But to be clear, are you saying you wish all the “excellent” private colleges and universities in the US were appropriated by the state, so the state could then eliminate the donor-driven decisions at these institutions, and in turn allow the existing flagship public universities to stop competing with those private colleges and universities?
Because that is the model that leads to the results you like in other countries. They simply do not have “excellent” private colleges and universities.
Edit: Oh, and yes, this is part of the problem with healthcare reform too. Outcomes in the US are not great on average, but at least arguably, at its best the US system provides better healthcare to the people who can afford access to the best of the US system than they would likely get in most other countries. And people benefiting from that are opposed to taking it away.
I’m referring to U Mass Boston-- sorry for the grammatical error. And I was comparing it to U Mass the flagship- which indeed-- has top level/blue chip amenities as you point out.
U Mass Boston does not get much love on CC-- it is based on the European model- kids live at home, take public transportation to class, study and take their exams, recreation is on their own time and dime. So for all the folks on CC who want a U based on the European model- here you go. Downtown Boston, great transport options in a dense part of the state, yes, rents are expensive in Boston but the model presumes the students are living with family.
It’s not pared down but they are cheap (i.e. free). West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard academy. Top notch academics and no hand-holding.
I believe the United States would be better off with a system of much better supported public universities. Having a system where universities (both private and public) compete for donor dollars makes for a system that is pretty ugly (in my opinion) and too expensive (in the opinion of most.)
The United States could benefit from even a single excellent public institution that offered a low tuition to all citizens (not just in-state students.)
I knew you were referring to UMASS Boston, and my above answer reflects that. ALL those amenities I listed are amenities that UMASS Boston has already!
So if it is just one, that necessarily will benefit only a tiny percentage of US students. And would this not be need-based? Because high need applicants already have many more than one institution’s worth of opportunities.
I actually think it would very likely be more efficient to have a federal merit scholarship program for almost the full cost of attendance at a private college, say 2000 of them a year. That would be one Ivy-sized-college’s worth of publicly subsidized “excellent” education, available to those without demonstrated need.
Isn’t it even MORE efficient to just raise the limit on Pell scholarships-- so that even kids heading off to their state flagship can afford to attend? Once it’s “merit based” you’re opening up another can of worms…
I note the fact satellite commuter campuses often have at least a fairly robust set of non-academic services available is a testament to the fact that in most states, such satellite campuses are being significantly subsidized by the state in question.
Of course the state could likely save some money by cutting those non-academic services (and sometimes they do). But particularly these days, a lot of those campuses are actually struggling to maintain application volumes and enrollment as it is.
In the social media surrounding only the most selective colleges in the US, you would think there is a universal explosion of demand for college in recent years. The truth is a few “national” colleges are experiencing an increase in applications (although not as much so in terms of well-qualified applicants), and the very large portions of the US college system that are more “regional” or “local” are experiencing widespread decreases in all but a few states:
Cutbacks to lower costs may help in a few cases, but my understanding many public systems have found that actually created a dangerous negative feedback cycle.
So, yeah, I’m not sure the necessary market conditions exist for satellite campuses and such to do a lot more cutting of services.
Yes, if you are asking me, I would not start by devoting public funds to families without demonstrated need who can already afford their in-state option but who would prefer the donor-subsidized academic programs at some private colleges even better and yet wish they were a lot less expensive for those without demonstrated need.
I personally think the much more widespread and important problem is not every state has a quality in-state option that is affordable and accessible for all their qualified high-need potential students.
So if I was making policy changes, I would be focused on those families and those students and making sure none of them were unable to attend a quality in-state option for which they were otherwise qualified due to cost. And yes, a more generous Pell Grant program could be one way of helping to accomplish that.
The High Point housing model and the lack of tier 1 and 2 housing after freshman year is very unusual. Their “free” Master’s degree forces you into upper-tier housing, too.
Yes, another reason I’m not crazy about the American model. Donors do indeed make huge subsidies to private schools, diverting money that otherwise would have produced quite a bit of tax revenue. In return, these schools give the donors perks such as undeserved admissions slots for their family members. It’s a transaction. Why these wealthy schools are considered “non-profits” despite their huge holdings and this transactional model is beyond me.
Yes, and colleges which accept federal government funding (which is most of them… some notable exception) then have to comply with federal regulations.
