State funding to Penn State and other state-related universities in Pennsylvania ranks about 45th out of 50 states. Instead of nit-picking, they should increase state funding. And not just at Penn state. They should increase funding all over the country in states where Higher Ed is suffering financially. I think claiming huge waste of money at public universities is nonsense. I doubt it’s anymore than private universities, just more closely watched. State funding is peanuts compared to tax break private universities get in their endowments and on contributions to their endowments. How can we achieve an equitable society if the public funds private universities more generously than state universities?
PSU’s issues with governance is well documented (since the Sandusky case). It’s the main reason for the audit, and ignoring these issues is one reason they got into this nightmare (Sandusky) in the first place.
The audit also lays out it’s case for why PSU has done a poor job of controlling it’s tuition cost drivers. The audit goes into great detail on this subject (starting on page 50). PSU’s expenses have increased by nearly 10 percent, over the last 4 years, while revenues have only grown at about 6.7% (which includes yearly increases in state funding).
PSU’s board simply must do a better job of controlling cost, or tuition will continue to increase at a faster rate.
This is more of a management issue than a funding issue. States with well-managed higher education systems like Florida, Georgia and Texas can have top notch public universities that keep in-state tuition low and OOS participation low as well. The schools with high in-state tuition and high OOS participation (PSU and UIUC come to mind) are managed for the benefit of the administrators, not the students or tax-payers.
I am sure there are management problems. But I am sure their bigger problem would be the budget dwarfing all other issues.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up
How do you deal with 30% decrease? It’s convenient to blame management. It justifies starving public universities. Short sighted since that’s where the majority of population are educated.
It will be interesting to compare that with the increase in endowment and tax expenditure associated with it at private universities.
Texas has that little old multi-billion oil funded endowment fund (PUF).
UF has huge classes and is overrated
UGA is decent but not top-notch
If PA is going to increase funding, then I would like it to go to the PASSHE schools. PSU is so overpriced for many PA residents, the funding would have to increase significantly to make it or even the branch campuses come down to a level that parents can afford, IMO. So to me the money could be better spent at making the PASSHE schools more affordable and offering ABET accredited engineering.
DS applied to both PITT and PSU. Both schools offered him around $5K, which is barely a dent in their COA. I was told in the past, he would have received better merit awards, but the schools are now offering them to OOS students to get the COA down for them to entice them to enroll,
DS is at Bama. All of his friends that are studying engineering are not going to school in PA.
Hard to trust the opinion on this matter of someone who forgets that Georgia Tech is public.
While Georgia Tech is elite, that’s mainly in the areas of engineering/CS, a situation analogous to CMU(Though CMU is also strong in the Dramatic Arts).
Everything else is at best, no different than what one could get at a reasonably academically average in-state public U.
And a reason why few parents would be willing to pay private school tuition/OOS tuition if their students intend to major in fields outside of their overwhelming strengths including most alums from those two institutions themselves.
One can argue semantics as to what is “top notch” or not, but let’s see what the residents of these various states are getting for their money. The following summarizes the USNews ranking, the name of the school and the instate tuition and fees.
7 - Georgia Tech - $12,212
10 (tied with three others) - UIUC - $15,698 to $20,702 (1)
14 (tied with one other) - PSU - $17,900
14 (tied with one other) - Florida - $6,389
18 (tied with one other) - Georgia - $11,634
18 (tied with one other) - Texas - $9,806
It is very difficult to argue that the residents of Illinois or Pennsylvania are getting their money’s worth compared to the residents of Florida, Georgia or Texas, but I am certain that there are some on CC that will attempt to do so.
All data is from:
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
(1) - The range is due to the $5,004 additional fee charged by UIUC for Business, Engineering and Chemistry and Life Sciences.
I don’t think sticker price tells you much. Colleges and universities vary widely in how much financial aid they provide, so the actual cost to state residents isn’t necessarily reflected in the sticker price…
I think a better comparison group for Penn State is its sister public Big Ten schools. But in that group, per each school’s 2016-17 Common Data Set, Penn State stands out for having both the highest in-state tuition and fees, and among the worst financial aid, meeting only 59% of need on average (only Rutgers is worse, meeting only 54% of need). A lethal combination.
The data are a couple of years old, but here’s how the US Dept of Education’s College Scorecard ranks the Big Ten publics in average net cost for in-state residents:
Penn State $28,201
Rutgers $20,079
Wisconsin $18,397
Illinois $18,375
Ohio State $18,068
Minnesota $16,954
Michigan State $16,382
Nebraska $16,177
Maryland $15,817
Michigan $15,787
Iowa $14,863
Purdue $14,797
Indiana $14,370
By this metric the Florida and Georgia schools look pretty good, but that’s mainly due to the generous merit scholarships those states provide to state residents. Texas comes in at $17,152 which puts it in pretty similar territory to Illinois, but more costly (on average) than 8 Big Ten schools
The sticker price is as good a place as any to start. Even a metric like the average net cost can be a bit deceiving. For example:
Illinois $18,375
Ohio State $18,068
Looks about the same, but when you break it down by income brackets…
UIUC:
$0-$30,000: $7,801
$30,001-$48,000: $12,231
$48,001-$75,000: $17,934
$75,001-$110,000: $24,625
$110,001+: $27,070
OSU:
$0-$30,000: $10,566
$30,001-$48,000: $12,647
$48,001-$75,000: $16,695
$75,001-$110,000: $20,492
$110,001+: $22,498
Note that both schools have about the same %(21% and 22%) of students with a family income less than $40k and receive an income-based federal Pell Grant to help pay for college.
A significant separation occurs at $75K+ in income (donut hole families).
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?204796-Ohio-State-University-Main-Campus
Re#38, My D2 is a recent Cornell (CAS) graduate, and I have been following the CC sub-forum for quite a while.
I do not recall hearing or reading of any particular disrespect towards the ag school in the current era.
Being in NYS it was a represented destination in my kids’ graduating classes. The parents I spoke with were thrilled to have their kids going there, and particularly thrilled to be getting the tuition break. I daresay few parents from here whose kid wanted to major in Biology would steer them to CAS instead of the ag school. (The bio major is shared among these two colleges). So it would seem that any reputation difference is less, in monetary value, than the tuition price break.
When freshman class entrance stats have been published they are still a little bit lower overall, but the ag students are by no means anybody’s " village idiot". Actually that school houses two (soon to be one though) of the more selective majors, by repute, in the whole university. (the ag school admits by major).
However, perhaps importantly, the entrance stats by college are not readily available anymore, so fewer people really know the extent of student profile differences among its colleges. In my day the college guides we used reported entrance stats of a multi-college university by college, not as an aggregate. of the entire university. So everybody knew. But now the guides only report a university aggregate.US News only reports a university aggregate. When the university did publish breakouts it was buried in their institutional research website, and not widely reported in the guide books. Now it seems like they don’t even put the breakouts there anymore. At least not regularly.
It’s true that in antiquity, when the stats by college were reported, and perhaps more pronouncedly different, distinctions were sometimes presumed. That lasted till you got into class with some of these people and they beat your butt. Not every engineer ever takes a bio class though.
While I do not recall reading of any significant disrespect to the ag school on the university’s CC sub-forum, I do recall a couple current students posting gripes about transfer students, in general. And it does happen to be the case that most of the transfer students are to the statutory colleges generally, and the ag school particularly.
I agree that net cost by income bracket is a more revealing set of figures. But let’s return to the subject of this thread, Penn State, where the net cost figures compare unfavorably to every Big Ten school. Compare Penn State’s net costs to those you posted for Illinois and Ohio State in #50 above:
Penn State
0-$30K: $20,010
$30-48K: $20,750
$40-75K: $25,404
$75-110K: $29,684
$110K+: $31,680
Nor can this all be laid at the feet of the Pennsylvania legislature. Michigan gets only 4% of its operating budget from the state of Michigan, yet its net costs for in-state students are much lower at every income bracket:
Michigan
0-$30K: $5,470
$30-48K: $7,735
$40-75K: $11,409
$75-110K: $18,251
$110K+: $23,327
And Penn State’s net costs compare unfavorably to the private Penn (which gets no state funding) at every income level but the most affluent:
Penn
0-$30K: $7,636
$30-48K: $6,330
$40-75K: $12,939
$75-110K: $19,110
$110K+: $37,639
@bclintonk I didn’t want to put up Penn State’s numbers, because I knew it would make all of my friends in the great state of Pennsylvania sad…very sad. 
:-S :o3
UMich also has a much bigger endowment than PSU.
UPenn has a massively bigger endowment per student than PSU.
@bclintonk, I know you know this stuff. Do you just want people to point them out when you don’t?
@PurpleTitan I think you’re over-stating a bit how much of an impact endowment income has on some schools operating budget (revenues and expenses related to student education). While it does play a role, it’s not as impacting on the general operating budget as tuition revenue and (at Public’s) state appropriations.
For example, much of UMich’s endowment income ($310M budgettted in 2016-2017) is restricted or associated with auxiliary activities (hospitals and health centers). In 2016-2017 they “designated” (budgeted) $45M in investment income for operating revenue, while budgeting $308M in State Appropriations and $1,395M in student Tuition & Fees.
UMich generates a significant amount of OOS Tuition revenue (45% are OOS).
@Gator88NE: Fair point. And UMich can charge OOS more than PSU can, which means they can afford to subsidize in-state more.
Michigan’s $10 billion endowment didn’t just fall out of the sky. They built it, because it was an institutional priority to build it. Penn State’s $3.6 billion endowment is actually not too shabby for a public university, but it could be bigger. They have a massive alumni base, including many affluent people in New York City and elsewhere. But I guess it’s easier to raise tuition than to build the endowment.
Still, I take your point that, whatever the historical or institutional reasons for the difference in endowments, it’s not entirely fair to compare an institution with a a big endowment like Michigan to one with a smaller endowment like Penn State. So let’s compare Penn State’s net costs to those of a similar school without a big endowment—e.g., Michigan State, with an endowment of $2.3 billion, which is less per student than Penn State… State support to Michigan State has also been declining and now stands well below the median for public universities on a per-student basis. Yet here are the average net costs for in-state students by income bracket for Michigan State:
0-$30K: $6,434
$30-48K: $11,999
$48-75K: $17,744
$75-110K: $21,755
$110K+: $23,569
Again, well below Penn State’s net costs at every income bracket. And you’d find the same pattern for any Big Ten school you choose: they’re all much cheaper than Penn State at every income bracket.
Why the difference? Well, for starters, tuition levels, and consequently total sticker price, are much lower at Michigan State than at Penn State. But Michigan State also places a higher priority on FA, annually spending $87,3 million in institutional funds on need-based FA and an additional $53.6 million on merit aid. In comparison, Penn State spends only only $45.9 million of institutional funds on need-based FA and $15.5 million on merit aid. (Figures from 2016-17 Common Data Sets). Penn State not only sticks Pennsylvania residents with a high sticker price, but it also apparently places a relatively low priority on financial aid relative to its peer institutions.
@bclintonk, yes but that’s probably because PSU devotes more resources per student than MSU does. 38% of PSU classes have 20 or fewer students vs. 24% at MSU.
And doesn’t MSU receive more state funding?
I think you’re misreading how Michigan’s endowment is spent. The $45 million “designated” for operating expenses is just the endowment payout from unrestricted funds, which can be designated for any purpose the university chooses… 'Restricted" endowment funds include funds restricted to student scholarships (21% of the total) and various other kinds of academic support including endowed faculty chairs, various kinds of faculty-led research, building maintenance, etc. So the proportion of the endowment payout that goes to support the university’s ongoing academic mission apart from health and hospitals is actually much higher than the $45 million you cite.