd realities" visit http://www.birdtribe.net for games, animations, keys

Response:

Norton Internet Security detected the Backdoor Trojan Virus in this file. Do not download and definitely do not unzip if you do. Remember – the person posting this might not be the guilty party. he might have picked it up from somebody else. Will you please try to research Rhyanon’s personality profile a little more before you imitate her again? This is annoying.

Talk to Randy, Ren. — Carl We’re bigger than Jesus! – JWLennon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? Hmm  I missed these There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies! Psycics are not. Plus this guy is a FAKE. If he is SO good then he will let the sceptics society test him. He does not …. thus it may be shown FAKE FAKE FAKE Not all professionals or gifted people are controlled by governing bodies, unless you count the IRS. They don’t much care how you make your money, as long as they get their cut. I can list many professions not governed if you like, but if you go out to eat, you’ll see some.

You were responding to Noinden, not me. Plus, the burden of proof is on Edward, nobody else. He must prove he is a *real* psychic.  Nobody has to prove a negative. Apparently he has "proven" it to the people who pay him.  

That is not proof.  Proof is repeatible and verifiable by anyone.  What you have described is not proof. It is a personal choice whether to pay his fee or not.

No.  He is a television performer, nothing more. I don’t know which is sadder; the ignorance of people who believe Edward is real, or Edward himself. I believe the former.  Edward is just a huckster who takes advantage of the wishes of people to NOT let go of their dead. This is along the lines of P.T. Barnum and Max Factor with their products and services.  And the people who sell singly wrapped wet rags for fevers.

? To me, both are a disgrace. To me, they are irrelevant.I don’t care how they spend their money, nor how they make it, with certain exceptions.

Well, I care, and it is relevant.  Hucksters should not be allowed to huck, and tricksters should not be given free license to trick. Television is about selling products for advertisers, not promoting "real" psychics.  I think some gullible people have forgotten this fact. It is a product. Not much of one, but still a product. It will not only aid Edwards, but also Miss Cleo, dealers in "occult" products, and IMHO, funeral services. Such is the world, and my position in it.

Accepting the world for what it is and allowing hucksters to trick others solves nothing. OTOH, I’ve taken a stand and I’ve drawn a line in the sand. – Chive The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. – George Bernard Shaw

Response:

There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies! Bullshit. I can name dozens of professions not controlled or regulated by any governing body. Thre out of three posts dead flat wrong.. Why do you even bother when you end up looking like a mass of vapid knee jerk blindergusting. BirdTribe

Blah blah blah Randy PROVE ME WRONG. Come on do it … you can not. Now go back to your "free energy" (yeah right) machine and leave us too it! Doctors are well regualated where I come from, as are Dentists, Pharmasists, Lawyers, Accountants etc! Hell WE are ranked the third least corrupt country in the world! Thuss Randy "eh" Blaine … you are the Knee jearker … if you can not take someone having a differing view to yours .. don’t ever have a view. The Psycic mentioned is a Fraud as proved time again by the Sceptics society *(a true sceptic never totally disbelives but is willing to change their mind)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? Hmm  I missed these There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies! Psycics are not. Plus this guy is a FAKE. If he is SO good then he will let the sceptics society test him. He does not …. thus it may be shown FAKE FAKE FAKE

Not all professionals or gifted people are controlled by governing bodies, unless you count the IRS. They don’t much care how you make your money, as long as they get their cut. I can list many professions not governed if you like, but if you go out to eat, you’ll see some. Plus, the burden of proof is on Edward, nobody else. He must prove he is a *real* psychic.  Nobody has to prove a negative.

Apparently he has "proven" it to the people who pay him.  It is a personal choice whether to pay his fee or not. I don’t know which is sadder; the ignorance of people who believe Edward is real, or Edward himself.

I believe the former.  Edward is just a huckster who takes advantage of the wishes of people to NOT let go of their dead. This is along the lines of P.T. Barnum and Max Factor with their products and services.  And the people who sell singly wrapped wet rags for fevers. To me, both are a disgrace.

To me, they are irrelevant.I don’t care how they spend their money, nor how they make it, with certain exceptions. Television is about selling products for advertisers, not promoting "real" psychics.  I think some gullible people have forgotten this fact.

It is a product. Not much of one, but still a product. It will not only aid Edwards, but also Miss Cleo, dealers in "occult" products, and IMHO, funeral services. Such is the world, and my position in it. T9W – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - Chive The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. – George Bernard Shaw — Posted via nooz.net – is this thing working? —

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? Hmm  I missed these There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies! Psycics are not. Plus this guy is a FAKE. If he is SO good then he will let the sceptics society test him. He does not …. thus it may be shown FAKE FAKE FAKE

Plus, the burden of proof is on Edward, nobody else. He must prove he is a *real* psychic.  Nobody has to prove a negative. I don’t know which is sadder; the ignorance of people who believe Edward is real, or Edward himself. To me, both are a disgrace. Television is about selling products for advertisers, not promoting "real" psychics.  I think some gullible people have forgotten this fact. – Chive The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. – George Bernard Shaw — Posted via nooz.net – is this thing working? —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such?

Hmm  I missed these There is a difference … professionals are CONTROLLED by governeing bodies! Psycics are not. Plus this guy is a FAKE. If he is SO good then he will let the sceptics society test him. He does not …. thus it may be shown FAKE FAKE FAKE

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? : : : : No, not exactly.  We should pay, but they should not ask for  remuneration. : : WE should always offer our gifts if we receive gifts. : : We should pay that is…Even if you go to someone’s house for a visit  you : should take something. : : In an ideal society, doctors, teachers et alia, would not ask for money  or : gifts to ply their trades, but those receiving their gifts should know  to : give properly. : : : Unfortunately, this is not an ideal society.  Nor will it be any time : soon.  So let’s answer the questions put forth in terms of society : today, shall we? : I thought the theory was a pretty good one. And, I actually try to live by this. I have offered to simply help MANY people and they have returned the favor by offering cash or gifts. It does and can work.  I believe the energy you put out comes back to you. I think you wiccans say threefold.  I don’t know what the ratio is or how to gage. Ah, but alas you do not wish to discuss it…

1. I am not Wiccan. 2. I did not say I did not wish to discuss it. It is not relevant to this particular thread. I will, having come from a society that practices this theory, discuss it with you in another thread if you wish. 3. I wish to hear your answer as it pertains to current society, or the major portion thereof. I still await Noinden’s answer. T9W

Response:

I see it this way. John believes his gift provides comfort for those who need closure. The dead do come to the show and they do confirm all the other things they’ve been doing to try to get the living’s attention. Those of us with similar gifts who recieve communication from the dead know that this is the standard phenomena of spirit encounters. He is fortunate enough to be accurate enough to have a show. He is also fortunate to be living in tolerant times. Perhaps some of us who have other gifts will visit his show in the future.

Response:

: : We assume he is a fake because he is! .. any one with "powers" as he : : claims would not do it for money … but use it to make moeny in : : another way. : : : : : : : : So would it logically follow that we should not pay surgeons for : : surgery, accountants for accounting and teachers for teaching?  How : : about musicians for playing or artists for their art? : : : : Chemists for making medicines and such? : : : : No, not exactly.  We should pay, but they should not ask for remuneration. : : WE should always offer our gifts if we receive gifts. : : We should pay that is…Even if you go to someone’s house for a visit you : should take something. : : In an ideal society, doctors, teachers et alia, would not ask for money or : gifts to ply their trades, but those receiving their gifts should know to : give properly. : : : Unfortunately, this is not an ideal society.  Nor will it be any time : soon.  So let’s answer the questions put forth in terms of society : today, shall we? : I thought the theory was a pretty good one. And, I actually try to live by this. I have offered to simply help MANY people and they have returned the favor by offering cash or gifts. It does and can work.  I believe the energy you put out comes back to you. I think you wiccans say threefold.  I don’t know what the ratio is or how to gage. Ah, but alas you do not wish to discuss it… — Laura!

Question:

I was expecting that.  It seems you’re uninformed about quite a number of things.  Acceptable use under copyright law allows individuals to copy cd’s such as those borrowed from libraries (as I do) for their own use.

Just for the fun of it… Could you please quote the exact provision which supports your assertion? Thanks. jb

Response:

Alright smart ass (not you, Richard), here’s chapter & verse:  Section 1008 of United States Public Law 102-563, also known as the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, states "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, ****or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings****."  (emphasis added) Want to look it up?  Go to http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/ahra.html#sect1008. Acceptable or fair use clauses exist not out of the goodness of businessmen’s hearts (and by the way Oren, I would say that with your apparently rosy view of commerce, YOU’RE the one with the loose connection to reality, not me) but because they know it is simply not possible to prevent individuals from doing things like photocopying copyrighted print material, recording cd’s, copying software (look at a software package, why do you think they all "allow" one copy "for backup purposes and personal use") etc. Oren, I only replied to this after seeing Richard’s post and because I think it is germane to the subject of this newsgroup & others will be interested.   I will not be reading let alone responding to anything more you have to say on the topic, as I’m sure the rest of the group would like to GET BACK TO THE MUSIC as I suggested earlier. David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry to intrude on this little argument here. But where _exactly_ does it state in "copyright law" that this practice is "acceptable?" Chapter and verse please. In the past 15 years I have recorded hundreds across all genres and no "stealing" involved. Is this your opinion? Or is is it wishful thinking? Don’t bother, Richard — it’s obvious David would rather discuss how things *should* be in Utopia, rather than face facts here on Earth. It’s easier to dodge responsibility and find scapegoats that way.  :) — Win $100 USD for a review of tune(s) @ www.mp3.com/orenzero/

Response:

When did I say I DO???  Perhaps you saw all my other posts on recording cd-r’s? No, but that’s okay. So, are you saying you steal music instead of paying what the seller is asking?

I was expecting that.  It seems you’re uninformed about quite a number of things.  Acceptable use under copyright law allows individuals to copy cd’s such as those borrowed from libraries (as I do) for their own use.  In the past 15 years I have recorded hundreds across all genres and no "stealing" involved. That’s a socialist cop-out, David.

Ahhh, there’s that word again.  What an effective way of dismissing anything that might upset the apple cart,  just label it with a word most that has been propagandized to the negative.  One thing I learned at an early age is when to stop battering one’s head against a brick wall of ignorance.  Back to the music. David

Response:

I was expecting that.  It seems you’re uninformed about quite a number of things.  Acceptable use under copyright law allows individuals to copy cd’s such as those borrowed from libraries (as I do) for their own use.

Where is that outlined in the statute, David?  I missed that part. Ahhh, there’s that word again.  What an effective way of dismissing anything that might upset the apple cart,  just label it with a word most that has been propagandized to the negative.  One thing I learned at an early age is when to stop battering one’s head against a brick wall of ignorance.  Back to the music.

That’s a convenient way to avoid talking about artists’ personal responsibility, I’ll give you that. — Win $100 USD for a review of tune(s) @ www.mp3.com/orenzero/

Response:

I was expecting that.  It seems you’re uninformed about quite a number of things.  Acceptable use under copyright law allows individuals to copy cd’s such as those borrowed from libraries (as I do) for their own use.

Sorry to intrude on this little argument here. But where _exactly_ does it state in "copyright law" that this practice is "acceptable?" Chapter and verse please. In the past 15 years I have recorded hundreds across all genres and no

"stealing" involved. Is this your opinion? Or is is it wishful thinking? Richard White — Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on

Question:

I’m helping my sister finish her tax return and have a question for the tax accountants.  I have not dealt with this issue before. She was awarded a class action settlement. The paper work indicated that 15% was for back wages. Sounds like income to me, the other 85% was an "award’. The 1099 she got from them has the whole amount on it. I’m thinking the whole amount is Income and subject to regular taxes. Any thoughts on this? roman

Response:

Robert, There are court decisions going both ways. The safe thing to do is follow the 1099 and pay the tax. If the amount is small, that is also the prudent thing to do. If the amount is large, however, you might want to get an expert to research the matter. The 1099 is prepared by the payer.  If there is any doubt whatsoever, a prudent payer will include it all. Jim Hudspeth, CPA I’m helping my sister finish her tax return and have a question for the tax accountants.  I have not dealt with this issue before. She was awarded a class action settlement. The paper work indicated that 15% was for back wages. Sounds like income to me, the other 85% was an "award’. The 1099 she got from them has the whole amount on it. I’m thinking the whole amount is Income and subject to regular taxes. Any thoughts on this? roman

Response:

All income I think

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m helping my sister finish her tax return and have a question for the tax accountants.  I have not dealt with this issue before. She was awarded a class action settlement. The paper work indicated that 15% was for back wages. Sounds like income to me, the other 85% was an "award’. The 1099 she got from them has the whole amount on it. I’m thinking the whole amount is Income and subject to regular taxes. Any thoughts on this? roman

Response:

All monies received are included in income UNLESS specifically excluded.  Sounds like income to me. Don   All income I think   I’m helping my sister finish her tax return and have a question for the   tax   accountants.  I have not dealt with this issue before.   She was awarded a class action settlement.   The paper work indicated that 15% was for back wages. Sounds like income   to   me, the other 85% was an "award’.   The 1099 she got from them has the whole amount on it.   I’m thinking the whole amount is Income and subject to regular taxes.   Any thoughts on this?   roman      

Response:

My limited experience has been that non-taxable "awards" go through an attorney escrow account to avoid the view of income and then the attorney prepares the 1099 to avoid confusion with the payor. I’m helping my sister finish her tax return and have a question for the tax accountants.  I have not dealt with this issue before. She was awarded a class action settlement. The paper work indicated that 15% was for back wages. Sounds like income to me, the other 85% was an "award’. The 1099 she got from them has the whole amount on it. I’m thinking the whole amount is Income and subject to regular taxes. Any thoughts on this? roman

Response:

Question:

I don’t think it can be done in QB or PT. What you need is a Multi-currency accounting software which you should look at Pastel Partner at http://www.1usi.com

Response:

Hi, I’m working in international trade company and we have transactions (purchases and sales) in US$ and CA$. We also operate w/t two bank accounts and term deposit accounts in US$ Does anyone have any suggestions how to integrate this in the last version of QB Pro 6.0 ? Thanks in advance, Chris

First you have to keep your books in one of the currencies. Even though it is typical to keep books in the home office currency, one could take into account special concerns related to the relative volume of transactions in each currency and the relative stability of each currency. I would suggest a review of Advanced Accounting text books. Many of them had detailed presentations on accounting for foreign currency transactions. Being an old coot, I studied from Finney and Miller’s. But that was in the late fifties. — Frederick E. Jorden http://fejcpapc.com/ Frederick E. Jorden, CPA PC (804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

Response:

I worked for a Greek travel agency with offices in the US and GREECE, you will run into a number of transactions. You will need to convert all transactions into US funds, before entering them.  I would suggest using a weekly exchange rates in your local newspaper, you will need to keep a copy of these weekly rates. Thanks, Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’m working in international trade company and we have transactions (purchases and sales) in US$ and CA$. We also operate w/t two bank accounts and term deposit accounts in US$ Does anyone have any suggestions how to integrate this in the last version of QB Pro 6.0 ? Thanks in advance, Chris

Response:

Hi, I’m working in international trade company and we have transactions (purchases and sales) in US$ and CA$. We also operate w/t two bank accounts and term deposit accounts in US$ Does anyone have any suggestions how to integrate this in the last version of QB Pro 6.0 ? Thanks in advance, Chris

Response:

Hi, I’m working in international trade company and we have transactions (purchases and sales) in US$ and CA$. We also operate w/t two bank accounts and term deposit accounts in US$ Does anyone have any suggestions how to integrate this in the last version of QB Pro 6.0 ? Thanks in advance,

With QB 6 (or any version)  you’ll have to do all conversions to one currency or the other prior to entry. QB doesn’t support multi-currency.

Response:

Question:

Whats the protocal for having a ‘company mascott’ (being that of an animal) and writing off any expesnes incurred with the ‘mascott’?

Response:

Whats the protocal for having a ‘company mascott’ (being that of an animal) and writing off any expesnes incurred with the ‘mascott’?

I would deduct the costs as marketing or advertising.   Although you would need to be aware of the costs that may be associated with a capital item.  I.E.: mascot costume, signs, etc. that have a life span of more than 12 months.  These would be capitalized and depreciated. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA  (Athens,  Georgia) This advice is general in nature and not meant as specific tax or accounting advice. Because all relevant facts may not have been provided, please seek appropriate professional advice prior to taking any action based on this information.

Response:

Question:

Do you guys know what is Brake Horse Power?

Response:

| | 200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at | the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times | should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t. | | Don’t you mean 200hp at the wheels equates to around 260 at the crank?  I can | see accounting for a hp drop through the drive train but the flywheel and | crank?…  In the words of the VanComb lady  "Chaaa, You know what?  eh uh, I | don’t think so." He might have meant 200 hp at drive wheels equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  That would make more sense.  I know the the 98 Prelude has 195 hp at flywheel and 164 hp at drive wheels (check prelude.vtec.net).   Jim

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I heard from someone on prelude.vtec.net that it is rumored that all of the 97+ Preludes have always had 200HP at the fly wheel. sounds like a rumor too me.  200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t. anyway, throwing on an aftermarket exhaust on a 97 should add more than 5hp, depending on which manufacturer.  even though the new preludes will have a more free flowing exhaust then previous models, it’s still going to be more restrictive than any aftermarket ones cuz of the resonators P.T. 90 300ZX http://www.angelfire.com/pa/nitto/index.html

ZX did you mean Flywheel Vs @the Wheels? Crank and flywheel are the same bud. I Have yet to see a flywheel suck 60hp. I’m sure it was just a "fat finger" on your part.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t. Don’t you mean 200hp at the wheels equates to around 260 at the crank?  I can see accounting for a hp drop through the drive train but the flywheel and crank?…  In the words of the VanComb lady  "Chaaa, You know what?  eh uh, I don’t think so." Hey..so was I right when I said it was rumored to be 200HP at the *flywheel*?  I am still learning this stuff and I thought that the guy said at the flywheel.  Still, if you are getting 150 something at the wheels, 200 at the flywheel…what should you be getting at the crank? Grasshopper is listening… Scott

There are a few ways to measure HP. In the "muscle car" era they measure the motor on a dyno stand with no accesories, open exhuast etc etc… Then they switched to a net figure around 1972. The most common used by Mfg. today. That intales "crank" hp with all accesories running and full exhuast, fly wheel etc etc. A more realistic "in car" figure. "At the wheels" is probably the most accurate way to do it. What good is 300hp if your driveline is sucking up 100hp? A 1998 Trans Am will Dyno 290+hp at the wheels, it’s rated at 320hp A 1998 Cobra SVT will do 255+hp at the wheels, it’s rated at 305hp. See the difference?

Response:

Do you guys know what is Brake Horse Power?

Heard of it.  Are you asking because you don’t know and would like to or is this a round about way of you saying we don’t know what the heck we are talking about?  If the latter is the correct, all would be better served if you just educated us.

Response:

Do you guys know what is Brake Horse Power?

Brake = Dyno Brake. A big, fat, hairy, brake that slows your engine.

Response:

Since the flywheel is directly attached to the crank with no possible associated losses, how can the power be different "at the flywheel" than it is "at the crank"? — Mike Kohlbrenner

Mike, you’re a smart car guy..you should know the answer to this, or are you just acting dumb? P.T. 90 300ZX http://www.angelfire.com/pa/nitto/index.html

Response:

Since the flywheel is directly attached to the crank with no possible associated losses, how can the power be different "at the flywheel" than it is "at the crank"? Mike, you’re a smart car guy..you should know the answer to this, or are you just acting dumb?

Oh, I do think I know the answer to this… I guess it all comes down to how you measure the power output. If you use a dynajet, then the inertia of the rotating masses will make a difference.  If you use a traditional brake dynamometer, it doesn’t make a difference. Since a dynajet uses the acceleration of a large rotating drum of known inertia to calculate the curves, all of the rotating masses in the car’s drivetrain will be accelerating at the same time.  This sucks some power and the dynajet never sees it.  I can only assume that dynajets are set up such that the acceler- ation of the drum is slow enough and the inertia of the drum large enough that this effect is minimized to the point of insignificance.  Otherwise, you would get completely different measures in different gears, for example.  (If they don’t operate this way, then I would have to say that they are a crappy product.) However, theoretically, a dynajet will always read a little bit low by the amount of power used to accelerate the rotating masses in the car’s drivetrain.  Of course, if they were really smart, they could compare the curves from two gears and be able to calculate out the error.  Can anyone confirm? A traditional brake dynamometer can be operated such that an engine is operated at a constant rpm, at full throttle, and the torque directly measured.  There is no effect from rotating masses in this case and you can mount a 600 lb. flywheel on it if you want and still get the same torque measure. All of this is completely different from the effect of what are normally referred to as "drivetrain losses".  These are real inefficiencies in the drivetrain (i.e. friction), that suck power.  A flywheel contributes no significant friction that I know of. So, no, I am not acting dumb — I see no way that the power measured at the crank can be any different from that measured at the flywheel.  At least by the way I define power… Or maybe you are thinking of something else? — Mike Kohlbrenner <kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com sorry!

Response:

200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t.

Don’t you mean 200hp at the wheels equates to around 260 at the crank?  I can see accounting for a hp drop through the drive train but the flywheel and crank?…  In the words of the VanComb lady  "Chaaa, You know what?  eh uh, I don’t think so."

Response:

200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t. Don’t you mean 200hp at the wheels equates to around 260 at the crank?  I can see accounting for a hp drop through the drive train but the flywheel and crank?…  In the words of the VanComb lady  "Chaaa, You know what?  eh uh, I don’t think so."

Hey..so was I right when I said it was rumored to be 200HP at the *flywheel*?  I am still learning this stuff and I thought that the guy said at the flywheel.  Still, if you are getting 150 something at the wheels, 200 at the flywheel…what should you be getting at the crank? Grasshopper is listening… Scott

Response:

Still, if you are getting 150 something at the wheels, 200 at the flywheel…what should you be getting at the crank?

A given engine will produce X amount of hp with nothing connected to it.  That would be the "at the crank hp".  Now to connect it to something else and here comes the flywheel.  There is some mass there but no appreciable friction.  The hp should be very close to what you see off the crank.  I’d be surprised if it accounted for 5 hp in a 200hp engine.  Taking the hp at the wheels is the one measurement that actually means anything.  But that’s the lowest number so nobody likes to use it.  I’ve been told the typical drive train uses up about 20% of the hp.  I’m open to being corrected on any of this.  This is just how it was explained to me and how I understand it.

Response:

I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto.  Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

I heard from someone that the increase stems from "freer flowing exhaust" and nothing more.  That’s just what I heard… Scott

Response:

The Japs probably have a secret screw that no-one knows about and they just say " ….ok, let’s givem another 5 horses, Yakamichi!   Turn the screw about half a turn, ok? Thanks. Too bad the headlights haven’t changed, I hate them soooo much!  And such an awesome car too! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto. Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

Response:

: I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude : will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto.  Looks : like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is : coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks They’re throwing on some Mugen stickers.  Instant 5hp. obscured image

Response:

so what if you take a 97 Prelude, and say throw on an after market sport exhaust, will you get that same 5 hp as in the 99??? Karim Powered by D2 Technik

Response:

so what if you take a 97 Prelude, and say throw on an after market sport exhaust, will you get that same 5 hp as in the 99??? Karim

That would accomplish the same thing if not a greater than 5 HP increase.  I heard from someone on prelude.vtec.net that it is rumored that all of the 97+ Preludes have always had 200HP at the fly wheel. Still, I have a 98 with Tanabe exhaust…I think that I could run with a 99 any day of the week  Think about what you will save money wise between a 98 and a 99..definitely enough to buy some exhaust.  The only other point is that the  99 may have better exhaust which is still under warranty.  You might (I never have..) see warranty problems after changing your exhaust on a 97… Scott

Response:

I heard from someone on prelude.vtec.net that it is rumored that all of the 97+ Preludes have always had 200HP at the fly wheel.

sounds like a rumor too me.  200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t. anyway, throwing on an aftermarket exhaust on a 97 should add more than 5hp, depending on which manufacturer.  even though the new preludes will have a more free flowing exhaust then previous models, it’s still going to be more restrictive than any aftermarket ones cuz of the resonators P.T. 90 300ZX http://www.angelfire.com/pa/nitto/index.html

Response:

The Japs probably have a secret screw that no-one knows about and they just say " ….ok, let’s givem another 5 horses, Yakamichi!   Turn the screw about half a turn, ok? Thanks.

Nundiska!  Honda beats GM again!

Response:

I heard from someone on prelude.vtec.net that it is rumored that all of the 97+ Preludes have always had 200HP at the fly wheel. sounds like a rumor too me.  200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.  if the prelude were to have that much power, acceleration times should be in the high 5s, which they aren’t.

My bad, I meant at the crank I guess…What the guy was saying is that there is no *real* increase in power, just some hype to make people wait and pay a premium for the 99’s.   anyway, throwing on an aftermarket exhaust on a 97 should add more than 5hp, depending on which manufacturer.  even though the new preludes will have a more free flowing exhaust then previous models, it’s still going to be more restrictive than any aftermarket ones cuz of the resonators

With all of this money that you have saved by buying a 97 or a 98 you need to get your cat-back exhaust and then buy an Iceman competition intake and remove the resonator.  This is a mod that I think has really helped my car in performance as well as gas mileage.   Scott

Response:

… 200 hp at the flywheel equates to around 260 hp at the crank.

Since the flywheel is directly attached to the crank with no possible associated losses, how can the power be different "at the flywheel" than it is "at the crank"? — Mike Kohlbrenner <kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com sorry!

Response:

I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto.  Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

Response:

Supposedly from a "less restrictive exhaust". I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto.  Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

– |     IASCA Certified Judge:  ’95  ’96  ’97 ‘98               | |     IASCA Zone 3, AMA 301-600                               | |                                                             | |     Alpine 7949, Alpine CHA-1204, Audio Control "Overdrive" | |     Alpine ERA-G320, Audio Control EQTs                     | |     Rockford Fosgate Punch 4080 (2), Punch 250m2 (1)        | |     Phoenix Gold Interconnects, Power, Distribution, Caps   | |     (Front) –    MB Quart 100.03kx w. MUSICOMPS             | |                  MB Quart 210TC                             | |     (Rear)  -    MB Quart QM100                             | |     (Subs)  -   (2) Kicker s10a                             | |                                                             | |     Audio Control     "Winners Circle"                      | |     Rockford Fosgate  "Team America"                        |

Response:

I think that the hp increase is due to a freer flowing exhaust system. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto. Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

Response:

I thought that’s what the HP was for the 98’s. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just read in the new issue of Road and Track (October 98)  that the 99 Prelude will have a 5hp increase to 200 Hp, with an increase to 195 in the auto.  Looks like the headlights will be the same.  Does anyone know where this increase is coming from?  Just curious if anyone knew.  Thanks

Response:

Question:

>Plus my diet has worsened as well.  I even eat pizza occasionally! My >weight has dropped from 145 to 125 since last school year.  Since I’m 5 >’7 this has been a rather dangerous weight loss.  Plus I’m very >depressed as everyone here already knows.

Billy, this can be partially explained by the fact that muscle is a lot *heavier* than fat.  If some of that well tuned muscular physique (I’m just guessing here!) has turned to fat, then you will become a bit lighter.  I had this bad fitness habit of exercising like mad during the summer months, and then slacking off through the winter.  I can still remember the frustration of the first few weeks in May when the bike always used to come out the garage. I’d go from having no exercise to cycling maybe 200 miles or more a week … and actually put on several pounds in weight! This summer was a little different.  I moved in to a new house, and had loads of decorating and boring chores to do (cooking, washing, tidying, house-keeping, accounting etc… all the things you don’t have to worry about so often when you’re living with your parents), so my level of exercise taled right off to nil.  Do you know what?  I actually lost weight for a while!  I’m back on a diet now, and a moderate amount of exercise per week, and my weight has kind of stabilised. Steve.

Response:

Billy Shears wrote: > snip snip

 What > gives?  I thought depression, laziness, an unheathy diet and not eating > enough was supposed to make one’s vital statistics worsen, not IMPROVE! > Can someone explain why I’m getting so much healthier all of a sudden? > AT this rate I’ll probably end up living another 100 years.

You might want to give  http://www.drweil.com  a try.

Response:

I’ve noticed a strange trend developing recently. Back in my teenage years I used to run about 25 miles a week, lift weights and bicycle around 120 miles a week.  Plus I always ate healthy foods and I wasn’t nearly as depressed as I am now.  Guess what?  My resting heart rate hovered around 80 and my blood pressure averaged about 135/80.   Before my running class started I barely got any physical exercise at all.  Over the summer I worked too much to exercise and since the school year started I’ve only felt like running and cycling maybe twice a week. Plus my diet has worsened as well.  I even eat pizza occasionally! My weight has dropped from 145 to 125 since last school year.  Since I’m 5 ‘7 this has been a rather dangerous weight loss.  Plus I’m very depressed as everyone here already knows. Well guess what!  I checked my pulse and blood pressure a couple weeks ago and my pulse had dropped to 54 and my blood pressure is 98/60.  What gives?  I thought depression, laziness, an unheathy diet and not eating enough was supposed to make one’s vital statistics worsen, not IMPROVE! Can someone explain why I’m getting so much healthier all of a sudden? AT this rate I’ll probably end up living another 100 years.    -Billy Shears

Response:

Billy Shears wrote: > Well guess what!  I checked my pulse and blood pressure a couple weeks > ago and my pulse had dropped to 54 and my blood pressure is 98/60.  What > gives?  I thought depression, laziness, an unheathy diet and not eating > enough was supposed to make one’s vital statistics worsen, not IMPROVE! > Can someone explain why I’m getting so much healthier all of a sudden? > AT this rate I’ll probably end up living another 100 years.

I would guess the statistics (I presume your cholesterol is below 160) are a result of very low fat intake. Unfortunately, very low fat intake also accelerates depression, often into full blown suicidal ideation. (The fat content is essential for neural structure, or so I ma told by my friend from NIH). I would strongly suggest that you up the fat intake – keeping the same exercise regimen of course. When I was your age I had the same sort of stats, and was 5′6", 125 lbs. I also worked at a redneck Oil company in the heart of New Orleans, where hostility against ‘little guys’ (often derisively called ‘little fruits’, was renowned. I realized I would be ‘toast’ if I didn’t bulk up and I did so. Weightlifted 4 hours every day, had my share of raw eggs and milk and Joe Wieder’s special protein ‘blends’. I soon (3 most.) got to 165 pounds, all solid muscle. (Some Mississipi redneck of 240 lbs, made a wise ass comment to me and I called his bluff right there, but he chickened out). Point is, after bulking up the depression I’d been saddled with so many years abated. Not only that, the hormones kicked in like crazy and I found I actually had chicks pursuing me. They would come to my apt., peer into my bedroom, then ask me how the bed felt. They wanted to try it out. This euphoric state did not last long, however. I soon found I had to maintain a ‘tough guy’ stance all the time, just to stave off rednecks all around the place. I had to adopt a hostile demeanor – no smiles, no how. Eventually, I also found myself getting into awful habits like shewing tobacco, smoking two packs of Marlboro 100’s each day, eating like no tomorrow, and wrecking my stats (bp 160/100, chol. 220, resting heartrate 95 etc.) None of that changed until I left that hostile environment (went into Peace Corps in Barbados). There, I basically kept a steady weight of 155, and ate lots of fatty stuff (pudding and souse, flying fish & cuccoo, Bajan fried chicken – but continually burned it off by exercising nearly every waking minute of the day (well, they didn’t allow cars so you had to walk or take a bus – not very reliable – wherever you went). Bottom line – there needs to be a balance between caloric-fat intake, good exercise, and an environment conducive to mental peace and harmony. If all there are not there (plus look at your vitamin intake – I make sure to take at least 1200 mg of lecithin and 2500 mg of C daily) you will be more inclined to depressive episodes. And needless to say, before undergoing any change in regimen, including diet – a person should have a physical exam, to make sure there are no hidden causes of depression. (Or deleterious causes of the ‘great’ stats!) — "We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."  - Justice Louis Brandeis.

Response:

Question:

| | While I certainly agree that women deserve just as much opportunity to go to | college with athletic scholarships, your suggestion that athletic | departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that | *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are | men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites | for women since many women’s sports (and men’s sports besides football and | basketball) are funded by the money made by these two sports. I’ll bet the number of schools that turn a profit on their football programs could be counted on the fingers of three or four hands. For most schools it generates lots of revenue but eats up a whole lot more cash than it brings in.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just to clarify some points I made about football, there are actually four divisions of football: Division I, Division IAA, DIvision II, and DIvision III.  Division III schools are not allowed to give out scholarships for *any* sport (men’s or women’s). Generally, Division I gives out more scholarships that IAA, and IAA gives out more than II.  (But, Division II schools still give out a bunch of football scholarships.) This is brought up to expose the "football supports collegiate athletics" myth that permeates Title IX discussions. For example, in Illinois, there is only ONE public school that makes money on football:  University of Illinois.  But, there are a bunch of publicly supported schools that don’t make money off of football, and in fact *lose* money.  (Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Eastern Illinois, Western Illinois, Northeastern Illinois). But, University of Illinois is the one that gets the media coverage, and on Saturday, you see a shot of the stands at U of I overflowing with fans, not the empty seats at Southern Illinois.  Thus, people assume that *every* school with a football program makes money. It just aint so.

Think again, at best the University of Illinois Football Program breaks even. It is a big money spending ‘black hole’. Additionally, in a stadium (millions spent on renovation) that has a capacity of nearly 80 thousand spectators, somewhere around 50 thousand (and dwindling) are showing up on Saturdays. Many athletic boosters are pulling out of giving money to the athletic dept. because they are no longer interested in attending the games. If money is made anywhere at the U. of Illinois it would from the basketball program, but even then we are not talking about huge sums of money. Overall, the athletic dept at the U. of I. is not self sufficient and probably never will be.

Response:

: I recently ran across the following  information regarding this year’s NCAA Scholarship Limitations per sport.  I do not think this is a complete list because : there are some sports missing but, the point is not lost on this writer and hopefully you the reader. : : Title IX and Gender Equity is a farce and will kill many men’s sports to preserve women’s athletic opportunities.  Compare the following list, please note the total at the bottom. : : NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITATIONS           :  FOR 1996-1997                 : : SPORT                             MEN’S       WOMEN’S : : BASEBALL/SOFTBALL     11.7    12 : BASKETBALL                    13      15 : CROSS COUNTRY/TRACK   12.6    18 : FENCING                                  4.5    5 : FIELD HOCKEY                 DNP      12 : GOLF                                   4.5      6 : GYMNASTICS                     6.3    12 : RIFLE                                  3.6    DNP : SKIING                                         6.3      7 : SOCCER                                         9.9    12 : SWIMMING                       9.9    14 : TENNIS                                         4.5      8 : VOLLEYBALL                     4.5    12 : WATER POLO                     4.5      8 : WRESTLING                      9.9    DNP : : TOTAL                                 105.7   141 : : DNP= DO NOT PARTICIPATE       big snip It is interesting to see the difference straight up, the chance for a male tennis player to get a scholorship is just over 50% of the chance for a female. BTW, Rifle and Pistol is a scholarship sport for women too.

Response:

Just to clarify some points I made about football, there are actually four divisions of football: Division I, Division IAA, DIvision II, and DIvision III.  Division III schools are not allowed to give out scholarships for *any* sport (men’s or women’s). Generally, Division I gives out more scholarships that IAA, and IAA gives out more than II.  (But, Division II schools still give out a bunch of football scholarships.) This is brought up to expose the "football supports collegiate athletics" myth that permeates Title IX discussions.   For example, in Illinois, there is only ONE public school that makes money on football:  University of Illinois.  But, there are a bunch of publicly supported schools that don’t make money off of football, and in fact *lose* money.  (Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Eastern Illinois, Western Illinois, Northeastern Illinois). But, University of Illinois is the one that gets the media coverage, and on Saturday, you see a shot of the stands at U of I overflowing with fans, not the empty seats at Southern Illinois.  Thus, people assume that *every* school with a football program makes money. It just aint so.

Response:

: i really don’t want to get involved in a drawn out discussion, but let : me respond to two point brought up by Deve.   : While I certainly agree that women deserve just as much opportunity to go to : college with athletic scholarships, your suggestion that athletic : departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that : *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are : men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites : yes they make money, if you’re a top 20 school.  there are, however, about : 250 schools in Division I.  the rest loose money.  in general only a : handful of athletic deparments make money.  Stanford is one of them, [stuff deleted] I must admit that my statements were directed more towards the 100 or so Div 1A schools. : the secondary effect of reduced alumni donations is negligible if : scholarships are reduced uniformally.  it means mediocre weak-academically : football players will not get in.  they won’t get scholarships and hence, : may hopefully decide to go to trade school or someplace where they can : learn a skill to be productive in society.  or they may end up at a school : with a weaker football program.  the result is that stronger teams might : become weaker because they can’t recruit everybody and give them money. : weaker teams may become stronger because they will get the players : cut out of scholarships at big programs.  as a result, Mr. "State Fan" : will still see his team on television, but his team may not be : completely unbeatable except by a handful of teams.  the net : result may be that some lower ranked teams actually get more TV : time and hence, more exposure and alumni donations.  therefore, to : sum up my point, cutting scholarships will not affect revenue for : most schools. Good point. 85 scholarships does seem excessive, given that NFL rosters have only 50 or so. Then again, many football players take time to develop into good players by their last 2 years in college. I don’t know enough about the programs to know what a good number of scholarships is. I do think, though, that cutting the number dramatically would hurt. : those Nike ads are a direct result of women’s college basketball programs. : in case you have not noticed a lot of social changes start at universities : because of the large emphasis placed on freedom of thought and acceptance : of even the wildest ideas.  universities and schools *are* the starting : point.  a large fan base built at universities has spawned a women’s : professional basketball league, the ABL.   it takes time to change : societies thinking, the universities are the optimum place to start : by giving everyone equal opportunity as title IX tries to do. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I have no problem with colleges anduniversities affecting social change. The question is whether that is what we want. Using colleges and scholarship money to affect change is sort of a socialistic concept that certainly gets away from the capitalist ideas that we hold dear in this country. It also departs from the "smaller government, fewer regulations" thing that most people seem to believe in. Deve (My opinions are my own)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Open your eyes and look around.  The college community is not made up of only the Pac10, the Big10, and the SEC.  Look at the newspapers, for heaven’s sake.  For every Penn State that draws 70,000 fans, there is a dozen Southern Illinois’ and Eastern Louisiana State’s drawing 2000 fans a game. The myth is that every university makes loads of money off of their football program.  In reality, football costs mosts colleges a small fortune. I don’t really know the numbers, but there are two things to consider that go against your argument: 1. The small colleges probably don’t give out too many football scholarships.

True.  Div 3 (I think) isn’t allowed to give atheletic scholarships. 2. Gate receipts are just one part of the value of a successful football program.  Another important financial aspect is alumni support.  I wonder how much Northwestern University’s alumni support went up after their football team started having some success? I fully support equal opportunities for women to participate in collegiate athletics, but I don’t think that pure numerical equality is the right formula.  It’s a tough problem.         Steve Barnard

You’re right.  It is a tough problem.  I think the system as we know it is good enough until someone can think of a better solution.  (and I don’t mean cutting women’s sports and/or not encouraging participation and excellence through scholarship programs.)

Response:

The issue here is equal opportunity, so how can you say men don’t have a much greater opportunity to earn an athletic scholarship when the 85 biggest, fastest, strongest guys at his school are already on football scholarships, and thus out of competition for all of the other scholarships? Assuming you’re telling the truth, it sickens me that someone who can’t understand the basic definition of the term "equal opportunity" could be in charge of a Div. I college sports team.

Quotas aren’t equal opportunity.  By attacking the person you replied to, you’re seemingly attacking yourself. When twice as many males as females compete for places on high school sports teams, it’s difficult to argue that women who pursue sports scholarships don’t already have a much easier time than men do. When male athletes earn the revenue to pay for their athletic departments, it’s difficult to argue that the lower-revenue sports should be almost exclusively female.   When males from our zero-opportunity inner cities have their scholarship opportunities taken away, just so that Buffy can go to school for free playing field hockey (or any of the other upper-class women’s sports being added), it’s difficult to regard "gender equity" as anything short of tragic.  [Yes, inner city women deserve scholarship opportunities too, but how many of them have the chance to play these new women's sports?] Phil Beineke

Response:

ps. I think the "inequalities" in the scholarships given out in the other sports more than make up for all the years women never received any scholarships at all. Funny how we never heard from you when men were the only ones to receive any kind of athletic scholarships. I’d say that was pretty unequal, wouldn’t you?

*Re-reading the above for sense* I think you mean that the scholarship inequity being implemented *doesn’t* make up for lost female scholarships in the past. Guess what?  *Nothing* can make up for those past injustices.  The female athletes who lost opportunities will never get them. Denying oportunities to deserving young men today only compounds the problem. Phil Beineke Want peace?  Work for justice.

Response:

*in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites yes they make money, if you’re a top 20 school.  there are, however, about 250 schools in Division I.  the rest loose money.  in general only a handful of athletic deparments make money.

[stuff deleted] Please, get some facts before posting.  The above is nonsense. For reasonably valid information on gender equity, connect to the gender equity site on the Web.  For pure, unmitigated pap, read the pro-g.e. posts in this thread. Phil Beineke

Response:

Why do you think [collegiate football and basketball programs] make it a practice to keep their books a secret?

Why don’t you gets your facts straight? It is *illegal* for athletic programs in state-funded schools to keep their books secret.  For those with interest, run a Yahoo search under "gender equity" to get to the gender equity research site at U of Iowa. They’re biased in favor of "gender equity," but they provide facts. In 1993, Div 1 football programs *averaged* a profit of over two and one-quarter million dollars, with over two-thirds of schools making a profit. Phil Beineke

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unfortunately, you seem to be blaming the law and not the adminstrators making the decisions.  you should be lobbying the adminstrators who choose to keep football with their large numbers of scholarship (for in my opinion, less than scholarly athletes).  title IX in simple terms state that men and women should have equal opportunity to participate in athletics and the scholarships given for athletics.  in order to determine if a school is providing these opportunities, the number of female/male sports and scholarship are compared to the number of females/males in the student population.  if the ratio’s are close to equal then the school is providing equal opportunity, if not then the school is not providing equal opportunity.  (note: there are other criteria a school can meet to be in compliance but this is by far the most straightforward.) today, most schools have a student female to male ratio of 0.9 to 1.0. wanna guess what the female to male ratio of sports scholarship and programs where before Title IX.  my best guess would put it around 0.1 or 0.2 and today with title IX i would put it at 0.6 maybe 0.7. now, to take a low female/male sports program ratio and make it large one can increase the numerator or decrease the denominator.

Equal opportunity means that if 2 people have similar talents then they get similar results. If a female came along that can throw a football like Peyton Manning, then she should start for a major college team. THIS IS REALLY what equal opportunity means. What you are seeking is equal results. If Peyton gets an athletic scholarship then some girl MUST get it to keep the ‘ratio’ right. Asking for this is asking for equal results whether such is deserved or not. Title IX SAYS "equal opportunity" but demands "equal results" to prove that such opportunity was provided. College football brings HUGE dollars to the university which is used to build buildings, buy library books, hire graduate assistants and so on. To ask for an equal number of scholarships in ANY other sport (male or female) is ridiculous. Prem

Response:

Equal opportunity means that if 2 people have similar talents then they get similar results. If a female came along that can throw a football like Peyton Manning, then she should start for a major college team. THIS IS REALLY what equal opportunity means.

That is such a dopey statement that I’m not even going to pay any attention to it.   College football brings HUGE dollars to the university which is used to build buildings, buy library books, hire graduate assistants and so on.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  After paying the enormous coaches’ salaries, facilities and equipment costs and bail bonds, there’s not much left.  I’d be willing to bet that not one single college or university sees profits (not revenues, profits) from f***ball. Sara (too tired to address the rest of this *less than intelligent* post, but very happy to see that others on the ng are carrying the day) — GEOLECTICA http://www.amy.com:8000/webgrrls/members/women_s.html

Response:

Open your eyes and look around.  The college community is not made up of only the Pac10, the Big10, and the SEC.  Look at the newspapers, for heaven’s sake.  For every Penn State that draws 70,000 fans, there is a dozen Southern Illinois’ and Eastern Louisiana State’s drawing 2000 fans a game. The myth is that every university makes loads of money off of their football program.  In reality, football costs mosts colleges a small fortune.

I don’t really know the numbers, but there are two things to consider that go against your argument: 1. The small colleges probably don’t give out too many football scholarships. 2. Gate receipts are just one part of the value of a successful football program.  Another important financial aspect is alumni support.  I wonder how much Northwestern University’s alumni support went up after their football team started having some success? I fully support equal opportunities for women to participate in collegiate athletics, but I don’t think that pure numerical equality is the right formula.  It’s a tough problem.         Steve Barnard

Response:

Yea, Ray!!!!!! Open your eyes and look around. The myth is that every university makes loads of money off of their

football program.  In reality, football costs mosts colleges a small fortune. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

i really don’t want to get involved in a drawn out discussion, but let me respond to two point brought up by Deve.   While I certainly agree that women deserve just as much opportunity to go to college with athletic scholarships, your suggestion that athletic departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites

yes they make money, if you’re a top 20 school.  there are, however, about 250 schools in Division I.  the rest loose money.  in general only a handful of athletic deparments make money.  Stanford is one of them, but not with the football program.  i believe it is the women’s basketball men’s basketball, and women’s volleyball programs that bring in the most money.  the Stanford football program is rumored to have lost 750,000 dollars to go to the Liberty bowl, although word has it the some alum help bail them out.   that it is waste of donated money.   football is an expensive sport. stadium’s aren’t cheap.  most programs loose money.   the secondary effect of reduced alumni donations is negligible if scholarships are reduced uniformally.  it means mediocre weak-academically football players will not get in.  they won’t get scholarships and hence, may hopefully decide to go to trade school or someplace where they can learn a skill to be productive in society.  or they may end up at a school with a weaker football program.  the result is that stronger teams might become weaker because they can’t recruit everybody and give them money. weaker teams may become stronger because they will get the players cut out of scholarships at big programs.  as a result, Mr. "State Fan" will still see his team on television, but his team may not be completely unbeatable except by a handful of teams.  the net result may be that some lower ranked teams actually get more TV time and hence, more exposure and alumni donations.  therefore, to sum up my point, cutting scholarships will not affect revenue for most schools. The larger question we have to ask ourselves is why don’t other sports make money. As a society, we seem to be more interested in a few sports, and we don’t support women’s sports enough. The change needs to start elsewhere, like those Nike ads showing the little girls with the "If you let me play         [deletia] The other question to ask is whether we want colleges to correct what is essentially a societal weakness. That would be saying, "We know our society doesn’t care enough about women’s sports and that they don’t make any money,         [deletia]

those Nike ads are a direct result of women’s college basketball programs. in case you have not noticed a lot of social changes start at universities because of the large emphasis placed on freedom of thought and acceptance of even the wildest ideas.  universities and schools *are* the starting point.  a large fan base built at universities has spawned a women’s professional basketball league, the ABL.   it takes time to change societies thinking, the universities are the optimum place to start by giving everyone equal opportunity as title IX tries to do.                                                         later,                                                         francis  | CISX 305-2               | http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~fmr/ |  | Dept. of EE, MC 4075     | fax:   (415) 725-7731                |  | Stanford University      | phone: (415) 723-1482                |  | Stanford, CA 94305       |                                      |

Response:

I can not believe that the person who wrote this original article (sorry, I had trouble including it here) would tell women that if they want equality then they should "strap on a helmet and get out on the football field." Why, on God’s green earth, would women ever want to play a sport that they have absolutely no future in (and I wish we did because I love football). We would not be guaranteed a portion of those "85" football scholarships, and you can bet you sweet "a**" that unless we were, nobody would ever give a scholarship to a woman football player. Coaches are still trying to exclude them from the football field, and they’re for some reason succeeding. Do you really think that by telling women to "strap on a helmet" gender equity would be achieved? If you do, then I would venture to say that you’ve been "spiked" in the head too many times.   -Jennifer Watson ps. I think the "inequalities" in the scholarships given out in the other sports more than make up for all the years women never received any scholarships at all. Funny how we never heard from you when men were the only ones to receive any kind of athletic scholarships. I’d say that was pretty unequal, wouldn’t you?

Response:

: departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that : *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are : men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites : According to an article in Time, a few years ago, collegiate football and : basketball programs almost never turned a profit.  Why do you think they : make it a practice to keep their books a secret? : money. Very few alums watch the fencing team on ABC and decide to send a : check to the school. You can say what you want about the relative importance : Very few alums send any money to a school for sports–according to some : surveys cited in the same issue of Time.  The vast majority of monies : accrued because of sports to universities is through "booster clubs", the : majority of whose members are non-student, non-alumni, but local : residents.   I guess I don’t have detailed info on the books of football and basketball programs across the country. Certainly, my experiences are affected by going to school at Duke, where there is no doubt that the men’s hoops team brings in heaps of money for the school in all kinds of direct and indirect ways. Also, while I’m not sure what money and how much of it gets back to the athletic programs, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that a school’s success on the field translates to increased revenues for the school. I’m sure that Northwestern alums across the country sent more money, bought more sweatshirts, etc. last year. Also, I wonder about the finances of football and hoops programs across the country. Obviously, they do bring in money through ticket sales, TV contracts, apparel sales, etc. They also spend money on scholarships, recruiting, coaches’ salaries, etc. Most other sports spend less, and, for the most part, make nothing. I wonder how it balances out. As to the booster clubs, there still is the issue that many club events are centered around football and basketball. Like I said earlier, these sports are responsible for most of whatever money is generated by the athletics, whether it is generated directly (through ticket sales), or indirectly (through booster club events where people pay to have dinner with the coach). Deve

Response:

I recently ran across the following  information regarding this year’s NCAA Scholarship Limitations per sport.  I do not think this is a complete list because there are some sports missing but, the point is not lost on this writer and hopefully you the reader.

 I only noticed two sports missing from that list, one of which was  also noticed by the writer, who did not bother to correct the table.  The fact that including that sport, Men’s Football, changes the  conclusions drawn from this "information" should be an indication  that promulgating this table is a classic example of lying with  statistics.  The fact is that 190.7 is significantly different  from 105.7 and not less than 141.  The other missing sport was Ice Hockey, and not including it on  the same line with Field Hockey (as was done with Baseball/Softball)  suggests additional bias in constructing the table.  I suspect  Lacrosse might also show up only on the Men’s side of the list  but I don’t know if they give scholarships. Title IX and Gender Equity is a farce and will kill many men’s sports

 Name five.  The only reduction in sports at this institution took place  long before Title IX became an issue.   Well, if women want 85 more scholarship opportunities, then put on the helmet and the pads and start playing and then you might get that.   But instead, the women’s coalition simply wants those scholarships in other sports and thus far out the number the men’s opportunities in the SAME sport.  That’s Equity???

 Yes.  Who are you to dictate which sports women should participate in?    Are you arguing that half of those 85 should go to women who want to  play the true sport of "football", known as soccer in the US?  Hmmm?  In addition, I will point out that there are many members of the Track  team, and sometimes members of the Baseball team, who are on a Football  scholarship at this institution.  Thus a proper accounting of the  impact of a particular division of scholarships must include Football.   That’s because a few years ago, the NCAA (and the universities which are its members)

 Wrong.  The NCAA *is* its members.  The decision of the NCAA is the  collective decision of its member institutions — most of whom can  only dream of supporting the full list of sports given above because  intercollegiate sports is a money-losing proposition subsidized by  its (male and female) students. And by the way, are the more players on the court in women’s volleyball than in men’s???

 Nope, but hardly any institutions play Men’s Volleyball while Women’s  Volleyball is a major sport.  The numbers reflect this reality. So, the opportunities for young men and women are NOT equal.  

 That is correct.  There are more opportunities for men to get college  sports scholarships than there are for women. —     http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be  Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is  Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  – JAC

Response:

departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites

According to an article in Time, a few years ago, collegiate football and basketball programs almost never turned a profit.  Why do you think they make it a practice to keep their books a secret? money. Very few alums watch the fencing team on ABC and decide to send a check to the school. You can say what you want about the relative importance

Very few alums send any money to a school for sports–according to some surveys cited in the same issue of Time.  The vast majority of monies accrued because of sports to universities is through "booster clubs", the majority of whose members are non-student, non-alumni, but local residents.   — Football’s contribution to "physical fitness" is virtually nil.  When I think of a football game, I think of 22 men in desperate need of some rest, being watched by 5,000 people in desperate need of some exercise…

Response:

Open your eyes and look around.  The college community is not made up of only the Pac10, the Big10, and the SEC.  Look at the newspapers, for heaven’s sake.  For every Penn State that draws 70,000 fans, there is a dozen Southern Illinois’ and Eastern Louisiana State’s drawing 2000 fans a game. The myth is that every university makes loads of money off of their football program.  In reality, football costs mosts colleges a small fortune.

Response:

: Title IX encouraged the female numbers to be increased. well, athletic : departments decided that was too hard and opted to reduce the male : numbers; however, they refused to touch the holy grail of football. : hence, non-football sports lost major ground. therefore, you need to be : lobbying your athletic department to start slashing football and : increase women’s opportunities rather than cutting male non-football : sports.   : women deserve just as much opportunity to go to college with : athletic scholarships and equal access to athletic facilities.  Title IX : set up a criteria to determine whether schools are providing : that opportunity.  it is failure of the athletic departments and : the football programs that non-football male sports are being cut. While I certainly agree that women deserve just as much opportunity to go to college with athletic scholarships, your suggestion that athletic departments slash football is crazy and unrealistic. The bottom line is that *in general* the only two sports that make money for the universities are men’s basketball and football. Cutting these would not increase opportunites for women since many women’s sports (and men’s sports besides football and basketball) are funded by the money made by these two sports. The other reality is that football and men’s hoops are mostly responsible for drumming up school spirit (however you can quantify that) to get alums to donate money. Very few alums watch the fencing team on ABC and decide to send a check to the school. You can say what you want about the relative importance of the different sports, but you can’t ignore the fact that some make money and some don’t. The larger question we have to ask ourselves is why don’t other sports make money. As a society, we seem to be more interested in a few sports, and we don’t support women’s sports enough. The change needs to start elsewhere, like those Nike ads showing the little girls with the "If you let me play sports" lines. We need to get to a stage where the Mia Hamms of this world are as popular as the quarterback of the football team. The bottom line is that if people watched women’s sports, they would make money, and they wouldn’t need to depend on football and men’s hoops to survive. I don’t think anyone at schools like Tennessee where the women’s hoops team is so popular has a problem with scholarships for that team. The other question to ask is whether we want colleges to correct what is essentially a societal weakness. That would be saying, "We know our society doesn’t care enough about women’s sports and that they don’t make any money, but we’re going to fund them anyway." Perhaps tax-payers money should be used to fund scholarships for women (and for men in non-revenue generating sports) in order to provide opportunities for scholar-athletes. If you don’t like the sound of this, accept that these sports have to be funded largely from the revenue generated by football and men’s hoops. To paraphrase Bobby Bowden, we must be careful not to kill the goose that’s laying the golden eggs. That’s my thoughts. Deve (My opinion’s are my own)

Response:

I recently ran across the following  information regarding this year’s NCAA Scholarship Limitations per sport.  I do not think this is a complete list because there are some sports missing but, the point is not lost on this writer and hopefully you the reader. Title IX and Gender Equity is a farce and will kill many men’s sports to preserve women’s athletic opportunities.  Compare the following list, please note the total at the bottom.

Unfortunately, you seem to be blaming the law and not the adminstrators making the decisions.  you should be lobbying the adminstrators who choose to keep football with their large numbers of scholarship (for in my opinion, less than scholarly athletes).  title IX in simple terms state that men and women should have equal opportunity to participate in athletics and the scholarships given for athletics.  in order to determine if a school is providing these opportunities, the number of female/male sports and scholarship are compared to the number of females/males in the student population.  if the ratio’s are close to equal then the school is providing equal opportunity, if not then the school is not providing equal opportunity.  (note: there are other criteria a school can meet to be in compliance but this is by far the most straightforward.) today, most schools have a student female to male ratio of 0.9 to 1.0. wanna guess what the female to male ratio of sports scholarship and programs where before Title IX.  my best guess would put it around 0.1 or 0.2 and today with title IX i would put it at 0.6 maybe 0.7. now, to take a low female/male sports program ratio and make it large one can increase the numerator or decrease the denominator. Title IX encouraged the female numbers to be increased. well, athletic departments decided that was too hard and opted to reduce the male numbers; however, they refused to touch the holy grail of football. hence, non-football sports lost major ground. therefore, you need to be lobbying your athletic department to start slashing football and increase women’s opportunities rather than cutting male non-football sports.   women deserve just as much opportunity to go to college with athletic scholarships and equal access to athletic facilities.  Title IX set up a criteria to determine whether schools are providing that opportunity.  it is failure of the athletic departments and the football programs that non-football male sports are being cut.                                                         later,                                                         francis  | CISX 305-2               | http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~fmr/ |  | Dept. of EE, MC 4075     | fax:   (415) 725-7731                |  | Stanford University      | phone: (415) 723-1482                |  | Stanford, CA 94305       |                                      |

Response:

I recently ran across the following  information regarding this year’s NCAA Scholarship Limitations per sport.  I do not think this is a complete list because there are some sports missing but, the point is not lost on this writer and hopefully you the reader. Title IX and Gender Equity is a farce and will kill many men’s sports to preserve women’s athletic opportunities.  Compare the following list, please note the total at the bottom. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITATIONS              FOR 1996-1997           SPORT                               MEN’S       WOMEN’S BASEBALL/SOFTBALL       11.7    12 BASKETBALL                      13      15 CROSS COUNTRY/TRACK     12.6    18 FENCING                                  4.5      5 FIELD HOCKEY                   DNP      12 GOLF                                     4.5      6 GYMNASTICS                       6.3    12 RIFLE                                    3.6    DNP SKIING                                   6.3      7 SOCCER                                   9.9    12 SWIMMING                         9.9    14 TENNIS                                   4.5      8 VOLLEYBALL                       4.5    12 WATER POLO                       4.5      8 WRESTLING                        9.9    DNP TOTAL                                   105.7   141 DNP= DO NOT PARTICIPATE A couple of things to highlight.  First of all the totals.  Now I am sure that some people are going to point out that this list does NOT include football with it’s 85 scholarships and that if that sport was included then the balance would be as great for the men as this current list has it for the women.   Well, if women want 85 more scholarship opportunities, then put on the helmet and the pads and start playing and then you might get that.  But instead, the women’s coalition simply wants those scholarships in other sports and thus far out the number the men’s opportunities in the SAME sport.  That’s Equity??? Please, don’t quote me on the law or what the court says regarding Title IX, just because someone passes the law, doesn’t make it right. In addition please note the several of the men’s sports have partial scholarships (for example 4.5) while all the women’s are whole numbers. I wonder why that is???? That’s because a few years ago, the NCAA (and the universities which are its members) decided to give a 10% across the board cut to the men’s sports.  This was done again….for gender equity.   One argument often stated here is that, "That’s not how the law was supposed to work.  The opportunities for women were to be increased, not as the expense of the opportunities for men."   Well, that’s nice pie in the sky …but the facts talk and pet interpetations don’t mean squat. And by the way, are the more players on the court in women’s volleyball than in men’s??? What about basketball??  Soccer??  Baseball/Softball??   If the numbers of players are the same, then the numbers of players on the team are the same.  If the numbers of players on the team are the same, then why aren’t the scholarships the same.   To bottom line it, it’s simply discrimination based on gender.   So, the opportunities for young men and women are NOT equal.  The opportunities for young men and women to go to college are NOT equal as it relates to a college scholarship. So a young man and a young woman who are outstanding the sports of basketball, baseball/softball, track, golf, swimming, volleyball, water polo, etc.. are not provided equal access to higher educational opportunities.  All for the sake of trying to balance a sport, football, that women as an entire group do not want to participate in. Gender Equity as it has been so conveniently mislabeled is really GENDER INEQUITY. As a former Division I Head Coach for Men’s Volleyball, it sickens me to see such a discrimination to so many young men and nothing is done about it. Women’s athletics is outstanding.  The performance, the crowds, the Olympic Gold Medals in Atlanta were very impressive.  But please, call this for what it is, don’t use "Socially Acceptable Terms for the 90’s" to gloss over the real issue. Either, strap on a helmet, take the field, develop sponsors, persuade universities to offer women’s football.  Or, kindly drop the argument, give up some your scholarships and allow the same sport on both the men’s and the women’s side to have the same number of scholarships. My guess is that this might produce some discussion, if so, that’s why the article was written.

Response: