The tech communication and scheduling world survived quite well before Siri. It's voice recognition. While definitely impressive, it improves performance how much?
On the other hand with advertisements including high-power graphics, video, and audio that chews up bandwidth, processes and RAM, and battery life, being able to block such advertisements outright provides for actual performance improvement.
(1) The two have different width to height ratios. (2) The Apple iPad has a single concave button in the middle of one of its bezel sides. (3) The UI is noticeably different (4) The Samsung Galaxy looks to have a user-facing camera.
Maybe they should have asked a prospective buyer. You know? The people the matter...
I'm with you... because we're not talking about the same thing.
I, too, think it would be wrong (ethically, morally, legally) to force an education on someone. But we're talking about people who are paying over $120,000 for a public education. It's not forcing-- it's making sure the "product" is delivered. Moreover, the certificate of completion of the education must carry with it a good amount of certainty that the certificated person has learned a good amount of knowledge relative to the field. That's the paid service to American society.
And consider a prevalence of online courses. Would they actually teach sufficiently or would the students just "do what they have to do" (cheat) to get good grades and get into an advanced degree program?
So as I said before, we have to make sure we're educating... not just giving information and testing.
I don't agree that we need another method for delivering course lectures to a larger audience. We need either more lecturers or smaller audiences. We need to cut costs in very specific areas to make that happen.
The industries that suffer at the hand of automation do so due to the relatively easy repetition of processes. That's not what education is. Anyone who believes that either has never had experience in education.
You're right that it costs too much. So let's focus on why it costs too much. Here's the breakdown of one UC's expected yearly costs for living on campus as an undergraduate:
Books and Supplies - $1,553.00 Room and Board - $11,611.00 Personal - $1,338.00 Transportation - $953.00 Subtotal - $15,455.00
Fees and Room & Board make up the vast majority of cost. We know Fees have skyrocketed because there's been massive cuts of funding from the state and the university, instead of targeting salaries over $150,000, chose to just raise student fees. And then, in this past June, give the highest paid administrators another raise. And then, this fall, give everyone under $200,000 a 3-4% wage increase.
Room & Board is another issue. According to the estimate, it costs nearly $1,000/month to share a room with 1-3 people, a bathroom with 10-20 people, and have ~2 meals per day. And what if you try to live off-campus? Well college populations are targeted by land-speculators all the time. Around the University of California, Irvine, all apartments are owned by the Irvine Company. A 2-bedroom apartment? $1650/month. When property values go up, the Irvine company says "Rent is going up with market." When the foreclosure crisis hi, they said, "Rent is going up due to demand!"
Why is it so expensive? People business and individuals see institutions of higher education and their easy stream of federal student loans as easy money. Over-paid administrators; highly-subsidized, over-paid, and pampered faculty; companies and individuals that target student money because they know their financial aid will just be adjusted.
How do we fix it? (1) Decrease the cost of employees by capping salaries at $250,000 for the utmost highest administrators and $125,000 for the Chancellors. (2) Decrease the maximum state contribution to faculty salaries to $100,000. (3) Force rent control for students. (4) Stop trying to attract students with luxury facilities. They don't care about "luxury" at the age of 17 and we shouldn't be teaching them to care about it anyway.
But we don't fix things with financial gambles. We're not a private business. We cannot just fail and call "Bankruptcy!"
The University of Phoenix does NOT work well. In fact, these private distance learning schools make up the vast majority of student loan defaults in the nation. Kaplan institutions have a repayment rate of about 28%. http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/aug/16/business/la-fi-for-profit-colleges-20100816 . Why? Because their goals are to use "students" as vehicles for tapping into student loan money. They don't care about the education. They care about MONEY.
Moreover, NO ONE values an online learning degree. They may be accredited institutions, but they've never proven equal in quality to in-person education.
And here's the kicker for your "Business 101", when you're running a public institution, you should never look to "increase profits". It's not a business. The big focus should be on reducing administrative redundancies and capping faculty salaries. Everyone making over $150,000 should be targeted for wage reductions or outright freezing of all wages about $150,000 permanently. It's education- a public service. Not a means to wealth.
First: That's not an article... that's a re-posting of comments.
Second: It's not just "educator unions". It's everyone who actually has experience in education. I'm in no union of any sort and I think it's a stupid idea. Opponents are not simply trying to block it for blocking sake. They're preventing the massive investment required to build a UC-wide online class-delivery system when we already have a shortage of funds to hire lecturers. They're preventing a shift in education from content and quality to ease and profitability.
Classes are overcrowded and fees are going higher-- this is no time for a financial gamble.
And while the typical subsection of Slashdot may proclaim "I was too smart for school, my teachers held me back!" -- understand that people like you are such a small percentage of the human population that you're not worth directly catering to. Really. We're working to educate THE MASSES here. And the masses need human interaction to reinforce their education... or else they won't bother learning.
I believe the person to whom you reply would contest that your interpretation of the goings-on in Congress is naive. While everyone would agree with the principal as you state:
"The whole point of a Senate is to have a group of men to take a deep look at what the House (which was always supposed to be the popular voice of the people) passes in the heat of the moment,"... few people believe that's what actually happening. We have seen *many* acts and bills passed in the heat of the moment and it's hard to argue that our Senators are as much philosophers as they are self- and party-interested tacticians.
People don't complain about the difficulty of things passing in any house of Congress nearly as much as they do the severe biases that allows some things to pass and others not.
Why is it that people who are found guilty of taking money or profiting off criminal actions rarely have to give back the money taken... or fined appropriately so that they make no profit on the transaction?
The guy took $5,000 for property that wasn't his. He is found guilt of that. His fine? $250.
You and I share some very similar philosophy. You say that janitors should be able to hold their heads up high with doctors and I agree. I think that peoples' hard work should be praised if only because the lack of work is the current American dream (get rich quick schemes, lotto, a single critical patent, celebrity, etc.). Workless luxury is the new goal and there are no visible efforts to fight that cultural cancer.
I also despise it when people live off the system out of genuine laziness. I think there are ways to combat and change some of that culture by implementing what I refer to as an Urban Civilian Conservation Corps. (Think original "CCC" but with a focus on improving the quality of life in the city instead of the wilderness.)
Dignity -- This is a difficult topic. Most people don't know what it is and others just don't consider it. Dignity is different from pride in that dignity deals with one's value of self (all stop) while pride deals with one's value of self relative to others. I think dignity and humility go hand-in-hand which is why you never see immigrant farm workers ashamed of their work-- they're putting their blood, sweat, and tears into work so that their children can have a chance at a better life.
However, when Americans who have tasted the relative relaxation of living the middle class life are confronted with the financial reality of needing to do work they have traditional considered to be "below them", they balk. They are repulsed. They're afraid of what their peers will think and say. They have pride.
There are indeed many jobs available for these protestors. There are many jobs available to Americans. The problem is that Americans not only have a minimum expectation of quality of life, but a maximum expectation of strain in work.
School loans are definitely hard to get out of. They're also notoriously easy to repay. I got a job immediately out of college (2005), but it was grant-based and lasted only 10 months or so. After that, I was out of work for 11 months and still needed to pay loans. So what'd I do? I called in after paying for 2 months of loan repayment out of savings and told them why I was out of work. They gave me a 6-month deferment and, when I was ready to pay again, put me on a plan that required me to pay only $85/month. When I got more current (stable, good pay) job, I increased that to $210 on my own, online.
Those administrating Federal Direct Loans want to make sure you pay back your debt more than anything... so they WILL work with you.
Most scholarships are not geared toward anything. Some are gender specific. Some are ethnically/racially specific. Many are subject/major specific. Few are income-specific (that's why we have need-based grants).
The conservative groups are NOT trying to make it so only the rich have formal instruction. Most "conservative groups" don't care about the education of the masses mainly because there is no one conservative mentality. There are the corporatists (which are trying to make it so they profit off of publicly funded education) and the religious right (who are trying to inject their religion into public education). You'll be hard-pressed to find a group of anyone who just wants education for a few.
While the goal of his "prize" idea is to drive the lower 95% to work harder, they won't do it when they figure out that the top 5% of achievers will outwork even them at which point it just becomes a handout to the top 5%.
It doesn't include everyone so long as they're willing to work hard... it rewards only those willing to work hard enough and do what it takes to get money!
Disclaimer: I'm a social liberal. Hippie, even. My passion is education and my occupation is sustainable transportation. I can't wait for gay marriage to be legal everywhere, I happily pay my taxes to redistribute wealth (I live within my means) and pay for socialized services, dream of the day of fiscally sustainable socialized medicine, and believe that all tax loop holes should be closed (in a perfect world, etc.). I like to donate my time to help other people. I'm a humanist preference utilitarian.
Statement: I think a good deal of the Occupy protesters are as bad as the Tea Party-ers. Few understand the implications of their assertions and demands. Few understand the futility of sit-ins, hunger strikes, and walk-abouts. They have no singular cause... no three points of demands and a plan to achieve them. Instead, they're so very grass-roots, that it's attracted a bunch of people who just feel like they need to yell at someone who's listening.
But no one's listening.
They're angry, they're let down, their parents' generation milked American credit for all it was worth and now they've been told go to fix it. Instead of creating meaningful action and initiative, they're chanting.
Further disclaimer: I marched against the war in Iraq with millions upon millions world-wide. The effect? America still invaded Iraq.
Statement: People have forgotten that the only way for protests to work is for the protestors to be pitiable. What are the memorable photographs of the 1960s? Here's a hint: they didn't involve hyperbolic signs or masked faces. They are of dead people-- having been shot unjustly by the national guard. They are of those being sprayed with fire-hoses and being attacked by police dogs. These protesters aren't allowing themselves to be pitied. They seem too well off for the middle class to care.
Ya... if contractual obligation removes loans from financial aid, then you can remove a number of scholarships and grants, too. Almost all have GPA and "making appropriate progress towards a BA/BA" requirements. Scholarships frequently require that someone enter and graduate with a certain major, thus binding them to decisions made at the age of 17.
Or you can just consider that without loans, most people wouldn't be able to afford college, homes, cars, to get medical care, or start a business.
Scholarships - What everyone thinks will fully fund their educations. These are competitive and often require submission of transcripts, work histories, and at least one essay. All the biggest monies (Gates Foundation, Pepsi, etc.) go to all the foregone conclusions of academic success. "Normal" high-achievers need to set their sights on local scholarships that originate within their states and counties-- shoot for ones that meet your description.
Grants - 99% of grants are need-based. If you're poor, in need, and show academic promise, you can receive grants dependent on overall funding.
Loans - These have to be paid back except in exceptional circumstances (debt-forgiveness). Federal loans are the best, as some won't accrue interest until graduation and most won't require the start of repayment until 6 months after you get your degree. They also have very low interest rates and a variety of repayment options. Private loans (like bank loans) should be avoided wherever possible because of their lightly-regulated policies on interest rates and repayment.
Subject-specific scholarships for girls is still he best money-- more so than race/ethnicity-based in my experience. There are many private orgs looking to support a promising math-minded girl in pure math, information & computer sciences, electrical engineering, etc. Not many orgs trying supporting girls (specifically) in bio or chem. Even fewer for anyone in the soft sciences or liberal arts.
Entering undeclared is the worst (scholarship-wise). Private orgs like to tell their members that they're sponsoring the newest Einstein or even Mozart. They don't brag about "ensuring another promising young person is receiving a good education"-- it's too mundane for their egos.
You don't get offered money outright for getting a high GPA. Those capable of getting that high GPA through high school, however, are *much* more likely to receive financial aid in the form of scholarships because of their better-honed intellect and writing capabilities.
While it seems callous, to ask about another's daughter: How many competitive scholarships did she apply for? Write papers for?
Most scholarships are merit-based competitive sources of funding. Everyone is on a level playing field there.
On the other hand, there is need-based aid which is (within public sources) purely based on income per household size.
Some private organizations that want to increase the amount of under-represented populations in higher education will target minorities (ethnic, gender, religious, etc.).
I wouldn't, personally, suggest too high of a pay increase except at starting levels. What most educators want is security and sufficiency. They don't want to be able to afford a BMW or 'round-the-world flights every summer... they want to be able to afford a home near where they live and know that their jobs, retirement, and benefits will not be at risk every time there's a hiccup in private sector profitability.
I spent many years in higher education outreach when I decided I needed to get in there. So I took all my tests and was ready to enter an MA/Credential combo program when the economy tanked. Education funding had already been crap for years and I was willing to accept that I would live on $31,000/year for 5 years and even some of that money would go to supporting my class room. But when the layoffs happened, my program funding fell through, and then the recent corporate influence in public education took hold... I had a long talk with my significant other and decided that the actual practice of becoming a teacher was just too much of a gamble.
I would have taken on an additional $30,000 in debt for my MA/Credential program plus moving costs (you move to the district that will hire you), and then there is additional final credentialing after you've been credentialed. If someone would hire you at full-time.
I'm pretty sure we've lost out on a massive number of people who would be willing to be committed to teaching K-12 over the last 5 years... mainly because there is no security of employment anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't mess around.
Talking too loudly? SHHHH!
Demanding the records of a librarian patron? STFU!
Same here!
I heard that too... but then I updated Firefox with each release and am yet to have a broken add-on/extension.
The tech communication and scheduling world survived quite well before Siri. It's voice recognition. While definitely impressive, it improves performance how much?
On the other hand with advertisements including high-power graphics, video, and audio that chews up bandwidth, processes and RAM, and battery life, being able to block such advertisements outright provides for actual performance improvement.
Wait... how are they alienating me?
Samsung Galaxy: http://bub.blicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab.jpg
Apple iPad: http://areacellphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/best_ipad_texting_app.jpg
(1) The two have different width to height ratios.
(2) The Apple iPad has a single concave button in the middle of one of its bezel sides.
(3) The UI is noticeably different
(4) The Samsung Galaxy looks to have a user-facing camera.
Maybe they should have asked a prospective buyer. You know? The people the matter...
I'm with you... because we're not talking about the same thing.
I, too, think it would be wrong (ethically, morally, legally) to force an education on someone. But we're talking about people who are paying over $120,000 for a public education. It's not forcing-- it's making sure the "product" is delivered. Moreover, the certificate of completion of the education must carry with it a good amount of certainty that the certificated person has learned a good amount of knowledge relative to the field. That's the paid service to American society.
And consider a prevalence of online courses. Would they actually teach sufficiently or would the students just "do what they have to do" (cheat) to get good grades and get into an advanced degree program?
So as I said before, we have to make sure we're educating... not just giving information and testing.
I don't agree that we need another method for delivering course lectures to a larger audience. We need either more lecturers or smaller audiences. We need to cut costs in very specific areas to make that happen.
The industries that suffer at the hand of automation do so due to the relatively easy repetition of processes. That's not what education is. Anyone who believes that either has never had experience in education.
No. I'm saying that we should force kids that are already paying for college to learn.
You're right that it costs too much. So let's focus on why it costs too much. Here's the breakdown of one UC's expected yearly costs for living on campus as an undergraduate:
Books and Supplies - $1,553.00
Room and Board - $11,611.00
Personal - $1,338.00
Transportation - $953.00
Subtotal - $15,455.00
Systemwide Fees - $12,192.00
Campus Fees - $1,778.00
Fees Subtotal - $13,970.00
Total - $29,425.00
Fees and Room & Board make up the vast majority of cost. We know Fees have skyrocketed because there's been massive cuts of funding from the state and the university, instead of targeting salaries over $150,000, chose to just raise student fees. And then, in this past June, give the highest paid administrators another raise. And then, this fall, give everyone under $200,000 a 3-4% wage increase.
Room & Board is another issue. According to the estimate, it costs nearly $1,000/month to share a room with 1-3 people, a bathroom with 10-20 people, and have ~2 meals per day. And what if you try to live off-campus? Well college populations are targeted by land-speculators all the time. Around the University of California, Irvine, all apartments are owned by the Irvine Company. A 2-bedroom apartment? $1650/month. When property values go up, the Irvine company says "Rent is going up with market." When the foreclosure crisis hi, they said, "Rent is going up due to demand!"
Why is it so expensive? People business and individuals see institutions of higher education and their easy stream of federal student loans as easy money. Over-paid administrators; highly-subsidized, over-paid, and pampered faculty; companies and individuals that target student money because they know their financial aid will just be adjusted.
How do we fix it? (1) Decrease the cost of employees by capping salaries at $250,000 for the utmost highest administrators and $125,000 for the Chancellors. (2) Decrease the maximum state contribution to faculty salaries to $100,000. (3) Force rent control for students. (4) Stop trying to attract students with luxury facilities. They don't care about "luxury" at the age of 17 and we shouldn't be teaching them to care about it anyway.
But we don't fix things with financial gambles. We're not a private business. We cannot just fail and call "Bankruptcy!"
The University of Phoenix does NOT work well. In fact, these private distance learning schools make up the vast majority of student loan defaults in the nation. Kaplan institutions have a repayment rate of about 28%. http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/aug/16/business/la-fi-for-profit-colleges-20100816 . Why? Because their goals are to use "students" as vehicles for tapping into student loan money. They don't care about the education. They care about MONEY.
Moreover, NO ONE values an online learning degree. They may be accredited institutions, but they've never proven equal in quality to in-person education.
And here's the kicker for your "Business 101", when you're running a public institution, you should never look to "increase profits". It's not a business. The big focus should be on reducing administrative redundancies and capping faculty salaries. Everyone making over $150,000 should be targeted for wage reductions or outright freezing of all wages about $150,000 permanently. It's education- a public service. Not a means to wealth.
First: That's not an article... that's a re-posting of comments.
Second: It's not just "educator unions". It's everyone who actually has experience in education. I'm in no union of any sort and I think it's a stupid idea. Opponents are not simply trying to block it for blocking sake. They're preventing the massive investment required to build a UC-wide online class-delivery system when we already have a shortage of funds to hire lecturers. They're preventing a shift in education from content and quality to ease and profitability.
Classes are overcrowded and fees are going higher-- this is no time for a financial gamble.
And while the typical subsection of Slashdot may proclaim "I was too smart for school, my teachers held me back!" -- understand that people like you are such a small percentage of the human population that you're not worth directly catering to. Really. We're working to educate THE MASSES here. And the masses need human interaction to reinforce their education... or else they won't bother learning.
I believe the person to whom you reply would contest that your interpretation of the goings-on in Congress is naive. While everyone would agree with the principal as you state:
"The whole point of a Senate is to have a group of men to take a deep look at what the House (which was always supposed to be the popular voice of the people) passes in the heat of the moment," ... few people believe that's what actually happening. We have seen *many* acts and bills passed in the heat of the moment and it's hard to argue that our Senators are as much philosophers as they are self- and party-interested tacticians.
People don't complain about the difficulty of things passing in any house of Congress nearly as much as they do the severe biases that allows some things to pass and others not.
Why is it that people who are found guilty of taking money or profiting off criminal actions rarely have to give back the money taken... or fined appropriately so that they make no profit on the transaction?
The guy took $5,000 for property that wasn't his. He is found guilt of that. His fine? $250.
Why not have him pay a $5,000 fine?!
You and I share some very similar philosophy. You say that janitors should be able to hold their heads up high with doctors and I agree. I think that peoples' hard work should be praised if only because the lack of work is the current American dream (get rich quick schemes, lotto, a single critical patent, celebrity, etc.). Workless luxury is the new goal and there are no visible efforts to fight that cultural cancer.
I also despise it when people live off the system out of genuine laziness. I think there are ways to combat and change some of that culture by implementing what I refer to as an Urban Civilian Conservation Corps. (Think original "CCC" but with a focus on improving the quality of life in the city instead of the wilderness.)
Dignity -- This is a difficult topic. Most people don't know what it is and others just don't consider it. Dignity is different from pride in that dignity deals with one's value of self (all stop) while pride deals with one's value of self relative to others. I think dignity and humility go hand-in-hand which is why you never see immigrant farm workers ashamed of their work-- they're putting their blood, sweat, and tears into work so that their children can have a chance at a better life.
However, when Americans who have tasted the relative relaxation of living the middle class life are confronted with the financial reality of needing to do work they have traditional considered to be "below them", they balk. They are repulsed. They're afraid of what their peers will think and say. They have pride.
There are indeed many jobs available for these protestors. There are many jobs available to Americans. The problem is that Americans not only have a minimum expectation of quality of life, but a maximum expectation of strain in work.
We're also near the top with cost of living.
And cost of textbooks.
And transportation.
And litigation, thus insurance.
And wages.
America is just severely inflated. (in so many ways...)
Straight dollars per pupil says nothing without considering these things.
School loans are definitely hard to get out of. They're also notoriously easy to repay. I got a job immediately out of college (2005), but it was grant-based and lasted only 10 months or so. After that, I was out of work for 11 months and still needed to pay loans. So what'd I do? I called in after paying for 2 months of loan repayment out of savings and told them why I was out of work. They gave me a 6-month deferment and, when I was ready to pay again, put me on a plan that required me to pay only $85/month. When I got more current (stable, good pay) job, I increased that to $210 on my own, online.
Those administrating Federal Direct Loans want to make sure you pay back your debt more than anything... so they WILL work with you.
Most scholarships are not geared toward anything. Some are gender specific. Some are ethnically/racially specific. Many are subject/major specific. Few are income-specific (that's why we have need-based grants).
The conservative groups are NOT trying to make it so only the rich have formal instruction. Most "conservative groups" don't care about the education of the masses mainly because there is no one conservative mentality. There are the corporatists (which are trying to make it so they profit off of publicly funded education) and the religious right (who are trying to inject their religion into public education). You'll be hard-pressed to find a group of anyone who just wants education for a few.
While the goal of his "prize" idea is to drive the lower 95% to work harder, they won't do it when they figure out that the top 5% of achievers will outwork even them at which point it just becomes a handout to the top 5%.
It doesn't include everyone so long as they're willing to work hard... it rewards only those willing to work hard enough and do what it takes to get money!
Disclaimer: I'm a social liberal. Hippie, even. My passion is education and my occupation is sustainable transportation. I can't wait for gay marriage to be legal everywhere, I happily pay my taxes to redistribute wealth (I live within my means) and pay for socialized services, dream of the day of fiscally sustainable socialized medicine, and believe that all tax loop holes should be closed (in a perfect world, etc.). I like to donate my time to help other people. I'm a humanist preference utilitarian.
Statement: I think a good deal of the Occupy protesters are as bad as the Tea Party-ers. Few understand the implications of their assertions and demands. Few understand the futility of sit-ins, hunger strikes, and walk-abouts. They have no singular cause... no three points of demands and a plan to achieve them. Instead, they're so very grass-roots, that it's attracted a bunch of people who just feel like they need to yell at someone who's listening.
But no one's listening.
They're angry, they're let down, their parents' generation milked American credit for all it was worth and now they've been told go to fix it. Instead of creating meaningful action and initiative, they're chanting.
Further disclaimer: I marched against the war in Iraq with millions upon millions world-wide. The effect? America still invaded Iraq.
Statement: People have forgotten that the only way for protests to work is for the protestors to be pitiable. What are the memorable photographs of the 1960s? Here's a hint: they didn't involve hyperbolic signs or masked faces. They are of dead people-- having been shot unjustly by the national guard. They are of those being sprayed with fire-hoses and being attacked by police dogs. These protesters aren't allowing themselves to be pitied. They seem too well off for the middle class to care.
Ya... if contractual obligation removes loans from financial aid, then you can remove a number of scholarships and grants, too. Almost all have GPA and "making appropriate progress towards a BA/BA" requirements. Scholarships frequently require that someone enter and graduate with a certain major, thus binding them to decisions made at the age of 17.
Or you can just consider that without loans, most people wouldn't be able to afford college, homes, cars, to get medical care, or start a business.
Yes they are. Financial aid comes in three forms:
Scholarships - What everyone thinks will fully fund their educations. These are competitive and often require submission of transcripts, work histories, and at least one essay. All the biggest monies (Gates Foundation, Pepsi, etc.) go to all the foregone conclusions of academic success. "Normal" high-achievers need to set their sights on local scholarships that originate within their states and counties-- shoot for ones that meet your description.
Grants - 99% of grants are need-based. If you're poor, in need, and show academic promise, you can receive grants dependent on overall funding.
Loans - These have to be paid back except in exceptional circumstances (debt-forgiveness). Federal loans are the best, as some won't accrue interest until graduation and most won't require the start of repayment until 6 months after you get your degree. They also have very low interest rates and a variety of repayment options. Private loans (like bank loans) should be avoided wherever possible because of their lightly-regulated policies on interest rates and repayment.
Subject-specific scholarships for girls is still he best money-- more so than race/ethnicity-based in my experience. There are many private orgs looking to support a promising math-minded girl in pure math, information & computer sciences, electrical engineering, etc. Not many orgs trying supporting girls (specifically) in bio or chem. Even fewer for anyone in the soft sciences or liberal arts.
Entering undeclared is the worst (scholarship-wise). Private orgs like to tell their members that they're sponsoring the newest Einstein or even Mozart. They don't brag about "ensuring another promising young person is receiving a good education"-- it's too mundane for their egos.
You don't get offered money outright for getting a high GPA. Those capable of getting that high GPA through high school, however, are *much* more likely to receive financial aid in the form of scholarships because of their better-honed intellect and writing capabilities.
While it seems callous, to ask about another's daughter: How many competitive scholarships did she apply for? Write papers for?
Most scholarships are merit-based competitive sources of funding. Everyone is on a level playing field there.
On the other hand, there is need-based aid which is (within public sources) purely based on income per household size.
Some private organizations that want to increase the amount of under-represented populations in higher education will target minorities (ethnic, gender, religious, etc.).
I wouldn't, personally, suggest too high of a pay increase except at starting levels. What most educators want is security and sufficiency. They don't want to be able to afford a BMW or 'round-the-world flights every summer... they want to be able to afford a home near where they live and know that their jobs, retirement, and benefits will not be at risk every time there's a hiccup in private sector profitability.
I spent many years in higher education outreach when I decided I needed to get in there. So I took all my tests and was ready to enter an MA/Credential combo program when the economy tanked. Education funding had already been crap for years and I was willing to accept that I would live on $31,000/year for 5 years and even some of that money would go to supporting my class room. But when the layoffs happened, my program funding fell through, and then the recent corporate influence in public education took hold... I had a long talk with my significant other and decided that the actual practice of becoming a teacher was just too much of a gamble.
I would have taken on an additional $30,000 in debt for my MA/Credential program plus moving costs (you move to the district that will hire you), and then there is additional final credentialing after you've been credentialed. If someone would hire you at full-time.
I'm pretty sure we've lost out on a massive number of people who would be willing to be committed to teaching K-12 over the last 5 years... mainly because there is no security of employment anymore.