<p>It was a small point but you did write that faculty with tenure were not “fireable.” I appreciate that you did not mean that literally, but that is what you wrote. Since this is a thread about University of Colorado, your statment was ironic. For what it is worth, everything I have read indicates that the individual in question is a charlatan who richly deserved to be fired. Having come across a few cases of academic misconduct myself, I have little sympathy for the transgressors.</p>
His first plan is to do away with in-state tuition. The level-funding point for this just about doubles in-state tuition (2/3 of students), and reduces OOS tuition by about half (1/3 of students).</p>
<p>But then he wants tuition to rise to “whatever the market will bear”. Well, if 1/3 of students will pay OOS rates, then surely everyone will, right? The market seems to be bearing this price… This increases revenues by 1/3, giving plenty of money to boost everyone’s pay and build some fancy new buildings for the professors to work in. So what if most of the state’s residents will not be able to afford it.</p>
<p>And somehow by doing this, the university will get higher caliber students.</p>
<p>“Currently only 30% of all CU applicants - the vast majority being in-state residents - are admitted.”</p>
<p>CU’s admit rate is 85%. By state charter, no more than 50% can be OOS</p>
<p>“So what do you advocate? How should schools get cash? If it ain’t gonna come from taxes, and it ain’t gonna come from enterprise, where’s it gonna come from? Tuition?”</p>
<p>CU has a huge alumni base, plus a huge, enmeshed private companies and CU employee (faculty) advantage. Blockbuster drugs have been developed by companies owned by CU faculty, by their private companies. It isn’t that unusual at any school, public or private.</p>
<p>“No, I think we need another Sputnik type push to move technology and science in all areas–not just those of interest to business. In fact one was underway until the current budget mess which is leading to large cuts in research $$$$.”</p>
<p>There is still one underway. The funds from the SDI authorized by Reagan’s Congress. When that program was downsized, the allocated funds were switched to University funding.
It may just be that our universities are engaged in weapon’s research, but it is government funding. When does nuclear research (BLL) get differentiated if it is for RE or MIC?</p>
<p>“Blockbuster drugs have been developed by companies owned by CU faculty, by their private companies. It isn’t that unusual at any school, public or private.”</p>
<p>This is what I find disenheartening. Please everyone stop with the oh our schools need the money. Until they clean up these blatant conflict of interests – use of school labs, grad students whatever. It stinks.</p>
<p>If universities charged what the market would bear, Harvard would be up around $150k a year, I think. My alma mater - Williams - now claims they spend $90k a year per student. So virtually all of my measly alumni contribution goes to support millionaires. I say let 'em charge $90k, and provide financial assistance for those who qualify.</p>
<p>And for the publics? If professors take public funds - state or federal - we, the people who paid for it, should own a share of the patent.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see the accounting of this, especially for students in non-lab majors (e.g. math, and most humanities and social studies). Freshman level non-lab courses probably should not cost much different from high school or community college courses. Senior level non-lab courses may cost more if there are fewer students per class, but it seems like that would still fall far short Williams’ claim about cost. Even with lab courses, it seems hard to believe that they would be as expensive as Williams claims (and few students, even in lab-heavy majors, take all lab courses each semester).</p>
<p>Oh, it;s the climbing wall, the 18-hole PGA golf course, the five-story heated parking garage, two swimming pools, etc., etc. Think country club. I don’t mind subsidizing those who need it, but why the millionaires? The market will bear $90k - they could even auction off a few places (actually, they do - “developmental admits” - but they do it privately, in their “need-blind” process.)</p>
<p>I don’t know many colleges with golf courses etc. </p>
<p>The market will not bear for 90K for the run of the mill millionaire – and the schools are aware of that. 90K per year for undergrad and grad/proff school is not worth it. Only the billionaires will pay it. And there are not enough of them.</p>
<h1>111 - my comment #110 was a response to the title of the thread and multiple comments made in the thread.</h1>
<p>I am quite sure that for many years CU had comparatively low tuition compared to other state schools, and has been playing “catch up” with the large increases the last few years.</p>
<p>I think CU ruled this year that students who had 1 or 2 years of community college would have guaranteed admission, or some other cost saving benefit - you could find the exact details on their website.</p>
<p>Actually, parent, CU always had relatively high tuition, as do most college level schools in Colorado. I was amazed when I tried to enroll in a Spanish class at the local community college and discovered its tuition wasn’t much lower than at the Denver branch of the University of Colorado. </p>
<p>It comes from the traditional low college level per-student-spending. The state usually ranks 48th or 49th out of 50.</p>
<p>No, that is the undergrad degree for all CEOs that have one (nearly all) Many have MBAs too.</p>
<p>As to patents produced through government research–the taxpayers get their cut–as the new company hires people who pay taxes and expand the tax collections and jobs. That’s why they did it that way when the law was passed.</p>
<p>Katliamom, that is the second time you have incorrectly stated that figure 49th, which applies to K-12 spending in Co (what state is 50th, Miss or Ala?).</p>
<p>I think if you compare CU price the past 10 yrs to UMCP or one of the state Ivies, you will find a big price disparity.</p>
<p>Over the past 30 years Colorado vacillated between 48th and 49th out of 50 in college level per student spending. It is currently 49th.</p>
<p>“Colorado ranks 49th nationally in state support for public colleges and universities. Yet, higher education took another hit. State funding for colleges and universities has been cut more than 16% over the past five years, while enrollment in state institutions has increased nearly 20%. The state’s colleges and universities are planning nine percent annual tuition increases for the next several years to cover their costs.”</p>
<p>Finally KM (not going to argue costs any further) if you are 55 or over and a resident of Co you can audit classes for free at some of the state schools - again, not exactly sure which ones. Hasta luego!</p>
<p>Maybe Colorado is the only state that gets it right. I admit I dont know much about Colorado, but I looked at Collegeboard, and their in-state tuition looked reasonable.</p>
<p>katlia – the CU numbers included over 2grand for medical. Does every school include that in the COA</p>