<p>I suspect that some of the high spending in AK can be attributed to attempts to reach students in rural communities.</p>
<p>Because of rules that require states to maintain support for public institutions through FY12 at least at the level of FY06 support in order to receive federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act education funding, a “funding cliff” could really devastate public colleges and schools in 2013.</p>
<p>In Pennsylvania, support for the state-related universities (Pitt, PSU, Temple & Lincoln) have been declining for decades. In the 1970s, ~30% of Pitt’s budget came from the state. Today it is around 9%. It hasn’t impacted the PA research schools as much as you’d expect because in-state tuition has been the highest in the nation for years because of the comparative lack of state support. At Pitt in particular, a healthy endowment and concentrating on ever efficient operations have actually helped Pitt improve in the academic and research rankings over the last 15 years. However, there have been suggestions by state legislatures that all PA state funding to these schools could be cut after 2013 unless things improve. The schools are already studying how to deal with the potential funding cliff and then some, but that is a lot of money to lose.</p>
<p>What’s different here is that these schools (Pitt, Temple and Lincoln at least) were all private until the mid-60s and all these schools remain privately governed by independent boards of trustees. The state doesn’t own or operate any of them. Privatization, as was suggested above, really isn’t that big of a leap.</p>
<h1>23</h1>
<p>And two of those schools, Penn STate main campus and Pitt are already not financially accessible to low income students.</p>
<p>@wgmcp101
Are you saying that those schools would much rather go fully private than lower in state tuition? Wow…</p>
<h1>25</h1>
<p>They need to generate more money, lowering instate tuition certainly won’t do that, especially since the states are cutting support. By going private they can raise prices and attract better paying customers. The goal of these institutions is to maintain or increase their own power and prestige. They have little interest in lowering instate tuition.</p>
<p>UNC raised its tuition yesterday for the coming year another 700.00 per student, but still is going to eat several million dollars in budget cuts because the state is cutting them off.</p>
<p>Well, if I was a yankee-transplant who snuck in the legislature of NC, I think I would introduce a way to keep in-state tuition low…by increasing the amount of OOS allowed! Wow! What a concept! Their avg SAT/GPAs would rise! It’s a win-win! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they would very much like to have lower in-state tuition. They lobby hard every year in Harrisburg for appropriation increases that are never received. In-state tuition at these schools is discounted by subsidization from the state. Unfortunately, the state’s appropriations have not kept up with inflation for years, and nationally, the trend is inflation in education has outpaced general inflation. Hence, Pitt, PSU and Temple are among the most expensive “public” schools in the nation by in-state sticker price. Pitt has the largest endowment, so it typically is the most generous with need and non-need based financial aid. The nature of these schools may end up becoming even more private if the state ends up cutting what little funding they do get. That is the worst case scenario and it may not play out. My point is that these schools are already privately governed. Administratively Pitt, PSU and Temple are already private and always have been. The leap, conceptually, isn’t that difficult for them from an administrative perspective; financially, the leap would be quite difficult in order of the size of each school’s endowment.</p>
<p>S’s school just added a $300/year fee for students who are in the Honors College. I have no doubt this will at least double by the time he graduates, because this school never met a fee it didn’t like.</p>
<p>I find it crazy that the highest achieving, most desirable students at the university are now being financially penalized, but they claim this is necessary due to “budget cuts”.</p>
<p>University of California Tuitions have increased as well. I believe it’s around a 32% increase in tuition. Education is so expensive these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the students are actually getting any benefits, it probably costs the school money.</p>
<p>tuition increases this year in Pennsylvania…</p>
<p>Penn State in-state 5.9%, OOS 4.5%, 3.9% at branch campuses
Temple in-state 5.9%, OOS 5.9%
Pitt in-state 5.5%, OOS 3.0%, 2.5% at branch campuses</p>
<p>I don’t know what the increase is at the smaller state (owned) system schools.</p>
<p>this was posted on another thread
[UC</a> increases number of out-of-state and international students for the fall | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Archive blogs)</p>
<p>To be quite frank, I’m nervous about some schools (specifically in Florida) losing not only the educational staff/opportunities to give the school a good name, but also the students staying instate/going to public universities (this is with my experience with Florida schools). I will explain why. Here in Florida, we have a scholarship that gives very good students a 75% scholarship (or so) to any public Florida school and then most of Floridians get more scholarships/prepaid to pay for the other 25% (essentially, getting paid to go to college). Bright Futures (the 75% scholarship) has been getting continuously cut for a little while and we’ve were warned when I was in my sophomore/junior years that it might be gone when we graduated. This budget cut might be the final straw. Hence, UF, which depended on this scholarship to bring in the top caliber students, will be hurt significantly by not being able to offer free education anymore.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. UF is a fantastic university! However, there are many people I know that “settled” for UF because it was free. With education cuts, UF’s ability to offer research opportunities and high quality education MAY diminish, too. It’s just annoying because UF did work really hard to build up a good reputation this past decade and the economy might blow all their work to nothing…</p>
<p>…ok…the tuition of one single term for out-state students of Georgia tech increases by 500 dollars…sigh</p>
<p>Where do you guys see johns hopkins in the future?</p>
<p>One thing for sure. UM-Ann Arbor will never be ranked very highly in the nation that will say it’s the ‘Harvard of the West’. (This means UM-Ann Arbor and also other top public colleges are leading the whole nation and can compete with Ivies and Ivy Plus colleges on national prestige) So does UC Berkeley, it won’t be equal to Yale like it does in the Sixties. It won’t be ‘nationally prominent’. Yes, they’re still at the top percentile of America’s colleges. But then, if we are obsessed with prestige and fame, then more likely the most able of us all will consider UC Berkeley and UM-Ann Arbor at a lesser incidence than other rising colleges, like Duke and USC.</p>
<p>Honestly, UC Berkeley isn’t even comparable to Michigan, UNC or some of the other top public universities.</p>
<p>Berkeley has more graduate programs in the top 5 than any other university, and should be ranked in the same league as HYP and Stanford, imo.</p>
<p>^UMich is amazing. Don’t put it in the same category as UNC and what not.</p>
<p>UNC ftw 10char</p>