Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.