<p>[Campus</a> Forum on the Future of the Public University](<a href=“http://www.futureofthepublicuniversity.org/]Campus”>http://www.futureofthepublicuniversity.org/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[What’s</a> the future of public universities? Forum seeks way forward](<a href=“Berkeley News | Berkeley”>Berkeley News | Berkeley)</p>
<p>Similar situation here in Illinois. The last figures I saw showed state funding covering about 20% of U of I’s operating expenses.</p>
<p>I think the public has become absent when it’s time to pay the check for public higher ed–yet they still feel entitled to micro-manage every aspect as if they still were paying the bulk of the cost. Most of the flagships are now well below 20% in direct state funding and diving towards 10% sooner than later. The flagships do have some assets to be tapped–more tuition–especially from OOS kids, a large and often wealthier alumni base, large research base, usually a nicer campus in a nicer college town than regional publics etc. Regional/directional publics really are in the worst position as they tend to lack most of the assets the flagships enjoy. </p>
<p>Basically it’s a near disaster in the making all over the country. Some schools already have hit that point and adjusted to it–Michigan and UVa. Schools that don’t adjust and think the state money is coming back are really dooming themsleves. </p>
<p>COHE just had an article on the battle for OOS students</p>
<p>[The</a> Cross-Country Recruitment Rush - Students - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“The Cross-Country Recruitment Rush”>The Cross-Country Recruitment Rush)</p>
<p>People play with these numbers, to justify cuts or criticize them. What matters is the percentage of the total ACADEMIC budget that is funded by the state, as well as the average state funding per in-state full time equivalent student.</p>
<p>When our illustrious PA. governor was trying to justify a 50% cut in Penn State and Pitt’s funding, he claimed that it was a miniscule percentage of their total budget. However, he was counting the revenues from housing, food, sports, a conference center, golf courses, an airport, etc. - none of which was ever intended to be subsidized with state tax dollars. The proposed percentage cut in the academic budget was much higher than he claimed. </p>
<p>Similarly, some people lump in UVa’s hospital and medical research revenues when talking about the percentage of state revenue that is provided. In that case, UVa’s hospital actually subsidizes the academics.</p>
<p>An incongruity regrading the UC’s (and probably other publics) is that they are subject to the whims of the voters while being minimally funded by the taxpayer.</p>
<p>I just want to remind everyone who is complaining that the United States is broke.</p>
<p>My kid will likely be going to a state university, and obviously, I would like to pay as little as possible. That being said, the federal government is already borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. States like California and Illinois are equally irresponsible. </p>
<p>Stats show that even if we taxed the rich people to death, this would barely make a dent in the deficit. </p>
<p>Just because something is a “worthwhile” program does not necessarily mean that we can afford it any longer.</p>
<p>Perhaps more kids will have to go to community college for two years, before transferring to a state university.</p>
<p>Perhaps we will no longer be able to build fancy gyms for the students, like the University of Central Florida recently did.</p>
<p>Perhaps more kids will have to go to a college in their home town, which was the usual practice not so long ago. </p>
<p>Perhaps we will have to set actual expenditure priorities, whereby “C” students will not be able to go to college, because we need to concentrate our expenditures on truly qualified people. This is the case in other countries.</p>
<p>Perhaps we can no longer make subsidized student loans to kids who want to study anthropology.</p>
<p>Perhaps some colleges will actually have to disappear, or merge with other colleges.</p>
<p>We either tighten our belts now, or go the way of Greece. Or Weimar, Germany, where the government printed money to satisfy everyone asking for government expenditures, thereby making the German currency worthless. </p>
<p>I know, these comments are not PC, but I just wanted to give the opposing point of view.</p>
<p>Actually I agree with about 75% of that. Publics need a new business model and they have some good templates as I mentioned. But most publics are still clueless.</p>
<p>Well, since this discussion took a sharp turn to politics, I’ll give my two cents.
I think it’s very disappointing that our governments priorities no longer include higher education. I’m getting tired of the myth that our country is broke. Quite frankly, it’s not. As a percentage of gdp, our debt payments are far lower than many developed countries that are not facing imminent debt issues. Our problem is that we don’t have our priorities straight. We can’t continue the massive deficits, but you don’t cut your way to prosperity. Quite frankly I would like to see part of our ridiculously obese military budget go before things that are actually useful to society and pay themselves back. We don’t need to spend as much money as the rest of the globe combined on wasteful defense contractors making enough weapons to annihilate our planet multiple times over. I also don’t think it would hurt to reform our tax code so that the top 1% aren’t paying taxes (as a percentage of GDP) as low as they’ve been since the twenties. The bottom line as I see it is yes our govt spends too much money but we as a society can set our priorities to progress our country or keep saying prosperity will trickle down if we keep coddling the elite and flush our middle class, and with it any social mobility we have left, down the toilet.</p>
<p>*Perhaps we will have to set actual expenditure priorities, whereby “C” students will not be able to go to college, because we need to concentrate our expenditures on truly qualified people. This is the case in other countries.</p>
<p>Perhaps we can no longer make subsidized student loans to kids who want to study anthropology.*</p>
<p>And, perhaps Pell Grants should be loans that become retroactive grants ONLY if the person actually graduates.</p>
<p>Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.</p>
<p>Subsidizing college tuition for C students who don’t intend to graduate will produce more C students going to college without intending to graduate.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting link in post #3 Barrons.</p>
<p>I can agree with the “C student” thing. Maybe certain standards can be met for grants and loan policies could be reformed to make sure students who don’t graduate aren’t taking advantage of the system. But the fact is that there are many low income kids like me (our family income is around 40k with 8 dependents) who are highly qualified for our flagship state schools and to suggest that we should try to transfer there after going to cc while C students with money cruise along at public ivies is, IMO, silly. It undermines the entire notion of public education (although I realize some ppl have absolutely no issue with that). Once I reap the benefits, I will have absolutely no problem putting back into the system so kids like me get a chance in the future (but I do agree said reforms and improvements should be actively pursued). What I’m against is the notion of ‘why should I have to pay for your education?’ and seeing cut cut cut as the solution when in reality there are less useful things to cut if we take the well being of society into account.</p>
<p>Just read an article in The New Yorker about the efforts of a particular individual with very deep pockets to a) strip the North Carolina publics of funding, and then b) selectively fund positions he supports. (That is, not only an economics teaching position, but an economics teaching position with a predetermined ideology.) It is frightening, to say the least. </p>
<p>I think that asking whether a C student in HS should receive public funding for college is legitimate. That person should definitely have access to SOME form of further education. Whether it should be “college,” and whether it should be accessed immediately after HS is another matter. (Or several other matters. 
) But attempting to select which majors are “worth” supporting–the example cited is anthropology–is foolish and shortsighted in the extreme, IMHO.</p>
<p>Several years back, Jim Garland, who was then president at Miami of Ohio, made a case that in-state tuition should be abolished as a concept.</p>
<p>I believe his idea was that he wanted to deal with the resident applications as private schools would…based on ability to pay, They would graduate tuition and charge what the market would bear for upper income in-state students. </p>
<p>I expect that, in the current environment and scramble for dollars, we’ll see that idea surface more often. It would be a complete sea-change for many schools if things moved heavily in that direction.</p>
<p>“I’m getting tired of the myth that our country is broke. Quite frankly, it’s not”</p>
<p>Yes, we are broke. We have this tremedous Social Security & state pension liability looming (with the retirement of the Baby Boom generation) and only IOU’s to cover it. </p>
<p>I’m in agmt w floridadad55: “Just because something is a “worthwhile” program does not necessarily mean that we can afford it any longer”. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, someone has to pay for all this “worthwhile” stuff.</p>
<p>It costs more to educate a STEM student than it does a humanties student. Somebody id going to come up with the idea to charge everyone a base price, but then add big lab fees.</p>
<p>Re #15: Well, they could do that now, if they would give preferences to children of donors (including alumni), which they don’t do in CA. There is not much incentive to donate to the UCs when donating to a private will get your kid a closer look.</p>
<p>LOL at mentioning the SS crisis. SS has been running surpluses ever since its inception until this past year due to the struggling economy. We currently have enough to pay full benefits til 2036 without taking anything in. And if we removed the SS cap (income above 110K is not payroll taxed) it would be fully solvent for the next century. </p>
<p>Not that the fake social security crisis is related to this topic in any way whatsoever, considering SS has never contributed a penny to the deficit or debt (SS is not an expenditure) …</p>
<p>@UM32194, yes SS has been running surpluses up to this year. And where do you think all the surplus money went? Into a separate fund where the money is just sitting there? No, the surplus money was pooled with the general revenue and SPENT the year it was collected. The cupboard is bare.</p>
<p>@glido, in the short term it does cost more to educate a STEM major. But in the long run it cost more to support an unemployable anthropology major.</p>