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.
State Government has usually supplied between 20% and 25% of the operating budgets of colleges and universities in our state, depending on the institution. In recent years, that figure has been declining radically and they have been reducing appropriations systematically every year. At the same time, the Executive Branch exerts more control over higher education by way of board appointments than any other source, by far. Does it make sense, with families, and students themselves by means of student loans, being forced to pay shoulder more of the cost for attending college for state government to maintain such a stranglehold on control?
The state's chief executive actually exerts more political influence by means of his control of higher education boards than he does his control of state government itself. With that in mind, it is clear that he has a vested interest in maintaining control. But, is that really appropriate? Should more control be turned over to the public for elections to the various boards, and to students who pay the bills with increased representation? Could it be that the state's control should be limited by the amount of support it provides? That seems to be what has happened in nearby Pennsylvania. It is food for thought. Maybe it is time to make our higher education system less political?
Anything the government subsidizes will only continue to get more expensive.
I'm all for getting the government out. I'm not sure what the plans to then fund the high tuitions are going to be. With todays technology prices should be coming down, not going up.
Anything the government subsidizes will only continue to get more expensive.
I'm all for getting the government out. I'm not sure what the plans to then fund the high tuitions are going to be. With todays technology prices should be coming down, not going up.
You're never going to get government out, but I am suggesting that they exert too much influence over control of the system given the level of support they provide. I realize there are certainly those who can offer up arguments for leaving things political, but it might be time to explore less political control and more control by those who are footing the majority of the bill. I am not criticizing anybody currently involved in running the system. I'm just saying there have certainly been times when political interference has harmed the system, and it might be time, given the very weak public support being put forth, to shift control to the people themselves and the students in a more direct manner. Today's students leave college often with a debt approaching that of a house payment. A case can be made that they should have a lot more input in the system. They are, after all, the customers.
You're never going to get government out, but I am suggesting that they exert too much influence over control of the system given the level of support they provide.
They are completely propping the entire system up. This isn't some minor thing.
Quote:
I realize there are certainly those who can offer up arguments for leaving things political, but it might be time to explore less political control and more control by those who are footing the majority of the bill. I am not criticizing anybody currently involved in running the system. I'm just saying there have certainly been times when political interference has harmed the system, and it might be time, given the very weak public support being put forth, to shift control to the people themselves and the students in a more direct manner. Today's students leave college often with a debt approaching that of a house payment. A case can be made that they should have a lot more input in the system. They are, after all, the customers.
The government is always going to want to control what it pays for. You can't get addicted to a drug and not have it control you.
They are completely propping the entire system up. This isn't some minor thing.
The government is always going to want to control what it pays for. You can't get addicted to a drug and not have it control you.
That's an interesting perspective, but how are they completely propping up the entire system if they are paying as little as 18% of the operating costs, but exert 90% of the control. The vast majority of the bills are being paid by students who now take on massive student loans that take them many years to pay back after they graduate.
There once was a time when state government actually did pay most of the bills. It has morphed into a situation where they pay very little of them these days. Their control is far more than the level of support they provide, and The Administration is able to use higher education as a political pawn that is far more politically powerful than state government itself, even though the state actually has relatively little to do with financing the apparatus. When this situation developed in PA, state government largely divested higher education into being state affiliated rather than state controlled, giving the schools more ability to govern themselves with a different governing structure. Could it be that makes more sense than our current situation?
That's an interesting perspective, but how are they completely propping up the entire system if they are paying as little as 18% of the operating costs, but exert 90% of the control. The vast majority of the bills are being paid by students who now take on massive student loans that take them many years to pay back after they graduate.
The students are paying it with loans "guaranteed" by the government.
Quote:
There once was a time when state government actually did pay most of the bills. It has morphed into a situation where they pay very little of them these days. Their control is far more than the level of support they provide, and The Administration is able to use higher education as a political pawn that is far more politically powerful than state government itself, even though the state actually has relatively little to do with financing the apparatus. When this situation developed in PA, state government largely divested higher education into being state affiliated rather than state controlled, giving the schools more ability to govern themselves with a different governing structure. Could it be that makes more sense than our current situation?
I'm all for the idea of getting the government out. Someone just has to come up with a viable plan.
The students are paying it with loans "guaranteed" by the government.
I'm all for the idea of getting the government out. Someone just has to come up with a viable plan.
Correct ... the loans are guaranteed by the Federal Government, but the students have to pay them back. The students in essence are paying the bills. State government is only peripherally involved in the financing of higher education in our state.
One example of a viable plan would be that if the state typically provides 20% of a school's operating budget, the Governor gets to name 20% of the Board members. The faculty might also provide 20%, the students 20%, and university staff 10%, the community where the school is located 10%, and the alumni 20%. The Chairman rotates among those groups every 2 years and is elected by the Board as a whole. Community members could be elected by the public at large during regularly scheduled elections.
Correct ... the loans are guaranteed by the Federal Government, but the students have to pay them back. The students in essence are paying the bills. State government is only peripherally involved in the financing of higher education in our state.
Without the government guarantee there are very few who would get loans. It's no different than taking a loan from the Mafia. You are going to be the one paying it back but they never release control.
Quote:
One example of a viable plan would be that if the state typically provides 20% of a school's operating budget, the Governor gets to name 20% of the Board members. The faculty might also provide 20%, the students 20%, and university staff 10%, the community where the school is located 10%, and the alumni 20%. The Chairman rotates among those groups every 2 years and is elected by the Board as a whole. Community members could be elected by the public at large during regularly scheduled elections.
Without the government guarantee there are very few who would get loans. It's no different than taking a loan from the Mafia. You are going to be the one paying it back but they never release control.
If you can get the mafia out, fine with me.
The Federal Government guarantees the loans. The State Government locks up control of the higher education system. Different entities.
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.
