🚀 go-pugleaf

You have my TOTAL support!  I don't know what I'd do without my weekly 
tubesteak smothered in onions and jalepenos and hot sauce!

william burchill (williamb@ee.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Our story so far: UBC Food Services invites Mr. Tubesteak to hustle hotdogs
: on campus. It happens. Soon, wiener wanters were enthusiastically engorging
: exceedingly excellent entrails. A considerable cornucopia of condiments 
: complemented completely.

: CUPE, confused and concerned, condemned. Preternaturally protesting 
: "privatized" products, pernicious persons precipitated problems. Too
: terrorized by tubesteaks?

: Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!

: To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
: or eat lead!
:                          *   *   *   *   *

: Moral Bankruptcy: By caving in to a few whiners, UBC's administration has 
: displayed a politically expedient moral bankruptcy.  While hotdogs aren't
: worth defending, people's jobs and certain principles are. Why have they
: been trashed? (De-employed and dis-upheld if you prefer.) 

:      The tubesteakers created their own jobs without displacing others. They
: work for every penny they earn, and are cheerful and courteous. It's fun
: to go to their little carts, and students line up for them even in the rain.

: Many people believe hard work, innovation, job creation, and services to 
: students should be encouraged, or at least not outlawed. To the UBC
: Administration: Please show us that you agree, and invite the tubesteakers
: to remain. It may not be the easiest, but it is the right thing to do.

: William Burchill,
: Grad student


--
Jerome Soh
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
ERTW

Thanks muchly.
William

william burchill <williamb@ee.ubc.ca> wrote:

>Our story so far: UBC Food Services invites Mr. Tubesteak to hustle hotdogs
>on campus. It happens. Soon, wiener wanters were enthusiastically engorging
>exceedingly excellent entrails. A considerable cornucopia of condiments 
>complemented completely.

>CUPE, confused and concerned, condemned. Preternaturally protesting 
>"privatized" products, pernicious persons precipitated problems. Too
>terrorized by tubesteaks?

>Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!

>To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
>or eat lead!
>                         *   *   *   *   *

>Moral Bankruptcy: By caving in to a few whiners, UBC's administration has 
>displayed a politically expedient moral bankruptcy.  While hotdogs aren't
>worth defending, people's jobs and certain principles are. Why have they
>been trashed? (De-employed and dis-upheld if you prefer.) 

>     The tubesteakers created their own jobs without displacing others. They
>work for every penny they earn, and are cheerful and courteous. It's fun
>to go to their little carts, and students line up for them even in the rain.

>Many people believe hard work, innovation, job creation, and services to 
>students should be encouraged, or at least not outlawed. To the UBC
>Administration: Please show us that you agree, and invite the tubesteakers
>to remain. It may not be the easiest, but it is the right thing to do.

>William Burchill,
>Grad student

Extremely funny and a delight to read! Please post more often!

Exemplary execution exceeding every excellent endeavor ever extracted
from van.general. Unless, of course, you are a grad from the creative
writing program, in which case: FAIL for excessive alliteration!

MRM

william burchill <williamb@ee.ubc.ca> wrote:

>CUPE, confused and concerned, condemned. Preternaturally protesting 
>"privatized" products, pernicious persons precipitated problems. Too
>terrorized by tubesteaks?
>
>Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!
>
>To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
>or eat lead!
>                         *   *   *   *   *

What is especially irksome to me is that CUPE and the Administration
believe that they have the right to use students as currency in their
deal-making.  For example, it is student buying power that Coke wished
to channel when it make its deal with the Administration.  Likewise, it
is student buying power that CUPE wishes to control to further its own
agenda (by preventing non-unionized venders to sell to students.)  While
these groups apparently have the power to make such deals, they certainly
do not have the moral authority.  Allowing groups to monopolize student
vending is simply wrong.  It is never in the interest of students to be
subjected to a monopoly and the cost/reduction in service/loss of choice
that goes along with a monopoly.

Michael Kyba

Send a message to the Administration... mailto:presubc@unixg.ubc.ca

In article <4cq5ue$jf7@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie
Abbott) wrote:

| william burchill (williamb@ee.ubc.ca) wrote:
| : Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!
| : To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
| : or eat lead!
| 
| Live with it: CUPE won this round.

A while back, I posted an article saying that both sides should sit down
and work things out.  Barrie Abbott gave a very positive response to the
suggestion.  However, running Mr. Tubesteak off the campus and telling
everyone else tough sh*t isn't what I had in mind.

Alienating campus support really isn't smart.  If people aren't cursing
and swearing about Food Services or Physical Plant, they are targetting
them as the butt of their jokes.  ("How many Physical Plant workers does
it take to change a light bulb?  Nobody knows.")

The Faculty Club was shut down because it drowned in debt.  And few,
mostly the union workers, shed tears over its demise.  And when I left the
Board of Governors a year ago, Food Services was sinking in red ink, and
Physical Plant was a dead weight.  So when push comes to shove, and it's
coming soon with the Federal budget cuts, campus support will be so low
that the unions will have little ground to stand on.  The last campus
strike where the unions tried to shut down the campus wasn't exactly a
success ... most people still crossed the picket lines.

-- 
Orvin Lau, M.Sc. Student (Advanced Technology Management)
Faculty of Commerce & Business Administration
The University of British Columbia        Internet: olau@unixg.ubc.ca

[All opinions and knowledge above are my own.  Do not expose to open
 flame.]

william burchill (williamb@ee.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Our story so far: UBC Food Services invites Mr. Tubesteak to hustle hotdogs
: on campus.

Campus Food Services wanted to do exactly the same thing one or two years 
ago and the administration turned them down. Why?

: CUPE, confused and concerned, condemned. 

Not confused, but certainly concerned and rightfully condemned.

: Too terrorized by tubesteaks?

It is called the thin edge of the wedge, or the slippery slope. Whatever 
you want to call it, it was yet another attempt by the administration to 
weaken the union.

: Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!
: To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
: or eat lead!

Live with it: CUPE won this round.

: Moral Bankruptcy: By caving in to a few whiners, UBC's administration has 
: displayed a politically expedient moral bankruptcy.  While hotdogs aren't
: worth defending, people's jobs and certain principles are. Why have they
: been trashed? (De-employed and dis-upheld if you prefer.) 

I resent my union being referred to as "a few whiners". If you wish to 
name-call then how about "a bunch of overpriveleged students, tiresomely 
parroting neo-conservative rubbish, while living off government largesse"
lost in their attempt to have hot-dogs dished up to them by non-union labour.

:      The tubesteakers created their own jobs without displacing others. They
: work for every penny they earn, and are cheerful and courteous. It's fun
: to go to their little carts, and students line up for them even in the rain.

If the administration wanted the campus community to have fun by lining 
up at little carts, then they could have had union people do it. Because 
they didn't, no union jobs were created. That means that they displaced 
other, unionized workers, from working.

: Many people believe hard work, innovation, job creation, and services to 
: students should be encouraged, or at least not outlawed. To the UBC
: Administration: Please show us that you agree, and invite the tubesteakers
: to remain. It may not be the easiest, but it is the right thing to do.

As I said further up the page: live with it; you lost this one.

cheers

burrows@bcu.ubc.ca (Jeff Burrows) wrote:

>>>[...] then how about "a bunch of overpriveleged students, tiresomely 
>>>parroting neo-conservative rubbish, while living off government largesse"

>>Living off government largesse?  Who do you think pays CUPE members?
>>The government, and students (whether they're government supported or
>>not).

>All students are supported by taxpayers ('government').
>The average university student pays less than 20% of the
>full cost of his-her education, via tuition.

>Barry is correct when he says that students live off
>government largesse. This may change over the next decade.


Taken that way we all live off government largesse, since we all
benefit from free education (up to grade 12), free policing, free
roads, etc.  What I meant (for those who didn't take advantage of all
this free education) is that many students pay for their own living
costs such as food, clothing shelter.  And I disagree that the
government pays 80% of "the full cost of" my education.  This figure
doesn't include text books, certain course/lab fees, activity fees,
registration fees etc., which must be paid to attend this place.

In article <4cs2an$q4v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Jeff Burrows <burrows@bcu.ubc.ca> wrote:

>The average university student pays less than 20% of the
>full cost of his-her education, via tuition.
>
>Barry is correct when he says that students live off
>government largesse. This may change over the next decade.

If it's just tuition, it's not the students who are living off of
government largesse. It's those who work at universities, such as
professors and CUPE catering staff.

Now, in many cases those professors are not easily replaced with
someone willing to work for half their salary. On the other hand,
all of those union catering staff are. So why not save the taxpayers
some money and replace all those expensive union staff, who living
off government largesse, with labour so cheap that the catering
services actually turn a profit rather than a loss?

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson    curt@portal.ca		Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.	
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.

In article <4cq5ue$jf7@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie
Abbott) wrote:

| : Cowardly, campus cognoscenti capitulate. High Noon for Hotdog Handlers!
| : To paraphrase, tubesteakers were told to get out of town by sundown, Jan 31,
| : or eat lead!
| 
| Live with it: CUPE won this round.

Arrogance, in conjunction with public cynicism, brought down the
Conservative party and NDP in the last federal election.  CUPE isn't
immune either: the public opinion will eventually hit back, and the longer
CUPE tries to hold off, the harder the whiplash will be.

-- 
Orvin Lau, M.Sc. Student (Advanced Technology Management)
Faculty of Commerce & Business Administration
The University of British Columbia        Internet: olau@unixg.ubc.ca

[All opinions and knowledge above are my own.  Do not expose to open
 flame.]

Phil Fraikin <Phil_Fraikin@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:

>>[...] then how about "a bunch of overpriveleged students, tiresomely 
>>parroting neo-conservative rubbish, while living off government largesse"

>Living off government largesse?  Who do you think pays CUPE members?
>The government, and students (whether they're government supported or
>not).

All students are supported by taxpayers ('government').
The average university student pays less than 20% of the
full cost of his-her education, via tuition.

Barry is correct when he says that students live off
government largesse. This may change over the next decade.

	-Jeff

babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie Abbott) wrote:

>william burchill (williamb@ee.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: Our story so far: UBC Food Services invites Mr. Tubesteak to hustle hotdogs
>: on campus.

>Campus Food Services wanted to do exactly the same thing one or two years 
>ago and the administration turned them down. Why?

Because it would cost money instead of make money?

>: Too terrorized by tubesteaks?

>It is called the thin edge of the wedge, or the slippery slope. Whatever 
>you want to call it, it was yet another attempt by the administration to 
>weaken the union.

Unfortunately for students, it didn't.

>I resent my union being referred to as "a few whiners". If you wish to 
>name-call then how about "a bunch of overpriveleged students, tiresomely 
>parroting neo-conservative rubbish, while living off government largesse"
>lost in their attempt to have hot-dogs dished up to them by non-union labour.

Living off government largesse?  Who do you think pays CUPE members?
The government, and students (whether they're government supported or
not).

>:      The tubesteakers created their own jobs without displacing others. They
>: work for every penny they earn, and are cheerful and courteous. It's fun
>: to go to their little carts, and students line up for them even in the rain.

>If the administration wanted the campus community to have fun by lining 
>up at little carts, then they could have had union people do it. Because 
>they didn't, no union jobs were created. That means that they displaced 
>other, unionized workers, from working.

Somehow eating dogs charbroiled on a Lada, and served by a bored CUPE
member wouldn't have the same flavour. And it would have cost just as
much, if not more.

>: Many people believe hard work, innovation, job creation, and services to 
>: students should be encouraged, or at least not outlawed. To the UBC
>: Administration: Please show us that you agree, and invite the tubesteakers
>: to remain. It may not be the easiest, but it is the right thing to do.

>As I said further up the page: live with it; you lost this one.

Keep laughing, but you haven't heard the last of us - maybe next time
it'll be your job that's lost.

william:
>: Moral Bankruptcy: By caving in to a few whiners, UBC's administration has 
>: displayed a politically expedient moral bankruptcy.  While hotdogs aren't
>: worth defending, people's jobs and certain principles are. Why have they
>: been trashed? (De-employed and dis-upheld if you prefer.) 
>
barrie:
>I resent my union being referred to as "a few whiners". If you wish to 
>name-call then how about "a bunch of overpriveleged students, tiresomely 
>parroting neo-conservative rubbish, while living off government largesse"
>lost in their attempt to have hot-dogs dished up to them by non-union labour.
>

william:
	I expect most CUPE members are as legitimate in their motives and
goodwill as are other people. But as with any large group,
there are a few whiners. These few had placards admonishing against
privatized hotdogs, and appeared a tad short of goodwill, as they were
actively campaigning to eliminate the jobs of our happy hotdoggers.

  
and from before:

    The tubesteakers created their own jobs without displacing others. They
work for every penny they earn, and are cheerful and courteous. It's fun
to go to their little carts, and students line up for them even in the rain.

Many people believe hard work, innovation, job creation, and services to 
students should be encouraged, or at least not outlawed. To the UBC
Administration: Please show us that you agree, and invite the tubesteakers
to remain. It may not be the easiest, but it is the right thing to do.

Orvin Lau (olau@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: In article <4cq5ue$jf7@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie
: Abbott) wrote:

: | Live with it: CUPE won this round.

: Arrogance, in conjunction with public cynicism, brought down the
: Conservative party and NDP in the last federal election.  CUPE isn't
: immune either: the public opinion will eventually hit back, and the longer
: CUPE tries to hold off, the harder the whiplash will be.

Mea culpa. That was an arrogant statement. True, too. But what would you 
expect CUPE, or any other union to do? Voluntarily roll back our wages? 
Throw out our pension plan? Let non-unionized workers take our jobs away? 
Whatever you would like to happen is not going to happen in the same way 
a government is booted out. The union is here to stay.
cheers

Phil Fraikin (Phil_Fraikin@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie Abbott) wrote:

: >As I said further up the page: live with it; you lost this one.

: Keep laughing, but you haven't heard the last of us - maybe next time
: it'll be your job that's lost.

Gee, thanks for the threat. You know, I wasn't laughing when I wrote 
"live with it". Maybe I was being arrogant and that can make more enemies 
than friends. Mea culpa. By the way, who is the "us" in the "you havn't 
heard the last of us"? Sounds kind of scary. And confrontational. It 
would be wise of you to remember that unions are a reality. They won't 
just go away. The best thing for you to do is to learn to live with the 
situation, try to understand what unionism is about, why it came to be 
and why it exists today. Threats won't lead to any kind of understanding.
cheers

In article <4ct4c0$1sv@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie
Abbott) wrote:

| But what would you 
| expect CUPE, or any other union to do? Voluntarily roll back our wages? 
| Throw out our pension plan? Let non-unionized workers take our jobs away? 

Would the presence of Tubesteak people in itself really cause wages to be
rolled back, or cause the union pension plan to be thrown out?  I doubt
it.  However, their presence does make it difficult for a union to argue
for a wage or benefits increase, or for maintaining their current wages
and benefits if the Tubesteak people are seen to be providing better food
at a lower price.

However, people are willing to pay more for food better than processed
animal intestines and other unspeakable body parts.  What really hurts the
union cause is when students in residence complain that the "food is
gross", or when a faculty member laments at how it takes six weeks for a
light bulb to be changed, or when a cafeteria customer finds a cockroach
in a cinnamon bun.  Students lead stressful lives, and a good diet is
important to staying on top of the stress, and if union labour can provide
food healthier and better than hot dogs and reheated burgers, it would
justify the extra cost.

Likewise with Physical Plant: if the union publicly committed itself to
working away the backlog of job orders, and actually managed to cut down
the waiting time, it would make a lot of people happy.  In fact, if the
union could do a better job of getting the university fixed up than the
administration can, I believe the Board of Governors would happily let the
union run things.  (And I speak as a former Board member -- they have a
pretty good idea of the problems and are trying to grapple with them, but
I won't get into Board politics.)

That's not to say workers don't deserve a "living wage" or that unions are
evil (as other people posting to this newsgroup may believe).  I believe
that unions to serve a useful function, as there are places on campus
where workers are treated poorly by their managers.  The root of the
problem here is that people don't like to pay for crappy service.


| Whatever you would like to happen is not going to happen in the same way 
| a government is booted out. The union is here to stay.

What happens may not be so dramatic, and the union won't likely disappear,
but their bargaining position weakens slowly.  The ultimate threat of a
strike just won't carry the weight it did.

-- 
Orvin Lau, M.Sc. Student (Advanced Technology Management)
Faculty of Commerce & Business Administration
The University of British Columbia        Internet: olau@unixg.ubc.ca

[All opinions and knowledge above are my own.  Do not expose to open
 flame.]

In article <4ct4rp$1sv@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie
Abbott) wrote:

| Phil Fraikin (Phil_Fraikin@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
| : babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie Abbott) wrote:
| 
| : >As I said further up the page: live with it; you lost this one.
| 
| : Keep laughing, but you haven't heard the last of us - maybe next time
| : it'll be your job that's lost.
| 
| Gee, thanks for the threat. You know, I wasn't laughing when I wrote 
| "live with it". Maybe I was being arrogant and that can make more enemies 
| than friends. Mea culpa. By the way, who is the "us" in the "you havn't 
| heard the last of us"? Sounds kind of scary. And confrontational. It 
| would be wise of you to remember that unions are a reality. They won't 
| just go away. The best thing for you to do is to learn to live with the 
| situation, try to understand what unionism is about, why it came to be 
| and why it exists today. Threats won't lead to any kind of understanding.

Agreed.  Extremism mistakenly relieves people of the responsibility to
think and act rationally.

-- 
Orvin Lau, M.Sc. Student (Advanced Technology Management)
Faculty of Commerce & Business Administration
The University of British Columbia        Internet: olau@unixg.ubc.ca

[All opinions and knowledge above are my own.  Do not expose to open
 flame.]

babbott@unixg.ubc.ca (Barrie Abbott) wrote:

>Gee, thanks for the threat. You know, I wasn't laughing when I wrote 
>"live with it". Maybe I was being arrogant and that can make more enemies 
>than friends. Mea culpa. By the way, who is the "us" in the "you havn't 
>heard the last of us"? Sounds kind of scary. And confrontational.

The "us" means all those people that aren't happy with having their
lives run by unions.  And the threat is that we won't just "live with
it".  Why shouldn't we stand up for what we believe in?  The threat is
a reality.  Think about - if you don't care about the people you are
putting out work then what makes you think others will care if you
lose your job - I certainly wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.

>It would be wise of you to remember that unions are a reality. They won't 
>just go away. The best thing for you to do is to learn to live with the 
>situation, try to understand what unionism is about, why it came to be 
>and why it exists today. Threats won't lead to any kind of understanding.
>cheers

Yes unions are a reality.  But most labour unions bear little
resemblance to their forebearers.  Unions were first implemented at a
time when workers could barely subsist on their wages.  Back then
there was no minimum wage, Canada pension plan, or  universal health
care.  But now unions, with their virtual monopoly on labour, try to
ask for a lot more than a fair wage, without regards for the people
they might affect outside of their union.

Ousting the hot dog vendors from campus is not about protecting
yourselves from unfair wages - it's about trying to maintain your
monopoly on campus, and only the slimest of chances of increasing your
numbers by having unionized hot dog vendors.  Is that  really worth
pissing off thousands of students, and putting a few more people out
of a job?

In article <4cvd4d$lun@grid.direct.ca> chanp@direct.ca (Patrick Chan) writes:

>Canada in general should not be looking at university subsidies and
>considering students to be freeloaders.  Fact of the matter is....
>it's an investment into the future of Canada.  Without this
>investment, we'd be forced to import talent from abroad...   

Right on!

I challenge anyone to produce one economic study that shows theat government 
incestments in higher education are a "drain" on the economy.  Quite the 
opposite, actually.

In message <dreilley.1724.0012CCCD@pinc.com> - dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley
) writes:
:>
:>In article <4cvd4d$lun@grid.direct.ca> chanp@direct.ca (Patrick Chan) writes:
:>
:>>Canada in general should not be looking at university subsidies and
:>>considering students to be freeloaders.  Fact of the matter is....
:>>it's an investment into the future of Canada.  Without this
:>>investment, we'd be forced to import talent from abroad...   
:>

The problem with this argument is that it lumps all university students
into one category. Yes, they are an investment but unfortunately a lot
of them are a *poor* investment. Unlike the stock market I think that
university education is something that is at least somewhat predictable
and we should be making some decisions about just what types of education
we are willing to subsidize.

Phil_Fraikin@mindlink.bc.ca (Phil Fraikin) wrote:

>burrows@bcu.ubc.ca (Jeff Burrows) wrote:

>>All students are supported by taxpayers ('government').
>>The average university student pays less than 20% of the
>>full cost of his-her education, via tuition.


>Taken that way we all live off government largesse, since we all
>benefit from free education (up to grade 12), free policing, free
>roads, etc.  What I meant (for those who didn't take advantage of all
>this free education) is that many students pay for their own living
>costs such as food, clothing shelter.  And I disagree that the
>government pays 80% of "the full cost of" my education.  This figure
>doesn't include text books, certain course/lab fees, activity fees,
>registration fees etc., which must be paid to attend this place.

Hmmm... that may not be the best argument to be using...  especially
since the most things (other than the texts :( )  cost a relatively
small fraction of the total cost of education.  However,  students
graduating from sciences, engineering or commerce (add any more that
apply)  would ideally pay more income tax than a high school drop out.
Of course, people working in trades or union tend to throw off the
numbers, but you get my gist.   I feel that many (not all) university
students pay their debt to Canada by paying these higher tax rates.
In addition, these same students would not likely (but may sometimes)
need to draw from the social system in place (ie welfare, health,
etc), or rather, draw from these resources less.    

Not all students are attending university to make money, nor are they
there to take advantage of the rest of other taxpayers.   Many feel
they can contribute to society and Canada as a whole with their
education.  They are hardworking while in or out of school (try living
off of 4 months of salary... oh, and subtract $4000 off the top), and
often wind up graduating under a heavy debt load.  Under the
conditions these students must endure, it's a wonder we have doctors,
engineers, lawyers, etc graduating every year.   Increasing the debt
load would make one reconsider...  should they endure this, or should
they just go off onto welfare ....  jobs without an education is near
impossible...  what other choice is there?   

Canada in general should not be looking at university subsidies and
considering students to be freeloaders.  Fact of the matter is....
it's an investment into the future of Canada.  Without this
investment, we'd be forced to import talent from abroad...   

Patrick

In <4cs2an$q4v@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, burrows@bcu.ubc.ca (Jeff Burrows) writes:

>The average university student pays less than 20% of the
>full cost of his-her education, via tuition.

I've often wondered about this figure.  Does anyone know what the student 
subsidy is for colleges providing transfer credits to universities.  In my 
opinion, this figure would more accurately reflect the price of providing an 
undergraduate education.  University budgets are bloated to support research, 
little of which goes into teaching undergrads.  

Darran Edmundson
dedmunds@sfu.ca

burrows@bcu.ubc.ca (Jeff Burrows) writes:

%The average university student pays less than 20% of the
%full cost of his-her education, via tuition.

By my understanding, the above statement is inaccurate. Tuition revenues
pay for only 20% of the average canadian university's operating expenses,
but do in fact cover most of the direct costs of undergraduate education.
Somehow, this fact got twisted around in the rumour-mill and ended up more
or less in the form that Jeff uttered. The other 80% goes towards
supporting research, infrastructure, bureaucracy, embezzlement, etc..

-- 

   -=*I Wei-Yuen Tan * monkeyboy@pobox.com * http://pobox.com/~monkeyboy I*=-