{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02689655172413793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004137931034482759, 'mean_word_length': 4.735177865612648, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Decline of the Guru: The Academic Profession in Developing and Middle-Income Countries (review)

at a public four-year college. The second-tier grant maximum would be the same as the first tier but with the federal government picking up only 30 cents on the dollar, leaving states and institutions to fund the rest. Participation in the second-tier program would be contingent on a promise to fully fund the remaining 70%. St. John contends that, at 30% funding, the second-tier grants are more economical for the federal government than loans and thus could essentially replace loans. The result, he argues, is that the two-tiered grants system would enable even the lowest-income student to enroll at a low-cost public four-year college. But will the two-tier system accomplish this goal? One drawback is the lack of hypothetical charts to support this plan, a glaring omission given how many other data are presented to support the book. St. John makes a compelling case that the current system of student financial aid is not designed to adequately serve the needs of low-income students, thanks in no small measure to recent educational reforms. His framework for taking academic preparation into account when discussing access makes excellent sense. The overall scope and passionate arguments of the book, though wide-ranging and somewhat complicated, are welcome additions to the policy arena that tends toward the dry and over-simplified.