Newspaper Page Text
Page 8/The Maroon Tiger/October 30, 1982
Scholarships, Announcements
As The Economy Worsens
Black Family Income Declines, Number Of
Census Bureau Survey Shows
The twin effects of inflation and a
depressed economy resulted in a decline
in black family median income in 1981,
and an increase in the number of blacks
below the poverty level, according to a
report from the Commerce Department’s
Census Bureau.
This marks the second consecutive year
in which inflation coupled with a
recessionary economy resulted in signifi
cant declines in real family income and
increases in the poverty population.
Median family income for black
families was $13,270 compared with
$23,520 for white familites and $16,400 for
Spanish - origin families. After adjusting
for inflation, black families experienced a
5.2 percent decline in their real median
income. Real median income for Spanish
- origin families remained about the same.
The poverty threshold in 1981 for a
family of four was $9,287; for 1980 it was
$8,414.
The report shows that median income
for black families was $16,590 in the West
and $12,280 in the South. Overall, real
median family income fell in three of the
four regions of the Nation. The Northeast
was the only region that did not show a
decline in real income.
Changes in “real” median family in
come refer to comparisons after adjust
ment for inflation, as measured by the
change in the annual average Consumer
Price Index.
A downturn in economic activity was a
contributing factor in the number of
persons who fell below the poverty level
in 1981. The number of blacks below the
poverty line rose by 618,000, from about
8.6 million in 1980 to 9.2 million in 1981.
There were 21.6 million whites below the
poverty level in 1981, up 1.5 million from
1980.
About 70 percent of all black
families below the poverty level in 1981
were maintained by women with no
husband present. There were 1.4 million
poor black families maintained by women
in 1981, about the same as in 1980.
Other highlights:
*ln 1981, 31.8 million, or one in seven
Americans were below the poverty level,
an increase of 2.2 million persons over the
1980 total of 29.6.
*The number of poor children under18
years old rose from 11.5 million in 1980 to
12.3 million in 1981, and the proportion
of children below the poverty level rose
from 18.3 to 19.8 percent.
’Between 1980 and 1981, the poverty
rate rose from 13.2 to 14.0 percent and was
highest among blacks (34.2 percent)
followed by persons of Spanish - origin
(26.5 percent) and whites (11.1 percent).
*The real median income for families
maintained by women ($10,960) declined
by 4.6 percent.
’Black women in the South, women
under age of 25, and female private
household workers all experienced
declines in their real median income.
’Real median family income in 1981 was
down 3.5 percent. On the average, family
purchasing power was about $2,150 below
1979 levels, the last year in which increases
in family incomes kept pace with infla
tion.
’The increase in the poverty population
occurred in all major geographic areas.
Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas
had increases of about the same size (1.2
million and 990,000 respectively) in the
number of poor people between 1980 and
1981.
’The overall poverty rate for
metropolitan areas was 12.6 percent in
1981, but their central cities had a
considerably higher rate (18.0 percent)
Poor Increase,
and areas outside central cities had a
lower rate (8.9 percent)
As in all sample surveys, the data in this
report are subject to sampling variability
and errors of response, including un
derreporting and nonreporting. A
detailed explanation appears in the
report.
The report also points out that the
survey results reflect only money income
and exclude noncash benefits such as
food stamps, medicaid, etc. It also
cautions that the adjustment for inflation
may be overstated slightly for the average
household because of the treatment of
housing costs in he calculation of the
Consumer Price Index.
Copies of the report, Money Income an
Poverty Status of Families and Persons in
the United States: 1981 (Advance Data
from the March 1982 Current Population
Survey), Series P - 60, No. 134, (GPO Stock
No. 003 - 001 - 90720 - 8) are available for
$4.50 each prepaid from the Superinten
dent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,
or from the Department of Commerce
offices in major U.S. cities.
Source: Commerce Department
Ohio State Dean Develops New System For Ranking Schools Of Engineering
By Jack Meggrell
Donald D. Glower,
Engineering Dean at the Ohio
State University, has
developed a system for rank
ing the country's best
engineering programs
without resorting to the use of
popularity polls.
“The proof of the quality of
a program,” he says, “lies in
the quality of the product, the
graduate.”
To measure the quality of
engineering graduates, Mr.
Glower relied on an analysis
of people listed in the - 1979
issue of Who's Who in
Engineering. He found 140
schools identified as having
granted degrees to people
cited in the book.
Examining Career Success
“The quality of a graduate
can be determined,” he says,
“by examining his career
successes and estimating the
probability of success for
graduates of one school as
compared to those of
another.”
Rankings of academic
programs have usually been
based on opinion polls
among faculty members or
deans in the field, he said.
The engineering schools
with the largest number of
citations in Who's Who in
Engineering were ranked by
Mr. Glower according to the
number of citations per 1,000
living alumni. Results of the
ranking are shown in the Fact
- File to the right.
Top Spenders
Mr. Glower ranked the
engineering schools accor
ding to research spending
(reported for 1976 - 77). The
top 20:
Rank
1. Mass. Inst, of Tech.
2. Stanford U.
3. U. of III., Urbana
4. U. of Cal., Berkeley
5. Purdue U.
6. U. of Michigan
7. U. of Texas, Austin
3. Ohio State U.
9. U. of Wisconsin, Mad
Research spending
$25,524,000
17,586,000
15,887,000
13,717,000
12,956,000
11,806,000
9,247,000
8,576,000
ison 8,548,000
10. Cornell U. 8,196,000
11. Georgia Inst, of Tech. 8,066,000
12. U. of Florida 7,871,000
13. U. of Pennsylvania 6,339,000
14. Texas A&M 6,157,000
15. U. of Washington 5,716,000
16. Princeton U. 5,700,000
17. Cal. Inst, of Tech. 5,338,000
18. Case Western Reserve 5,313,000
19. Carnegie-Mellon U. 5,176,000
20. U. of So. Cal. 5,152,000
Mr. Glower then calculated
the amount of research spen
ding per faculty member, to
equalize large and small
schools, and came up with a
slightly different ranking of
the top 20:
Rank Research per faculty member
1. Stanford U. $128,400
2. Harvard U. 93,600
3. Princeton U. 77,000
4. Mass. Inst, of Tech. 76,400
Black College And University
Endowment Program Announced
Nunn Intern Program Announces
Dates For 1983-84
All - American Associates,
which is affiliated with the
Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the U.S. in New York, recently
announced the development of
the College and University En
dowment (CUE) Program for
Black Colleges and Universities.
The major objectives of the
CUE program are as follows: to
help college graduates establish
and develop realistic short term
and long range financial goals; to
help college graduates structure
sound financial investment
programs early in their
professional careers, that will
assure them a solid financial
return over the span of their
most productive working years;
and to help predominantly black
institutions of higher learning
develop substantially increased
income through regular and
systematic contributions from
their alumni and other sup
porters.
Richard E. Barber, President of
All - American Associates stated,
"the black colleges and univer
sities have provided the bridge
over which many of us from the
ghettos of the North and the
farms, plantations, back woods,
and shanties of the South have
crossed to a better life and piece
of the American dream. I would
hope that we never forget that
and demonstrate it by financially
supporting these institutions.
The College and University En
dowment Program provides a
rather unique and painless way
to do that on a regular and
sytematic basis.”
Georgia college students will
have a chance to apply for
internships in the Washington
and Atlanta offices of Sen. Sam
Nunn during the 1983 - 84school
year. The interns are selected
each spring for the following
academic year, beginning
summer quarter.
Nunn’s internship program,
administered by the University
of Georgia Institute of Govern
ment, allows junior, senior,
graduate and professional
students in Georgia colleges and
universities to earn academic
credit while gaining work ex
perience in government and law.
According to Nunn’s office,
intership dates for the 1983 - 84
program are: summer quarter
1983 - June 13 - Aug. 19; fall
quarter 1983 - Sept. 26 - Dec. 16;
winter quarter 1984 - Jan. 9 -
March 16; and spring quarter
1984 - April 2 - June 8.
Five students are selected to
work each academic quarter -
four in Nunn's Washington, D.C.
office and one in his Atlanta
office - for a total of 20 interships.
Interns conduct background
research for bill preparation and
speeches, help prepare press
releases and newsletters,
monitor and report on com
mittee hearings and floor action,
and assist with constituent re
quests and correspondence.
Interns are selected on the
basis of high academic perfor
mance and potential for
leadership in government and
political matters, as
demonstrated by academic
records, work experience, ex
tracurricular activities, interests
and maturity. They receive a
monthly stipend (currently $600
per month) in addition to ear
ning academic credit from their
schools.
Brochures and application
forms will be available in
December from local campus
coordinators. Deadline for
applying for the 1983 - 84
program is March 1, 1983. For
additional information, contact
the Administrative Secretary,
Sam Nunn Senate Intern
Program, Institute of Govern
ment, Terrell Hall, University of
Georgia, Athens 30602.