Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Over in the College forum, there's a discussion on paying for education. This came up and it was suggested we bring this up as a separate topic. I agree with R4T that state legislatures seem to have abandoned higher ed, buy really don't know why. Please try to keep this apolitical so we can find a common interest in the problem and solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
It's a growing trend, though, at least among private universities, to build scholarship funds and provide other non-loan aid packages. Alums are stepping up to the plate, and contributing to those funds. So there's a little hope on the horizon, but of course more needs to be done along those lines. UC Berkeley says they're able to provide considerable financial aid (non-loan) to everyone who needs it. They do this in part by increasing the admission of foreign students who pay a premium, then using that money to distribute to in-state students in need. I don't know what what extent the other UC's do that; I guess many of the other ones don't attract the same level of top-paying foreign student as UC-B does, and maybe UCLA.
And back in the day, there was more money for PELL grants, and the size of each grant was bigger.
I still don't really understand why state legislatures have abandoned higher ed, over the decades. Declining state economies? Which would be a symptom of a declining US economy overall?
??
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
That is truly a great question that I've asked over and over. To no satisfactory answer. It seems something has happened in education over the last 30 years or so to where taxpayers don't like funding it. Used to be important but not anymore. It almost seems to me like those who benefited the most from low cost education after WW2, are the least willing to fund it for the next generation. And this isn't a political party vs party discussion. When I talk to everyday coworkers, people on the street, with a wide range of political views, they have one thing in common -- none trust the education system. And when you don't trust something, you don't fund it.
Over in the College forum, there's a discussion on paying for education. This came up and it was suggested we bring this up as a separate topic. I agree with R4T that state legislatures seem to have abandoned higher ed, buy really don't know why. Please try to keep this apolitical so we can find a common interest in the problem and solution.
Warning: my post is pure speculation, as I don't have the time to devote to ensuring its factual accuracy. Hopefully others armed with facts are able to back up or refute my hypotheses.
I think it is hard to keep a discussion apolitical when you are talking about state legislatures. They, by their very nature, are political entities. That said, I will try to keep this as less controversial. While I can't say for a fact if higher education is receiving less as a percentage of state budgets than they have in the past or less of an increase (or more of a decrease) in per capita funding than other interests, one might say it boils down to "because they can".
State legislators may be able to cut dollars out of budgets to pay for other items by cutting higher education funding. Also, many institutions of higher learning get a lot of subsidization from the federal government both directly through things like DOD and NIH grants and indirectly on the backs of students via student loans. The reason they will lose comparatively less votes is likely because the younger folks more likely to lose out in this situation are less likely to be voters than their older counterparts.
Warning: my post is pure speculation, as I don't have the time to devote to ensuring its factual accuracy. Hopefully others armed with facts are able to back up or refute my hypotheses.
I think it is hard to keep a discussion apolitical when you are talking about state legislatures. They, by their very nature, are political entities. That said, I will try to keep this as less controversial. While I can't say for a fact if higher education is receiving less as a percentage of state budgets than they have in the past or less of an increase (or more of a decrease) in per capita funding than other interests, one might say it boils down to "because they can".
State legislators may be able to cut dollars out of budgets to pay for other items by cutting higher education funding. Also, many institutions of higher learning get a lot of subsidization from the federal government both directly through things like DOD and NIH grants and indirectly on the backs of students via student loans. The reason they will lose comparatively less votes is likely because the younger folks more likely to lose out in this situation are less likely to be voters than their older counterparts.
Thanks for tossing in your two cents. The nature of my question is to address the bigger picture: yes, of course they cut dollars out of higher ed to cover other items, but the first part of the question is: why is that necessary? Have the state economies been in decline since the 80's, when cuts in some states began? It's been just one big spiral downward? If so, why? What's causing that?
The other part of the question is, what happened to the generally-agreed-upon value of public higher ed as a benefit to society? Valuing an educated populace. And supporting upward mobility. When did those values go out the window? We need to support them, in view of how many employers are complaining that American workers aren't up to snuff for hiring. Or are we suddenly ok with ignorance, and entrenched elites who maintain their advantages through access to higher ed over others who can't afford it? If so, who is "we", and who decided that?
"Young people aren't as active as voters as older people" doesn't seem to be true, as the Bernie phenom proved, the Obama phenom, and even going way back to the John Anderson phenom, when young voters flooded Republican caucuses to sweep Anderson onto the ballot in college towns and cities. And of course, let's not forget the peacenik candidates of the later 60's and 70's, IDK, young people may be more active voters than older folks; I don't know if there are any studies available on that.
But this doesn't seem to be a political matter; higher ed budget cuts have been passed no matter which Party was in control.
While I haven't looked in detail I don't think state economies ( in general; there maybe exceptions) have declined. Rather looking over the last 30 years it seems cuts to higher education finding have come in spite of improving state economies.
Which really ties to your second question. I don't understand why people don't value it as much. Honestly I'm confused. I grew up in the 60s/70s in a small southern cotton mill town and it seemed education was more highly valued than today. Back then those with a college education were looked up to and the sciences were respected. Now educated people are looked at with suspicion and distrust. I just don't know why.
as state funding has decreases, where i see it growing is from the private sector, aka companies providing education benefits to employees and their families
it ties the employees to the company for retention and gives them a better community image
from own experience, every employer of mine has offered some kind of education benefit. even the local grocery pays employees to take certain college classes
im not convinced that the total funding has decreased, but shifted... yes, it means it is more an unequal division of the money though to people who have accesss to it besides being a resident of the state.
on the extreme end, it would be like in south korea where samsung runs entire communities and operate schools and other generally "public" services
When the legislatures see the colleges building sports palaces and memorials to their administrators at a cost of hundreds of millions; competing to have the most luxurious or high tech dorms; paying administrators more than the president of the United States. . . I think it may be hard for legislators to take money away form families and give it to colleges. Many of them think college spending is completely out of control. I agree with them.
A thriving state school gets only a small fraction of its budget from the State anyway.
When the legislatures see the colleges building sports palaces and memorials to their administrators at a cost of hundreds of millions; competing to have the most luxurious or high tech dorms; paying administrators more than the president of the United States. . . I think it may be hard for legislators to take money away form families and give it to colleges. Many of them think college spending is completely out of control. I agree with them.
A thriving state school gets only a small fraction of its budget from the State anyway.
I have no interest in sports, but university administrators say that alumni sports fans are what bring in the donations. Dorms need to be updated, in order to be competitive. The tiny 2- or 3-person cells of bygone eras are long out of date. The new dorms aren't "high tech"; they provide a bit more privacy than before, while also encouraging small-group interaction. In the same vein, hospitals are remodeling from 2-3 person rooms to single rooms.
Physical plant and building budgets are completely separate from instructional budgets, btw. The building budgets have a high percentage of funding from donations. Instructional budgets used to get most of their support from state government, with a smaller percentage coming from tuition. That has changed radically. and that's the part that's the main topic of the thread. When people complain about the heavy reliance on adjunct instructors and grad students in lieu of tenure-track professors, those developments are the result of state budget cuts to the universities.
Why is "higher education" so expensive in the first place?
Why do colleges compete with each other to see who can offer the most lavish and unaffordable bells and whistles to gullible kids?
Why should parents foot the bill for administrators' vanity projects?
Why should taxpayers foot the bill for administrators' vanity projects?
Why admit kids who have no inclination or aptitude for college work, and then saddle those kids, their parents, and the taxpayers with bills for years to come?
Public universities are counting on higher out of state tuition dollars, alumni giving and sports revenue to make up for reduced state aid. Federal student aid hasn't changed much and I'm not sure about nih grants but I'm sure they haven't hugely increased in aggregate. Many states have large pension obligations which are difficult to meet and are growing requiring taking funds away from other worthy programs. Not meeting these obligations mean higher interest rates for borrowing.
Why is "higher education" so expensive in the first place?
Why do colleges compete with each other to see who can offer the most lavish and unaffordable bells and whistles to gullible kids?
Why should parents foot the bill for administrators' vanity projects?
Why should taxpayers foot the bill for administrators' vanity projects?
Why admit kids who have no inclination or aptitude for college work, and then saddle those kids, their parents, and the taxpayers with bills for years to come?
True, in the last decade or so, some schools have really gone over-the-top in that regard. It's gotten kind of silly. It's also true, as someone else mentioned, that college Presidents' and Deans' pay has grown out of proportion to the rest of the budget, somewhat similar to runaway CEO pay. Of course, the higher-admin salaries never get cut during the rounds of budget cuts. Instead, they mete out staff cuts from full-time to 3/4 time in the academic departments, or from 3/4-time to 1/2 time. Soon, the faculty will have to self-serve for their class materials, instead of having a staffed departmental office that provides their daily and weekly materials, orders their textbooks, etc. It'll be like the self-checkout aisles in grocery stores, while the admin pay keeps growing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If so, why? What's causing that?
