Hmmm... perhaps the people who control the legislature don't send their kids to public schools.
15
The reality is that the U.S. has a funding and capacity problem. In the 21st century, Americans need to have some form of post-secondary education to succeed but, yet, the country reduces funding for these programs because a few whiners who have more money than they know what to do productively with scream loudly that their taxes are too high.
It is like a lot of things in the U.S.: a slow slide that does not become obvious until it becomes very hard to fix or catch up prior losses. This has happened with MULTIPLE critical institutions in the country from education and job training to independent R&D to retirement programs (be they pensions or Social Security) to infrastructure upgrades to the healthcare system.
Americans have neglected huge swaths of its national inheritance for a generation in favor of short-term (and often useless) personal spending.
It is like a lot of things in the U.S.: a slow slide that does not become obvious until it becomes very hard to fix or catch up prior losses. This has happened with MULTIPLE critical institutions in the country from education and job training to independent R&D to retirement programs (be they pensions or Social Security) to infrastructure upgrades to the healthcare system.
Americans have neglected huge swaths of its national inheritance for a generation in favor of short-term (and often useless) personal spending.
40
Here in Virginia, the legislature has been cutting funding for higher education for at least 20 years. Higher education, being a competitive business, had to compensate by generating revenues, most of which has come from tuition increases and from admitting out-of-state students up to the legislatively-mandated ceiling of 33% (which turns out to apply only to the two flagship schools, the University of Virginia and William and Mary). This business model amounts to a tax increase on the users of higher education. Of course, increasing taxes on all citizens to fund higher education is not an option - "raise my taxes, lose my vote," you know.
7
I am sure an audit of the University of Wisconsin would show the same thing.
5
The price for room and board exceeds the in-state tuition price at almost all public universities. People are borrowing as much as $75,000 to fund room and board.
Adding to the insanity is the fact that the majority of loans accumulate interest from the first day the loan is drawn down.
We are bankrupting our kids so they can live on campus.
Adding to the insanity is the fact that the majority of loans accumulate interest from the first day the loan is drawn down.
We are bankrupting our kids so they can live on campus.
15
Public colleges seeking higher tuition from out of state students when other revenue streams are being cut is what you would expect any business to do. The bigger question is if it is fair to expect pubic universities wth diminishing state support to act in the public interest or act as any business would?
22
Mr. Michaels needs to ensure that he campaigns for and supports a governor and legislators who want to increase taxes sufficiently to maintain the University of California at the level that he expects for his offspring. Without tax dollars, the best strategy for UC is to charge high tuition of out-of-state students and use the "profit" to fund the education of California students that isn't being covered by state funds.
11
This situation is a part of the mess this country is in because it is not being run properly.
The comments hardly mention any suggestions that colleges are attempting to lower costs. That's what a private company would do. In state students should be given preference. Undergraduates are exposed to many activities you find only at exclusive country clubs. This business of tenure should be overhauled.
Sports programs are being run like professional leagues. There should be three full semesters instead of two.
I went to a top school (undergraduate) many years ago. Most of my time was spent in plain classrooms, a few labs and lecture halls. In my freshman year we even went to required classes on Saturdays. We had 25-30+ class hours per week and studied until around 1:30 AM six days a week. Every test after the first year was open book (this only made the exam harder). Sometimes the class average on a test was 40% - 60% and was considered passing.
The colleges are out of control and need oversight.
The comments hardly mention any suggestions that colleges are attempting to lower costs. That's what a private company would do. In state students should be given preference. Undergraduates are exposed to many activities you find only at exclusive country clubs. This business of tenure should be overhauled.
Sports programs are being run like professional leagues. There should be three full semesters instead of two.
I went to a top school (undergraduate) many years ago. Most of my time was spent in plain classrooms, a few labs and lecture halls. In my freshman year we even went to required classes on Saturdays. We had 25-30+ class hours per week and studied until around 1:30 AM six days a week. Every test after the first year was open book (this only made the exam harder). Sometimes the class average on a test was 40% - 60% and was considered passing.
The colleges are out of control and need oversight.
10
For too long, California has had its own "Hobson's Choice" (a choice between something and nothing at all) with respect to overpaid bureaucrats, like the UC Regents, whose contributions are wildly imbalanced with their pay, $570K annually for Ms Napolitano. Ms. Napolitano, where you and your fellow leeches are concerned, I choose nothing at all. Get out - carpetbagger.
5
Finally an article on something that has been going on at Indiana University for decades. Now the Times needs to do an article on which groups get first choice at course selection: in-state or out-of-state students. Imagine an out-of-state tuition paying student trying to decide between two or three out-of-state schools. She likes her course schedule at school A better than at school B or C. So she, and her money, go to school A.
3
Universities have to pay the bills, state legislators don't want to pay so in-state students suffer. Whose to blame the universities for looking for someone who can pay?
9
As a country we invest less and less in our young people. Those who can afford
education can get a good one. Those who can't are left to try and figure something out. Same for health care. Welcome to survival of the fittest.
education can get a good one. Those who can't are left to try and figure something out. Same for health care. Welcome to survival of the fittest.
13
90% of the freshmen at University of Texas at Austin are Texas residents. https://admissions.utexas.edu/explore/freshman-profile
6
I've been watching this in Eugene for more than a decade now. While giving generous "Oregon opportunity" grants to low-income in-state students, the university, due in part to massive state disinvestment from higher education over the last generation, admits more and more and more a) international students and b) Californians. There's a reason why the University of Oregon is frequently referred to as UC-Oregon.
15
One of the biggest issues on UC campuses, arising from the lack of sufficient state funding, is over-enrollment across the board. We (faculty) have so many students jockeying for places in our classes. Hundreds are waitlisted for classes they are required to take before they graduate. Hundreds of students plead with us to expand course sizes to accommodate them (and our classes are already far too big -- 500+ in a lecture, 35+ in "discussion" sections). Some international students even tell us they will be deported (!) if we don't enroll them and make exceptions. This is insanity. We cannot teach effectively under these conditions -- No matter who UC schools are admitting, it's too many.
81
The UC system today is comprised of 43.5% Asian students. At the better UC campuses, the percentage is higher. This group is over represented by about 4 times. We have a system that not only gives preferential treatment to out of staters, but also over represents recently arriving Asian immigrant children. The UC system is no longer serving the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of Californians like was intended.
11
Asian or Asian American? There is a difference. Asian American students might well be first, second, third, or fourth (or more) generation students, especially in California. And in the past, the UC system and other state schools have been accused of discriminating against Asian American students, just as universities used to limit the number of Jews admitted. I agree that the aggressive pursuit of large numbers of Chinese and other foreign students is a problem, especially if they are displacing local students who are actually stronger, but the real problem, as one of the people interviewed for this article point out, is that state governments have pulled back from funding state universities, and then they get upset when the universities try to make up that huge differential in party by recruiting out-of-state students.
31
"President Janet Napolitano wrote that because of budget cuts, nearly every state in the nation had been forced to make a “Hobson’s choice, and they all have reached the same decision: Open doors to out-of-state students to keep the doors open for in-state students.'"
I'm wondering whether Ms. Napolitano really understands the meaning of a "Hobson's choice," which is a take-it-or-leave-it choice. I'd like to suggest a "Hobbesian choice": In a world with both limited resources (students and money), colleges and universities (of which there are too many) find themselves in a zero-sum game in which they must poach from each other to keep their enrollments high. Large universities have it bad, but small middle-range liberal arts colleges have it worse. Too many colleges, too few students and dollars. So, as Hobbs predicted, all turn agains each other in the fight for resources.
Colleges are like military bases: very difficult to close, with too many vested interests in their locales. We have too many universities and colleges, too much duplication in programs, and too few students (especially ones prepared for college).
I'm wondering whether Ms. Napolitano really understands the meaning of a "Hobson's choice," which is a take-it-or-leave-it choice. I'd like to suggest a "Hobbesian choice": In a world with both limited resources (students and money), colleges and universities (of which there are too many) find themselves in a zero-sum game in which they must poach from each other to keep their enrollments high. Large universities have it bad, but small middle-range liberal arts colleges have it worse. Too many colleges, too few students and dollars. So, as Hobbs predicted, all turn agains each other in the fight for resources.
Colleges are like military bases: very difficult to close, with too many vested interests in their locales. We have too many universities and colleges, too much duplication in programs, and too few students (especially ones prepared for college).
12
Americans not supporting education is equivalent to farmers eating their seed corn. You feel full and satisfied now, but you leave nothing with which to produce for the future. That is the bottom line here.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full tuition-paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full tuition-paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
44
Here is an example from other countries.
Germany, on one of the highest regarded universities, strong technical orientation, full year tuition+ fees EUR550. That includes health insurance and comprehensive transportation tickets. Only thing required, need to maintain good scores.
Buying a future.
Germany, on one of the highest regarded universities, strong technical orientation, full year tuition+ fees EUR550. That includes health insurance and comprehensive transportation tickets. Only thing required, need to maintain good scores.
Buying a future.
11
Nothing less than a betrayal and repudiation of the University of California's core mission set out by Gov. Edmond G. "Pat" Brown during the late 1950's to justify what was then (and still is) an enormous taxpayer investment in it.
The bargain: Graduating high school seniors ranked in the top 12% of their class were guaranteed admission to UC, tuition-free. Statewide, every high school no matter how small or humble in return for the high taxes that Californians paid.
UC isn't too big or precious to fail. It either modernizes itself or perishes.
I tried to help it start its transition from the traditional, obsolete, stunningly wasteful and inefficient brick-&-mortar campus model that we're only too familiar with in 1992. I met with a few senior administrators and presented a plan to baby-step such a transition. But they refused to take even a single baby-step, make the slightest effort to start, because UC styles itself a "research-teaching" institution. Research is primary. Teaching, secondary.
Much of its tenured faculty disdains it as a distraction, a waste of time. From their perspective, UC exists to support their research careers. Students (undergraduates especially) are adjuncts -- necessary to obtain state funding. So the accounting and budgetary sleight-of-hand that senior campus administrators use to divert money from undergrad to grad and post-grad programs continues unabated, only now it's out-of-state students paying exorbitant tuition who get short-changed.
The bargain: Graduating high school seniors ranked in the top 12% of their class were guaranteed admission to UC, tuition-free. Statewide, every high school no matter how small or humble in return for the high taxes that Californians paid.
UC isn't too big or precious to fail. It either modernizes itself or perishes.
I tried to help it start its transition from the traditional, obsolete, stunningly wasteful and inefficient brick-&-mortar campus model that we're only too familiar with in 1992. I met with a few senior administrators and presented a plan to baby-step such a transition. But they refused to take even a single baby-step, make the slightest effort to start, because UC styles itself a "research-teaching" institution. Research is primary. Teaching, secondary.
Much of its tenured faculty disdains it as a distraction, a waste of time. From their perspective, UC exists to support their research careers. Students (undergraduates especially) are adjuncts -- necessary to obtain state funding. So the accounting and budgetary sleight-of-hand that senior campus administrators use to divert money from undergrad to grad and post-grad programs continues unabated, only now it's out-of-state students paying exorbitant tuition who get short-changed.
7
That is simply not true. Undergrads at Berkeley can and do take classes from Nobel Laureates. What you're missing is that research is a service, performed by some of our smartest citizens, for the benefit of all Californians. Concerned about climate change? Water shortages? The Bark beetle infestations that are laying waste to our mountain forests? Sustainable agriculture? Economic inequality? Scholars at Berkeley are trying to solve all of this, and much more. Teaching and engaging the next generation is hugely important as we seek to deal with these truly epochal, generation-spanning problems. I've never met a faculty member at Berkeley who wasn't committed to undergraduate education- it's essential.
8
Let's back up 20 years. We've had (1) a huge run up in military spending; (2) a huge run up in prison spending; (3) Vast sums spent on health care with the U.S. still far outstripping other countries; and (4) Big drops in public spending on higher education. We have a titanic misallocation of resources in this country and need massive political reforms/campaign finance reform and a total re-allocation of these resources.
33
I was an out-of-state student at a land grant college in the 1960's. I am forever grateful for that experience at a cost that was considerably less than at a private college (which my parents could not have come close to affording). I not only was given a fabulous education, but also the opportunity to broaden my horizons by meeting and becoming friends with fellow students from the state (the vast majority of the student population), who were unlike those I knew at home.
It is sad for me to read that my experience can no longer be duplicated.
It is sad for me to read that my experience can no longer be duplicated.
6
If California only funds 9% of the budget, the the University of California is perilously close to being a private educational system already. I could understand the argument of giving preference to the families of tax payers if those taxes were actually going to the university. Since they are not, it is hard to fault the administrators from finding alternate sources of revenue.
That said, I believe all Californians are worse off with a privatized university system. Both legislators, who failed to fund the system, and administrators, who somehow grew their budget at a pace that far out-paced inflation, should be held accountable.
That said, I believe all Californians are worse off with a privatized university system. Both legislators, who failed to fund the system, and administrators, who somehow grew their budget at a pace that far out-paced inflation, should be held accountable.
17
Americans not supporting education is equivalent to farmers eating their seed corn. You feel full and satisfied now, but you leave nothing with which to produce for the future. That is the bottom line here.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full-tuition paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full-tuition paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
15
It costs me less, after scholarships, to send my two daughters to private schools (Creighton Univ & Lycoming College= $50K per year) than it would to send them to our so-called Honours public college St.Mary's College of Maryland (only loans offered=$27.5K per year X 2= $55K per year). SMH.
9
I was born and raised in Texas and attended UC Berkeley many years ago. The out of state enrollment was 10%. The competition to attend elite universities is far more competitive simply due to numbers. The population of California is now roughly 39 Million, which is double the population from 30 years ago. The US population is now 322 Million, roughly 50% higher than 30 years ago. However, the freshman slots at the nation's top universities is about the same. At the same time, as others have pointed out, state funding has plummeted forcing a privatization trend at top public schools like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, and Virginia. UT Austin has a massive endowment and is the outlier among top publics. Frankly, people at these schools want the prestige and quality of a private education at the cost of a public university. The states benefit greatly from a system that churns out highly talented graduates who fuel the growth in high tech, research, and various other disciplines that pay well and throw off even more growth in the form of income and property taxes. While Berkeley and UCLA have among the highest number of Pell Grant recipients in the nation, a world-class education isn't now and has never been free. It's subsidized by the state and, increasingly, by tuition. There is no free lunch. Either the state pays, or the students pay. I believe in elite public education. Time for Sacramento to pay its share.
20
I attended college in the 1970's, an era of ample financial aid and Pell Grants. Tuition was also a lot less as well, to the point where I paid for a year of graduate studies at CUNY out of pocket from my day job in construction. My total loans for six years Higher Ed were in the order of $5000. Indeed, that was the era of the "perpetual student", a term you never even hear anymore. What happened since, I don't know. But I did have the distinct impression that the evaporation of Pell Grants coincided with the institution of the All Volunteer Military.
9
The same in Florida. Drowning UF in a bathtub. And that is one of the best public schools around. The state wants top university quality with a kindergarten investment. It is hanging on a thread only by the quality of the faculty, and against the totally mediocre administration.
13
In the better and best state universities, there should simply be no non-US citizens. For example at my college, the University of California, Berkeley, the school so packed with the children of wealthy Chinese and Indian children. The people of California (not Chinese or Indian nationals) built this school (as well as all the UC campuses) with decade upon decade of taxes, Federal grants and gifts. The current system makes it nearly impossible for a US student with tremendous grades and scores to be locked out of attending if they are not paying full cost. The Indian and Chinese nationals at the UC system, and other State schools in the US, should be given one year to leave the system, and no further applications be accepted. Or if they are, that a multiplier of say 10x over full tuition be charged to begin to cover the billions invested by US taxpayers.
28
I think this is an extreme overreaction to the problem. I benefited from knowing international students as an undergraduate, and my best graduate students currently are international students. I don't think our universities should be so aggressively courting rich out-of-state and out-of-country students to make ends meet, but what are they supposed to do as state governments refuse to fund them, and federal research dollars--that are used in part to keep the university functioning-- are also increasingly hard to come by?
10
Are you ready to have your taxes raised to make up for the tuition revenue lost if all foreign students are expelled and none can enroll? Enrolling foreign nationals utilizes the same strategy described in the article--enrolling out-of-state students who will pay full out of state tuition, fees and board. The underfunding of public education is a travesty but your solution would lead to the demise possibly of some of the UC schools.
10
The Daily Progress reports today that UVa set aside roughly two billion dollars for a strategic fund to "enable strategic investments in our faculty, academic programs, clinical enterprise, research infrastructure and physical space needs that will continue to benefit future generations of students while also minimizing tuition increases,” according to a university spokesperson.
source: http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/dragas-alleges-billion-slush-fun...
Meanwhile the university has been asking the Commonwealth for permission to increase tuition and fees annually.
source: http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/dragas-alleges-billion-slush-fun...
Meanwhile the university has been asking the Commonwealth for permission to increase tuition and fees annually.
2
Although state aid has fallen 19%, tuition has increased 33%. Note that state aid only covered only a portion of the bill even in the good old days.
So why so much tuition increase. Well, there are costs like administrators and speculative research that has to be covered by students even though they don't really benefit from most of those cost increases.
Schools are spending money on high priced research faculty (who don't teach) while paying those who do teach, adjuncts, a pittance.
It's very simple - schools no longer focus on teaching, but make the students pay for everything.
So why so much tuition increase. Well, there are costs like administrators and speculative research that has to be covered by students even though they don't really benefit from most of those cost increases.
Schools are spending money on high priced research faculty (who don't teach) while paying those who do teach, adjuncts, a pittance.
It's very simple - schools no longer focus on teaching, but make the students pay for everything.
15
I note that Mr. Michael, the alum featured in the article, pointed out that his own son attends the University of Washington. There is a ripple effect here. California's denied in-state students become the out-of-state students somewhere else.
Our local university is the University of California at Boulder, there are so many Californians. And Coloradans are now heading to University of Wyoming.
Our local university is the University of California at Boulder, there are so many Californians. And Coloradans are now heading to University of Wyoming.
7
Yeah, basically the nation's flagships have created a second tier of students who aren't quite good enough to get in at the discounted price but who are able to get in to an equivalent flagship across the state line at a higher price. If there were no out-of-state students then there would be plenty of room for these denied students back home. Or if there were no out-of-state premium then flagships would have no incentive to deny in-state students and take out-of-state students instead. But letting them charge a premium creates a bad incentive and essentially results in a second tier of students who either pay more or go to a lower quality of school than they'd otherwise go to.
5
I live in New Jersey....Rutgers is a great school but has an ugly dangerous bisected campus problem. There is no quad....you don't get that spirit, community feeling. You don't get the same experience as Virginia tech, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Or Indiana., Etc...most kids from New Jersey go to Maryland or Delaware or Penn state...as my kid will when he chooses next year. New York has the same issue but it is so cheap for many they just go.
3
Americans not supporting education is equivalent to farmers eating their seed corn. You feel full and satisfied now, but you leave nothing with which to produce for the future. That is the bottom line here.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full tuition-paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
Making matters worse is the reality that, as our colleges busily educate full tuition-paying foreign students, we are providing other countries with the ability to succeed in economic, technological, and military competition with us in the future.
12
college costs are outrageous and have so far outpaced inflation for nothing in return--that I can't believe anyone is still considering high priced schools.
The fact that Bama is manipulating its student body ought to get their board of regents and president fired immediately. They are not a public university anymore.
Michigan and Michigan State both paid the price of in-state state government lack of support, but their obnoxious rises while suffering bloat in administration and faculty are shameful, and the pace they give out aid is similar. Michigan is in middle of a 7 billion dollar campaign (end actually) with 1 billion aimed at students, yet they raise out of state tuition higher and higher each year and this year, first year's tuition and board will approach 60,000. To sit in classes with 700 others and never meet a professor.
The fact that Bama is manipulating its student body ought to get their board of regents and president fired immediately. They are not a public university anymore.
Michigan and Michigan State both paid the price of in-state state government lack of support, but their obnoxious rises while suffering bloat in administration and faculty are shameful, and the pace they give out aid is similar. Michigan is in middle of a 7 billion dollar campaign (end actually) with 1 billion aimed at students, yet they raise out of state tuition higher and higher each year and this year, first year's tuition and board will approach 60,000. To sit in classes with 700 others and never meet a professor.
7
The Times article quoted the list price for college tuition and fees.
It should also have quoted the actual, net price after grant
aid (loan-free) and tax benefits are included. That is given
in a separate table of the College Board report mentioned.
The average net tuition and fee charge at public 4-year universities
for 2015-16 is only $4000. Room and board is another $10,000. For private universities, these figures are $15,000 and $11,500.
Living expenses constitute 70% of the net cost of a public college
education, and they work out to about $37 a day during two semesters. This is hardly crushing. The problem for families is not the cost but the fact that students are deferring employment that would have covered this cost. That's a choice, of course.
The net charge for tuition and fees has risen faster than inflation,
which ought to be expected for organizations depending on highly
trained employees. But the actual values don't justify the
scandalized tone of articles like this about higher education or the
comments that follow.
It should also have quoted the actual, net price after grant
aid (loan-free) and tax benefits are included. That is given
in a separate table of the College Board report mentioned.
The average net tuition and fee charge at public 4-year universities
for 2015-16 is only $4000. Room and board is another $10,000. For private universities, these figures are $15,000 and $11,500.
Living expenses constitute 70% of the net cost of a public college
education, and they work out to about $37 a day during two semesters. This is hardly crushing. The problem for families is not the cost but the fact that students are deferring employment that would have covered this cost. That's a choice, of course.
The net charge for tuition and fees has risen faster than inflation,
which ought to be expected for organizations depending on highly
trained employees. But the actual values don't justify the
scandalized tone of articles like this about higher education or the
comments that follow.
4
Where are you getting your numbers from? 1982?
16
Yes, where are you getting your numbers? While I was able to be accepted by a UC and graduate from a UC in four years in the mid-70s, in 2013 my child was forced to go out-of-state to attend a four-year university because she did not have the "near-perfect SAT" score or the 4.0 gpa that nearly all of the UCs, except UC Merced and UC Riverside, now require. I pay approximately $7,500 in tuition each semester and over $30.00 per day for her room and board. I am grateful she has worked very hard and will receive both her bachelors and teaching credential in three and a half years. Will she return to California to teach? No, she won't. This despite our family living here and being educated in California schools for nearly 100 years. UC schools are for the elite, certainly not for the middle class.
6
Hi David:
The numbers come from the same College Board report that was quoted in the article ("Trends in College Pricing 2015"), but they are for _net_ tuition and fees after student aid and tax benefits are included.
They are for the 2015-16 academic year.
See page 23 of
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/trends-college-prici...
The numbers come from the same College Board report that was quoted in the article ("Trends in College Pricing 2015"), but they are for _net_ tuition and fees after student aid and tax benefits are included.
They are for the 2015-16 academic year.
See page 23 of
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/trends-college-prici...
1
I worked at UC Berkeley from 2001-2005. With an MBA in finance, I always keep an eye on the numbers - especially the macro trends. With the tech downturn, tax revenues dropped markedly statewide. The impact on Berkeley and all of the California higher education system meant that in 2001, the state contributed slightly over 50% of the operating budget; consequently had some input, control over the universities, colleges, community colleges, etc.
By 2003, the state's percentage had dropped to the low 40's; the delta (difference) being made up primarily by CORPORATIONS; a few extra bucks from the Feds but by and large the lovely private sector. The state legislature screamed bloody murder and tried - futilely - to reverse the corporations' decisions that were now California's higher education 'decisions'. Part and parcel of the privatization of America - which only accelerated after the 2007-2008 meltdown.
Don't forget Jarvis tax initiative that passed in 1978; took California education from No. 1 in the nation to No. 49 in record time. Primary schools, high school were decimated. Also no longer any affirmative action; just legacy kids (like Bush @ Yale).
PUBLIC EDUCATION IS THE BACKBONE OF DEMOCRACY......or was.
By 2003, the state's percentage had dropped to the low 40's; the delta (difference) being made up primarily by CORPORATIONS; a few extra bucks from the Feds but by and large the lovely private sector. The state legislature screamed bloody murder and tried - futilely - to reverse the corporations' decisions that were now California's higher education 'decisions'. Part and parcel of the privatization of America - which only accelerated after the 2007-2008 meltdown.
Don't forget Jarvis tax initiative that passed in 1978; took California education from No. 1 in the nation to No. 49 in record time. Primary schools, high school were decimated. Also no longer any affirmative action; just legacy kids (like Bush @ Yale).
PUBLIC EDUCATION IS THE BACKBONE OF DEMOCRACY......or was.
39
I attended U of Washington as a first gen student and got maximum financial aid (for tuition but not board), same for my younger sister. So I'm glad that higher paying out-of-staters (both my roommates in freshman dorm) and foreign student (that flocked to STEM majors) subsidize low income families like mine. However, the so-called diversity was laughable at the university. As an Asian American, I felt so comfortable being in STEM classes with over half the ethnic Asian students. There were good numbers of US-born Asian Americans like myself but I heard so much Chinese and Korean in the classroom. But these are not humble Asian students; they are rich and entitled and obnoxious and their accents are hard to understand, but they can still ace STEM classes since they are used to the metric based education in Asia. I'm glad they subsidized my tuition but they are taking limited space in competitive majors like engineering and American citizens have hard time even getting a spot in those lucrative majors. But I know that I'm one of the lucky ones that was able to receive a somewhat decent education without accumulating any debt. Basically US public universities are becoming luxury items for global elites, and the bottom line is profitability, not providing quality education for Americans.
39
Not all states have public universities of the same quality. Top students in Alaska have no choice but to seek an undergraduate education out of state. Currently Alaska is cutting its public universities and they have never been a draw to top students in Alaska. Most students who can afford it, or who qualify for aid choose to go elsewhere. A small percentage stay home and the rigor of the public university system here does not compare with that of California.
6
Of course, if the University of California system wasn't providing the benefits of in-state tuition fees to thousands of students in the state illegally, maybe the prestigious UC system wouldn't need to be on the hunt for more revenue from those higher-paying out-of-state and foreign students. UC could be getting those higher tuition payments right at home.
10
Public state higher education is, and has been big biz with corporate America for generations. A fine example is the athletic programs, which decrease funding for the academic programs. It is just another example of increasing inequality, and has become just another bastion of, and for the 1%. Unless, of course you have a rarefied talent in sports, or unless you are the next Einstein.
9
I'm a Berkeley alum and an engaged volunteer there. I can tell you from first hand experience that the defunding of the UC system- by a state government more concerned about prisons than education- is doing incredible damage to our greatest asset. Berkeley is a tough school- intellectually rigorous and very complex. However, it does a terrific job with its undergrads, and is always looking to make the undergraduate experience more engaging, more interesting, more relevant. Berkeley is committed to educating our future leaders, and I think they're doing an amazing job, in the face of enormous challenges. And, Berkeley doesn't just educate undergrads. Berkeley researchers are working on many fronts to address some of our most pressing problems....problems that will tank our state and our nation if we can't get a handle on them. I encourage you skeptics to visit our campus. Come to Homecoming, come to Cal Day, or just wander on over to check it out. Walk into an Astronomy 10 class and learn something new. You'll be impressed. The UC system is almost 150 years old; it's arguably the best investment the people of California have ever made. Don't throw it away. Go Bears!
22
Long before this more college classes should have been webinars/online where students could alleviate many of the basic pre-requisites. The cost is ridiculous but when many schools pay presidents obscene salaries that is expected. I (and everyone I talk to) does not want to pay for other people's children to attend college. No one paid for us and we were ambitious so we worked hard, got through with multiple part-time jobs to defray the cost. Taxes from states to pay for this (if it goes through) will be paid by YOU. The problem with the democrats is their continuing to steer this nation to total socialism.
1
One of the problems of modern higher education is the attitude that general education courses are a barrier rather than an essential component of a student's development. As a professor and student adviser, I don't know how many times I heard, "For now, I just want to get my basics out of the way." Out of the way? The courses the student's were talking about were writing, literature, mathematics, introductory science courses, social sciences, government, history. That is, the liberal arts foundation of learning.
So far as "no one paid for us," they most certainly did. Public colleges and universities were supported by tax payers, and they should be. That students got through college without government support is another of the "self made man" myths that conservatives so much love. Check out how self made the farmers are, with the Extension Service and the agricultural Land Grant colleges, the small business people are with the Small Business Administration, .... . In the 1960s in Texas, public university tuition was $50 per semester, which equates to about $600 per semester now. Who do you think paid the rest of the cost?
What sort of society do you want to live in, with what kind of citizens/voters? A literate citizenry is the foundation of democracy.
So far as "no one paid for us," they most certainly did. Public colleges and universities were supported by tax payers, and they should be. That students got through college without government support is another of the "self made man" myths that conservatives so much love. Check out how self made the farmers are, with the Extension Service and the agricultural Land Grant colleges, the small business people are with the Small Business Administration, .... . In the 1960s in Texas, public university tuition was $50 per semester, which equates to about $600 per semester now. Who do you think paid the rest of the cost?
What sort of society do you want to live in, with what kind of citizens/voters? A literate citizenry is the foundation of democracy.
40
But... but...
But nobody pays the sticker price for education! Which means that if we charge those rich folk making more than 100k a year full tuition and give more scholarships to poor and minority kids we're doing social justice!
Why do those wealthy families who make more than 100k a year complain? Aren't they progressive? Can't they afford to pay the full price, or go out-of-state?
But nobody pays the sticker price for education! Which means that if we charge those rich folk making more than 100k a year full tuition and give more scholarships to poor and minority kids we're doing social justice!
Why do those wealthy families who make more than 100k a year complain? Aren't they progressive? Can't they afford to pay the full price, or go out-of-state?
1
I hate to tell you, but no ... $100K annual family income is not nearly enough for a family to pay the full cost of tuition. Not even $200K. The average worker won't understand, but everyone who is upper middle class in NYC or the Bay Area does. Most parents who make $200-300K are taking out loans to pay tuition and will definitely lean toward schools that give them "merit" aid. My oldest got into a good California UC campus, but chose to attend an "elite" eastern college based on prestige and aid. Ah, the life of the upper middle class is weird, isn't it. We are so oppressed in a self-inflicted sort of way.
14
a family of 4 with an 200k on the east cost - just solidly middle class. Certainly that income won't net enough to cover $30-60K in after tax tuition and room and board costs.
11
Call me crazy, but I don't think costs should be different for students from different states. Our country is so polarized, we should be encouraging young people to get out of their regional mindset, not cordon themselves off further. Imagine if a student could attend affordable state schools in two or three different regions during their college career. Think of how ideological gulfs could be bridged by simply living and learning with people from different backgrounds. Aren't we all Americans?
13
Universities are money hogs that know that in the end, they will get the money they demand. It's a vicious cycle of price hike and student loan increases. A solution is to rein in public universities to make them affordable to the in-state students they should primarily serve by cutting budgets that do not directly support student academics and research.
A Department of Education study outlines the costs of 2 and 4 year colleges and universities, both public and private, in dollars current and adjusted for inflation from school years 1983-84, 1993-1994, and 2000-2014. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
The price of these institutions has more than doubled (in dollars adjusted for inflation) in public and private 4 year universities during the 20 years covered. Has state funding been cut in half? Have the schools grown but not benefitted from economies of scale? I worry that universities continue to charge more (and offer increasing non-core educational "free" enticements to students like golf simulators, gourmet meals, support to hundreds of student organizations, multi-million dollar contracts for athletic coaches, etc) knowing that in the end, we'll clamor for the federal government to help students pay whatever they demand.
A Department of Education study outlines the costs of 2 and 4 year colleges and universities, both public and private, in dollars current and adjusted for inflation from school years 1983-84, 1993-1994, and 2000-2014. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
The price of these institutions has more than doubled (in dollars adjusted for inflation) in public and private 4 year universities during the 20 years covered. Has state funding been cut in half? Have the schools grown but not benefitted from economies of scale? I worry that universities continue to charge more (and offer increasing non-core educational "free" enticements to students like golf simulators, gourmet meals, support to hundreds of student organizations, multi-million dollar contracts for athletic coaches, etc) knowing that in the end, we'll clamor for the federal government to help students pay whatever they demand.
3
"Has state funding been cut in half?" In the case of UC, far more than half, and I assume California is not unique in that regard.
3
The main reason tuition goes up is because it can, thanks to the extreme availability of massive student loans.
Lenders are willing to loan these massive amounts because student loan debt (unlike any other class of debt), cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (and in some states, like NJ, not even death! see this NYTimes article from earlier in the week: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/nyregion/in-new-jersey-student-loan-pr....
Want to fix this crazy system? Make student loan debt just like any other debt, remove its special status, make it dischargeable in bankruptcy, disability or death.
Banks will be more careful about loaning money. Universities will have to be more careful in spending (reduce the number of administrators, stop building deluxe campus amenities.)
Lenders are willing to loan these massive amounts because student loan debt (unlike any other class of debt), cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (and in some states, like NJ, not even death! see this NYTimes article from earlier in the week: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/nyregion/in-new-jersey-student-loan-pr....
Want to fix this crazy system? Make student loan debt just like any other debt, remove its special status, make it dischargeable in bankruptcy, disability or death.
Banks will be more careful about loaning money. Universities will have to be more careful in spending (reduce the number of administrators, stop building deluxe campus amenities.)
5
Standards for out-of-state students at Michigan and Berkeley have historically been higher than for in-state students. I heard many Massachusetts students got into Harvard and rejected by Berkeley.
While I support improving funding to higher education, I can understand charging a high price to privileged students to cross-subsidize their poorer ones.
The bigger problem is that some programs/majors are letting students get away with learning far too little to merit the time and costs of their education. We don't need to subsidize Greek Life with public money (that might be better spent on inner city schools) and low academic standards.
While I support improving funding to higher education, I can understand charging a high price to privileged students to cross-subsidize their poorer ones.
The bigger problem is that some programs/majors are letting students get away with learning far too little to merit the time and costs of their education. We don't need to subsidize Greek Life with public money (that might be better spent on inner city schools) and low academic standards.
6
"While I support improving funding to higher education, I can understand charging a high price to privileged students to cross-subsidize their poorer ones. "
The big problem with this attitude is that you automatically reduce economic and possibly racial diversity by allowing the "wealthy" who can afford obnoxiously high rates to attend to subsidize an instate population who also rarely can afford it or even get in. Michigan has struggled over its diversity, so what your subsidizing does is make it a boring one dimensional university for rich which is not the Michigan I recognize.
The big problem with this attitude is that you automatically reduce economic and possibly racial diversity by allowing the "wealthy" who can afford obnoxiously high rates to attend to subsidize an instate population who also rarely can afford it or even get in. Michigan has struggled over its diversity, so what your subsidizing does is make it a boring one dimensional university for rich which is not the Michigan I recognize.
5
Actually I do agree. I used to teach at Michigan and was appalled to see its administrators run it more as a corporation, run for the parents and donors, than a place of higher learning, for students and faculty!
8
In regards to the standards: A state flagship has to accept people from all around the state. So they end up accepting people from impoverished rural and urban high schools where the quality of education is relatively poor. Nothing wrong with that but it brings the average down for everything except class rank. So I would guess if you compared the in-state admission standards for students coming out of upper-middle class suburbs to the out-of-state admission standards (which mainly apply to students coming from upper-middle class suburbs in other states) you'd see that the in-state standards are higher.
In reality, most students who go to Ivies are from less than 200 miles away; they're really just elite regional colleges (and in fact all colleges have been largely regional). The Ivies are, basically, the equivalent of the UC system + Stanford for an area of roughly the same size. What seems to be happening now is that the larger US population, with a relatively static number of Universities, creates greater scarcity for places, and wealthier kids that had an easy time getting in in the old days now have to look farther afield. U's find this convenient for filling budgets, sure, but part of it is just that the demand is there. Despite growing inequality, there is still a larger raw number of rich/upper mid class kids than their was in the mid-90's. Basically they will eat up all the U's everywhere, leaving no places for the poor/working class, if we don't build more universities OR drastically improve the attractiveness of non-college careers.
6
There is a storm on the horizon, and the damage will be immense.
In an attempt to climb the ratings and improve selectivity, US schools have invested billions in student centers, luxury gyms, modern dorms, and state of the art dining halls. To ensure they attract applicants, they've built up marketing departments and hired the multi-million dollar coaches. Meanwhile, the class sizes grow, and schools use adjunct faculty to augment the professors they can't afford (because the pension and medical costs are so high).
All of this is paid for by those "lucky" enough to make over $125k per year (who will spend every dollar saved the past 2 decades), or by the students borrowing money. Those same students who struggle to find jobs upon graduation.
At some point, there isn't enough money to keep up the expansion. State Universities need to focus on providing the highest quality education available at the lowest price. If it means the students have to forego spin class and jog outside for some exercise, so be it. If Rutgers football has to go from being the worst team in the Big 10 to being the worst team in the AAC....does it really matter?
In an attempt to climb the ratings and improve selectivity, US schools have invested billions in student centers, luxury gyms, modern dorms, and state of the art dining halls. To ensure they attract applicants, they've built up marketing departments and hired the multi-million dollar coaches. Meanwhile, the class sizes grow, and schools use adjunct faculty to augment the professors they can't afford (because the pension and medical costs are so high).
All of this is paid for by those "lucky" enough to make over $125k per year (who will spend every dollar saved the past 2 decades), or by the students borrowing money. Those same students who struggle to find jobs upon graduation.
At some point, there isn't enough money to keep up the expansion. State Universities need to focus on providing the highest quality education available at the lowest price. If it means the students have to forego spin class and jog outside for some exercise, so be it. If Rutgers football has to go from being the worst team in the Big 10 to being the worst team in the AAC....does it really matter?
19
Universities and other "non-profits" are running like "for profits": low wages for the workers, high compensation for the higher administrators. They do it because they can and because they have their self interest in mind. Today, universities are more about selling an experience and less about selling an education - and it is not cheap. And many students choose a university based on the experience and not on the curriculum. Any wonder why the "for profit" mentality has focused on the campus life and many times thereby sacrificing the classroom experience?
17
One thing not mentioned here is -was his son's record good enough to have been accepted in the first place or did he just expect admission because of family ties and donations?
Based on this reporting I get the feeling that the father expects his son to be able to get in because he gave money.
This is a also problem at most private top tier universities, where large donors get their kids admitted on a non-merit track.
Admittedly, the problem of giving places to high paying out of state applicants instead of equivalent in-state residents is a real problem. It is not just the only problem.
Based on this reporting I get the feeling that the father expects his son to be able to get in because he gave money.
This is a also problem at most private top tier universities, where large donors get their kids admitted on a non-merit track.
Admittedly, the problem of giving places to high paying out of state applicants instead of equivalent in-state residents is a real problem. It is not just the only problem.
17
Glad to see this covered in the NYT. What has happened is a scandal, particularly in the case of land grant universities, who have a particular mission. I attribute this to a number of factors, including less investment by state legislatures, top heavy salaries, particularly for administrators, and just plain greed. One of the administrators at the University if Minnesota was actually quoted saying that bringing in out of state students was more "interesting" than students from Hibbing. To which I point out that Bob Dylan, Vincent Bugliosi and Roger Maris are from Hibbing.
16
go walk around your alma mater. if you are out of school a while i suspect you recognize very little from the campus. dozens of new buildings have popped up. at my school are new art galleries, theaters, dozens of laboratories, his 'n her gyms all over, massive student union complexes, numerous entirely new departments and faculty devoted to esoteric topics and all while the school is graduating only 5% more students than 30 yrs ago. universities have refocused their attention from teaching undergrads to expensive graduate programs. faculties are hired for the quantity of publications rather than their ability to teach undergrads. total employment on campus is up 60% and ratio of salary to average household income is up significantly while not delivering a perceptible increased number of students.
schools - like other bureaucracies - have developed a need for an infinite amount of funding. state government funding of anything less than their fantasy wish list results in front page newspaper articles and rants and raves in front of students.
the primary focus of state funded schools should be to educate undergrads.
schools - like other bureaucracies - have developed a need for an infinite amount of funding. state government funding of anything less than their fantasy wish list results in front page newspaper articles and rants and raves in front of students.
the primary focus of state funded schools should be to educate undergrads.
34
Allow folks to bankrupt student loan debt and pop goes the weasel. Unless you're real rich or real poor, you're the sucker in this racket.
12
Lower taxes create lower funding for state universities. Where can state universities find big money to pay for all the VPs and new dormitories they now have to pay for? Higher tuition is the answer. Out-of-state tuitions are good for state universities. Perhaps we should create out-of-country tuitions as foreign students and their families never pay into the IRS or state taxation departments. Thus we should charge them a higher tuition than out-of-state American students. If a foreign student is outstanding, state universities can offer them scholarships. It is unfair to reject qualified in-state students to chase higher tuition.
14
The federal government probably sends as much money to many of these state flagships as their state capitol's do. If you're going to charge out-of-state tuition then and additional out-of-country tuition premium would seem fair.
1
I don't think the problem is Prop. 13 or an unwillingness to to pay taxes. Many of those who benefited from Prop 13 have moved on, one way or another. It was voted in during the 70's I believe. During the 80's my son was able to graduate from UCSB at a cost much lower than it is today. Prop. 13 was voted in because housing prices soared and many people who had punched homes at a lower cost in the past, were being forced out of their homes because they couldn't keep up with property taxes on their now, more expensive homes.
A few years age the son of a friend had a 4.5 GPA (he took all honors courses), participated in many school activities and yet was turned down from UC Berkeley.
Today, my twin niece and nephew are going to colleges in the south because they were offered sweet deals on costs. They are both honors students and could qualify for many colleges, but they went to the ones who offered a good education plus a nice financial package.
I think the college and university systems in our country need a major overhaul.
A few years age the son of a friend had a 4.5 GPA (he took all honors courses), participated in many school activities and yet was turned down from UC Berkeley.
Today, my twin niece and nephew are going to colleges in the south because they were offered sweet deals on costs. They are both honors students and could qualify for many colleges, but they went to the ones who offered a good education plus a nice financial package.
I think the college and university systems in our country need a major overhaul.
6
I have worked at a large public school quite similar to Alabama for the last six years and articles like this are completely missing the point. More or less and adjusted for inflation, states are funding their public universities about the same per student over the course of the last five or six decades. So why do all these articles claim a decrease in state spending? If you notice, they always talk percentages. These percentages are percentages of total SPENDING. Our public universities are spending way more money than they used to so the total share of that spending coming from the state gets smaller even though we are funding each student at the same amount. This is the real issue. It isn't that our states aren't funding our schools enough, it's that our schools are spending too much money.
There are many contributing factors to this. One is the huge salaries we are now giving to administrators. Another is the huge increase in administration and staff. In 1970, there was roughly one administrator/staffer per faculty member and now there are over two per faculty member. A further reason is the building arms race. We have an administrative culture where getting a new building built for, say, alumni outreach is a big professional accomplishment for the dean in charge of such thing. In the state I work, the legislature told my school if they didn't stop building unnecessary buildings they would cut their funding. The school kept doing it anyway and lost funds.
There are many contributing factors to this. One is the huge salaries we are now giving to administrators. Another is the huge increase in administration and staff. In 1970, there was roughly one administrator/staffer per faculty member and now there are over two per faculty member. A further reason is the building arms race. We have an administrative culture where getting a new building built for, say, alumni outreach is a big professional accomplishment for the dean in charge of such thing. In the state I work, the legislature told my school if they didn't stop building unnecessary buildings they would cut their funding. The school kept doing it anyway and lost funds.
30
ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN MERIT AIDE given to foreign students by the University of Alabama. Imagine how many Alabama citizens they could have helped earn an education with that money. Imagine the good they could have done right here at home.
Worshiping money as a god is such a bad thing to do. Let go of the greed and do what you were created to do: educate Alabamians.
Worshiping money as a god is such a bad thing to do. Let go of the greed and do what you were created to do: educate Alabamians.
31
Bloated administrations. Entire departments that are required to suppress potential lawsuits. Mediocre faculty who don't want to teach, busy doing questionable research. Rooms full of people writing grant proposals for that research. Everybody enjoying Cadillac health and pension plans. Colleges are out of control and that pushes up costs.
9
Many of the responses to the very real economic pressures on state universities are morally questionable. Many of my children's affluent peers opted for large out of state universities at very high tuition rates. As someone who attended a popular big state university as an in-state student, it was appalling to me that there were separate and unequal luxury dorm options at many. My own three children attended small private colleges that provided no merit scholarships, but had generous need-blind admission policies. I imagine that the SUNY system has a higher ratio of New Yorkers attending them since there is not one large flagship university with the marquis NCAA championship teams (another moral black hole) that youngsters find attractive.
6
State legislatures cut funding to public universities, tell them to find other revenue streams without increasing in-state tuition, and then the legislators as shocked, shocked I say, to find that the universities are following the economic path that the legislators have set out for them.
Get some competent legislators elected.
Get some competent legislators elected.
19
My wife and I are the beneficiaries of good educations provided by the NY state university system (SUNY) during it's heydey of the late '60's/early '70's when it was the jewel in the crown of the Rockefeller administration. Since then, the state has continuously cut the SUNY budget to the point where the campus that I graduated from (Oswego) did not have a single new building on campus for nearly 35 years. And this despite growth in the student population as middle-class parents realized that the state system provided far better value for the dollar than private or out of state schools. Both of our children are SUNY graduates as well. I fear for the future of our state and our country so long as politicians grovel at the feet of tax cutting at the expense of education. YEs - taxes in NY maybe high. I have lived in NY state my entire life and have been a taxpayer for more that 45 years but education is one of the few budget items that the state is uniquely situated to provide. Without this support, we no better than those other states that rank at the top of the charts for low taxes and at the bottom for almost everything else (and you know who you are!).
8
All you say is true plus more. While touring SUNYs with our child, more than one out-ond-out said that ALL the merit scholarship money went to out-of-state students since the SUNY tuition was a scholarship in itself for residents. For some families $20,000 tuition is as impossible as $60,000. Why no merit aid for our own best and brightest?
12
Public colleges chase out-of-state students and tuition because the economy has faltered thus inequality has picked up speed and spread the spoils, especially after the Cold War was won 25 years ago and there was no need to continue to lull discontents among the working people.
“States have reduced spending on public higher education by 17 percent, while tuition has risen by 33 percent.” An affluent society for the few rich and powerful has replaced the society for the working people’s wellbeing. As the production of the economy has been increasingly automated, less and less labor power is needed, unemployment and underemployment become a new norm of the society and the public spending on the higher education of the posterity of the working people has nowhere to go but down. According to capital, only the posterity of the top 1 percent needs to be well groomed for college education and top jobs.
What can the 99 percent do in order to fight back for one of their natural rights: higher education? Bernie Sanders’ free tuition for all applicants to public colleges and universities paid for by levying transaction tax, closing tax loopholes and evasions is more effectual and fair than Hillary Clinton’s taking off the transaction taxes in Wall Street by increasing federal and state income taxes on working people. Her establishment mind-set is contrary to the fundamental and long-term interests of the people.
People's power is the key to all political and social problems.
“States have reduced spending on public higher education by 17 percent, while tuition has risen by 33 percent.” An affluent society for the few rich and powerful has replaced the society for the working people’s wellbeing. As the production of the economy has been increasingly automated, less and less labor power is needed, unemployment and underemployment become a new norm of the society and the public spending on the higher education of the posterity of the working people has nowhere to go but down. According to capital, only the posterity of the top 1 percent needs to be well groomed for college education and top jobs.
What can the 99 percent do in order to fight back for one of their natural rights: higher education? Bernie Sanders’ free tuition for all applicants to public colleges and universities paid for by levying transaction tax, closing tax loopholes and evasions is more effectual and fair than Hillary Clinton’s taking off the transaction taxes in Wall Street by increasing federal and state income taxes on working people. Her establishment mind-set is contrary to the fundamental and long-term interests of the people.
People's power is the key to all political and social problems.
4
At Berkeley, my old school, out-of-state students no longer means poor but genius students from Alaska or Alabama. No, it means students from abroad, and from one country, China. There is nothing Chinese students won't do for an undergraduate degree from a high-profile U.S. university, with its near guaranteed follow-up of graduate study, green card, and immigration for the student's parents and family. And it sometimes seems there is nothing UC won't do to accomodate them.
58
I fear this is true. It makes me sick to the bone.
7
Here's the case for affordable public education in a nutshell. State supports affordable higher education with tax dollars. State universities produce highly skilled labor force. Highly skilled labor force attracts cutting-edge business investment. Business investment raises wages and GDP in that state. State taxes wage earners and business, recouping cost of tax-supported public education. Net result: State residents enjoy full employment and high wages at no net cost. It's effectively free. Run this scenario in reverse and you get a race to the bottom that results in a substandard labor force, lagging investment, and general impoverishment of the state's population.
8
This is a surprise given the decline in state funding across the nation, coupled with the expectation that quality remain the same. Duh.
3
In the latter half of the 1960s at Berkeley, there was no tuition. We paid student fees only, which totaled little more than $100 per semester. The public was willing to support higher education, and university administrations were not huge bureaucracies. The faculty, not university CEOs, ran the campus. Indeed until 1960 at Berkeley, like their counterparts at UCLA, the Associated Students of the University of California actually ran the intercollegiate athletic program and hired and fired the coaches. Athletics were considered an extracurricular student activity, and they produced some great teams.
Of course that was before right-wing anti-tax policy set out to cripple government and destroy the public sphere. The state and its citizens took pride in public education. No one thought universities should be run as if they were businesses to make money, with executives compensated disproportionately as they now are in private corporations.
To return to anything like such a world requires cultural change, the rejection of privatization, a renewed belief in the value and importance of public, not private, institutions, and, yes, taxation and redistribution of wealth. Maybe, just maybe, Bernie Sanders and his young voters have put us--including Democrats and Hillary Clinton--back on the right track.
Of course that was before right-wing anti-tax policy set out to cripple government and destroy the public sphere. The state and its citizens took pride in public education. No one thought universities should be run as if they were businesses to make money, with executives compensated disproportionately as they now are in private corporations.
To return to anything like such a world requires cultural change, the rejection of privatization, a renewed belief in the value and importance of public, not private, institutions, and, yes, taxation and redistribution of wealth. Maybe, just maybe, Bernie Sanders and his young voters have put us--including Democrats and Hillary Clinton--back on the right track.
22
Is this really a Hobson's choice? The out of state and international students who pay full tuition make it possible for the University to accept and subsidize the in-state students. So, the former actually make it possible for more in-state students to be accepted rather than taking what would otherwise be opportunities for in-state students.
I understand the point about state budget-cuts affecting in-state students disproportionately and tying state-funding to in-state student enrollment absolutely is a sensible approach. However, demonizing the very students who make it possible for in-state students to attend these universities is counter-productive.
I understand the point about state budget-cuts affecting in-state students disproportionately and tying state-funding to in-state student enrollment absolutely is a sensible approach. However, demonizing the very students who make it possible for in-state students to attend these universities is counter-productive.
23
Agreed, but you fail to realize that this is a "Clinton buying the votes of the students with debt and their families" proposition which has nothing to do with reality...It is about early November
1
Madsang, state residents - including those who can't afford college at all - pay state taxes that underwrite these universities. Poor residents support students who aren't even likely to remain in the state after they graduate.
2
People who attended the UC system during the "Golden Age" prior to Prop 13 want to have their cake and eat it too. They want quality education at affordable prices for their children, like they enjoyed, but want the low property taxes guaranteed by Prop 13. College was affordable prior to Prop 13 because their parents paid high property taxes to fund their educations.
73
Inconvenient fact that always gets forgotten -- Tokyo, Berlin, Beijing, and Seoul in the "Golden Age" were piles of rubble.
That ain't the case anymore. To think otherwise is just bizarre.
That ain't the case anymore. To think otherwise is just bizarre.
1
But up until just before Prop 13 was passed -- I think it was 1978? -- housing prices in California were normal. Perhaps somewhat higher than the Midwest, but affordable to most residents.
Starting in the late 70s, and then on a greased rail going up up up -- the cost of a home in California is now about 12 times what the cost is in other parts of the US. TWELVE TIMES. A tiny starter "shack" with no yard or garage ("zero lot line") is $1.2 million in San Francisco.
Without Prop 13, millions would have been driven out of their own homes, incapable of paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in property tax -- especially the elderly.
Now, I think Prop 13 has some elements that are unfair, such as not raising taxes at all on older properties but socking it to anyone who buys -- but SOMETHING had to be done, to keep older residents from being driven out of their homes by ceaselessly rising property taxes.
Starting in the late 70s, and then on a greased rail going up up up -- the cost of a home in California is now about 12 times what the cost is in other parts of the US. TWELVE TIMES. A tiny starter "shack" with no yard or garage ("zero lot line") is $1.2 million in San Francisco.
Without Prop 13, millions would have been driven out of their own homes, incapable of paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in property tax -- especially the elderly.
Now, I think Prop 13 has some elements that are unfair, such as not raising taxes at all on older properties but socking it to anyone who buys -- but SOMETHING had to be done, to keep older residents from being driven out of their homes by ceaselessly rising property taxes.
5
Elderly residents in other states deal with high property taxes too. In my line of work I come across property tax bills frequently. In some cases the bills are for a few hundred dollars when comparable properties are assessed more than $7,000.
4
Talk about being diverted from your original mission. The University of Washington is another case. By chasing cash and incidentally a higher rated student body, most state schools have totally abandoned their original mission: to educate the students of their state.
15
"At the University of Wisconsin’s flagship campus in Madison, officials last fall lifted a cap on the enrollment of out-of-staters. The Wisconsin student newspaper, The Badger Herald, predicted that the university would transform into a bourgeois playground for wealthy Chicagoans, who can afford the luxury private dormitories near campus."
Already accomplished.
Lifting the cap on out of state admissions is largely due to Gov Walker recently slashing the Univ WI state wide budget by 300 mil, on the back of previous reductions in funding over the past budget cycles. State residents aren't getting what they pay for via state taxes that support the UW system.
Already accomplished.
Lifting the cap on out of state admissions is largely due to Gov Walker recently slashing the Univ WI state wide budget by 300 mil, on the back of previous reductions in funding over the past budget cycles. State residents aren't getting what they pay for via state taxes that support the UW system.
25
This is what happens when state governments expect their college systems to be self-funding entities, relying more on tuition than tax funds. To become self sufficient the schools have to get more tuition and attract more students who can pay that tuition. That means admitting more out of state families to pay the higher tuition and trying to raise their school's ranking so that the out of state families want to send their kids there. Californians whine about tuition increases and whine about the UC's relying on taxes and then whine about the ranking of the UC's going down and their crumbling infrastructure. You can't have it both ways. Either fund the schools with tax payer money or don't and suffer the consequences of the school being run as a business.
32
Why fund your institutions when you can use the tax money to fund a tax cut for your campaign contributors....
Something has to change
Something has to change
11
While there is much blame to go around, the major cause of this conundrum is the broken bond between state governments and their universities. The historical understanding was that states would generously fund their schools so that those schools could provide high quality educations to in-state students at an affordable cost. This balance worked exceedingly well for many decades. The states have now broken this bond in their desire to cut budgets and taxes for their wealthiest citizens. What are the universities supposed to do? The lost revenue must be replaced.
Instead of blaming the universities, look at your state legislators.
Instead of blaming the universities, look at your state legislators.
46
The basic problem is the decline in state support for public higher education. The public has been exhorted to be against all taxes, mainly by the Republican Party, ever since the Ronald Reagan years.
21
No -
the problem is the university internal costs are out of control.
From professor salaries to landscape costs to building - all so wasteful
Any business run like a Univesity in the USA would be bankrupt in 6 months.
You need to wake up and demand the schools CUT THEIR COST OF OPERATION.
the problem is the university internal costs are out of control.
From professor salaries to landscape costs to building - all so wasteful
Any business run like a Univesity in the USA would be bankrupt in 6 months.
You need to wake up and demand the schools CUT THEIR COST OF OPERATION.
5
Roughly half of my income goes to some sort of state, local, federal tax. How much more do you want? Perhaps state legislatures need to do a better job of prioritizing its budgets.
4
we live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. we have one of our kids at University of Pennsylvania and a soon to be 12th grader. our 12th grader liked University of Michigan on the tour, but i suspect if admitted, they will provide no aid, due to us being out-of-state. thus, we will most likely look to in-state schools. unfortunately, PA's long-held republican-controlled legislature has not seen fit to adequately fund higher education (or secondary and elementary education for that matter) and as a result, PA's state colleges, especially Penn State, Pitt & Temple, are three of the most expensive state universities for in-state students in the country.
9
Get a life - Republicans my rear.
Your profs are overpaid and the school is kept like a hotel. Cut costs buddy and the whole enterprise needs to be run like a business. Waste is everywhere. No company could operate like Penn is.
Total waste of money and until people like you wake up[ - it will keep on.
Your profs are overpaid and the school is kept like a hotel. Cut costs buddy and the whole enterprise needs to be run like a business. Waste is everywhere. No company could operate like Penn is.
Total waste of money and until people like you wake up[ - it will keep on.
5
Feel free to re-read above: "PA's state colleges, especially Penn State, Pitt & Temple, are three of the most expensive state universities for in-state students in the country." The beef is not with University of Pennsylvania, a private institution. You do know the difference between Penn & Penn State, right?
2
Mark, in 40+ states, the highest paid state employee is a Division I coach. Mostly football, but Geno Auriemma is the highest paid state employee in CT. Your complaint elsewhere, about professors making a (shocking) $180K, which is rare in reality, is deflated by the fact that for what Alabama pays Nick Saban, they could hire 30 top salaried professors, and still have money left over.
The people that need to be ditched are big time sthletic coaches, and the MBAs now running colleges into the ground.
The people that need to be ditched are big time sthletic coaches, and the MBAs now running colleges into the ground.
13
Yeah who needs to fund education? Meanwhile China and Europe are education their own at minimal cost while in the US the federal government is riding high with 20% returns on the student loan scam it's currently running.
4
They don't pay their professors 180k/yr and have them teach 2 classes a semester
US profs are overpaid and some of the most under worked people in the nation. They "dump" all the work on the TA's
And Americans are too stupid to wake up to the fact that a gold gilded campus is not needed to learn!!!!!
The answer is take your classes on the web, do 2 years at the local jc - this is all garbage to keep the professors and their class in their Ivory Towers
What a lifestyle!!!
US profs are overpaid and some of the most under worked people in the nation. They "dump" all the work on the TA's
And Americans are too stupid to wake up to the fact that a gold gilded campus is not needed to learn!!!!!
The answer is take your classes on the web, do 2 years at the local jc - this is all garbage to keep the professors and their class in their Ivory Towers
What a lifestyle!!!
1
I work in a highly compensated area, not medicine but highly compensated, and profs don't get 180K at the state schools in my field. There are variables related to $$ brought in through research grants and the like but the salaries earned as an academic are less than in industry. Money comes from consulting and is not paid by the school and the school caps how much consulting and "investment" faculty can make outside the school. The lecturers who have doctorate and post-doctoral work earn about 50,000 K + benefits, the adjuncts 5,000/4 credit course. Each term at least a third of the courses are taught by these lower cost faculty members. Costs are not rising because faculty salaries are high.
12
Mark, you aren't paying attention. Tenure track positions are becoming an endangered species. Now an ever increasing proportion of professors are "adjuncts" doing the academic version of minimum wage piecework, with little to no benefits. The average adjunct might make $5-10 K, and might teach at three or more schools to barely scrape by.
12
The write is obviously in favor of admitting large amounts of out-of-state students to public schools - that is the only reasonable explanation for her decision to lead off the article by detailing the 'tragedy' of Mr. Michael. If his are the woes caused by this phenomena, I strongly support the out-of-state admits.
This man, whose father was employed by the UC system, and who has numerous family members that attend the UC schools (likely at subsidized in-state tuition), will now "not giv[e] a dime" because his son was denied admission. Since he does not make any mention of his son's academic merit as a basis for his complaint, it can be assumed that Mr. Michael believes his son is entitled to a state-subsidized education simply as a legacy admit.
Save the legacies for Harvard - state schools owe the Michael family nothing. And, further, if they give the school money, it should be in appreciation for all the education they already received there, not to secure the admission of their undeserving issue. Disgraceful.
This man, whose father was employed by the UC system, and who has numerous family members that attend the UC schools (likely at subsidized in-state tuition), will now "not giv[e] a dime" because his son was denied admission. Since he does not make any mention of his son's academic merit as a basis for his complaint, it can be assumed that Mr. Michael believes his son is entitled to a state-subsidized education simply as a legacy admit.
Save the legacies for Harvard - state schools owe the Michael family nothing. And, further, if they give the school money, it should be in appreciation for all the education they already received there, not to secure the admission of their undeserving issue. Disgraceful.
6
He probably remembers back to when getting into UC Davis was not that hard.
2
The usurious interest rates charged for federal loans to students and parents (typically 6-8%) are nothing less than a huge additional income tax that only middle class and upper middle class Amercians have to pay. This tax is commonly thousands of dollars per year that should instead be going into starting a life for these students and into retirement savings for their parents.
17
True. Parents are much better served, if they own a home, taking out a HELOC, which commonly have 1% teaser rates for 6-12 months before switching to prime, currently 3.5%. And the interest paid is tax deductible. Student loand interest used to be, but I don't think it is anymore. My wife got out of dental school 33 years ago with about 10K in loans, paid off in 10 years. Now she hires dentists with debt loads up to 30 times that, which is criminal.
6
Usurious? A 20-30 year unsecured loan at 6-8%? That isn't usury. It is fair pricing based on the average and projected default rates. I consider my student loans to be the best bargain of my life - a ticket from small town Indiana to a real career. Sure, I had to make sacrifices about what I drove but student loans are a great deal if you are smart, work hard, and pick a desirable major.
Same here in VT, except that we've always had a high (50% +) percentage of out-of-staters (a good thing) and dismal support from the state.
But now, an in-state high school senior with a B+ average gets wait-listed. With new amenities such as a campus shuttle bus and a huge "student center" (with multiple ATMs, fast-food and ballrooms, of all things) that are supposedly justified to attract top students, is there any wonder why I no longer contribute when my alma mater calls with hat in hand?
But now, an in-state high school senior with a B+ average gets wait-listed. With new amenities such as a campus shuttle bus and a huge "student center" (with multiple ATMs, fast-food and ballrooms, of all things) that are supposedly justified to attract top students, is there any wonder why I no longer contribute when my alma mater calls with hat in hand?
6
My younger daughter was accepted (out of state) at UVM in 2011. We have been (at least) yearly vacationers in VT for years, and just love it. On accepted students day, a light flurry started as the program commenced at 8 AM. By 7 PM, there were 18 inches of snow on the ground, and our daughter announced that she just had to scratch UVM off her list due to weather conditions.
But even back then the out of state cost of attendance was almost $35K. And our tour guide told us that Vermont statewide only graduates about 7000 high schoolers per year, and that 1 in 10 of every VT high schoolers attends UVM, which seems an appropriate number, given that there are other state and community college options available. Has even 10,000 student UVM been squeezing in state applicants?
But even back then the out of state cost of attendance was almost $35K. And our tour guide told us that Vermont statewide only graduates about 7000 high schoolers per year, and that 1 in 10 of every VT high schoolers attends UVM, which seems an appropriate number, given that there are other state and community college options available. Has even 10,000 student UVM been squeezing in state applicants?
2
In the 1960s I attended The University of Texas at Arlington, a commuter school. There was a sprinkling of foreign students, many from Middle Eastern oil rich families. I was surprised at how many "Iranian princes and princesses" there were back then in the days of the Shah. We also had some out of state U.S. students, many there because at the time out of state tuition in Texas was less than in state tuition in their home states.
I paid $50 per semester tuition. There were fees for the library, science labs, and student activities. Books and supplies for the semester averaged $25. I worked a minimum wage $1.25/hour job. I lived at home and commuted, car pooling with fellow students, with gasoline at $0.25 per gallon. I paid board and room to my mother, who herself worked a low wage job as a department store clerk.
At registration a two week pay check covered direct costs. My mother let me skip board and room for that two weeks.
I made my degree doing that, then went on to graduate school and eventually became a professor myself. I was able to do so and become a productive citizen because Texas guaranteed in its constitution that the state would provide a "university of the highest class" to its youth, and as a part of that guarantee, set tuition statewide by statute at the $50 I paid. The guarantee is still there. Fulfilling it has been co-opted by a Republican government's insistence on forcing the higher education system to support itself.
I paid $50 per semester tuition. There were fees for the library, science labs, and student activities. Books and supplies for the semester averaged $25. I worked a minimum wage $1.25/hour job. I lived at home and commuted, car pooling with fellow students, with gasoline at $0.25 per gallon. I paid board and room to my mother, who herself worked a low wage job as a department store clerk.
At registration a two week pay check covered direct costs. My mother let me skip board and room for that two weeks.
I made my degree doing that, then went on to graduate school and eventually became a professor myself. I was able to do so and become a productive citizen because Texas guaranteed in its constitution that the state would provide a "university of the highest class" to its youth, and as a part of that guarantee, set tuition statewide by statute at the $50 I paid. The guarantee is still there. Fulfilling it has been co-opted by a Republican government's insistence on forcing the higher education system to support itself.
27
Wonder what the inflation adjusted professor and admin salaries were then versus today?
2
Faculty, including adjunct, make less now. There admins and the higher level admins make a lot more.
7
I had always assumed the handful of "public ivies" like UC/Berkley, U. Va. & U. Mich., had always had high out-of-state acceptance. That Alabama now has such a high rate speaks to the point of the article, however. I'm not saying it's a "bad" school, but not near the level of those mentioned above.
4
Of 3,674 students UVa enrolled last year 1,214, or about one third, were classified out-of-state. About 11 percent of the whole student student body are not US citizens.
3
Yes, but that gap is closing. Last fall, 36% of incoming freshmen at Alabama had 30 or higher on ACT. The average ACT score is now 26.
While it is politically popular to want in-staters to have the first chance at admissions to a state university, part of the university experience is exposure to different economic, social, and international students that you would not have if it was limited to only people from said state. The problem is that university education expenses have increased so dramatically that middle class people have to take on debt to afford the tuition. My university experience at a state university was enriched by exposure to foreign and out of state students.
20
The elephant in the room: This isn't an issue of out-of-STATE students crashing the party for in-state kids; it's an issue of out-of-COUNTRY students crashing said party. China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea - Where aspirations and/or deep pockets exceed higher educational opportunities (or available slots) available in their home countries, the US university system is the best value in the world.
14
The reason is not about party crashing at the state or national level, but about the continued cutting of funding by the state, turning education into a privately funded public good rather than a publicly funded, public good. If the public wants to ensure broad, resident access, there must be money to pay for it. That money should come from the taxpayers so there is no need to chase out-of-state tuition dollars just to keep the doors open.
4
We are all Americans, and it is good for college students to live in different states. But students in-state should not be disadvantaged.
1
Interesting how inconsistent people’s attitudes are. People who have grown up all their lives in one area and want to go to college there but are priced out by wealthy out of towners are given sympathetic nods and people talk about how unfair it is. The inability to attend the school of one’s choice due to gouging prices is called an outrage and a disgrace.
Compare that to the people who have grown up and lived in a particular area all of their lives and get priced out by newcomers with deep pockets all in the name of gouging and making money for the owner. They are immediately lambasted and belittled with “Too bad. If you can’t afford it, go somewhere else. You don’t have the right to live wherever you feel like.”
Seems the same thing is true for colleges now. If you can’t pay the freight, go somewhere else seems to be the answer. At least with colleges, people have alternatives: reputable online programs, community college for a couple of years, etc. If you are paying your rent on time and struggling to get by, having to suddenly pack up and move can mean homelessness instantly if you do not have the high upfront cost to find other accommodations. But no one cares about that. That’s not a disgrace. This story is about the college bound— aka, a better class of people— so therefore it’s an outrage.
Everything is a money grab. Colleges are no different. Welcome to modern life.
Compare that to the people who have grown up and lived in a particular area all of their lives and get priced out by newcomers with deep pockets all in the name of gouging and making money for the owner. They are immediately lambasted and belittled with “Too bad. If you can’t afford it, go somewhere else. You don’t have the right to live wherever you feel like.”
Seems the same thing is true for colleges now. If you can’t pay the freight, go somewhere else seems to be the answer. At least with colleges, people have alternatives: reputable online programs, community college for a couple of years, etc. If you are paying your rent on time and struggling to get by, having to suddenly pack up and move can mean homelessness instantly if you do not have the high upfront cost to find other accommodations. But no one cares about that. That’s not a disgrace. This story is about the college bound— aka, a better class of people— so therefore it’s an outrage.
Everything is a money grab. Colleges are no different. Welcome to modern life.
4
Excellent comment.
1
We need to address the cost side of the equation. Same with health care. Otherwise, increased government spending will do nothing but increase tuition.
4
Putting education, healthcare, and media on strict profit motives will be the end of us as a free, stable democracy. Unfettered capitalism does not have at its core a genuine commitment to the greater good.
9
Neither does socialism, which tends to enrich and embolden the precious few.
1
I think the same thing happen to my daughter at U Michigan . The college admission process just like the medical establishment keeps the process and cost opaque there is nothing more frustrating than the applying for college except trying to figure out a hospital bill. Until there is true price discovery like 95 percent of the other businesses american's will continue to get ripped off. 1.3 trillion in student debt and medical bankruptcy's everywhere we are a being played for fools
3
This has be the financial strategy at West Virginia University for more than 2 decades (and now it becomes news elsewhere).
But a WVU, the problem is a shrinking in-state population. In order for the University to survive, it had to lure out of state students and the higher tuition payments they bring. Thus WVU built new student unions and other amenities. In reality, many out-of-state students pay less in tuition at WVU than they would at their home state colleges. So they are getting a good education at a cheaper cost. Unfortunately In-state tuition has also risen and many West Virginians find themselves financially unable to attend the University that their taxes support. I am not sure, but by now (after 2 decades), the student body is probably 50% or more out-of-state.
WVU is a large part of the economic engine in Northern West Virginia. This strategy has kept it alive and the area developing.
But a WVU, the problem is a shrinking in-state population. In order for the University to survive, it had to lure out of state students and the higher tuition payments they bring. Thus WVU built new student unions and other amenities. In reality, many out-of-state students pay less in tuition at WVU than they would at their home state colleges. So they are getting a good education at a cheaper cost. Unfortunately In-state tuition has also risen and many West Virginians find themselves financially unable to attend the University that their taxes support. I am not sure, but by now (after 2 decades), the student body is probably 50% or more out-of-state.
WVU is a large part of the economic engine in Northern West Virginia. This strategy has kept it alive and the area developing.
4
Feel the burn. There is no such thing as a free education. Someone always has to pay. To liberals, this means someone else. Now, that someone else is the out of staters and foreigners since the taxpayers are all tapped out.
What's scary is that so many people follow Bernie's words. Frightening.
What's scary is that so many people follow Bernie's words. Frightening.
2
I had 2.8 GPA and a 22 on the ACT (back in the 80's). Should the taxpayers be forced to pay for my college experience????
True story: Professor 1 at a UC school has child who doesn't get into any UC schools but does get accepted to UW-Madison. Child goes there and pays out-of-state tuition.
Professor 2 from UW-Madison has child doesn't get into UW-Madison but does get into Professor 1's UC campus. Child goes there, pays out-of-state tuition.
Professor 2 from UW-Madison has child doesn't get into UW-Madison but does get into Professor 1's UC campus. Child goes there, pays out-of-state tuition.
12
Everyone acts as if a big name school will make a graduate successful. I have hired over 15 college and professional school graduates, and the best hires I have made have been folks who worked their way through school. The kids whose parents write checks do not put in the hours, do not take any initiative to upgrade their skills, and are not able to be promoted.
4
Unless a state government provides at least 50% of the "state" university's budget, I have difficulty supporting the notion that the university must prioritize the state's residents. Living in CA, where the state government has cut it's support of the UC system to 9% of the UC budget (per the article), I consider the UC system an excellent private university system. The UC is doing what it must to maintain it's quality since 91% of it's budget is not provided by the state. The real guilty parties here are the state governments and their failure to support higher education for their residents.
7
All well and good if out of state students KEEP paying out of state tuition. My daughter was looking at Master Programs that were only available at 3 public universities. They al made it quite clear (appropriately) that she would be paying out of state tuition as long as she was a student. In CA many out of state students claim "residency" after the standard one year that applies to people actually moving to the state. UCSF the medical school (where tuition is even higher than undergraduate) don't even have to sneak around the edges to do so. The admissions office TELLS them that they will only be paying out of state tuition for one year and they can then claim residency even though the ONLY reason for their "residency" was to attend school as an out of state student
3
My son suffered the same situation in California three years ago with a 4.0 GPA and strong AP units, he got refused at many State campuses but accepted at much better out of State Universities (top tier).
Money is a problem but here is another aspect: it is likely that his life in California is over as he is getting internships and very likely job opportunites out of State. It is sad for his family and it is a waste for California. What would California reject such bright kids ?
Money is a problem but here is another aspect: it is likely that his life in California is over as he is getting internships and very likely job opportunites out of State. It is sad for his family and it is a waste for California. What would California reject such bright kids ?
7
it is curious to me how the mantra of "cultural diversity" increasingly results in the marginalization of the poor and the middle-classes in this country while facilitating educational and economic opportunities for a relatively affluent population of students, whether from here or abroad. Meanwhile, many Americans who attend colleges and universities struggle with large student loan debt and bleak job prospects. Even those who graduate with degrees that lead to good jobs might take years to pay off their student loan debt; in the meantime, their life options are correspondingly inhibited by this one obligation.
Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture. Hard work, merit, and opportunity have somehow gotten blurred and out of sync. How is social mobility broadly attainable if "meritocracy" ends up being a zero-sum game?
Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture. Hard work, merit, and opportunity have somehow gotten blurred and out of sync. How is social mobility broadly attainable if "meritocracy" ends up being a zero-sum game?
7
Same thing going on at the University of Minnesota. A friend working in admissions told me it's simple 1) foreign students get in because they pay three times the in-state tuition and it's cash upfront; 2) out of state almost always get in because it is twice the in-state tuition and 3) in-state gets whatever spots remain.
54
That is because the mission of the university is unclear. So, the employees and faculty can do whatever makes them happy. Educating local students is not officially a requirement. They can have more jobs and higher pay if they just revert to 100% foreign students, which will soon happen. This is just selfish personal decisions at every level, borne of people accustomed to spending public money with disdain.
2
I've complained about this to the university. Minnesota is a land grant university with funds supplied, at least partially, by the state legislature. They have absolutely lost sight of their mission, and it appears to be getting worse.
6
I think it's sad when public colleges need to recruit out-of-state students to pay the bills, and the idea of luxury amenities to attract wealthier students is appalling. That said, as a kid who grew up near New York City, attending a Midwest public university in the 1980s was one of the best experiences of my life. New Yorkers tend to be pretty insular and misinformed about the rest of the country. I specifically chose a Midwest school to avoid going to a New York State school where likely all the students would be from the same background as me. I gained an understanding of "America's Heartland" that I would not have gotten in-state and which informs my political and social thinking to this day. Ironically, I now work at a public university on the East Coast, so I see this issue from both sides. I hope these discussions lead to a solution that works for both in-state and out-of-state students.
18
Having just returned from a freshman orientation session for students and parents at UC Berkeley, I can tell you that it is the middle class that is getting squeezed. Upper income kids can pay full ride, low income and undocumented kids get 100% free room and board (and even free health insurance) It's the middle tier that is really struggling.
Heard story after story about high school financial awards ceremonies, too, where one or two low income kids with compelling stories walked off with thousands of dollars in awards while most of the kids got nothing. The middle income parents acknowledge that it is important to help low income kids, but feel that their needs are being completely ignored.
Heard story after story about high school financial awards ceremonies, too, where one or two low income kids with compelling stories walked off with thousands of dollars in awards while most of the kids got nothing. The middle income parents acknowledge that it is important to help low income kids, but feel that their needs are being completely ignored.
66
In fact, the ability of middle income people to go to college (or go to a hospital) is being eliminated, in my opinion. Third class citizens. The rich are #1 and the poor are #2.
5
did you just equate poor with undocumented? while they may be similar in some circumstances, are you really saying that low income kids who are admitted to Cal are undocumented?
1
This is such a disgrace. I was able to put myself through the University of Maryland in the 70s by waiting tables (including paying for my housing and car)! Relief for families from college debt can't come too soon although it will probably be too late for me - I am trying pay for 2 kids in college with as little debt as possible. I want them to be able to start their adult lives without out huge loans. Of course I am living with my mother and cutting back on retirement savings to do it.
8
I, too, paid my own way (at a good private liberal arts school) in the 1970s. Although I could have earned scholarships, when I was urged to apply for them, I declined, in part because I wasn't sure I wanted to go to college at all, in part because 'my family's middle class, and scholarships are for the poor'. When I found out that I did want to go to college after all, and that by the standard of affording tuition we were poor even if not officially so, I spent two years before matriculation working at blue-collar jobs such as assembly line work; chose a school I could afford; lived at home and commuted by bus and on foot; worked in the summers; didn't buy new clothes, etc.; borrowed library books whenever possible rather than buying textbooks, or bought used; and generally lived on the cheap.
I appreciate that you can't do that anymore. But I also question how many students aren't economizing. You have to make a few sacrifices to achieve your dreams, and, kids, if you can't do without an Xbox or a hoverboard or the latest styles, or choose your school based on whether it has a rock-climbing wall and a catered meal plan, I cannot weep for you.
I appreciate that you can't do that anymore. But I also question how many students aren't economizing. You have to make a few sacrifices to achieve your dreams, and, kids, if you can't do without an Xbox or a hoverboard or the latest styles, or choose your school based on whether it has a rock-climbing wall and a catered meal plan, I cannot weep for you.
1
At least you are helping them. All my parents did was tell me to borrow as much as possible and not worry about the amount, "it's a good debt" they said. All they were really doing was making sure it didn't cost them anything and it put me so far behind at what should be the start of my life that I'll never make it.
Health Economist Victor Fuchs, ACA co-creator Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, PhD, and Peter Orszag, former Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and others have stated that increased Medicaid spending from the ACA (and other causes) results in lower state spending for areas of state budgets that are not mandated such as higher education. Thus, the decrease in funding for higher education is largely because of more state spending for Medicaid.
Most developed countries with universal access to care (eg, Canada, UK, France) have cigarette taxes that exceed $5 per pack and sometimes much higher. Our Federal Tax is about $1. Instead of having states take money away from higher education to pay for increased costs of the ACA (as a result of increased Medicaid costs of the ACA), do what other countries do and have higher cigarette taxes fund health care.
Because of treating the health effects of smoking which includes cancer (lung, but 11 others as well), heart disease (such as additional heart attacks), and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is far more expensive than treating non-smokers, it is only fair that smokers pay money to cover the health care costs of tobacco.
Most developed countries with universal access to care (eg, Canada, UK, France) have cigarette taxes that exceed $5 per pack and sometimes much higher. Our Federal Tax is about $1. Instead of having states take money away from higher education to pay for increased costs of the ACA (as a result of increased Medicaid costs of the ACA), do what other countries do and have higher cigarette taxes fund health care.
Because of treating the health effects of smoking which includes cancer (lung, but 11 others as well), heart disease (such as additional heart attacks), and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is far more expensive than treating non-smokers, it is only fair that smokers pay money to cover the health care costs of tobacco.
7
Given the ridiculous tuition levels of college today (even at the public university level), I think the article needs to define "rich".
If tuition costs $20K/yr (plus other expenses if you are out-of-state), even families who are in the top 10% statistically would be unable to afford a higher education in this country. If the top 10% have issues, imagine what it must be like for everyone else.
The situation has become so ridiculous in the U.S. Things that are critical to the country's future (education, R&D, infrastructure) are poorly funded or subsidized but things that are NOT critical to the country's future (tax cuts for the top of the pyramid and money for pet projects for the friends of Congressmen) are protected as some right. And, this does not even get into the fact the U.S. far outspends every other country on military hardware and wars.
We are the laughing stock of the world.
If tuition costs $20K/yr (plus other expenses if you are out-of-state), even families who are in the top 10% statistically would be unable to afford a higher education in this country. If the top 10% have issues, imagine what it must be like for everyone else.
The situation has become so ridiculous in the U.S. Things that are critical to the country's future (education, R&D, infrastructure) are poorly funded or subsidized but things that are NOT critical to the country's future (tax cuts for the top of the pyramid and money for pet projects for the friends of Congressmen) are protected as some right. And, this does not even get into the fact the U.S. far outspends every other country on military hardware and wars.
We are the laughing stock of the world.
38
my in laws live in Guntersville Alabama, both doctors. Their son is an academic star and my understanding is he could have attended the University of Alabama for free so this article is at least somewhat misleading. He chose an out of state Christian college anyway.
1
So this does not apply to the article. Anyone is free to attend any college they want if they want to pay the tuition for private college. The point of the article is that for in state students at a PUBLIC university they often get passed over for it of state students
1
How is it misleading? If the university provides free tuition to "academic stars," that does not negate the substance of the article. The article states that it provides that assistance, and that that has been a part of what has increased the proportion of out of state students.
@bikemomn, memyself----my point is that at least in this case they did NOT turn someone from instate away to favor out of state, in this case they were ready to pay for EVERYTHING
Take a look at NY State. I don't remember what the tuition was when I went to a NY public university in the '60s mainly because I didn't have to pay anything - the Regents' scholarship I earned paid it all. Now tuition at that same university is $6500 but the maximum Regents' scholarship is $1800. Shame, shame on us.
21
There seems to be a common misconception about sports programs and universities/colleges. Sports programs undoubtedly bring in large sums of money, particularly at major division 1 schools. But the athletics program are typically run by an athletic association, which is a separate entity from the university. The money coming in from ticket sales, licensing deals, etc.. go to the athletic association, and then some, but not all, is funneled into the university (e.g., scholarships, infrastructure improvements). The important point is that new stadiums, and other sports facilities, are typically paid for not by state/federal funds going to the universities operating budget, but by the money coming into the athletic association. So, it's not as if universities are funneling money to sports programs and their buildings at the exclusive expense of students learning.
2
Sorry no The big source of funding for most athletic departments is classifying some of the cost to the student as a "mandatory athletic fee." This is strictly a bookkeeping juggle.
The other fraud is that almost no Athletic department rents the university facilities, such as parking that it uses.
The other fraud is that almost no Athletic department rents the university facilities, such as parking that it uses.
4
In the state of Washington, the legislature used to set in statute how much it would fund resident undergraduate education. It used to be 70%, then 60%, then it dropped to 50%--and then the lawmakers dropped the statute altogether and allowed the regents to set tuition instead. This cowardice resulted in huge tuition increases and a boom in out-of-state and international students at the flagship University of Washington campus. The best way to stop this terrible trend of privatizing public education is to make it a LAW that the state must fund more than 50% of the cost of a resident undergraduate's education.
20
This article neglects to tell us if Jay Dee Michael's son was actually qualified to attend the UC school system. Replace the school in this story with an Ivy League university, and the story would read of alumni privilege. I realize "qualified" may be difficult to quantify but that "detail" would help me understand whether this anecdote supports the underlying thesis (which I agree with). And yes, I attended a public university as an out of state student.
17
As the parent of a child who also attends the University of Washington, I can say that the academic requirements of UW is as rigorous as the UC system. Though my child was accepted to UC Davis, she did not make the cut for UC Berkeley. Ironically, there are similar concerns among Washington residents about the out of state acceptance rates at UW (and presumably Washington State).
1
"Qualified" is not "difficult to quantify." Test scores, high school transcripts and class rankings, plus a scoring system for activities, service and recommendations all quantify a prospective student's qualifications.
1
This is just another bubble being driven by well intentioned government backed student loan lending. It does not matter whether you are in-state or out, there are not going to be enough well paying jobs to pay off these loans. Just as the meme 15 years ago was the ownership society, today the meme is degreed society, notwithstanding most with recent degrees are brewing coffee or bussing tables. If government stopped backing student loans or they were made dischargeable in bankruptcy, you would be surprised how quickly tuition fees fall back to earth. But no, government will throw good money after bad, will tinker at the edges and make this bubble bigger, run longer and ruin an entire generation before it bursts.
17
In our tax-cutting fervor over these last 35 years it's been all too easy for states to slash support for public university systems, which most citizens have no direct connection to. At the same time we've developed an unhealthy fetish with college rankings, which has led schools to direct ever-increasing funds towards amenities (luxury dorms, etc.) and other incentives to attract the most affluent students, who by and large have the best SAT and ACT scores, and towards highly paid non-academic staff to market schools and organize the business plans to keep these "public" universities viable when state funding all but disappears.
4
Where is the discussion of the incredible growth in administrative spending at public universities? There are now dozens of well paid positions that are not related to educating the students! And they all demand large support staffs, expansive offices, etc. Contrast US and European universities. They have teachers, students and class rooms with very few non-academic positions. In the US, teachers are often an afterthought, and spending is for student luxuries and form filing administrators who never see a class room!
8
At Penn State University, the prize awarded to out-of-state students is being able to start at the main campus in State College as a freshman and not being diverted for two years to one of the dreary branch campuses. Why? Because they pay full freight. The renowned musical theatre program at Penn State rarely admits in-staters, especially in-state white girls. Usually no more than one (out of 14 or 16) per year. The taxpayers of Pennsylvania get short shrift from the state's leading public institution of higher learning.
4
"The taxpayers of Pennsylvania" need to cough up a whole lot more money if they want Penn State to be more affordable to Pennsylvania families. Right now, the university only receives about 10 percent of its budget from state appropriations.
6
State universities should, by definition, primarily serve the population of their states, whose taxpayers are a major source of financing for them. They shouldn't be competing with other states' public universities for students.
State legislators should serve their states, too, and that means providing adequate budgets for universities. That does not happen in most states.
The consequence of these problems is that college is increasingly out of reach for many and too many colleges are engaging in more activities aimed at raising money, including making deals with corporations and focusing on sports instead of academics, instead of figuring out how to be accessible to those they are supposed to serve.
State legislators should serve their states, too, and that means providing adequate budgets for universities. That does not happen in most states.
The consequence of these problems is that college is increasingly out of reach for many and too many colleges are engaging in more activities aimed at raising money, including making deals with corporations and focusing on sports instead of academics, instead of figuring out how to be accessible to those they are supposed to serve.
1
Let's face the reality. Everyone gets good grades now in school. The inflation is out of control. How can schools really know when someone is really smart these days? They can't. SAT scores are not a great indicator of those who have an incredible work ethic but may not be the smartest kid in the room but who likely will do far better in life than the smart lazy kid.
Schools have a product to sell and it looks like it's going to the highest bidder at the end of the day. Isn't that what America is all about now?
And PLEASE don't ask those of us who pay a lot of taxes to pay even more taxes to send your kids to school for free. When this happens, I'm quitting the work force for sure.
Schools have a product to sell and it looks like it's going to the highest bidder at the end of the day. Isn't that what America is all about now?
And PLEASE don't ask those of us who pay a lot of taxes to pay even more taxes to send your kids to school for free. When this happens, I'm quitting the work force for sure.
5
Agreed. I pay property taxes to subsidize our public K-12 schools. A high school diploma used to be worth something and enough to build a middle class life. With the dumbing down of the curriculum (I can't remember the statistic, but many, many students are not ready for college level courses after H.S. graduation) and the decimation of industry in this country, we have a recipe for disaster. Costs for public universities are ridiculously high and should be reined in, but we also need to focus on improving K-12 education and bringing back skilled labor. There is no crime in working with your hands!
5
How I wish Cal would start admitting the brightest, most hardworking students regardless of where they reside and stop admitting so many athletes who can barely string a sentence together!
4
Nobody wants to pay for "the commons" anymore, which is a serious problem because if you want to "make America great again," you can't do it without restoring investment in our commonly shared institutions and infrastructure.
Reason is three fold:
1. Anti tax philosophies and reductions in tax rates for wealthy taxpayers have been destructive to support for common institutions.
2. Costs for supporting institutions often have increased faster than the rate of inflation for reasons that deserve scrutiny.
3. Efforts to spread the benefits of the commons to previously excluded groups has engendered a backlash.
A pernicious side development is the increased reliance of institutions of all types, not just higher education, on corporate money (e.g. public parks).
There is no simple solution to such a complex problem. But first, we need to agree that the commons is worth the effort and cost, and we need to define those things we want to support and probably make some tough decisions about some things that may be worthy but lower priority. To the extent our political system is broken, as it is, then politics can't do it's job of reconciling these divergent interests. We wind up stuck in a vicious circle where failures of politics results in failures of institutions which in turn intensifies the failure of politics, and so it goes. Turning the cycle from vicious to virtuous will not be easy.
Reason is three fold:
1. Anti tax philosophies and reductions in tax rates for wealthy taxpayers have been destructive to support for common institutions.
2. Costs for supporting institutions often have increased faster than the rate of inflation for reasons that deserve scrutiny.
3. Efforts to spread the benefits of the commons to previously excluded groups has engendered a backlash.
A pernicious side development is the increased reliance of institutions of all types, not just higher education, on corporate money (e.g. public parks).
There is no simple solution to such a complex problem. But first, we need to agree that the commons is worth the effort and cost, and we need to define those things we want to support and probably make some tough decisions about some things that may be worthy but lower priority. To the extent our political system is broken, as it is, then politics can't do it's job of reconciling these divergent interests. We wind up stuck in a vicious circle where failures of politics results in failures of institutions which in turn intensifies the failure of politics, and so it goes. Turning the cycle from vicious to virtuous will not be easy.
16
When I went to college sixty years ago, the state school did not charge tuition, There were a few fees but they weren't much. At that time a campaign for state office did not require the extravagant war chest today's political war chests apparently need. Now the campaign contributions come mostly from developers, infrastructure contractors and utilities, the money must come from somewhere. The state universities would seem to have been the source.
We need to get our priorities straight. It is either the overpaid contractors or our children in state or out of state.
We need to get our priorities straight. It is either the overpaid contractors or our children in state or out of state.
7
The solution is very simple, tie state funding to:
1) The number of in-state admits AND accepts.
2) An economically diverse student population.
3) 4-5 year graduation rates across all demographics
4) Monies spent for direct undergraduate and graduate instruction.
Link all of the above public funding to an annually-audited and inflation indexed review.
Let the public universities do fund raising for research, athletics and buildings.
If the universities do a good job engaging and graduating students, they will pay if back/forward with a strong and generous alumni base.
1) The number of in-state admits AND accepts.
2) An economically diverse student population.
3) 4-5 year graduation rates across all demographics
4) Monies spent for direct undergraduate and graduate instruction.
Link all of the above public funding to an annually-audited and inflation indexed review.
Let the public universities do fund raising for research, athletics and buildings.
If the universities do a good job engaging and graduating students, they will pay if back/forward with a strong and generous alumni base.
1
The consequence of rapacious Wall Street wilding on the economy includes persistent damage to pensions and public education.
In California, the University has been crucial to it's astonishing economic vitality.
Unfortunately, Governor Brown's good stewardship slipped when he decided to cut 20% of UC funding and release all 'earmarks' for valuable porograms ( like an innovative medical program in the School of Public health). Instead - he determined the UC campuses shoul focus on undergraduate education- undoubtedly competing for out-of-state applicants to make up revenue.
This has not gone well. Unintended consequences will have devastatiing impact on California's future.
Some infrastructure investments really pay off.
In California, the University has been crucial to it's astonishing economic vitality.
Unfortunately, Governor Brown's good stewardship slipped when he decided to cut 20% of UC funding and release all 'earmarks' for valuable porograms ( like an innovative medical program in the School of Public health). Instead - he determined the UC campuses shoul focus on undergraduate education- undoubtedly competing for out-of-state applicants to make up revenue.
This has not gone well. Unintended consequences will have devastatiing impact on California's future.
Some infrastructure investments really pay off.
5
This article is going against the flow of the times. Illinois, a leader in higher education, is working its way toward privatizing former public universities in recognition that free enterprise not government is the answer to our corrupt educational institutions. The government has been cutting university budgets at a quickening pace over the past two years, although the state continues to provide over 25 percent of the funds for these big government institutions. However, State Senator Bill Brady and other forward thinking Republicans hope to quicken the pace toward privatization and are advancing a bill to get state government out of higher education. Universities have stated that they look forward to discussing these changes with the Senator and there seems to be a coming together of minds. For states other than Illinois ALEC, a union of stalwart entrepreneurs, corporate leaders and politicians, has been in the forefront of proposing other legislative solutions that can bring the vitality of private enterprise to education. Charter schools in K-12 are flourishing and profiting not just shareholders but also students and families. As President Reagan said, "government is the problem, not the solution". The time is ripe and Illinois is responding. Freedom!!!
1
of course they are!! Republicans understand that the more education you have, the less likely you are to vote for them!! Thus, it is in their interest to limit education in any way they can!!
7
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading this. As an Illinois native with many friends and family members living there today, I know how disastrous Bruce Rauner and his profit-mad ilk have been for the state. Hard fact that directly refutes your fantastical claims here is available every day in any major news outlet. Unfettered capitalism is assuredly not the answer to educational problems.
9
Many of the leaders of the privatization of public higher ed movement in the U.S., and of ALEC, went to private Christian colleges and want the same for all Americans.
2
I have seen all of the costs at my son's out-of-state university go up every year, and especially the out-of-state tuition. Because of the Academic Common Market program, we don't pay the out-of-state, but I pity anyone who does because it goes up by $1000 or more every single year. Everything possible is monetized, and for a science major you can expect to pay an extra $1000 in fees. There is money to keep the campus looking absolutely beautiful, there is never ending construction of new buildings, including yet another expansion of the football stadium and a new basketball pavillion, but my son is taught by many "visiting professors." I would be much more accepting of the constant increases if the money were going to more tenure-track professors, but that does not seem to be the case. A lot of these schools are interested in nothing but mindless growth, and increasing their prestige at the expense of state kids.
It seems that, in order to provide ever larger tax cuts for the rich and corporations, public funding of colleges has been decimated and now average people are buried under a mountain of debt. When did we forget that higher education is a public good which benefits everyone? I guess it was at the same time that absolutely everything began being run for the benefit of the ogliarchs.
It seems that, in order to provide ever larger tax cuts for the rich and corporations, public funding of colleges has been decimated and now average people are buried under a mountain of debt. When did we forget that higher education is a public good which benefits everyone? I guess it was at the same time that absolutely everything began being run for the benefit of the ogliarchs.
116
Part of the reason that public unis need money is because they pay their presidents and a fleet of bureaucrats excessive, enormous salaries.
The same has happened in public school districts (especially charter schools) and public hospital systems--legions of bureaucrats paid obscene salaries.
There should be a salary cap for all workers at ANY publicly-funded institution.
We need legislation to limit the salaries.
The same has happened in public school districts (especially charter schools) and public hospital systems--legions of bureaucrats paid obscene salaries.
There should be a salary cap for all workers at ANY publicly-funded institution.
We need legislation to limit the salaries.
4
Right. Of course. After all, why should the people who educate our children be allowed to earn anything except slave wages?
I fully admit that this is a simplistic take on things, but I work in higher ed and have observed this situation from the inside. There IS bloat at institutions, not throughout, but it is there. However, the state opened the door to a tangle of problems when it took away public accountability by eliminating most of the public funding. We have found ourselves working within a business model and commodifying education. One result is that the highest payer wins.
6
1) Undergraduate teaching is a definable fraction of the University activity. Tenured and tenure faculty at a major research university rarely devote more than 25-30% of their time to Undergraduate teaching. in contrast Community college faculty devote 80% of their time to teaching. Regional universities are between the two.
2) Adjunct faculty and non tenure track faculty devote virtually all their time to teaching. They normally have credentials and qualifications similar to CC and Regional university faculty. They are often abused and exploited. FWIW I have held every position from Adjunct to tenured full professor.
3) Graduate teaching Assistants are the slave labor class of academia. GTAs count on the teaching budget but they are really there to support graduate students.
4) Cutbacks in state funding disproportionately affect undergraduates.
5) Most amenities are not directly funded out of the state budget,
6) Research funding cannot be diverted to Undergraduate teaching, although the overhead form grants effectively funds most of the administrative costs for the whole operation.
7) If states want to make sure that in-state students have opportunity to study at a top research university they have to be willing to pay for it. If they demand it without paying the University will simply slide down the academic ladder
2) Adjunct faculty and non tenure track faculty devote virtually all their time to teaching. They normally have credentials and qualifications similar to CC and Regional university faculty. They are often abused and exploited. FWIW I have held every position from Adjunct to tenured full professor.
3) Graduate teaching Assistants are the slave labor class of academia. GTAs count on the teaching budget but they are really there to support graduate students.
4) Cutbacks in state funding disproportionately affect undergraduates.
5) Most amenities are not directly funded out of the state budget,
6) Research funding cannot be diverted to Undergraduate teaching, although the overhead form grants effectively funds most of the administrative costs for the whole operation.
7) If states want to make sure that in-state students have opportunity to study at a top research university they have to be willing to pay for it. If they demand it without paying the University will simply slide down the academic ladder
8
Thank you for bringing this issue out onto the open.
At a public university for 40 years as a professor, dept chair, and dean, I witnessed the steady decline in State finding and the concomitant decline of academic and surfeit support services. We went from
State funded, to state supported to state assisted. Experiencing a loss in course sections, course offerings, academic departments, number of faculty, etc etc. we were expected to raise our own funds (taking time away from our already full roles) and to little effect. for ex, humanities cannot raise the external resources that sciences can; outside finders want to earmark their money toward specific purposes, often at odds to actual needs. The imposition of the business model on education (a disaster), the demeaning of public education, and faculty, fueled the diminishing of state funds
The university sought out of state students to increase its resource base.
Is it surprising that this parallels the refusal of the wealthiest to pay their fair share of taxes, and their desire to grab state and federal
Funds to support private and parochial education; and to fool the public into thinking for-profit education is anything else but for profit
We must hold States accountable for funding State institutions of higher education by ensuring that the wealthy pay higher taxes and that corporations do
Not usurp funds
At a public university for 40 years as a professor, dept chair, and dean, I witnessed the steady decline in State finding and the concomitant decline of academic and surfeit support services. We went from
State funded, to state supported to state assisted. Experiencing a loss in course sections, course offerings, academic departments, number of faculty, etc etc. we were expected to raise our own funds (taking time away from our already full roles) and to little effect. for ex, humanities cannot raise the external resources that sciences can; outside finders want to earmark their money toward specific purposes, often at odds to actual needs. The imposition of the business model on education (a disaster), the demeaning of public education, and faculty, fueled the diminishing of state funds
The university sought out of state students to increase its resource base.
Is it surprising that this parallels the refusal of the wealthiest to pay their fair share of taxes, and their desire to grab state and federal
Funds to support private and parochial education; and to fool the public into thinking for-profit education is anything else but for profit
We must hold States accountable for funding State institutions of higher education by ensuring that the wealthy pay higher taxes and that corporations do
Not usurp funds
5
In the midst of this mess- In the liberal State of California, we use taxpayer funded resources to educate "undocumented" residents from Latin America, while thousands of legal residents get passed over and neglected.
2
There's two financial issues here - underfunding from the state and overpaid, useless administrators. That's why some prestigious public universities are effectively flat broke and can't afford to admit more in-state students. Calling for a changed admissions policy before administrative reform and increased budget allocation is putting the cart before the horse.
-out-of-state Berkeley student
-out-of-state Berkeley student
4
25 years ago, I attended the New Brunswick campus of Rutgers University as an in-state, on campus student. Tuition, room and board, and fees were ~$8,000 per year. Nearly half of that was room and board, so I could have significantly reduced my costs by commuting, but my parents were adamant that I lived on campus, and the commute would have been over an hour each way.
I just looked at their website and saw that the current cost for an in-state, on campus student is $26,185. I believe that increase has far exceeded inflation.
With a little bit of advance planning, my middle class parents were able to provide me with access to a world class education without either of us going into debt.
We are at a race to the bottom in this country.
I just looked at their website and saw that the current cost for an in-state, on campus student is $26,185. I believe that increase has far exceeded inflation.
With a little bit of advance planning, my middle class parents were able to provide me with access to a world class education without either of us going into debt.
We are at a race to the bottom in this country.
4
I wish you would also mention adjunct faculty. We make, in NY, approximately $3,000 per class (less elsewhere). Tenure is a thing of the past. Adjuncts often work in more than one college, have other jobs as well, and still can't get by.
I want everyone to be able to afford education. I also want people to realize that the system is broken in more ways than this article states -- to see precisely where the money is and isn't going.
I'm also a parent of a smart and studious child, and my biggest hope is a scholarship for him - because his tuition can't coming from my salary.
I want everyone to be able to afford education. I also want people to realize that the system is broken in more ways than this article states -- to see precisely where the money is and isn't going.
I'm also a parent of a smart and studious child, and my biggest hope is a scholarship for him - because his tuition can't coming from my salary.
9
One of the key problems faced by the states is there are too many campuses relative to the number of students. There is no political will to reduce the number of campuses and reduce the fixed costs of operating a state system. Add to that the inexplicable increase in administrative overhead and the arms race for students amenities and that explains much of the cost increases. A bailout by the taxpayers will only make it increase more rapidly. Why is cost control never part of the conversation?
2
Colorado has been a leader in recruiting cash-paying out-of-state students since the Reagan Era when the state's GOP began cutting higher ed funding to what for the past decade or so has been only about 5% of its financial support. There would probably be no university system in the state were it not for the money coming in from non-resident students who have made up about half of the student body for the past 20+ years.
4
repealing TABOR or reclassifying the hospital provider fee would be a great help to higher ed funding in Colorado.
There are so many pressures on colleges to be something for everyone that it's impossible to make it work and have everyone be happy.
The Department of Education wants a diverse student body. They want underprepared students to be fully served. They measure your graduation rates, as if the quality of students accepted had no relation to their ability to succeed. You need a huge support system to make that work, and remedial classes don't count towards a degree. And that diverse student body, for many reasons, has a built-in component of non-completers, for which you are penalized. They have family obligations, they have no support system at home, they need to work to afford their education, they are underprepared for academic work because they're first generation college....there are many obstacles. For the University that accepts them, they use disproportionately greater resources with less chance for success. These are the students our states should be funding fully, but they come with a huge financial cost and many negatives when the regulators measure the school's success. It's very rewarding to work with these students and to help them succeed, but it it much easier (and less expensive) to educate students with a proven track record and generations of academic success behind them.
Someone has to pay for this, because these students can't, the states won't, and the federal aid is insufficient. So, the costs are transferred to those who can pay. The system is very broken.
The Department of Education wants a diverse student body. They want underprepared students to be fully served. They measure your graduation rates, as if the quality of students accepted had no relation to their ability to succeed. You need a huge support system to make that work, and remedial classes don't count towards a degree. And that diverse student body, for many reasons, has a built-in component of non-completers, for which you are penalized. They have family obligations, they have no support system at home, they need to work to afford their education, they are underprepared for academic work because they're first generation college....there are many obstacles. For the University that accepts them, they use disproportionately greater resources with less chance for success. These are the students our states should be funding fully, but they come with a huge financial cost and many negatives when the regulators measure the school's success. It's very rewarding to work with these students and to help them succeed, but it it much easier (and less expensive) to educate students with a proven track record and generations of academic success behind them.
Someone has to pay for this, because these students can't, the states won't, and the federal aid is insufficient. So, the costs are transferred to those who can pay. The system is very broken.
8
No worries! It will all be free, and to pay for it we will hang up the plutocrats by their heels and tickle them until the money falls out of their pockets.
Seriously. Although the economics of higher education needs radical reform - whoever's getting the money, it's not the teachers, and campuses really don't need four-star dining halls and climbing walls - there is ultimately no way to make quality higher education cheap.
Two options, therefore. 1. It has to cost a lot of money, which the students must get from somewhere, whether scholarships, family, loans, or whatever. 2. The state pays, but only for the select few highest-performing students, as determined by rigorous tests.
What you cannot do is combine open admission - ie., any mug who shows up at the door gets in - with free tuition - four years of state-subsidized babysitting.
Even if you keep up standards, there is no guarantee your degree will get you a high-pay, high-prestige job (or even any job at all). Many reasons, more than I have room to discuss here. (No, not even Ivy. I've met some Ivy failures who never moved out of their parents' basement, or did but didn't get far.)
With regard to Clinton and the Democratic platform - you can put anything you like in a platform. It doesn't mean you'll actually get it. She might as well promise everyone a pony. And if you give everyone a pony - or a degree - there will be no prestige in having one.
Seriously. Although the economics of higher education needs radical reform - whoever's getting the money, it's not the teachers, and campuses really don't need four-star dining halls and climbing walls - there is ultimately no way to make quality higher education cheap.
Two options, therefore. 1. It has to cost a lot of money, which the students must get from somewhere, whether scholarships, family, loans, or whatever. 2. The state pays, but only for the select few highest-performing students, as determined by rigorous tests.
What you cannot do is combine open admission - ie., any mug who shows up at the door gets in - with free tuition - four years of state-subsidized babysitting.
Even if you keep up standards, there is no guarantee your degree will get you a high-pay, high-prestige job (or even any job at all). Many reasons, more than I have room to discuss here. (No, not even Ivy. I've met some Ivy failures who never moved out of their parents' basement, or did but didn't get far.)
With regard to Clinton and the Democratic platform - you can put anything you like in a platform. It doesn't mean you'll actually get it. She might as well promise everyone a pony. And if you give everyone a pony - or a degree - there will be no prestige in having one.
4
I've been an adjunct for over 20 years on both coasts and I can tell you that the problem is not just a lack of public funding - it is also the steep increase in administrators, luxury gyms and other nonacademic facilities. I recently sat in on a department meeting where there were more administrators than professors. And each administrator makes significantly more than the average professor. What all of these administrators do, however, remains a mystery.
If I were a parent looking for a college for my child today I would look for several things: First, what is the ratio of professors to adjuncts? If the college employs more adjuncts than professors, move on. Second, what is the ratio of foreigners to native speakers? If the number of nonnative speakers is higher than 10%, move on - chances are the professors will have to dumb down the material to make it accessible for students with limited English, which means your child will be dumbed down as well. Finally, does the campus have fancy amenities like gyms, rec rooms, etc? If the school does, you can be sure that your hard-earned money will not be going towards the education of your child. Any college that focuses on creating a luxury playground atmosphere is not interested in educating your child, only in cashing your checks.
If I were a parent looking for a college for my child today I would look for several things: First, what is the ratio of professors to adjuncts? If the college employs more adjuncts than professors, move on. Second, what is the ratio of foreigners to native speakers? If the number of nonnative speakers is higher than 10%, move on - chances are the professors will have to dumb down the material to make it accessible for students with limited English, which means your child will be dumbed down as well. Finally, does the campus have fancy amenities like gyms, rec rooms, etc? If the school does, you can be sure that your hard-earned money will not be going towards the education of your child. Any college that focuses on creating a luxury playground atmosphere is not interested in educating your child, only in cashing your checks.
9
"What university administrators do." They go to meetings with each other and tell themselves they are indispensable.
1
This article ignores the real culprits here: state governments. Public universities are strapped for cash because states have prioritized low taxes over state funding. Since states have stopped funding public colleges, of course tuition is going to rise and colleges are going to enroll more out-of-state students who they can charge higher prices. In the case of the UC system, Ronald Reagan, as Governor of California, began the downfall of the UCs by defunding the program significantly.
When people want same high level of education from their public colleges, but don't want pay for it through taxation, then they will be faced with higher up-front costs.
When people want same high level of education from their public colleges, but don't want pay for it through taxation, then they will be faced with higher up-front costs.
201
Donald Trump (all Republicans, really) love the poorly educated. And their budget priorities certainly reflect that attitude.
1
Hey .. taxes were "lowered?"
No -- they were capped, there were NO direct cuts. Because land owners were losing their land due to taxes constantly rising.
Pro-tax crew made their case. They lost, because many thought the UC system was full of sloth. Now, someone wants to be trial lawyer -- let them pay for it.
No -- they were capped, there were NO direct cuts. Because land owners were losing their land due to taxes constantly rising.
Pro-tax crew made their case. They lost, because many thought the UC system was full of sloth. Now, someone wants to be trial lawyer -- let them pay for it.
1
But those legislators keep getting re-elected. Because they focus on issues like abortion, lax gun laws and cutting taxes for the wealthy. Until residents decide to vote these legislators out, expect more of these cuts.
It's ridiculous that an in-state student should not be given preference to an out-of-state student. Furthermore, if our future as a middle class country depends upon people going to college to get that Bachelor's degree, forcing them to go out of state by refusing to accept them if they live in the state, is counterproductive. So is cutting the funding. Then again, our state lawmakers often don't think much past their re-election campaigns for ideas on how to hold onto to their jobs.
If education is so important why aren't we doing a better job at the K-12 level? Why are we insisting that students must go to a community college or a 4-year college, take on debt, possibly drop out and still have debt, for jobs that don't require a 4 year degree? Why aren't we bringing back vocational education for students who don't want to go to college or don't belong in college? Is it more important to build sports stadia, cut taxes for corporations that use our roads, and raise the cost of an education to the point where a student is so far in the hole when graduation comes that they can't possibly free themselves from debt? Don't forget that for many college is not a choice any longer: it's required. If we're going to do that we need to start thinking about supporting that requirement or we need to rethink how we educate students in grades K-12.
If education is so important why aren't we doing a better job at the K-12 level? Why are we insisting that students must go to a community college or a 4-year college, take on debt, possibly drop out and still have debt, for jobs that don't require a 4 year degree? Why aren't we bringing back vocational education for students who don't want to go to college or don't belong in college? Is it more important to build sports stadia, cut taxes for corporations that use our roads, and raise the cost of an education to the point where a student is so far in the hole when graduation comes that they can't possibly free themselves from debt? Don't forget that for many college is not a choice any longer: it's required. If we're going to do that we need to start thinking about supporting that requirement or we need to rethink how we educate students in grades K-12.
3
Public Universities do so, because State funding has withered. In admitting out of State students, Universities face a tough choice: Admit too many, and the State legislature might further cut funding, admit too few, and the University will have to lay off staff and continue to replace professors with underpaid temps.
As to Ms Clinton: She charged $300,000 to speak to students and faculty at University of California Los Angeles in March 2014, even after school officials tried to negotiate the deal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/hillary-clinton-charged-...
As to Ms Clinton: She charged $300,000 to speak to students and faculty at University of California Los Angeles in March 2014, even after school officials tried to negotiate the deal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/hillary-clinton-charged-...
14
"The UCLA speaking fee went to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton foundation"
Typical anti Clinton propaganda from the Washington Times
Typical anti Clinton propaganda from the Washington Times
1
Mrs. Clinton should have demonstrated her commitment to affordable higher education by speaking free of charge.
2
Here is another piece of the equation that often gets overlooked. The "affluent" families that take advantage of public universities in other states often cannot afford the price tag for a private school.
A family owns a home in a metropolitan location that makes $200,000 pays 30% of that in taxes and health insurance. A household with $140,000 in take home pay might not be able to afford a private school. But here is the dirty little secret; this family will have an EFC (Expected Family Contribution) from the financial aid office of a school that uses the CSS/Profile that they simply cannot afford. The solution? An out of state flagship with a $50,000 price tag and a $10,000 merit scholarship brings the cost down to $40,000. Now this family has a school that they can more realistically afford.
It is impossible to take on this issue without looking at the flawed financial aid formulas.
A family owns a home in a metropolitan location that makes $200,000 pays 30% of that in taxes and health insurance. A household with $140,000 in take home pay might not be able to afford a private school. But here is the dirty little secret; this family will have an EFC (Expected Family Contribution) from the financial aid office of a school that uses the CSS/Profile that they simply cannot afford. The solution? An out of state flagship with a $50,000 price tag and a $10,000 merit scholarship brings the cost down to $40,000. Now this family has a school that they can more realistically afford.
It is impossible to take on this issue without looking at the flawed financial aid formulas.
53
Similar situation in NY, our children and many of our friends students were accepted to selective and highly ranked state universities in other states but wait listed by SUNY choices. While I do agree that cultural diversity is a benefit I believe the acceptance trends indicate priority on economic decisions criteria rather than benefit/value decision criteria.
Most frustrating is that these schools also receive federal funding, shouldn't there be an inexpensive rate for state residents, a reduced rate for US citizens/taxpayers and a higher rate for foreign students?
Lastly, yes the cost structure is wrong. We've been visiting college campuses for years - all doing major construction and usually for non academic reasons like glorified sports facilities, seldom used student gyms, plush dorms, etc. Add in highly paid admin and the tuition starts escalating and going to all the wrong places. It would be great to see schools required to publish historical trends for: class sizes, admin costs, costs for professors and student facing staff and academic vs non academic infrastructure.
Most frustrating is that these schools also receive federal funding, shouldn't there be an inexpensive rate for state residents, a reduced rate for US citizens/taxpayers and a higher rate for foreign students?
Lastly, yes the cost structure is wrong. We've been visiting college campuses for years - all doing major construction and usually for non academic reasons like glorified sports facilities, seldom used student gyms, plush dorms, etc. Add in highly paid admin and the tuition starts escalating and going to all the wrong places. It would be great to see schools required to publish historical trends for: class sizes, admin costs, costs for professors and student facing staff and academic vs non academic infrastructure.
92
The driving forces are that Money Moves up and across geo-political boundaries and that the majority of Americans don't seem to care about education at any level. I feel sorry for today's kids. I went to Cal back in the 70's. My tuition and all was $637.50 a year. I had no loans and received the best possible education imaginable, in a time when it wasn't yet burned in stone mandatory. Sanders won a lot of points with today's youth because of this issue. It is their education, after all. Hillary picked up the torch, perhaps a little late but if the young can only vote much higher than their decadal age percentage, perhaps we'll be able to afford social infrastructure again.
11
Once again, the NYT has buried the lede in dealing with public higher education. Janet Napolitano is absolutely right about the "Hobson's Choice": if states won't fund their institutions adequately, those institutions are forced to recruit out of state and internationally, often at the expense of in-state applicants.
64
"When you grow the share of out-of-state students, you’re making the student body richer, more white and Asian and less black and Latino,” said one of the study’s co-authors, Ozan Jaquette, an assistant professor of education at U.C.L.A.". So true about how the demographics of the student body in this small university town has changed in the past 10 years. But it's not just out of state and/or out of country students. It seems that the majority of students here are the children of the privileged class. That's a sorry state of affairs and portends growing inequality in this country.
11
While the colleges suffer financially, some of their woulds are their own fault. How many schools now have more people doing social work and hand-holding than actually teach? It's surprising how many campuses have more admin positions than teaching positions.
The idea of having federal taxpayers paying tuition is never going to work. We already owe more than we can afford to pay interest on.
The idea of having federal taxpayers paying tuition is never going to work. We already owe more than we can afford to pay interest on.
14
Wait - Mr. Michael was upset that his son got squeezed out of the California state school system, and that son now attends.... the University of Washington????
"Mr. Michael, whose son attends the University of Washington, was one of thousands of California residents who complained about admissions practices at U.C."
"Mr. Michael, whose son attends the University of Washington, was one of thousands of California residents who complained about admissions practices at U.C."
5
He presumably accepted there, but not in his own state, where should he have gone?
2
Public or private, these universities have to run a financially successful operation. They are businesses in addition to places of higher learning. And if the support from the local State declines while expenses are increasing what choice do the universities have but to carefully, and accurately, project the percentage of paying customers needed to support the enterprise. Let's face it, there are a lot of moving parts here that one can only scratch the surface of in a short article. But across nearly every State as well as the Federal Government, our legislators and elected leaders are not making the difficult fiscal decisions when it comes to taxes and expenses. In this case they are cutting funding to the University systems because they know the universities are running a sound budget and can make it up elsewhere. Blame the legislatures, not the universities.
23
There are very simple reasons I don't donate to my alma mater:
1) They already received their sizeable donation in the form of my overpriced tuition payments
2) My degree from my alma mater is so useless that I'm not even qualified to get a job as lowly as administrative assistant at my alma mater, which to me makes it a place not worth donating to, since it doesn't provide a useful service
3) I can't afford to donate to my alma mater because once again my degree is so useless that I can't get a decent job
4) My experience at my alma mater was an unpleasant one, where I never felt like an individual; I felt simply like a faceless nameless customer who always needed to pay his bills, so that the college could finally fund its oh so important football program
(And for those who want to know and don't want to make the same mistake I did, my alma mater was Old Dominion University...)
1) They already received their sizeable donation in the form of my overpriced tuition payments
2) My degree from my alma mater is so useless that I'm not even qualified to get a job as lowly as administrative assistant at my alma mater, which to me makes it a place not worth donating to, since it doesn't provide a useful service
3) I can't afford to donate to my alma mater because once again my degree is so useless that I can't get a decent job
4) My experience at my alma mater was an unpleasant one, where I never felt like an individual; I felt simply like a faceless nameless customer who always needed to pay his bills, so that the college could finally fund its oh so important football program
(And for those who want to know and don't want to make the same mistake I did, my alma mater was Old Dominion University...)
9
Amen! I feel the same exact way towards my "alma mater". And they mail me constantly, at least twice a month -- asking for money or showing off their new buildings and amenities -- I graduated a long time ago, but the degree need almost nothing for me. Everything they promised me turned out to be a bad joke. The debt (much lower 30 years ago) set me back for a long time, yet I could barely earn a living wage. My degree is literally NOT worth the paper it is printed on!
Anything they mail me now, goes straight into the garbage unread -- but not before I rip it into a hundred pieces, while cursing them.
Anything they mail me now, goes straight into the garbage unread -- but not before I rip it into a hundred pieces, while cursing them.
1
As a student who graduated high school with a GPA of 102/100 and SAT scores of 2200, it's disheartening to see the "smart rich kids" get criticized for the aid they receive. As the article claimed Alabama gave out $100 million in merit aid in 2015, the key word here is MERIT. This means that students who worked tirelessly and relentlessly during their high school career earn a commencement for their efforts.
This is given to people despite financial circumstances, that is the essence of MERIT. Some students spend their entire four years in high school striving to earn this money in the end. Why is it so shameful to be awarding aid for those who really worked for it?
As a student who received merit scholarships to several universities, it 100% influenced where I went to school, because you can never judge a student's financial condition. Siblings and future career plans are impacted by the aid one receives, and believe it or not makes an impact for those "smart rich kids" too.
This is given to people despite financial circumstances, that is the essence of MERIT. Some students spend their entire four years in high school striving to earn this money in the end. Why is it so shameful to be awarding aid for those who really worked for it?
As a student who received merit scholarships to several universities, it 100% influenced where I went to school, because you can never judge a student's financial condition. Siblings and future career plans are impacted by the aid one receives, and believe it or not makes an impact for those "smart rich kids" too.
85
It's easy to work "tirelessly and relentlessly" if you don't have to hold down a job while you're in high school. It's also easy to get those high SAT/ACT scores if you can afford to take the ubiquitous prep classes. Which working high school students probably can not, even if they had the time to take them, which they don't because they are working.
4
This really misses the point. State schools were built with public money even though there is less investment today (appallingly less). People from the state that paid for the schools to become noteworthy have a right to ask why they paid so much in the past if it is now benefitting people who do not live in state. For example, it is not like Michigan has a great reputation based on what they've done in the last 5 years, it was a long-term build paid for by the state of Michigan.
Frankly, one could make the case that out of state students should not have access to any "Merit" aid, as that is one state benefitting another's citizens. It is not like many of these out-of-state students stay and support the state afterwards so you could at least make the argument it is an investment in the future. Alabama and Michigan are prime examples as they are hardly destinations. The California schools might be able to make the case, but I don't see anyone arguing they are a talent magnet - it is simply about the money.
The real tragedy is that many talented students from poor backgrounds are now priced out of college at anything better than Community Colleges. A generation ago, anyone could go to a state, 4-year University. Nearly all were priced ~$1000 over the $2500 student loan limit. By working in the summer, a student could leave college with $10,000 in debt or the price of a modest car, which was very manageable. How many Einsteins have we missed because of it?
Frankly, one could make the case that out of state students should not have access to any "Merit" aid, as that is one state benefitting another's citizens. It is not like many of these out-of-state students stay and support the state afterwards so you could at least make the argument it is an investment in the future. Alabama and Michigan are prime examples as they are hardly destinations. The California schools might be able to make the case, but I don't see anyone arguing they are a talent magnet - it is simply about the money.
The real tragedy is that many talented students from poor backgrounds are now priced out of college at anything better than Community Colleges. A generation ago, anyone could go to a state, 4-year University. Nearly all were priced ~$1000 over the $2500 student loan limit. By working in the summer, a student could leave college with $10,000 in debt or the price of a modest car, which was very manageable. How many Einsteins have we missed because of it?
2
The "award" for all your hard work is being admitted into the school of your choice. However, as a professor at a community college, I can tell you that many students do not have the financial and social resources to support them in high school and through college. They do not have the "luxury" to work "tirelessly and relentlessly" on their academics as they also must work a minimum-wage job to eat, pay rent, support families, etc. With governments and taxes no longer supporting public education as they once did, why should those who can afford college be given financial aid. I'm not referring privately financed merit awards and scholarships but to funds derived from increasingly limited government support and taxes as well as student tuition. That money should go to those who most NEED it.
1
Long before my son finished his four years at Cornell as a supposedly "out of state" student - even though he spent most of every year residing in New York State - it became apparent to me that Cornell was all about the money, giving large scholarships the first year to lure students in, then taking that money away in subsequent years to give to the new crop of incoming freshmen.
Then he got hit with the full charges of $50,000/year (we'll put together a nice loan package for you, they said) and when he went to study for his junior year at one of the very top British universities, Cornell wouldn't accept his credits unless he paid his pounds of flesh to Cornell. The elite British university cost less than half what Cornell cost, but Cornell had to have their money even though they did absolutely nothing for it.
Got extra millions, Cornell? Put up a few more buildings, expand research programs, hire expensive faculty at exorbitant salaries and perks and, of course, keep your administrative and faculty elite fat and happy, and loaded with cash.
I pick on Cornell partly because of my outrage that my son and I are still paying off his $150,000 in debt to that institution, and partly because of the gross inequity at that university. But truth be told, this situation occurs all across the country with do-no-wrong fat cat so-called public universities who proclaim they're doing such a public service but who are all about the money, plain and simple.
Then he got hit with the full charges of $50,000/year (we'll put together a nice loan package for you, they said) and when he went to study for his junior year at one of the very top British universities, Cornell wouldn't accept his credits unless he paid his pounds of flesh to Cornell. The elite British university cost less than half what Cornell cost, but Cornell had to have their money even though they did absolutely nothing for it.
Got extra millions, Cornell? Put up a few more buildings, expand research programs, hire expensive faculty at exorbitant salaries and perks and, of course, keep your administrative and faculty elite fat and happy, and loaded with cash.
I pick on Cornell partly because of my outrage that my son and I are still paying off his $150,000 in debt to that institution, and partly because of the gross inequity at that university. But truth be told, this situation occurs all across the country with do-no-wrong fat cat so-called public universities who proclaim they're doing such a public service but who are all about the money, plain and simple.
25
My son was also rejected from the best Californian public Universities. UCLA and UC Berkeley with a 4.6 GPA. BUT his SAT and ACT scores were below par for these schools. What the article is not saying is how many of these kids had scores below what is needed for these schools.. Also many high end students in CA get into at least one of these Universities and are upset they did not get into their one of choice. I say too bad. Also, if your scores are not of the highest you do not deserve to go there. My son who wet to UCLA worked his butt off to get there. My other son's, although fairly high in GPA and SAT, did not make the bar. They learned from this. This was the same for all their friends. Students cannot blame the schools for not admitting them when their grades are not high enough!
12
Did Janet Napolitano misuse the phrase "Hobson's Choice"? Seems that what she is facing is a choice between at least two unattractive alternatives - not a choice between something and nothing.
7
Everyone misuses Hobson's choice, the lion's share, "protest too much," and "could care less." We must learn to accept this.
4
For those who care, expanding on Kaleberg's comment:
The term 'Hobson's choice" comes from an innkeeper who lent horses to patrons. To stop students from the local university (!) taking the best horse and riding it ragged, he made a rule; you get the horse nearest the door (most rested as he rotated them). Thus, Hobson's choice is = no choice (or perhaps 'take it or leave it').
The lion's shaer is not 'most'; it is 'all'.
When Gertrude says the lady in 'The Mousetrap', the play Hamlet arranges to catch the conscience of the king, 'protests too much', she does not mean the lady objects, but that she proclaims too vociferously - a sign of insincerity.
I could care far less about the abuse of 'could care less' - ie., I care quite a bit and am not prepared to learn to accept this. George Orwell, in 'Politics and the English Language,' noted that metaphors that have become unmoored from their meaning often dress up sloppy thinking, mere verbal clutter, devoid of clear meaning, used to plaster together an unformed discourse.
The term 'Hobson's choice" comes from an innkeeper who lent horses to patrons. To stop students from the local university (!) taking the best horse and riding it ragged, he made a rule; you get the horse nearest the door (most rested as he rotated them). Thus, Hobson's choice is = no choice (or perhaps 'take it or leave it').
The lion's shaer is not 'most'; it is 'all'.
When Gertrude says the lady in 'The Mousetrap', the play Hamlet arranges to catch the conscience of the king, 'protests too much', she does not mean the lady objects, but that she proclaims too vociferously - a sign of insincerity.
I could care far less about the abuse of 'could care less' - ie., I care quite a bit and am not prepared to learn to accept this. George Orwell, in 'Politics and the English Language,' noted that metaphors that have become unmoored from their meaning often dress up sloppy thinking, mere verbal clutter, devoid of clear meaning, used to plaster together an unformed discourse.
4
Bravo! Add "begs the question" to your list. That one is really abused...
FINALLY! Thank you NYT for this article. It has been a long time in coming. This practice has been going on in Texas for some time. SAD!!
1
First maybe we should ask why Tuition has been increasing at over twice the rate of inflation for my adult life. Costs have gotten out of control at even an average state university or community college.
In the Fall of 1979 when I was a Freshman, nearby Arkansas State University was $240 a semester flat rate for any in-state resident. In 2016 it is $4,100 for 15 hours. But wait, there are fees- lots of fees.
When I attended the fees were flat rate and under $100 a semester.
COLLEGE SUPPORT ASSESSMENT FEES
Colleges of Business, Engineering, Nursing & Health Professions, Sciences & Mathematics $22.00 per hour.
Add $330 for 15 Hours every semester after you finish Core Curriculum.
HOURLY FEES
Athletic Fee $19.00, Academic Excellence Fee $6.00, Facilities Fee $4.00, Deferred Maintenance Fee $3.00, Technology Fee $10.00, Infrastructure Fee $4.00, Library Fee $6.00, Student Recreation Fee $7.00, Student Union Fee $10.00. For 15 hours that adds another $1,035 Per semester.
High School Concurrent Enrollment (hourly) $40.00 if you take college courses for HS Credit.
REQUIRED TERM FEES
Arkansas Assessment Fee $5.00, Student Activity Fee $20.00, Yearbook Fee
$10.00.
ADDITIONAL FEES
Application Fee $15.00, Clemency Fee $15.00, FYE/Making Connections Courses (hourly) $10.00, Graduation Fee $60.00, Honors Fee $50.00
Then there are course fees from $5.00 - $255.00 per course.
Looks like a shakedown to me. Then you get ripped off on the books. And Room & Board.
In the Fall of 1979 when I was a Freshman, nearby Arkansas State University was $240 a semester flat rate for any in-state resident. In 2016 it is $4,100 for 15 hours. But wait, there are fees- lots of fees.
When I attended the fees were flat rate and under $100 a semester.
COLLEGE SUPPORT ASSESSMENT FEES
Colleges of Business, Engineering, Nursing & Health Professions, Sciences & Mathematics $22.00 per hour.
Add $330 for 15 Hours every semester after you finish Core Curriculum.
HOURLY FEES
Athletic Fee $19.00, Academic Excellence Fee $6.00, Facilities Fee $4.00, Deferred Maintenance Fee $3.00, Technology Fee $10.00, Infrastructure Fee $4.00, Library Fee $6.00, Student Recreation Fee $7.00, Student Union Fee $10.00. For 15 hours that adds another $1,035 Per semester.
High School Concurrent Enrollment (hourly) $40.00 if you take college courses for HS Credit.
REQUIRED TERM FEES
Arkansas Assessment Fee $5.00, Student Activity Fee $20.00, Yearbook Fee
$10.00.
ADDITIONAL FEES
Application Fee $15.00, Clemency Fee $15.00, FYE/Making Connections Courses (hourly) $10.00, Graduation Fee $60.00, Honors Fee $50.00
Then there are course fees from $5.00 - $255.00 per course.
Looks like a shakedown to me. Then you get ripped off on the books. And Room & Board.
35
Note: this is not 1979.
Thanks to Bernie Sanders for playing hardball, and forcing Hillary Clinton to support free public education.
53
Higher education has become a shameless racket with top administrators drawing astronomical salaries and benefits. Where universities are state owned, those state legislators absolutely need to deal with the problem.
55
I'll agree that upper admin is inflated but more importantly state aid has been shredded. That can't be overstated. Look at Kansas - or Wisconsin..... thank you GOP for nothing. (And have to also mention the public/private fascination with international students which isn't about diversity but about as many Full-Paying Students as they can get.... not like they are recruiting from small villages, they are going after the big bucks.... 20% at most Ivies at least, and in some cases 50% at some UC campuses).
4
Education, as it is in most of Europe and the developed world, should be free. Socialized. Socialism. Call it what you want. Free. Going broke to stay even in sad for American students and families, while the 1% just keep getting richer and richer. Fight back!
12
@The Leveller. Free college education would be great! But, you don't explain how states/colleges will be able to do this. I would love it if my local pizza place gave out free pizza to anyone who walked in the door and asked for it. But, the guy running the place has to pay his employees, his rent, for cheese/sauce, electricity, etc. For that reason, I don't expect him to give out his pizza for free. Please provide a plan for giving out free education and please do so in a way that does not allow for the theft of money from those who have sacrificed/saved their money over many years (instead of living luxurious lifestyles filled with fancy cars, fancy vacations, fancy clothes, etc).
1
This is a double edged sword.
First rate research institutions need to attract first rate students; and the state needs to educate its citizens. The fact that the universities can gouge out of state kids - especially those priced out of aid in private schools - makes chasing good and financially advantaged students a no-brainer.
Clinton and Sanders are going the populist route - create a class of students for which the tuition is paid, and a class for which it is not. This won't force universities to accept in state students because the out of state students *still* will contribute more. It also won't inspire schools to cut back.
Frankly, I would be happy with just having debt interest capped at 0 or perhaps 1%. Have it not accrue, for anyone, until after school ends. Have payback tagged to salary. And allow people to have debt forgiven in bankruptcy, or if they should die. Y'know? Not have the government loan shark education.
But that doesn't stir up populist glory. So I will continue to plan to sell off a kidney to pay for college. After all I only need one.
First rate research institutions need to attract first rate students; and the state needs to educate its citizens. The fact that the universities can gouge out of state kids - especially those priced out of aid in private schools - makes chasing good and financially advantaged students a no-brainer.
Clinton and Sanders are going the populist route - create a class of students for which the tuition is paid, and a class for which it is not. This won't force universities to accept in state students because the out of state students *still* will contribute more. It also won't inspire schools to cut back.
Frankly, I would be happy with just having debt interest capped at 0 or perhaps 1%. Have it not accrue, for anyone, until after school ends. Have payback tagged to salary. And allow people to have debt forgiven in bankruptcy, or if they should die. Y'know? Not have the government loan shark education.
But that doesn't stir up populist glory. So I will continue to plan to sell off a kidney to pay for college. After all I only need one.
7
Making everyone a college student, and then do everything to limit college debt. That won't work. There are too many colleges that need students.
One of the core challenges driving much of this is that public higher education is simply underfunded by the states in which they reside. What do you call a University if the state provides only 9% of the budget? My wife and I are both successful, productive members of society. We attended state universities during a time when cost was not the primary driver. Without those tuition rates we would not be where are are today, contributing what we are today. But, those rates were only possible with the support of the state. In this century, access to public higher education needs to be viewed as primary policy of both the state and federal government.
105
Is it actually easier to get in a University of California system school from out of state? The article doesn't quite say that, though there are lots of hints. I know, for example, it is much tougher to get into the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from outside North Carolina. I assumed this was true for most top level state schools. The larger point about the decreases in state funding for state schools is certainly true with resultant big increases in tuition for in and out of state students.
4
As a NC resident, I graduated from UNC medical school in 1996 - tuition was $2k / year then - it cost more for living expenses and books than tuition. I went to Duke Undergraduate with their North Carolina Scholars Scholarship which paid $4k of the $8k tuition in 1987. When I finished tuition was $10k but scholarship was still only $4k and my father was like, "thank goodness" Because of this, I am one of the few physicians that have no educational debt.
Back then, on school jobs paid $4.35 an hour so people on financial aid (like my roommate) could work 15 hrs a week and pay 20% of tuition. Now, it's about 4% so the whole work your way through college is a joke. Even though I could afford to send my 3 children to Duke for undergraduate education (now $60k / year), I think the $750k would be better placed in a trust to grow and they can all retire at 50, regardless of the profession they choose (not interested in the hours required for medicine).
Since my children will not qualify for financial aid, I have to look at their education as an investment and right now, unless they're going to go work on Wall Street, or become a physician or dentist, spending huge sums of money on out of state or private undergraduate education should be left for the .1% in my opinion. I suspect that over time, other wealthy individuals will realize this as well
Back then, on school jobs paid $4.35 an hour so people on financial aid (like my roommate) could work 15 hrs a week and pay 20% of tuition. Now, it's about 4% so the whole work your way through college is a joke. Even though I could afford to send my 3 children to Duke for undergraduate education (now $60k / year), I think the $750k would be better placed in a trust to grow and they can all retire at 50, regardless of the profession they choose (not interested in the hours required for medicine).
Since my children will not qualify for financial aid, I have to look at their education as an investment and right now, unless they're going to go work on Wall Street, or become a physician or dentist, spending huge sums of money on out of state or private undergraduate education should be left for the .1% in my opinion. I suspect that over time, other wealthy individuals will realize this as well
7
As a graduate of UNC, an out-of-stater when tuition was affordable, I can tell you that UNC is unique in that the state law sets the cap on the percentage of non-North Carolinians who can be admitted to undergraduate college in any given year. This requirement, at (I believe) 15% helps keep UNC as a resource for in-state students.
2
I was undergrad 1968-1972. Last time I was back in Chapel Hill some of the Alexander Julian fashion creations in the student store cost more than my first semesters tuition!!
In case by case we see the devastating effects of neoliberal economic polices. As our public university's were told to "function more like private business" by the legislators that fund them, they complied. And like any good business they devised sophisticated marketing strategies and equally slick enrollment schemes, all designed to ween themselves from state support by increasing revenues from other sources.
The article didn't mention that universities also cut expenses by filling many jobs with minimum wage hourly workers and basically killing the faculty tenure system and replacing them with adjucts and one semester contract professors.
By cold economic calculations they have been quite successful. As state funding for higher education diminished it was more than made up for by rapidly increasing out of state tuition. Now the very politicians who cut state aid are complaining about the results they created.
If one looks at the graduate schools the enrollment figures are even more skewed, especially toward foreign students. Globalism hits the campus, but politicians were always more concerned with cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy, rather than the welfare of their own constituents. Draw a graph and the rise in tuition corresponds almost directly to the decline in state aid.
Maybe now that little Johnny can't go to the UC because the school needs that 37k out of state fee our so called 'representatives' will take another look at what they've done.
The article didn't mention that universities also cut expenses by filling many jobs with minimum wage hourly workers and basically killing the faculty tenure system and replacing them with adjucts and one semester contract professors.
By cold economic calculations they have been quite successful. As state funding for higher education diminished it was more than made up for by rapidly increasing out of state tuition. Now the very politicians who cut state aid are complaining about the results they created.
If one looks at the graduate schools the enrollment figures are even more skewed, especially toward foreign students. Globalism hits the campus, but politicians were always more concerned with cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy, rather than the welfare of their own constituents. Draw a graph and the rise in tuition corresponds almost directly to the decline in state aid.
Maybe now that little Johnny can't go to the UC because the school needs that 37k out of state fee our so called 'representatives' will take another look at what they've done.
180
"To Mr. Michael’s way of thinking, when it came to his son, the University of California had reneged on an unwritten contract." The citizens of California reneged on their contract with UCLA by failing to fund higher education. Schools have to survive somehow and this is how they are doing it. What do you think UCLA would look like if it had to survive on the 9% of its budget that it receives from the state of California? It would look like a second-rate community college.
125
Placing blame on these state schools for the irresponsible and short-sighted decisions of shysters that were voted into the state legislature .... Par for the course. I wonder how this situation might be changed....
45
"every state in the nation had been forced to make a Hobson’s choice"
A Hobson's choice is not a choice between two bad alternatives - it is a take-it or leave-it choice.
A Hobson's choice is not a choice between two bad alternatives - it is a take-it or leave-it choice.
6
The public campuses sit on donated land and use building and facilities bought with public bonds.The operating funds come from taxes. Giving away admissions for dollars amounts to theft and is no different from the transfer of public wealth to private hands,i.e. the war of the upper class on everyone else, in every other public sector in the US. The administrators have organized this theft in order to pay their own inflated salaries. The public has to wake up and demand changes in admission policy. Write-in campaigns to the media and state politicians would be one place to start.
20
While I agree the infrastructure may have been funded by public dollars spent long ago, you should read the article, particularly the part where it said UC receives only 9% of its funding from the state.
3
I read the article. "Long ago" doesn't cover it. The right to operate as a nonprofit, to collect tuition and fees from students, to accept donations which yield tax breaks, in addition to the capitol investment in real estate and buildings, are all contributions from the state.Let's add to that the state-given right to grant degrees. I have probably forgotten something, but that 9% is fictitious.
Luxury apartment owners who build in areas to primarily target students are a huge under-addressed part of the issue. The same out of state students that schools want to cherry pick to improve their rankings have to take out even more money in government loans to pay for the rising cost of rent.
When is the last time you've seen an affordable apartment built anywhere near a college compared to all the "luxury" complexes that are going up on every corner?
A lot of that rising total cost is rent inflation, because greedy developers know that with swelling attendance rates their rooms will be filled -- so why not add pool tables and lounges and "granite countertops" and charge obscene amounts of money, for those luxuries?
When is the last time you've seen an affordable apartment built anywhere near a college compared to all the "luxury" complexes that are going up on every corner?
A lot of that rising total cost is rent inflation, because greedy developers know that with swelling attendance rates their rooms will be filled -- so why not add pool tables and lounges and "granite countertops" and charge obscene amounts of money, for those luxuries?
31
Yes. I live near the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Same here with the development. I have asked my friends if they understand that their kid is living in nicer housing than they are.
I also do not give to the UMN even though my husband is a graduate. Like Mr. Michael, our kid was rejected and when the U called for money, they were told it would have helped your cause to have accepted our kid who met all of the on paper criteria.
The UMN, if you live on campus is now about $27,000 per annum. that is over $100,000 for a public college. Somehow that seems insane.
I also do not give to the UMN even though my husband is a graduate. Like Mr. Michael, our kid was rejected and when the U called for money, they were told it would have helped your cause to have accepted our kid who met all of the on paper criteria.
The UMN, if you live on campus is now about $27,000 per annum. that is over $100,000 for a public college. Somehow that seems insane.
12
It's just the latest news on the direction America is headed. The class divisions that will one day make us like other third world countries. The wealthy have quit America and are taking their boats and extra houses to set up a new order in the upper tier and they are not gonna share a dime of any money to keep the rest of us afloat. We all see how the game is rigged. America was great but the greed of some got us all. My heart aches for America and what could have been. Nothing will change till working people elect those actually interested in saving America.
71
Re "direction America is headed": Looks like gentrification is taking over higher education along with real estate.
What makes a university education great is a combination of buildings, professors and fellow students. This article touched very lightly on the advantages offered to all students when they get to learn with people whose background is different. When I chose my undergraduate college, I looked for diversity because I have been raised in a rural New York town and I wanted to meet people from different cultures.
Having a classmate from another state is an opportunity to learn. I remember being in a seminar with a farmer's son, from the Midwest, who had an extensive barbed wire collection, a daughter of an Italian airline executive from Rome, students from urban settings, and one from the rural south. These dissimilar backgrounds elevated the discussion and enhanced my education.
I understand why taxpayers want their children admitted to an institution they help to support, but I think they fail to realize these students bring experiences not just money when they come from out of state. I would hope that out of state students are not just being accepted because they can write a big enough check, but because as high achievers they are a good match for the universities.
Your article failed to discuss those who come from out of state and then claim residency to get the reduced tuition the following year. I believe that is a problem in California.
Having a classmate from another state is an opportunity to learn. I remember being in a seminar with a farmer's son, from the Midwest, who had an extensive barbed wire collection, a daughter of an Italian airline executive from Rome, students from urban settings, and one from the rural south. These dissimilar backgrounds elevated the discussion and enhanced my education.
I understand why taxpayers want their children admitted to an institution they help to support, but I think they fail to realize these students bring experiences not just money when they come from out of state. I would hope that out of state students are not just being accepted because they can write a big enough check, but because as high achievers they are a good match for the universities.
Your article failed to discuss those who come from out of state and then claim residency to get the reduced tuition the following year. I believe that is a problem in California.
14
I don't know about California, but Michigan has very strict rules to prevent claiming in-state status. You have to prove you moved to the state for other reasons, not to go to school. I paid out of state tuition at Michigan (grad school) even though I grew up in Ann Arbor and my father was a professor at Michigan, because I had gone to an out of state college and then lived elsewhere for 2 years prior to grad school.
3
No comments on this article up to now. This is a clear indication that as a whole, we the people do not know or care that the issues regarding education are existential to the good future of our country. Sad indeed.
4
Sadder still is the inability to realize that comments here are moderated and sometimes sit in the channel for quite a while before being released. specially when a huge news story breaks that is accumulating thousands of comments by the minute (shootings in Texas).
1
Interesting facts in the article, but they are not surprising.
There are many people on the cut taxes movement who are also outraged by the increases in tuition and that their kids cannot get into the state college. Surprise, surprise. The same holds for state legislators who cut funding and then express outrage at the number of out-of-state students.
I guess ultimately this is the 1% foisting there no tax credo on everyone, knowing that the resulting loss of services will not affect them.
There are many people on the cut taxes movement who are also outraged by the increases in tuition and that their kids cannot get into the state college. Surprise, surprise. The same holds for state legislators who cut funding and then express outrage at the number of out-of-state students.
I guess ultimately this is the 1% foisting there no tax credo on everyone, knowing that the resulting loss of services will not affect them.
113
It's not the 1% - it's cheapskate conservatives who want something for nothing. My region is filled with them. They buy cheaply made McMansions in the exurbs because the property taxes are low, and then complain horribly because the leaves aren't swept in the fall. They vote down school levies and then complain when the school bus routes are cut and they have to pay $500 for Johnny to play football or join the marching band.
4
Article is misleading. There is an over-supply of available seats at Regional Universities within these states - Western, Eastern and Central Michigan Universities for example. Also, California aside, the influx of out-of-state and international students into these now global, brand-name public universities is a long-term cultural and economic positive to States such as Alabama and Michigan - much less helping offset the States financial burden.
8
Great article opening the lid on some widespread issues among U.S. public universities. "Rich kids value amenities"??? No wonder university budgets are so bloated! They cut the number of full-time instructors, cut the pay and benefits of those who are teaching courses, but pour money into luxury dorms with golf simulators? And university presidents all live in columned mansions with gated lawns -- they are often so removed from the student body in every way, like an emperor. Sad.
87
Not saying some schools don't build luxury dorms, but the ones with the golf mentioned in this piece are private, i.e., not owned by the school.
2
Read the article more closely, those are private dorms and are not paid for or run by the university.
1
Colleges don't need more money. They need efficiency. Right off the bat, campuses are primarily open 7 months out of the year. Nice work if you can get it. Tenured professors teach 3 classes a semester (my own family is in the business and boast how they only work 15 hours a week but did work hard to get there credentials). Administrations are bloated. Look at the annual reports and 50% goes to this number (a real business would have a sub 15% administrative overhead ratio). And $500 K + (many a million +) compensation packages for the President of the schools. The Presidents are the 1%'s, have no reason to change the status quo or to control costs. Colleges have a cost problem. It is not a revenue issue as this article makes it out to be.
125
The assertion that professors only work 15 hours a week is one of the great myths of our day. Public school teachers get their own version. What, you get to go home at 3:00! The truth is that we prepare for each in class hour with at least two out of class preparation hours. Our fields are not stagnant. We have to keep up with developments and we must do research and publish.
We are expected to keep office hours for students and devise new evaluation methods to keep up with new trends in business and industry. Add to this that most of us work for modest middle class salaries and those of us in expensive urban areas do so at some sacrifice.
Despite all this, we are entrusted with developing the minds, imaginations and spirits of your sons and daughters only to be characterized as pampered and lazy.
College administrators are grossly overpaid. But when politicians asked them to perform like a corporate CEO they asked to be paid like one. Those same politicians are quite willing to pay well for those that do their bidding.
But increasingly college professors are advising their students not to go into teaching. The system is rotten and we have been told to do more training than real teaching. We used to be responsible for an educated and engaged citizenry. Now we are told to do the job training that corporations no longer wish to pay for. At the end of the day you don't get why you pay for. You get what They are willing to pay for.
We are expected to keep office hours for students and devise new evaluation methods to keep up with new trends in business and industry. Add to this that most of us work for modest middle class salaries and those of us in expensive urban areas do so at some sacrifice.
Despite all this, we are entrusted with developing the minds, imaginations and spirits of your sons and daughters only to be characterized as pampered and lazy.
College administrators are grossly overpaid. But when politicians asked them to perform like a corporate CEO they asked to be paid like one. Those same politicians are quite willing to pay well for those that do their bidding.
But increasingly college professors are advising their students not to go into teaching. The system is rotten and we have been told to do more training than real teaching. We used to be responsible for an educated and engaged citizenry. Now we are told to do the job training that corporations no longer wish to pay for. At the end of the day you don't get why you pay for. You get what They are willing to pay for.
139
You don't know what you are talking about. Professors may only teach classes nine months out of the year...but we aren't paid over the summer either. Do you know any other profession where people have to work without being paid? That's us. If you don't do research over the summer, you aren't going to keep your job. It's that simple. And believe me, teaching three classes a semester is pretty much full time...remember that you have to write those lectures, devise assignments,read the books you've assigned, and do the grading. Modern technology has increased the work load, as administrators insist we adapt our teaching to whatever they think the students (read: consumers) want, or whichever learning system they have purchased this year, whether the kids learn more that way or not. And e-mail means we are constantly at everyone's beck and call. The professors I know all work at least 40 hours a week, and many 60-80 hours. I am not complaining, I love my job, but you need to get your facts straight.
160
I guess this comment got picked because it is provocative and presents misinformation. Tenured professors teaching 3 courses a year? That would be a minority of tenured professors and at a minority of colleges and universities across the USA. "Efficiency" is the underlying reason for all those student perks. It's way more efficient to downgrade the teaching faculty and upgrade the facilities and lay the charge on students who come from well-off families.
"Work 15 hours a week" = classroom hours. That does not include preparation; grading; advising; and the myriad of other duties professors perform every day of the week. It is a nice job if you can (1) get it; and (2) keep it.
"Work 15 hours a week" = classroom hours. That does not include preparation; grading; advising; and the myriad of other duties professors perform every day of the week. It is a nice job if you can (1) get it; and (2) keep it.
35
Can we please stop calling some of these institutions state schools? The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor freshman class is 45% out-of-state. That's a state school? What "they" ideally want is for someone from Michigan to apply and go to UCLA while someone from California applies and goes to Michigan with all participants accumulating enormous student loans. Great system folks!
108
Point of order: UC's logo states UC is owned by the people of California. Which is true.
And to those who continue to complain about lower state tax support -- for decades, it was pointed out that 70% of the public do not attend UC/UM/et al. And that it was unfair for them to subsidize the education of trial lawyers, venture capitalists, and heart surgeons. No matter what the selfish college workers claimed.
And to those who continue to complain about lower state tax support -- for decades, it was pointed out that 70% of the public do not attend UC/UM/et al. And that it was unfair for them to subsidize the education of trial lawyers, venture capitalists, and heart surgeons. No matter what the selfish college workers claimed.
3
Members of the public who don't attend their state universities still benefit from them because of those universities' contributions to their local economies. Also, chances are good that the non-degreed members of the public have service providers (dentists, accountants, teachers, etc.) who did attend--another way of benefiting.
3
" .. Members of the public who don't attend their state universities still benefit .."
Then let's vote on it, after we get to ask hard questions. Self-dealing yada-yada to buy votes are insufficient.
Then let's vote on it, after we get to ask hard questions. Self-dealing yada-yada to buy votes are insufficient.
1
Its the same here at the University of Michigan. Well qualified students from in state, are routinely turned down, in favor of international and out of state students. Twenty five years ago, these students would have been able to attend their state's flagship university, but today they are too local, the wrong color or the wrong socioeconomic class.
The universities plead poverty, but when college presidents make 7 figures yearly, football coaches have contracts of $50 million over a few years, adjunct professors are kept in poverty because they are a threat to tenured faculty who will die while on the payroll, its clear the model is very, very broken.
Meanwhile, parents are going broke trying to provide college educations to their kids, or the kids themselves are going into crippling debt to finance the whole enterprise. Its sickening.
The universities plead poverty, but when college presidents make 7 figures yearly, football coaches have contracts of $50 million over a few years, adjunct professors are kept in poverty because they are a threat to tenured faculty who will die while on the payroll, its clear the model is very, very broken.
Meanwhile, parents are going broke trying to provide college educations to their kids, or the kids themselves are going into crippling debt to finance the whole enterprise. Its sickening.
247
Actually that is not true. I know for a fact that that UM has strict limits on out of state students. There are more students applying every year. More instate students are applying every year. Hence more difficult to get in. UM is an very exclusive public university. The "Harvard of the Midwest"
Meanwhile state support is now only around 10% of the total university budget!
ant more instate students? Pay for them!
Meanwhile state support is now only around 10% of the total university budget!
ant more instate students? Pay for them!
4
The University of Michigan is the poster child for this article's theme. When I moved to Michigan from Indiana in 1980, I was shocked to discover U of M's snobbery. It's a state school masquerading as an Ivy League institution. In my 12 years living in Michigan, I met almost no native Michigander who attended U of M. Here in Massachusetts, it's on many students' short list of target schools. Michigan residents should somehow boycott supporting U of M with their tax dollars.
Full disclosure: I am a proud alumnus of Indiana University (BA) and Michigan State University (MBA). I was a legal resident of each state when admitted.
Full disclosure: I am a proud alumnus of Indiana University (BA) and Michigan State University (MBA). I was a legal resident of each state when admitted.
3
The article states that 37% of the UM student body is from out-of-state, and 14% is from outside the country. This is misleading, since a student body of 43,625 includes the graduate school, which one would expect to have a greater international and out-of-state enrollment. A rough estimate from the UM admissions literature makes it more like 30% out-of-state and 5% international.
1