See public treatment of two Amherst profs on School Committee, who are presumptively elitists and must engage in self-flagellation in order to shed the image.
It's a private college. Private property. Why do you care?
First, there are only two truly private colleges in the country - Hillsdale and one other. See Hillsdale's explanation: http://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions/faq/faq_list.asp?iSectionID=1&iGroupID=45&iQuestionID=108
Amherst college would not exist but for Federal money - student financial aid in particular. And Grove City College lost this point 35 years ago....
Second, Amherst College may be private, but UMass is a damn municipality (Mass law says so!). Which means that taxes collected here should go to UMass and not Amherst.
Third, people need to look at the percentage (and value) of the land in town that Amherst College owns before they start criticizing UMass. If institutions need to be bullied into being "good citizens" it is Amherst College and not UMass that needs to be bullied in that regard.
And this has nothing to do with individual faculty members of either institution serving in public offices.
0ne other thing - UMass has let the Amherst Housing Authority build eight duplexes on its land (Olympia Drive), has let DMR build two group homes on its land (North Pleasant Street by Wysocki House) -- and how many has Amherst College??? How many has Hampshire???
Amherst College donated four building lots on Stanley Street for low-income houses built by Habitat for Humanity (and I believe they ave even now on the tax rolls.)
That crapper about sums up how I feel about Amherst College! And those "no trespassing" signs are merely a suggestion. There are some awesome mountain biking trails on Amherst College land.
Why is it that Amherst College posts all its land, UMass has it all open to public use, and it is UMass that is hated????
ReplyDeleteQED: Let's hate Amherst College???
ReplyDeleteOh, there's plenty of that in town.
See public treatment of two Amherst profs on School Committee, who are presumptively elitists and must engage in self-flagellation in order to shed the image.
It's a private college. Private property. Why do you care?
ReplyDeleteIt's a private college. Private property. Why do you care?
ReplyDeleteFirst, there are only two truly private colleges in the country - Hillsdale and one other. See Hillsdale's explanation: http://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions/faq/faq_list.asp?iSectionID=1&iGroupID=45&iQuestionID=108
Amherst college would not exist but for Federal money - student financial aid in particular. And Grove City College lost this point 35 years ago....
Second, Amherst College may be private, but UMass is a damn municipality (Mass law says so!). Which means that taxes collected here should go to UMass and not Amherst.
Third, people need to look at the percentage (and value) of the land in town that Amherst College owns before they start criticizing UMass. If institutions need to be bullied into being "good citizens" it is Amherst College and not UMass that needs to be bullied in that regard.
And this has nothing to do with individual faculty members of either institution serving in public offices.
0ne other thing - UMass has let the Amherst Housing Authority build eight duplexes on its land (Olympia Drive), has let DMR build two group homes on its land (North Pleasant Street by Wysocki House) -- and how many has Amherst College??? How many has Hampshire???
ReplyDeleteI just hate hypocrites.
Amherst College donated four building lots on Stanley Street for low-income houses built by Habitat for Humanity (and I believe they ave even now on the tax rolls.)
ReplyDeleteAmherst College exists because of the huge endowment from alums.
ReplyDeleteThat crapper about sums up how I feel about Amherst College! And those "no trespassing" signs are merely a suggestion. There are some awesome mountain biking trails on Amherst College land.
ReplyDelete