Do We Really Need "State" Universities?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>Instead of trying to attend another public at instate rates, why not petition your legislature to invest more to upgrade your own state college systems? (I think Spitzer had such a plan for the SUNY schools.)</p>

<p>hawkette:</p>

<p>Don't forget that your list includes only the sticker price for OOS. The Arizona schools, for example, provide 'scholarships' to entice OOS applicants; the scholarship covers most, if not all, of the OOS portion of the tuition. Note, these discounts are not just for high stat kids, they are available to anyone who applies early.</p>

22

<p>tru dat, mo4.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
What I'd like to know though is why public universities have to be state-affiliated.

[/quote]
Because the US Constitution gives the states, and not the Federal government, authority over education. The only exceptions are schools that address specific niches where the Federal government does have authority, like the US military academies, or the University of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>In other words, the Federal government has no legal power to establish or nationalize general-purpose state universities. There would have to be a constitutional amendment to make this happen. That would require ratification by a majority of state legislatures -- who probably wouldn't want to cede control of their schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This would also be great for the vast majority of students who don't live in states where the public universities are particularly good.

[/quote]
There's already another, more practical, solution to this issue. State A can offer a financial subsidy to State B's schools, in return for preferential treatment and low tuition for State A students. </p>

<p>For example, Montana does not have a good public veterinary school (to be more specific, Montana has no veterinary schools of any kind). However, the State of Montana provides funding to the out-of-state vet schools at UC-Davis, Oregon State, Washington State, and Colorado State. In return, these schools reserve slots for Montana residents and offer them in-state tuition, just as they do for their own residents. </p>

<p>States are perfectly free to cut deals like this with each other, if they choose to do so.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is also highly expensive. California has one of the highest spend rates, on a per-capita basis, on higher education of any state in the country. </p>

<p>Regarding the question of efficiency, the real issue is efficient to who?. Maybe the system is efficient for those state residents who want to attend a public universities in California. But what about those residents who want to attend a private school? For example, why shouldn't a Californian who has (or whose parents have) been paying state taxes for years not get a state subsidy just because he wants to go to Stanford or Harvard or MIT? Why is his best choice capped at Berkeley if he wants to get that subsidy which his taxes had paid for? I think this demonstrates a case of clear inefficiency. Those students were forced to pay that portion of state taxes that went to higher education subsidies, and got nothing in return. It therefore also invokes a question of fairness: why force those state residents who aren't going to attend a state university to pay for it anyway? Why not just have those students who are actually going to attend that state university to pay for it? </p>

<p>The notion of fairness is also salient when you talk about graduate students, especially PhD students, most of whom at the top UC's (i.e. Berkeley) are not from California. Don't get me wrong - I happen to believe that Berkeley benefits tremendously from not providing any preference to state residents to its PhD programs. But it does raise the question of why exactly should state taxpayers support these programs, when so few state residents actually attend them? After all, taxpayers aren't supporting the PhD programs at Stanford.</p>

25

<p>You are also free not to go to the public parks vs private resorts, go to private rather than public K-12 schools, drive your own car rather than use the train or bus and a very long list of other government services.</p>

<p>The UC graduate schools are seen as providing needed faculty for the California colleges, providing instructors for some UC classes, providing people with advanced degrees for state industries, and providing needed human capital for the large research enterprise. The actual net cost of educating a grad student is pretty low. A professor without grad students to help with research and classes is a very unhappy unproductive person.</p>

26

<p>"It therefore also invokes a question of fairness: why force those state residents who aren't going to attend a state university to pay for it anyway? Why not just have those students who are actually going to attend that state university to pay for it? "</p>

<p>You could make the same argument at the high school level ....</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Because the US Constitution gives the states, and not the Federal government, authority over education. </p>

<p>In other words, the Federal government has no legal power to establish or nationalize general-purpose state universities. There would have to be a constitutional amendment to make this happen. That would require ratification by a majority of state legislatures -- who probably wouldn't want to cede control of their schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I think the salient issue at hand is not whether public universities have to be affiliated with specific states or not, for honestly, who cares? What really matters, at least in terms of the people here on CC, is why do state universities necessarily have to provide admissions and tuition preference to state residents as opposed to OOS students or even foreign nationals. </p>

<p>Lest one think that the above has an obvious answer (i.e. since the taxpayers are supporting state schools, then preference and tuition subsidies should be expected), I would argue that, actually, it's not as obvious as one might think. Like I have been saying in this thread and others, most (top) public schools already provide little to any preference to state residents...for graduate school, especially PhD programs. For example, the Berkeley PhD programs don't care whether you're from California or not. They're going to admit you or not based on your qualifications regardless of where you come from. And they're going to cost you the same - which is basically free, as practically all of Berkeley's PhD students receive stipend support of some kind (either through fellowship or RA/TA-ship), and that support is basically the same regardless of where you come from. For example, if you're OOS, then Berkeley will just give you a bigger 'grant' to cover the OOS fees. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There's already another, more practical, solution to this issue. State A can offer a financial subsidy to State B's schools, in return for preferential treatment and low tuition for State A students.</p>

<p>For example, Montana does not have a good public veterinary school (to be more specific, Montana has no veterinary schools of any kind). However, the State of Montana provides funding to the out-of-state vet schools at UC-Davis, Oregon State, Washington State, and Colorado State. In return, these schools reserve slots for Montana residents and offer them in-state tuition, just as they do for their own residents.</p>

<p>States are perfectly free to cut deals like this with each other, if they choose to do so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not to sound like a broken record, but this sounds something like what happens now with the PhD programs at public schools, the difference of course being that there is no need for state-to-state negotiations and no payment transfers. A Berkeley PhD student who is a resident of California pays as much as a Berkeley PhD student who is a resident of Arizona (that is, not only do they both pay nothing, in fact, Berkeley pays them.) </p>

<p>Coincidentally (actually, probably not a coincidence at all), Berkeley's PhD programs are generally considered to be its crown jewels. The fact that they can freely draw upon an international pool of applicants and hence bring in the best minds in the world without having to deal with issues like state residency preference seems to an important reason for why they are so prominent. Similarly, I would imagine that relatively few of the PhD students at the University of Michigan are actually from the state of Michigan.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
I don't think this is actually true for Canada. Canadian public universities are controlled at the provincial level, and can theoretically charge different tuition rates for "in-province" and "out-of-province" residents, in the same way that US public universities have different "in-state" and "out-of-state" rates. </p>

<p>In practice, most Canadian universities don't have separate "out-of-province" tuition rates (though they do have separate "international" tuition rates). However, the Quebec universities, including McGill, have charged "out-of-province" rates to other Canadians for years. In Nova Scotia, the "in-province" and "out-of-province" rates are theoretically the same -- but Nova Scotia residents get a partial tuition rebate, and non-residents don't.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
You are also free not to go to the public parks vs private resorts, go to private rather than public K-12 schools, drive your own car rather than use the train or bus and a very long list of other government services

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

You could make the same argument at the high school level ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course you could. In fact, that's the whole point, and it all gets down to what is meant by "efficiency". My question is - efficient to whom?. Maybe one could argue that that the California system is efficient to those who actually use it, but it is clearly highly inefficient for those who don't. In other words, the term 'efficiency' is determined by where you stand.</p>

<p>More importantly, it all gets down to the question of what is the proper role of government vs. the private sector. Keep in mind that the most important difference between government services and private sector services is that the government will force you (the taxpayer) to pay for its services whether you use them or not. On the other hand, you are free to simply not pay for (and not use) services provided by the private sector. Hence, the matter boils down to a question of what services is the private sector not able to provide? As a case in point, I would argue that the private sector seems to do a pretty good job of providing extremely high quality college education (i.e. Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc.) </p>

<p>
[quote]
The UC graduate schools are seen as providing needed faculty for the California colleges

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But is that what they actually do? </p>

<p>Let me tell you a story. A few years ago, a couple of students joined the Berkeley PhD and became known as star students in the program while they were there, and everybody knew that they were destined for strong placement in academia. So, where did they end up placing afterwards as assistant professors? Some California schools? Nope. They placed at Harvard. </p>

<p>I'll give you another example. Consider the Berkeley Political Science PhD program, which is one of the top-ranked poli-sci programs in the country. 21 students completed the program in 2007 and took academic positions of some kind (hence, not counting those who left academia). Of those 21, a grand total of four placed in schools in California. That's not a very high percentage. Similarly, in 2006, only 3 out of 13, and in 2005, 2 out of 10 took academic positions in California. Again, not a very high percentage at all. </p>

<p>Graduate</a> Program - Political Science, UC Berkeley</p>

<p>I could dig up some other Phd placement records, but I think they would all show the same thing: that only a minority of newly minted Berkeley PhD's become faculty in California colleges. Let's face it. California actually doesn't have that many colleges, relative to its population. The bulk of the colleges are actually located in the East Coast, where there are lots and lots of small colleges. </p>

<p>
[quote]
providing people with advanced degrees for state industries, and providing needed human capital for the large research enterprise

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, the question is whether public universities are the best way to achieve this goal. Like I said, the greatest technology and wealth creation cluster in the state of California was not fostered by a public school. It was fostered by a private school (Stanford). </p>

<p>
[quote]
The actual net cost of educating a grad student is pretty low. A professor without grad students to help with research and classes is a very unhappy unproductive person

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And, again, this is an argument to simply provide funding to all universities, not just to public universities specifically. After all, using this logic, why doesn't the state of California provide support to the PhD programs at Stanford? Why not? Like I said, if the goal is to, as you said, increase the number of Californians with advanced degrees and to boost the human capital that can conduct large-scale research, well, it sure seems to me that Stanford does a very good job of doing that. Hence, it seems to me that if the state were to provide funding to Stanford, then Stanford would be able to expand its PhD programs and hence increase the level of human capital in the state.</p>

<p>The real question is what advantage in terms of human capital creation do public universities have, as opposed to private universities. If public universities don't actually have an advantage, then there should be no reason for them to be preferred when it comes to funding.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
Like I have been saying in this thread and others, most (top) public schools already provide little to any preference to state residents...for graduate school, especially PhD programs.

[/quote]
That's presumably because PhD candidates, in general, are a financial asset to a research university. They teach introductory classes and labs and provide invaluable research assistance, at a fraction of the cost of full-time dedicated lecturers or technical staff. It's more likely that the out-of-state grad students at Berkeley are subsidizing Berkeley's operations, rather than the other way around. They're probably a sweet deal for Berkeley, so who cares where they come from?</p>

<p>Undergraduates and professional students, on the other hand, are generally financial liabilities. It costs more to train them than they pay back in tuition or provide in research/teaching services, so they have to be financially subsidized. In this case, it makes sense, at least politically, to provide a greater subsidy to California residents than to non-residents. OOS tuition may not be a factor for a Berkeley PhD candidate, but it is a factor for a Berkeley JD candidate.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
After all, using this logic, why doesn't the state of California provide support to the PhD programs at Stanford? Why not?

[/quote]
They could. Some states do heavily subsidize specific programs or schools at otherwise private universities. Examples include the four statutory colleges at Cornell, the College of Ceramics at Alfred University, or the Baylor College of Medicine. A private college can get state subsidies, and in this case can charge different rates for in-state and out-of-state tuition. </p>

<p>I expect that many states also help support private schools indirectly, by providing scholarships and financial aid to students that attend such schools.</p>

32

<p>With state funding comes state control. I doubt Stanford would want the state dictating rules over how it operates. I also think you over credit Stanford and underestimate the UC schools for creating new industries. I believe Apple had no connections to Stanford. Many of the biotech firms are not Stanford related but cluster near UCSD. UC Davis has created the California wine industry and guided all agriculture along with UCB. Your economic view is far too narrow.</p>

<p>Also why have only one school? There is plenty of room for multiple large research institutions in a state the size of California. It is hard to make a case that one gigantic school is better than four good sized ones.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
The real question is what advantage in terms of human capital creation do public universities have, as opposed to private universities. If public universities don't actually have an advantage, then there should be no reason for them to be preferred when it comes to funding.

[/quote]
In California, the public universities do have key advantages in terms of human capital creation: (1) they are conveniently located in or near all major population centers, and (2) they are inexpensive, since in-state tuition is low, and since their ubiquity allows many students to attend as commuters. </p>

<p>Given these factors, the public schools are by far the preferred choices for human capital creation at the bachelor's level. For 2006, there were 146,908 bachelor's degrees issued in California, of which 110,990 (or 75.6 %) were issued by the CSU or UC systems. So three times as many public degrees as private degrees.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As a case in point, I would argue that the private sector seems to do a pretty good job of providing extremely high quality college education (i.e. Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc.)

[/quote]
There are obviously great private schools in California, like Stanford, Caltech, Pomona, or Mudd. It's likely that they make disproportionate contributions to the overall human capital pool, in terms of quality. But the state schools carry the load in terms of quantity. The top private schools provide a very high quality education, but only to a very small number of students. And the quality of private schools in California drops off markedly after you get past the top 10 or so.</p>

34

<p>Interesting thread, but Corbett, you're wrong on the constitutional issue. The U.S. constitution says nothing about education, either K-12 or post-secondary. Congress does have broad discretionary authority under the Spending Clause to spend federal dollars to "provide for . . . the general welfare of the United States." There's no doubt education qualifies. That's what justifies things like Pell Grants and federal guarantees on student loans, as well as aid for K-12 education. There's consequently no doubt Congress could, if it so chose, authorize and fund an entire system of federal colleges universities. The states would howl, of course, because their state university systems wouldn't want the competition. Private universities and their alumni would howl, too, as would taxpayers who wouldn't want the additional tax burden, and fiscal hawks who would object to the creation of such a massive new federal spending program at a time of soaring budget deficits. As a political matter, then, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. But the barrier is political, not legal or constitutional.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
That's presumably because PhD candidates, in general, are a financial asset to a research university. They teach introductory classes and labs and provide invaluable research assistance

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that was really true, then logic would dictate that the OOS Phd students would be disproportionately likely to be forced to take TA/RA positions vs. instate Phd students. Anecdotally, I highly doubt that this is true. Seems to me that Berkeley PhD students who are OOS (or are foreign nationals) are just as likely to be given full fellowships and hence have no teaching/research responsibilities than are in-state students. I know many such Berkeley PhD students like this. Hence, I think it is quite likely that these students are a financial "loss" to the state taxpayers. Yet Berkeley doesn't seem to care about that.</p>

36

<p>sakky, as far as I'm aware, for most PhD positions where students are given stipends their advisors have to pay both their tuition and their stipend (or the department, which all advisors pay into).</p>

<p>One of the conditions of me attending UCSB as a grad student was that I become a California resident ASAP. That's because my advisor/department would then get to save $8k a year on my tuition!</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
With state funding comes state control.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why does it have to? One can imagine a portable voucher system which a California resident is free to apply to any university he wants to attend, public or private. Like I said, why can't a California state taxpayer who has been paying taxes all his life get some of that tax money back in the form of a subsidy if he wants to go to Stanford? Or Caltech? Or some other private school in California? Why does he get that subsidy (which is paid for by his taxes) only if he goes to a public school? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I also think you over credit Stanford and underestimate the UC schools for creating new industries. I believe Apple had no connections to Stanford. Many of the biotech firms are not Stanford related but cluster near UCSD. UC Davis has created the California wine industry and guided all agriculture along with UCB. Your economic view is far too narrow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that the UC's never created any economic development. What I have stated is that private universities also generate plenty of economic development, and I see no evidence to believe that public universities are better at fostering economic development than are private universities. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also why have only one school? There is plenty of room for multiple large research institutions in a state the size of California. It is hard to make a case that one gigantic school is better than four good sized ones.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who ever said anything about having just one school? The state could support multiple private research universities. Caltech immediately comes to mind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In California, the public universities do have key advantages in terms of human capital creation: (1) they are conveniently located in or near all major population centers, and (2) they are inexpensive, since in-state tuition is low, and since their ubiquity allows many students to attend as commuters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, point #1 is not a key advantage of public schools, for the simple fact is, there is nothing to stop private schools from also locating themselves in major population centers. After all, it's not like public universities have a "right" to be located in a population center and private universities don't have this "right". </p>

<p>Point #2 gets back to what I was saying before: that the in-state tuition is low only because the system presently dictates that it be so simply by definition, because you can presently only get the subsidy if you attend a public school. However, with a portable voucher system, Stanford and Caltech might also become "cheap" for in-state students. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Given these factors, the public schools are by far the preferred choices for human capital creation at the bachelor's level. For 2006, there were 146,908 bachelor's degrees issued in California, of which 110,990 (or 75.6 %) were issued by the CSU or UC systems. So three times as many public degrees as private degrees.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, I would argue that this is a function of the system as it is presently designed. Obviously the fact that UC's and CSU's are subsidized means that more people will attend them, for the simple act of subsidizing anything will mean that you will increase demand for that thing. But if the subsidies were available to all schools, it would be a different story. Right now, what is happening is that the California state schools are crowding out private competition, similar to how state competition in any industry tends to crowd out the private sector in that industry. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There are obviously great private schools in California, like Stanford, Caltech, Pomona, or Mudd. It's likely that they make disproportionate contributions to the overall human capital pool, in terms of quality. But the state schools carry the load in terms of quantity. The top private schools provide a very high quality education, but only to a very small number of students. And the quality of private schools in California drops off markedly after you get past the top 10 or so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, I would argue that that's due to the competition from the public school, backed by state subsidies. However, if subsidies were available to all schools, I am sure that we would see a flowering of new private schools being built or expanded. </p>

<p>What I would argue is that this is really a case of path-dependence. The UC system and CSU system were launched relatively early in California state history, and their presence basically choked off the development of a large-scale private university system in the state. This is no different from how the early and dominant presence of the Ivies retarded the development of public universities in the Northeast for centuries. But what that means is that the story really has nothing to do with public vs. private, but actually has to do with whoever got there first.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
sakky, as far as I'm aware, for most PhD positions where students are given stipends their advisors have to pay both their tuition and their stipend (or the department, which all advisors pay into).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you haven't dug far enough. The next question is then to ask: where exactly does the advisor's money come from? The answer is, partially, from the state. Hence, at the end of the day, the state is effectively paying for PhD students. </p>

<p>
[quote]
One of the conditions of me attending UCSB as a grad student was that I become a California resident ASAP. That's because my advisor/department would then get to save $8k a year on my tuition!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes of course. But you do understand that this is little more than an accounting ruse. After all, if you had never been a state resident before, and you come to UC for your PhD, sure, you may be able to declare state residency, but the fact is, you never paid taxes to the state before. Hence, the money you get from the state (which may come indirectly as explained above) is basically "free money" to you. Then, let's say that when you graduate you then immediately move out of the state. Then that means that you basically got a free ride from the California state taxpayer during all that time. </p>

<p>In fact, that's precisely what happened with some of the guys I had discussed in previous threads. For example, one guy, who was a New York state resident, went to Berkeley for his PhD, where he declared California residency during his time there. But then when he graduated, he changed his residency to Massachusetts because he left to take a tenure-track assistant prof job at Harvard. So, one might ask, what exactly did the California state taxpayer gain from supporting him?</p>

39

<p>"But you haven't dug far enough. The next question is then to ask: where exactly does the advisor's money come from? The answer is, partially, from the state. Hence, at the end of the day, the state is effectively paying for PhD students."</p>

<p>I'd think most professors (at least in the sciences and whatnot) get more funding from the federal government than from the state government...</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
But you haven't dug far enough. The next question is then to ask: where exactly does the advisor's money come from? The answer is, partially, from the state. Hence, at the end of the day, the state is effectively paying for PhD students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only funding I can see professors getting from the state would be their salary, as I've never seen an acknowledgment to the particular state that the school is in in any sort of technical presentation. It's generally federal agencies (NSF, DOA, NIH, etc), large corporations, military branches, and other groups such as that funding the research. I mean, why would the city of Pasadena fund someone in my group on research about cavitation in metallic glasses?</p>

<p>I spent a summer at UCI, a public institution in California, and my paycheck, lab expenses, and housing fees were paid for by the National Science Foundation. Not only did UCI not have to pay for me, but their public universities were able to get my labor for free.</p>

<p>
[quote]
After all, if you had never been a state resident before, and you come to UC for your PhD, sure, you may be able to declare state residency, but the fact is, you never paid taxes to the state before.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Odds are prior to starting their PhD, most grad students haven't paid anything other than sales taxes to the state they reside in.</p>

<p>Also, gotta say, I'm still a proud resident of the great commonwealth of Pennsylvania.</p>