Do We Really Need "State" Universities?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I'm sure the title got your attention, but no, I'm not suggesting that public universities be done away with. What I'd like to know though is why public universities have to be state-affiliated. Why do only Michigan residents get to pay in-state tuition at UMich? I know a lot of public universities' money comes from those who pay out-of-state tuition, so instead of having low in-state tuition and high out-of-state tuition, a medium-sized tuition for everyone could be arranged. </p>

<p>The main reason this would make more sense is that public universities would be able to attract stronger students than ever before. As it stands, many public universities are constricted in the students they can attract because their pricing is only attractive to in-state students. If public universities were nationalized, the pricing would be attractive to a much larger group of students, and the student body would become more selective. I'm working under the assumption that every university would like to have the best students possible.</p>

<p>This would also be great for the vast majority of students who don't live in states where the public universities are particularly good. Not only that, but some of the states that have great publics seem to have more than one, which is even more inefficient. (I'm thinking of UCLA/UC-Berkeley and UVa/Wm & Mary).</p>

2

<p>Because "state" universities receive money from their state government via taxes that in-state students (and/or their families) pay. That's why students get a lower price for being in-state. In a way, they're actually contributing more than what they're charged through the taxes that they pay.</p>

3

<p>And all the people in California who pay state taxes so that their state schools can remain decently funded are supposed to watch kids come in from out of state schools and take spots that they would regularly occupy? </p>

<p>The assumption is that all state school systems are equal, and therefore you're given preference in whichever state you reside in because that's the state you pay taxes to so that your state schools can remain viable. If they are all linked under some weird federal system, and we all support them then there is no reason why in-state preference should be dissolved, but for now the citizens of California pay taxes -- and those taxes guarantee them preference over those who don't pay taxes to the California school system.</p>

<p>It's California tax money. It's supposed to be for students in California to receive a higher education. Just consider it almost like an international admissions process....</p>

4

<p>the tuition at the elite publics are market driven, plenty of people are glad to pay the full sticker for out of state tuition. Instate students are subsidized by the state for the cost difference between regular tuition and what they pay, which comes from tax dollars. </p>

<p>In these times when state appropriations are low or slow, they could adopt what some public schools have done... which is.....</p>

<p>Charge the same tuition (out of state tuition) for everyone, and issue refunds based on state appropriations, this way it's not just the Universities that are battling with the state senate, there's also pressure from their constituents.</p>

5

<p>The states have gotten a huge return on investment with their publicly subsidized universities. One of the primary purposes of the public university is to educate in-state students so they can be productive members of society and contribute to economic growth - the idea is that graduates usually remain in-state, so the economic return to the state is realized; this is why tuition is discounted for in-state residents.</p>

6

<p>I'm all for federally-controlled public schools. Then it can be cheap, with no preference to the state it's in. I can just see it now:</p>

<p>College of the United States: (Insert city or town's name here) Campus</p>

7

<p>if you want to look at it from the private university's perspective, it's like providing 30-60% grant aid to students who live in that state.</p>

8

<p>The mission of public universities is not to attract the best and brightest students (partially why they're hurt in the US News rankings). Their mission is to provide solid education for residents of the state and to produce an educated and productive workforce that will remain in the state.</p>

9

<p>Perhaps an argument can be made that state universities don't want to become too "good" or else they run the risk of blocking out enrollment to deserving in-state students or that students will become so marketable they would become more mobile in their choices of where to work.</p>

<p>What good is it for the state of Idaho if the graduates of their public universities move to Silicon Valley?</p>

10

<p>Exactly. State universities have disincentive to be selective. That would actually run counter to their mission of offering educational opportunities to every student in the state.</p>

11

<p>while that's mostly true, the flagship public schools(such as UNC-Chapel Hill, UC-Berkeley, Michigan, UVA) has always intended to enroll the best students in the state and providing them with the best education anywhere at a discount price.</p>

12

<p>Because State Universities get money from the State Gov.
which comes from the people who live in the state...
It all boils down to: If you don't take my kid... who is slightly less qualified then the OOS kid... then I will use my power to vote against money for YOUR school.
Plus they pay taxes... so that basically pays much of the tuition, OOS student don't give money to the school (unless your relatives went to the school...but that is another separate advantage) so why should they get a break in costs?</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Because "state" universities receive money from their state government via taxes that in-state students (and/or their families) pay. That's why students get a lower price for being in-state. In a way, they're actually contributing more than what they're charged through the taxes that they pay

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because State Universities get money from the State Gov.
which comes from the people who live in the state.It all boils down to: If you don't take my kid... who is slightly less qualified then the OOS kid... then I will use my power to vote against money for YOUR school.
Plus they pay taxes... so that basically pays much of the tuition, OOS student don't give money to the school (unless your relatives went to the school...but that is another separate advantage) so why should they get a break in costs?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that what the OP is proposing is that public universities no longer receive funding from the state, but rather from the Fed, which means that you could cut state taxes (but also boost Federal taxes). </p>

<p>Note, lest you think this is outrageous, allow me to point out that this is precisely what happens in many (probably most) developed countries. For example, Oxford and Cambridge are not funded by local jurisdictions in the UK, rather they are funded directly from London, and hence the tuition subsidy is available for all British students. Similarly, the public universities in Germany, Japan, and France, are all nationally funded, not state funded. Personally, I have to say that I agree with the OP in that doing so provides greater admissions 'economies of scale'. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And all the people in California who pay state taxes so that their state schools can remain decently funded are supposed to watch kids come in from out of state schools and take spots that they would regularly occupy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
It all boils down to: If you don't take my kid... who is slightly less qualified then the OOS kid... then I will use my power to vote against money for YOUR school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet, as I have said in other threads, the notion that (top) public schools would admit plenty of OOS students over less-qualified in-state students is precisely what is happening now...for graduate school. Most of Berkeley's PhD students are not California state residents, rather, they are OOS or foreign nationals. In fact, I know of Berkeley PhD programs that, in certain years, haven't matriculated a single California state resident - *everybody *who entered those programs in those years was OOS or a foreigner. Yet I don't hear Californians saying that they should be admitted to a Berkeley PhD program over a more qualified OOS/foreign candidate just because he is from California. Yet those Phd programs are all 'public' and are hence financially supported by the state taxpayers. California taxpayers might well wonder why they are paying taxes to support all of these non-Californian students in the various Berkeley PhD programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The states have gotten a huge return on investment with their publicly subsidized universities. One of the primary purposes of the public university is to educate in-state students so they can be productive members of society and contribute to economic growth - the idea is that graduates usually remain in-state, so the economic return to the state is realized; this is why tuition is discounted for in-state residents.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, as I have said in other threads, this sort of logic applies equally well to private universities also. Let's face it. The state of California has benefitted enormously from Stanford, as Stanford was the seed and is still the lodestone of Silicon Valley. I don't want to get into the history of technology clusters (those who want to know about it can read authors like Saxenian) but trust me when I say that there are numerous reasons why Silicon Valley developed around Stanford and not around Berkeley or any of the UC's. Similarly, the state of Massachusetts benefits enormously from Harvard, MIT, and the other numerous private schools, so much so that Boston is dubbed the 'Athens of America'. </p>

<p>In fact, it is precisely the fact that these private universities can draw from a geographically diverse student pool that arguably makes them even more valuable to the state from an economic standpoint than are the public schools. Stanford draws most of its students from outside of California. Many of those students find that they like the Bay Area and decide to stay there upon graduation - in fact, to the great frustration of many OOS employers who report that it is quite difficult to convince a Stanford graduate to take a job outside of California. {Furthermore, this holds not just for outside of California, but outside of the Bay Area specifically. After all, not too many Stanford grads are champing at the bit to move to Fresno.) The upshot is that Stanford is able to attract many of the best minds from around the country (and the world) to move to Silicon Valley, hence greatly enriching the human capital of the area. Similarly, many of the best minds in the world study at Harvard or MIT and find out that they like the cultural richness of Boston and hence choose to stay. </p>

<p>But the point is, I don't see any special local economic benefits that public universities provide over private universities. The economic argument seems to be a reason to support universities in general, public or private.</p>

14

<p>"If public universities were nationalized, the pricing would be attractive to a much larger group of students, and the student body would become more selective. I'm working under the assumption that every university would like to have the best students possible."</p>

<p>Why would you work under that assumption? Every university can't have the best students - that's sort of Lake Wobegon-ish. The mandate of the state u's isn't to provide education only for the very smartest. It's to provide a quality education for the general populace of that state, and for the most part to keep them in that state or surrounding area.</p>

15

<p>Excellent points Sakky.This is a fascinating subject. In most wealthy nations, universities are heavily subsidized at the national, not provincial/regional level. That's the case in Australia, Canada, Japan and Western Europe/Scandinavia. </p>

<p>This system is not always well managed. Europe's system is a little too "socialistic" in scope. In Europe, most universities are practically free for all and education taxes are not that high. Universities are left facing severe financial difficulties. Europe would be better served if tuition remained almost free for those who could not afford to pay but at the same time, if tuition were charged at say 10% of a family's disposable income for families with sufficient earning power up to a ceiling, say 30,000 euros tuition for families with after-tax incomes exceeding 300,000 euros. One could even work out a progresive element to this equation. Something like this:</p>

<ul>
<li>Free tuition: For families with disposable incomes below $40,000</li>
<li>Tuition equal to 5% annual disposable income for families with disposable incomes between 40,000-69,999 euros.</li>
<li>Tuition equal to 7.5% of annual disposable income for families with disposable incomes betwee 70,000-99,999 euros. </li>
<li>Tuition equal to 10% of annual disposable income for families with disposable incomes between 100,000-129,999 euros.</li>
<li>Tuition equal to 12.5% of annual disposable income for families with disposable incomes between 130,000-159,000 euros.</li>
<li>Tuition equal to 15% of annual disposable income for families with disposable incomes between $160,000-$199,000 euros. </li>
<li>Tuition capped at 30,000 euros for families with annual disposable incomes exceeding $199,000.</li>
</ul>

<p>I do not pretend to know the right formula, but I can imagine that if done properly, the benefits can be substantial. Now the trouble would be in ascertaining a family's disposable income!</p>

<p>Some of the chief benefits of such a system:</p>

<p>1) Talented students in areas/regions/states that do not have stellar public insitutions can always attend a university in any other part of the country at a tuition rate that is affordable to them and their families.</p>

<p>2) Public universities would no longer have to admit students that are below par (relative to that particular institution's academic quality).</p>

16

<p>Just to provide a little perspective, I prepared the following list of the IS and OOS costs associated with attending a variety of public universities. While this is far from an exhaustive list of all public universities in the USA, this is most of the ones ranked in the USNWR Top 100 and provides a good cross section of different states. It is interesting how differently states charge for IS states and for OOS students.</p>

<p>Which colleges are offering the best prices for in-state students?</p>

<p>Rank, In-state Tuition & Fees, College</p>

<p>1 , $ 3,256 , U Florida
2 , $ 4,766 , U Arizona
3 , $ 5,117 , NC State
4 , $ 5,166 , SUNY-Env Sci
5 , $ 5,234 , Georgia Tech
6 , $ 5,264 , U Georgia
7 , $ 5,340 , U North Carolina
8 , $ 5,643 , U Colorado
9 , $ 5,758 , SUNY-Stony Br
10 , $ 5,786 , Auburn
11 , $ 5,864 , U Tennessee
12 , $ 5,998 , SUNY-Bing
13 , $ 6,000 , U Alabama
14 , $ 6,161 , Iowa State
15 , $ 6,292 , U Nebraska
16 , $ 6,293 , U Iowa
17 , $ 6,385 , U Washington
18 , $ 6,628 , Indiana U
19 , $ 7,034 , UCLA
20 , $ 7,335 , Texas A&M
21 , $ 7,355 , UC Riverside
22 , $ 7,397 , Va Tech
23 , $ 7,416 , Purdue
24 , $ 7,539 , UC S Cruz
25 , $ 7,556 , UC Irvine
26 , $ 7,570 , U Kansas
27 , $ 7,670 , U Texas
28 , $ 7,896 , UC S Barbara
29 , $ 7,969 , U Maryland
30 , $ 8,099 , U Missouri
31 , $ 8,109 , UC Davis
32 , $ 8,150 , U Delaware
33 , $ 8,305 , UCSD
34 , $ 8,384 , UC Berkeley
35 , $ 8,500 , U Virginia
36 , $ 8,568 , Ohio State
37 , $ 8,808 , U Wisconsin
38 , $ 8,842 , U Connecticut
39 , $ 9,164 , W & M
40 , $ 9,602 , Clemson
41 , $ 9,862 , Michigan St
42 , $ 9,885 , U Minnesota
43 , $ 9,921 , U Mass
44 , $ 10,341 , U Michigan
45 , $ 10,503 , U Illinois UC
46 , $ 10,686 , Rutgers
47 , $ 11,925 , Miami U OH
48 , $ 12,844 , Penn State
49 , $ 12,876 , U Pittsburgh</p>

<p>Which colleges are offering the best prices for out-of-state students?</p>

<p>Rank, Out-of-State Tuition & Fees, College</p>

<p>1 , $ 11,426 , SUNY-Env Sci
2 , $ 12,018 , SUNY-Stony Br
3 , $ 12,258 , SUNY-Bing
4 , $ 13,885 , U Minnesota
5 , $ 14,972 , U Arizona
6 , $ 15,675 , Texas A&M
7 , $ 16,286 , Auburn
8 , $ 16,312 , U Nebraska
9 , $ 16,818 , U Alabama
10 , $ 16,919 , Iowa State
11 , $ 17,130 , U Tennessee
12 , $ 17,315 , NC State
13 , $ 17,841 , U Florida
14 , $ 18,144 , U Mass
15 , $ 18,674 , U Kansas
16 , $ 18,755 , U Missouri
17 , $ 19,338 , U Georgia
18 , $ 19,400 , U Delaware
19 , $ 19,465 , U Iowa
20 , $ 19,605 , Va Tech
21 , $ 19,854 , Rutgers
22 , $ 19,917 , UCSD
23 , $ 20,988 , U North Carolina
24 , $ 21,037 , Indiana U
25 , $ 21,177 , Ohio State
26 , $ 21,348 , Georgia Tech
27 , $ 21,438 , U Wisconsin
28 , $ 21,532 , Clemson
29 , $ 22,131 , U Washington
30 , $ 22,208 , U Maryland
31 , $ 22,224 , Purdue
32 , $ 22,386 , U Pittsburgh
33 , $ 22,450 , Michigan St
34 , $ 22,786 , U Connecticut
35 , $ 22,989 , U Colorado
36 , $ 23,712 , Penn State
37 , $ 23,896 , U Illinois UC
38 , $ 24,377 , Miami U OH
39 , $ 24,544 , U Texas
40 , $ 26,102 , UCLA
41 , $ 26,725 , W & M
42 , $ 26,964 , UC S Barbara
43 , $ 26,975 , UC Riverside
44 , $ 27,123 , UC S Cruz
45 , $ 27,176 , UC Irvine
46 , $ 27,177 , UC Davis
47 , $ 27,452 , UC Berkeley
48 , $ 27,750 , U Virginia
49 , $ 30,154 , U Michigan</p>

17

<p>Any discussion about this really needs to be about the 49 states other than California. California did a fantastic job over the past century of creating various levels of selectivity and applicant qualifying standards among its university choices. It is HIGHLY efficient.</p>

<p>I. Open to anyone -- Community Colleges (e.g. Santa Monica Community College, Foothill Community College) and are often used as inexpensive live at home feeders to the schools (or even Stanford -- one of my dormmates) in the two tiers following below. Cost full load: about $4,500 tuition/fees
II. Open generally to the top 40% of graduates -- California State University system (23 campuses -- e.g. San Diego St, Long Beach St, Cal St. Fullerton, Fresno St.) Cost full load: about $5,500 tuition/fees
III. Open to Top 12% -- University of California (9 Campuses, ranging in de facto selectivity (center of the range) from top 1% of graduates (UC Berkeley), to top 1.5% (UCLA), top top 2% (UCSD)... and on down to the top 10%-12% tier with UC Riverside and UC Merced. Of course there is a some overlap with each school. Cost full load: $7,500 tuition/fees</p>

<p>California has created so many options for its approx. 40 million residents that I don't think a single person living in CA can contend that their aptitude and opportunity do not match. Then of course there is also Stanford (which is essentially free to lower income applicants under need-based aid changes adopted this year).</p>

<p>Unfortunately, because if lower tax revenue the past year, the tuition/fees at all the schools will go up 20-35% over the next couple of years. Room and Board should increase, but they are already at essentially market rates (therefore really expensive at UCB & UCLA (about $14,000), to really cheap at Cal State Somona ($8,000).</p>

18

<p>As a California resident, there are few economically enticing out of state options other than possibly University of Arizona Honors College, or the Top 20 schools (Ivies, Stanford, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore) who have just this year followed the need-based, no loan aid initiated by Princeton three years ago.</p>

19

<p>This is only because your in-state options are so good.
If you were from another state - like Pennsylvania, then you would find quite a few economically enticing out-of-state options.
It is all perspective.</p>

20

<p>Hawkette, you really need to include the top tier of the Cal State universities. For example, California Polytechnic Institute, San Luis Obispo's students test higher than half the publics on your list including UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside and UC Merced. Then the most selective of the remaining 22 offer an equal quality education to half the flagships in other states. Try to include San Diego State, Long Beach State, Cal State Fullerton, Cal Poly SLO, and Cal Poly Pomona at a minimum. All of these have a substantial population on on-campus students, as opposed to commuters.</p>