<p>And without a college education I could benefit from those who do have one.</p>
<p>That’s stretching it. One reason we sacrifice so much for our kids to have a good college education is because we believe they will do better in life with a college degree. </p>
<p>I don’t need to drive, even if I have driver’s license, to benefit directly to have interstate system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In many states, the financial aid at the state universities is heavily or completely merit-based. For example, the University of Alabama’s net price calculator indicates that it dispenses no need-based aid except for federal aid; all university aid is in the form of merit scholarships (including the well known full tuition ones).</p>
<p>Well, if its possible to make things free, lets not stop at public education. I’d like free transportaion, free housing, free food, and free clothing. A little free entertainment might help to pass the time as well.</p>
<p>To me the holy grail would be to figure out a way to make common sense free. I’m not hopeful. We are clearly so far from universal access.</p>
<p>I typically agree dadx (with your sentiments, not what you literally said) however I believe education is different because it increases productivity of the workforce, and can spur job growth by providing people with enough knowledge to start businesses. This will increase the standard of living and tax base nation-wide. This differs from free food for all, free housing for all, free clothes for all (though in a sense - much of our transportation costs are subsidized due to all the money spent in infrastructure by the government) because they don’t help increase productivity.</p>
<p>If the government is going to have any role in increasing productivity (which most people think they should) subsidization of higher education isn’t some insane nut job policy. Though I would say that it shouldn’t be free and recognize it is heavily subsidized by state governments.</p>
<p>I would say that some amount of federal subsidization makes sense, as many graduates go work outside the state but very few will leave the country.</p>
<p>I think it can only work if there is a commitment to having academic expectations and enforcing them. If colleges were to be expected to take every student and then be responsible for their success in school, the way K-12 is set up, I don’t think it would be a good thing.</p>
<p>In many states, the financial aid at the state universities is heavily or completely merit-based. For example, the University of Alabama’s net price calculator indicates that it dispenses no need-based aid except for federal aid;</p>
<p>But that’s not the STATE dispensing aid. The state isn’t dispensing any aid (which it should). That’s the issue. There would be howling if a STATE was only dispensing aid for very high test scores.</p>
<p>Just because tuition (and perhaps R&B) is free, doesn’t mean everyone rushes off to college</p>
<p>Don’t kid yourself. While EVERY student may not rush off to college, if all that was free, you’d have a whole bunch heading off to college just to get “free living w/o parents” for a few years.</p>
<p>Seriously, if R&B were included, the CCs would be empty and college dorms would become even worse party houses then they already are. </p>
<p>There would need to be multi-tier system…maybe based on GPA and HS curriculum…with test scores counting somewhat.</p>
<p>Lots and lots of taxes. And a system of government telling us what to major in AKA the socialistic system</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since it is a state university, its policies are effectively state policies. The state has delegated financial aid policy for students attending that campus to that campus administration, and does not object to its all-merit policy.</p>
<p>*CUNY instituted a resolution to move all remedial instruction to the 2-year community colleges and raised admission and academic standards in the 4-year colleges at the end of the '90s. *</p>
<p>absolutely…move all those sub 100 classes out of the state univs. For students who aren’t 100-ready…have them start at a CC…kind of a 5th year high school. And if they do well enough, then let them go to a univ.</p>
<p>Since it is a state university, its policies are effectively state policies. The state has delegated financial aid policy for students attending that campus to that campus administration, and does not object to its all-merit policy.</p>
<p>that argument might stand IF it was state tax dollars funding those scholarships…but, they’re not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you think the University of Alabama’s merit scholarships are not funded, at least in part, by state tax dollars? State appropriations are UA’s second-largest source of revenue, accounting for 18% of the university’s annual budget. About 40% of its budget comes from tuition revenue. The school has a modest endowment of about $600 million, which at a standard 5% payout would produce only about $30 million annually to support the university’s operations, or less than $1,000 per student. It has a modest research enterprise–in fact, it doesn’t even appear in the annual listings of research universities with the largest research expenditures (though UAB, with a medical school, does). </p>
<p>In short, this isn’t a wealthy university–it’s running largely on tuition revenue and state appropriations. So when it has a major expense item like merit scholarships–worth $51 million in 2011-12, according to UA’s common data set–it’s hard to see how that isn’t coming in part, directly or indirectly, out of state appropriations. Even if the university says it segregates the funds in such a way that no state money goes to merit aid, that money is ultimately fungible–money that goes into merit aid is money that could have been used elsewhere, e.g., to moderate tuition increases of over 7% for in-state residents in UA’s current budget cycle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Stretching it”? Need I remind you that the reason most of our colleges and universities, both public and private, were established to begin with was that it was believed the entire community would benefit from having some educated members? The early New England colleges–Harvard and its ilk–were established primarily to train clergy, not for the private benefit of the would-be clergy, but because it was believed educated clergy were a necessary part of a growing community. Later, education in medicine and law was also offered, again with public benefit being the primary motivation. Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia with the aim to cultivate leaders in public affairs. Many public universities were established under the Morrill Land-Grant Act to provide education in the “practical arts” of agriculture, engineering, and military science, again less for the private benefit of the students than to meet the changing economic needs of a growing and industrializing nation.</p>
<p>Many people seem to have lost sight of that public mission of colleges and universities, and the vast public benefits they provide–public benefits that justify, among other things, large direct and indirect public subsidies, including extremely favorable tax treatment worth probably tens if not hundreds of billions annually. Instead, there’s a tendency now to view higher education as a purely private good, primarily if not exclusively for the benefit of the individual student. That view, carried to its logical extreme, would undercut justifications for public subsidies of any kind, including favorable tax treatment of private educational institutions.</p>
<p>Higher education no doubt does provide a powerful private benefit to your child. But I would strongly resist the idea that you do not benefit from our nation having highly educated doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, teachers, research scientists, and business executives–i.e., from other people getting a higher education. That public benefit is still the most important mission of our nation’s colleges and universities. And no, that’s not at all a “stretch.”</p>
<p>*What makes you think the University of Alabama’s merit scholarships are not funded, at least in part, by state tax dollars? *</p>
<p>Because I know that they’re not. </p>
<p>I could end right there, but since you seem to think that they are, I’ll tell you what does fund them…donors and profits from the athletic program. Tax dollars do not fund them. The money from donors is specified for merit scholarships, so that’s what they are used for. The athletic money is separate from the univ, and I guess could be given for other things, but it’s given for scholarships. </p>
<p>Believe me, if those huge scholarships were funded by tax dollars there would be howling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>I’m saying there are many stupid people that have college degrees that do not need one for the work they are capable of doing.</p>
<p>Also, there are many people with “college degrees” that have not advanced educationally beyond that of a moderate to high achieving high school student.</p>
<p>If you had to hire an entry level employee, would you rather hire a 19 year old that is not attending a top 50 school he/she was accepted at, or a 23 year old with a “college degree” that reads at the 9th grade level?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just curious, do you have sources on the Alabama athletic department’s contributions to merit scholarships? I’m very interested in university athletic department finances, and I’ve never seen any reference to this. </p>
<p>Alabama’s athletic department does usually turn a “profit” averaging around $12 to $13 million a year, but according to some sources this includes on the revenue side a $5 million subsidy from the university (probably in the form of student fees). Also, as much as half of the Alabama athletic department’s revenue comes from donations from athletic boosters, according to Alabama’s AD.</p>
<p>[Alabama</a> athletic budget, revenues on the rise | TuscaloosaNews.com](<a href=“http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130727/news/130729819?p=1&tc=pg#gsc.tab=0]Alabama”>http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130727/news/130729819?p=1&tc=pg#gsc.tab=0)</p>
<p>[NCAA</a> college athletics department finances database ? USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1]NCAA”>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1)</p>
<p>I’d be a bit surprised if the athletic department turns over its entire $12 million surplus to the university to support merit scholarships, but perhaps you have better sources.</p>