CSNbbs

(09-20-2016 07:19 AM)runamuck Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2016 01:57 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2016 01:48 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]A 39,714 enrollment at UTA would rank them in the top four in Texas I think. Not sure what Houston's enrollment is for the Fall semester, but North Texas was about 17 students shy of 38,000. UTA has really moved up. Good school. And Texas State has a huge enrollment too!

43,797

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...llment.php

looks like it would be a-m, ut-austin, houston, and then uta. dont know what the numbers are for tech but tech, untexas and txst would all be close for the next spot. I guess we would be the second largest school in the B12.

Seems that UTA, TXST and UNT routinely change places for #4/5 in Texas.

For TXST, I'm more interested in seeing the number of applicants compared to our Texas peers. This is probably the biggest determining factor for us in increasing our selectivity while maintaining constant growth.

e.g. Texas A&M has continued to increase their enrollment but they have also become less selective. While we're still behind A&M in both enrollment and selectivity, we have increased both significantly in the past 10-15 years.

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

(09-20-2016 11:20 AM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:19 AM)runamuck Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2016 01:57 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-16-2016 01:48 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]A 39,714 enrollment at UTA would rank them in the top four in Texas I think. Not sure what Houston's enrollment is for the Fall semester, but North Texas was about 17 students shy of 38,000. UTA has really moved up. Good school. And Texas State has a huge enrollment too!

43,797

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...llment.php

looks like it would be a-m, ut-austin, houston, and then uta. dont know what the numbers are for tech but tech, untexas and txst would all be close for the next spot. I guess we would be the second largest school in the B12.

Seems that UTA, TXST and UNT routinely change places for #4/5 in Texas.

from at least 2000 north Texas state was 4th and Texas State was 5th and then in 2014 Texas State moved ahead and north Texas state was 5th until this year when UTA moved to 4th and Texas State back to 5th and north Texas state 6th

it will probably continue this way for a bit until either Texas State or UTA tighten admissions which both should start considering

and there is a chance that Texas Tech could move up to 6th as well in the next couple of years it depends on how hard they recruit and also on how much north Texas state continues to somewhat lower admissions standards with their guaranteed admissions for being in the top 20% of the HS class for "select" school districts (I think that might backfire to a degree, but who knows)

Texas State is adding the right degree plans to attract top quality students and if they can get graduate enrollment up they should be able to grow still without sacrificing quality and outcome

I think bumping the admissions slightly after letting it be known it is coming would be a benefit as well.....UH had a slight increase even after they went up for 2011 and then when they went up for 2014 they still had an increase

UH of course announced both increases well ahead of time which contrast to UTSA that announced and then did it quickly and lost a couple of thousand students and has not recovered from that yet

the key is selling it properly and getting students prepared for it

and total FTEs for 2015 UTA are 24,737 and Texas State 31,039 that is graduate and undergrad with undergrad being 15 hours and graduate being 9 hours the 2016 numbers will probably not be out for a while


(edit for the UH admissions increase years and FTEs)

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

one key to the growth at uta is probably the type of course offerings. the uta school of nursing has nearly 12,000 students and still growing, no doubt spurred on by the growth of the healthcare industry. uta figures to soon have 10,000 in engineering, another growth industry. we have around 5,000 foreign students adding to that growth spurt.

We are the University of Ten-thousand Asians...

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

What's even more troublesome is the women of the children who are having more than 3-4 are the uneducated and undisciplined moms of this generation. An undisciplined and uneducated mom traditionally leads to F###tards. Those children are not graduating from H.S.

(09-21-2016 06:49 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

What's even more troublesome is the women of the children who are having more than 3-4 are the uneducated and undisciplined moms of this generation. An undisciplined and uneducated mom traditionally leads to F###tards. Those children are not graduating from H.S.

I think that's a huge generalization. I know lot's of people who came from large families and have large families. The vast majority are very very successful. Men and women. Of course I know this isn't the same in all economic classes but that's an entire different topic.

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

The state of GA has grown 500K since 2010.

Georgia Southern could add 5K tomorrow if we had the ability to do so. What is happening in Michigan has nothing to do with what is happening locally. People are having less kids but we have millions more having kids. If 1M people had and average of 4 kids in 1950 and 2M people have and average of 2.5 kids now how is that going to result in less people? Birth rate is relevant if the population was the same.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/13#

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,13 GA vs US

Population Clock

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

(09-21-2016 07:42 AM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

The state of GA has grown 500K since 2010.

Georgia Southern could add 5K tomorrow if we had the ability to do so. What is happening in Michigan has nothing to do with what is happening locally. People are having less kids but we have millions more having kids. If a 1M people had and average of 4 kids in 1950 and 5M people have and average of 2 kids now how is that going to result in less people? Birth rate is relevant if the population was the same.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/13#

Where did you get that information from? I'm not saying it's impossible but, statistically speaking, highly improbable.

(09-21-2016 07:59 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2016 07:42 AM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:26 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]We're also on the downward slope of a baby boom too. I've seen many articles over the past couple years talking about lower enrollment numbers... well, yeah, there's less people!

There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

The state of GA has grown 500K since 2010.

Georgia Southern could add 5K tomorrow if we had the ability to do so. What is happening in Michigan has nothing to do with what is happening locally. People are having less kids but we have millions more having kids. If a 1M people had and average of 4 kids in 1950 and 5M people have and average of 2 kids now how is that going to result in less people? Birth rate is relevant if the population was the same.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/13#

Where did you get that information from? I'm not saying it's impossible but, statistically speaking, highly improbable.

I was just using it as an example. Birth rate is only really relevant if the the two pouplation sizes are the same. We have over double the population I believe than we did in 1950. I get people are having less kids but birth rate is only one factor.

We are adding another person to the population every 11 seconds. That is net gain. A baby is born every 8 seconds while we have a death every 13. This might flip as the baby boomers start taking dirt naps but the net gain with immigration still will probably continue to grow the population.

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

Follow you completely.

My grandparents average 12 siblings.

My parents and their friends average 8 siblings.

My generation average is 2.6 siblings

My siblings and first cousins are averaging 1.9 children each.

I think this matches your example .


One other note on your example, if it were not for immigration, the number of children in the U.S. would be smaller.
I have a coworker whose parents immigrants. My coworker and her 3 siblings are 29 years old and up. None of four sibling have children.

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

(09-21-2016 08:11 AM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2016 07:59 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2016 07:42 AM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 01:02 PM)JCGSU Wrote: [ -> ]There is not less people lol Also the state of Georgia and the south in general is only growing in population. For GA anyway it is not a bunch of baby boomers moving here to retire either.

There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

The state of GA has grown 500K since 2010.

Georgia Southern could add 5K tomorrow if we had the ability to do so. What is happening in Michigan has nothing to do with what is happening locally. People are having less kids but we have millions more having kids. If a 1M people had and average of 4 kids in 1950 and 5M people have and average of 2 kids now how is that going to result in less people? Birth rate is relevant if the population was the same.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/13#

Where did you get that information from? I'm not saying it's impossible but, statistically speaking, highly improbable.

I was just using it as an example. Birth rate is only really relevant if the the two pouplation sizes are the same. We have over double the population I believe than we did in 1950. I get people are having less kids but birth rate is only one factor.

We are adding another person to the population every 11 seconds. That is net gain.

What your saying about overall population growth is correct but that doesn't necessary mean that the population of an age remains consistent with that growth. This chart might help show what I'm talking about: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html


You edited while I was posting, but I addressed these points in my original post and later in the thread. I've highlighted them above. I'm not referring to specifically to Georgia as that data isn't available and difficult to predict seeing as how we can move freely between states.

As I said, population growth is exponential and always increasing even if there is a decline in births between years. I put a green line on this chart from the CDC to represent population growth (sort of, as it would actually be a curve not a straight line) to help show what I'm talking about.



My overriding point is that yes, any school could add 5,000 students next year if they wanted but not without lowering standards to match the birth rate of applicants. That is, unless, we randomly get significantly smarter or go through another post WW2 baby boom.

(09-21-2016 06:49 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 02:12 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]There are less people in the college age group now than there were 5 years ago, hence the reduction in college applications. The total population is exponential growth while birth rates are cyclical. Here is a graph that helps explain:



See the peak around 1990? That's what I'm talking about. We've seen a decline of around 3% year-over-year of 18 year olds over the past five years. Oddly enough, there has been a decline of college applicants of about 3% year-over-year over the past 5 years. Note that these are big, round numbers that account for the entire US, not regions, etc. There is another peak around 2008, which is part of what Eagle22 is referencing with the 2025 goal.

In this case I used the term "baby boom" to refer to a peak in birth rates not the generation "Baby Boomers".

There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

What's even more troublesome is the women of the children who are having more than 3-4 are the uneducated and undisciplined moms of this generation. An undisciplined and uneducated mom traditionally leads to F###tards. Those children are not graduating from H.S.

My parents had 4 kids. All of us went to college. I'm getting my Ph. D...

Watch what you're saying. Maybe you're encountered a lot of f***tards. Hell, maybe you are a f***tard. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world plays by your rules or experiences.

(09-21-2016 10:58 AM)itsmeagain Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2016 06:49 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 09:12 PM)CatMom Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2016 06:52 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]There are not less college aged people IN GA.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I was speaking nationally, but yes, Georgia's population growth rate is about .5% higher than the national average and I have no idea about that age group specifically. That's more math that I've signed up for but even if there is growth there, it has slowed.

I would say there is some validity in counting the Baby Boomers as a factor. The Greatest Generation (my parents) had less kids than their parents but there were more of them to begin with (My dad had 9 siblings, mom 3, my FIL had 8 and my MIL had 6). Whereas most of those people had 2/3 (larger families were not the norm any longer) because they wanted to provide better for the children they had. Boomers also had 2/3 (gen X) that are having 1/2. (millenials).

Look at it this way:
When I was 17 (1973) the population of kids 0-17 was 68.8 million but the US population was 211.9 million (32%)
In 2016 the population of kids 0-17 is 73.7 million but the US population is +/- 323 million (23%)
So, yes, even though the population is growing, the numbers of children, by percentage, is going down and, therefore, the percentage of available college aged students is on a decline.

This page shows the statistical decline until 2050.
This is not a total numbers decline but it shows that the number of children being born is statistically/by percentage lower than previous generations.
http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDR...s/pop1.asp

(I hope some of you can follow my brain here)

What's even more troublesome is the women of the children who are having more than 3-4 are the uneducated and undisciplined moms of this generation. An undisciplined and uneducated mom traditionally leads to F###tards. Those children are not graduating from H.S.

My parents had 4 kids. All of us went to college. I'm getting my Ph. D...

Watch what you're saying. Maybe you're encountered a lot of f***tards. Hell, maybe you are a f***tard. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world plays by your rules or experiences.

Oldest of 4 kids here. We all have nice paying IT jobs.

One of my sisters has seven kids. They don't seem like complete f***tards. They are all young-earth creationists, though...maybe that's what NJ GATA was getting at.