MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W69295858

Tuition Reciprocity in the United States.

2008· article· en· W69295858 sur OpenAlex
Gregory Stewart, Dianne Brown Wright, Angelica Kennedy

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege and university · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education Research Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReciprocity (cultural anthropology)WaiverHigher educationEconomicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawPsychologySocial psychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reciprocity agreements are contracts between two or more parties whereby students pay reduced tuition rates. The rate ofreduction is determined by the parameters set forth in each individual state's agreement but may range from a modest reduction in fees to a waiver of full non-resident tuition. In addition to providing tuition relief, reciprocity agreements have expanded educational choice for student beneficiaries and have limited unnecessary duplication of academic programs and educational facilities for academic institutions and states. Knowing that litde has been written about reciprocity agreements, Stewart, Winchell and Wagner (1994) contacted state education officials throughout the United States to investigate the existence of interstate tuition reciprocity programs. Reciprocity agreements are contracts between two or more parties whereby students pay reduced tuition rates. The rate ofreduction is determined by the parameters set forth in each individual state's agreement but may range from a modest reduction in fees to a waiver of full non-resident tuition. In addition to providing tuition relief, reciprocity agreements have expanded educational choice for student beneficiaries and have limited unnecessary duplication of academic programs and educational facilities for academic institutions and states. Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida have adopted several unique reciprocity agreements (agreements upon which we will elaborate), but first we will summarize the aspects of other programs. Agreements vary in service to undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. Some programs have enrollment capacity limits whereby only a specific number of students may receive assistance. In some programs, student participants pay the same tuition rate as in-state students; in others, a special rate is calculated. Table 1, on page 66, contains a general summary of interstate reciprocity agreements. TANGENTIAL STATE RECIPROCITY Officials in neighboring states typically explore the concept of reciprocity to prevent duplication of cosdy programs. Authorization to enter into reciprocity agreements with neighboring states was one of the first responsibilities assigned to the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board. Minnesota has increased student access to higher education through reciprocal tuition agreements with Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, two institutions in Iowa, the Canadian province of Manitoba, and affiliate membership in the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Reciprocity agreements have expanded educational choice for students and have reduced costs to the taxpayers of participating states. In the 2005-0 6 academic year, approximately 13,595 students from Minnesota and 11,418 students from Wisconsin participated in the reciprocity program. The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education has approved tuition reciprocity agreements with Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Advantages of reciprocity for Kentucky include: broader access and opportunity for citizens in a region; reduction of unnecessary duplication of academic programs; and cost reduction by utilizing academic programs in other states. Kentucky has been a leader: its agreements have benefited thousands of students. (See Table 2.) Northern Kentucky University (nku), Cincinnati Technical and State Community College (Cincinnati State), and the University of Cincinnati (uc) have joined forces to increase access to associate degree programs and to encourage articulation for baccalaureate and master's degrees. The Ohio /Kentucky Reciprocity Agreement has been in effect since July 1991. Undergraduate and graduate reciprocity agreements for students from selected counties in northern Kentucky and southwestern Ohio created many benefits for students, institutions, and states. Dr. Robert Appleson, former Assistant Provost at Northern Kentucky University and one of the writers of the Ohio /Kentucky Recip- rocal Agreement, notes that the agreement has provided many benefits to nku. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,486
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,821

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle