<p>Yup, RacinReaver is right.</p>
<p>Most professors are expected to pull in external funding for their research, their lab equipment, and their grad students' salaries. The university gets a cut of every dime the faculty members pull in, it's not even like the professor gets to keep all of it for his/her own research. This is mostly federal money. It doesn't matter what state the grad student comes from. The individual states aren't shelling out for the grad students salaries.</p>
<p>Sure you could in theory do the same voucher system for k-12 but where it has been tried the results have been underwhelming. Private sector is no magic bullet. There are a boatload of private schools that can't even compare with the worst UC and many of the Cal State campuses. It is not any more efficient, and in many cases less so to have private over public education. So we have a mixed system and people are free to choose as they wish. Some taxpayers may never use a public school from K-grad school and others will be public all the way. There is a ton of fat in many of the better privates so they are hardly models of efficiency. If they wanted they could easily take many more students than they do, but they don't so we have the publics to make up for their wasteful ways. Do students really need $300,000,000 dorms??</p>
<p>Where's a $300,000,000 dorm?</p>
<p>Yale is planning on spending close to $600 million on two new residential halls.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.)
[/quote]
I'm not "trying to attend another public at instate rates;" I was just wondering if there was any reasoning behind this crazy system America has. And although upgrading the systems sounds nice, most people feel that reputation/selectivity plays a significant role in how good a college is. It could be decades before the SUNYs' reputation/selectivity improves, whereas what I'm suggesting would essentially be a change in how the tuition is charged.</p>
<p>Of course, the change I'm talking about would also mean that state taxes for universities would become federal taxes for universities.</p>
<p>Some have brought up that state universities were instituted to simply educate the masses rather than educate the country's smartest people, but I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. Let's say that public universities in America educate X amount of people. With this change in pricing, X amount of people would still be educated. The difference is that educational options would no longer be confined to one's own state's universities. This means that better students could be more appropriately matched up with better universities. (The reason this is more appropriate is because better students theoretically deserve to go to better universities and better universities theoretically deserve to have better students).</p>
<p>do know what the best state universities are ???? I plan to have some safety choices to apply this fall. my major is business finance.</p>
<p>Actually most people go to state universities and don't worry much about selectivity and all that. A few are very selective, most aren't.</p>
<p>"The difference is that educational options would no longer be confined to one's own state's universities. This means that better students could be more appropriately matched up with better universities. (The reason this is more appropriate is because better students theoretically deserve to go to better universities and better universities theoretically deserve to have better students)."</p>
<p>I see where you're heading but I don't think it changes anything. Better students typically look for the better universities anyway and the vast majority of prospective students just apply to / go to whatever state university is closest to them and the best value for the money.</p>
<p>Does anybody know - of students who attend 4 year colleges, what % of them attend a public university in their own state? In total, not by state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anybody know - of students who attend 4 year colleges, what % of them attend a public university in their own state? In total, not by state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's around 75%.</p>
<p>I remember reading or hearing the figure recently...I'll look for a source.</p>
<p>You are referring to Ehrenberg's article I believe, but that figure indicates the percentage of students attending a university in their own state, not specifically a public university in their own state.</p>
<p>^ I still think the percentage is pretty high.</p>
<p>yes, we need state univs. however, highly ranked state univs should go private, or be cheap for everyone like you said, or something ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd think most professors (at least in the sciences and whatnot) get more funding from the federal government than from the state government...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only funding I can see professors getting from the state would be their salary
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Their paychecks come from the state, which makes them official "state employees". In fact, that is precisely why you can often times look up the salaries of many professors of state universities. It's considered public information. </p>
<p>For example, here are the salaries of professors (and staffers) at the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>Faculty</a> and staff salary record.</p>
<p>Now, it is also true that these professors are also receiving grants. But at the end of the day, some of their money comes from the states, and hence, to their grad students. Money is a fungible commodity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Odds are prior to starting their PhD, most grad students haven't paid anything other than sales taxes to the state they reside in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know what I mean - their parents had never paid any state income taxes to the state in which the student is now getting his PhD. All of these OOS students coming into Berkeley to get their PhD's - neither they nor their parents had ever paid a dime to California. The state is simply losing money hand-over-fist to accommodate these students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The individual states aren't shelling out for the grad students salaries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me give you an explicit example. Take a student that comes to Berkeley for his PhD. Often times, it takes at least one year for that student to establish residency, especially if he's from a foreign country. Hence, during that time, he's a "non-resident" student and hence, technically, has to pay the OOS fee. But the reality is, he personally pays nothing because that extra fee is covered by the department. Like I said, PhD students don't pay anything: in fact, they get paid.</p>
<p>So where exactly does the money to cover the OOS fee come from? The department has a fund that covers these costs. But where does this fund come from? In effect, it's the state. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure you could in theory do the same voucher system for k-12 but where it has been tried the results have been underwhelming. Private sector is no magic bullet. There are a boatload of private schools that can't even compare with the worst UC and many of the Cal State campuses. It is not any more efficient, and in many cases less so to have private over public education. So we have a mixed system and people are free to choose as they wish. Some taxpayers may never use a public school from K-grad school and others will be public all the way. There is a ton of fat in many of the better privates so they are hardly models of efficiency. If they wanted they could easily take many more students than they do, but they don't so we have the publics to make up for their wasteful ways. Do students really need $300,000,000 dorms??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, like I said, the problem is that nobody has ever truly tried such a system, at least, not in the last 200 years or so (ever since the rise of publicly funded education). What I mean to "truly try" such a system is to imagine a world where there are no schools at all, including no public schools, and then let a private industry spring up to serve the market. Right now, like I said, the major problem is that public schools obviously do exist, and their mere presence crowds out the space for private schools. </p>
<p>Look, let me give you an example. Food is an even more important commodity than is education - for you can live without being educated, but you can't live if you don't eat. Yet there are no such things as "public supermarkets" or "public restaurants". The government simply allows the private sector to provide food, and provides food stamps (which are akin to vouchers) to those who are too poor to afford food. On the other hand, if the government had decided to build "public supermarkets" and "public restaurants", then I think it's clear that we wouldn't have the large and diverse private food industry that we have today, as they would be crowded out. Instead, we would just probably have private upscale specialty restaurants and supermarkets (i.e. Whole Foods), as the "public" supermarkets would serve the masses. But that wouldn't make the public supermarkets inherently better. It would just mean that they were first to appear, and hence inhibited the private market from developing. </p>
<p>Now, back to the issue of education. If the state of California had never built the UC and CSU systems, but instead had just given its citizens vouchers, I strongly suspect that we would have a very diverse system of private colleges in the state. Or heck, the state could have built the UC's and CSU's, but as private colleges that would have had to compete for those vouchers. That would have put everybody on an even playing field and allowed the market to grow naturally. But that never happened, instead the development of the UC's and CSU's, with their subsidy advantages, greatly hindered the development of mass-market private colleges in the state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see where you're heading but I don't think it changes anything. Better students typically look for the better universities anyway and the vast majority of prospective students just apply to / go to whatever state university is closest to them and the best value for the money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think it does change quite a bit, for it removes an important source of friction in the system. The best public school in the country is probably Berkeley. There probably are plenty of OOS students who could get into Berkeley but don't go because they can't afford the OOS costs (and Berkeley doesn't exactly provide a lot of aid to OOS students). Similarly, there are probably plenty of OOS students who don't even apply to Berkeley for the same reason: they know they wouldn't be able to afford it, so why waste time in applying? But if the students could afford it, i.e. perhaps through a theoretical nationwide voucher system as discussed previously, then they probably would apply. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as the situation stands right now, OOS admissions to Berkeley (or any UC) is significantly harder than is in-state admissions, such that many strong OOS students are turned down in favor of less strong instate students. The upshot is that Berkeley (and all UC's) admits a significant percentage of students - almost all of whom are instate - who will either flunk out or will barely graduate (i.e. with a GPA barely above a 2.0). These students would have been better off if they had just gone to an easier school, including perhaps a state school in one of the other states. It's a matter of optimal matching; students should attend the school that matches their abilities, and they certainly shouldn't attend a school that is simply too hard for them. Allowing students to pick from the entire gamut of state schools allows for more optimal matching. </p>
<p>Think of it like dating. If you're restricted to dating only people within the town that you live in, you may end up marrying somebody who isn't really a good match. But if there was a way for you to meet people nationwide, then there is a far higher chance for you to find somebody who is exactly what you're looking for.</p>
<p>Problem is some of those come from the best admits and some from the worst. The predictive ability in admissions is only marginal. I'd bet nearly as many non grads, excluding AA admits, come from the upper half as the lower half of the class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So where exactly does the money to cover the OOS fee come from? The department has a fund that covers these costs. But where does this fund come from? In effect, it's the state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it doesn't, it comes from grants the faculty members receive. If I was at UCSB, I wouldn't be getting paid in any way from California taxpayers, I'd be getting paid in some way either from the federal government, a private company, or through some fellowship I'd win from a private organization. There would be no "free money" out of the taxpayer's coffers.</p>
<p>The only argument I can really see for preferential treatment of grad admissions is for the payment of the salaries of the professors, but then, I could see it argued that they're still providing a full service to the taxpayers by teaching classes and taking on undergrads within their labs.</p>
<p>How long does it take to become a citizen of a new state? What could stop professors from using their grant money to fund a student while they become residents of the state they're going to school? Once their residency is of the state they're attending in, should they be treated any differently than someone who has been living there for twenty years?</p>
<p>"Food is an even more important commodity than is education - for you can live without being educated, but you can't live if you don't eat. Yet there are no such things as "public supermarkets" or "public restaurants". The government simply allows the private sector to provide food, and provides food stamps (which are akin to vouchers) to those who are too poor to afford food."</p>
<p>Actually, the government is very involved in food pricing. There are farm subsidies, price supports, pullout programs, etc. The government knows that healthy food must be available to all at a reasonable price or there will be a lot of problems in society. The government is also heavily involved in supporting agri-business. The difference between food programs and education programs is that food programs are national while education programs are run at the state level. Just like with food, the society is better off if there is a resonable level of higher education available to all at a resonable cost. The fact that California, Michigan, Virginia and some other states have high quality higher education is a testament to the citizens of the states that place a high value on access to high quality higher education to its citizens who are qualified. </p>
<p>What you are really looking for a is a national college system that is open to all and supported by a national tax base. However, that is unlikely to happen as education has always been seen to be the responsibility of each state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No it doesn't, it comes from grants the faculty members receive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no it doesn't. Not really. See below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
f I was at UCSB, I wouldn't be getting paid in any way from California taxpayers, I'd be getting paid in some way either from the federal government, a private company, or through some fellowship I'd win from a private organization. There would be no "free money" out of the taxpayer's coffe
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If what you are saying is true, ask yourself, why exactly do the UC's want the grad students to establish California state residency as soon as feasible, and in fact (at least in the case of Berkeley, and I have to assume also UCSB), demands that you do so? After all, if, as you say, all of the funding comes from outside sources anyway, then why do they care so much about whether you become a state resident or not? </p>
<p>The reason why they care is simple - they don't want to have to pay your OOS fees, as they want to be able to switch that funding to something else. If every PhD student were to switch to become a California state resident, then your department would have more money to do other things. But think about what that means. That means that the state is in effect subsidizing your education as an OOS student, by just charging you less when you are a (temporarily) in-state resident.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example that will make it more clear. Take an OOS guy who has been admitted to PhD programs at both Berkeley and Stanford. Let's say he goes to Berkeley. He then switches his residency to California. That means that he is "charged" the in-state fee, which means that his departmental funding can be less. The Berkeley department can use that savings to do other things.</p>
<p>Now, instead, let's say that he went to Stanford. He still changes his residency to California. But that doesn't mean he gets charged less, because Stanford is a private school and hence doesn't care about state residency. So he still gets "charged" the same. Which means that Stanford has to provide him with more funding to cover those "charges". </p>
<p>Now, since the Berkeley and Stanford departments are presumably both getting their research funding from the same sources (grants, private funding, etc.), what that basically means is that the Berkeley department has more money to spend because of the taxpayer subsidy. So, in effect, the state is providing extra money to Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The only argument I can really see for preferential treatment of grad admissions is for the payment of the salaries of the professors, but then, I could see it argued that they're still providing a full service to the taxpayers by teaching classes and taking on undergrads within their labs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. I think the Berkeley/Stanford example is quite clear, once you work out the accounting. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How long does it take to become a citizen of a new state?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Depends on the state, but it is relatively easy for graduate students because they can easily establish an independent source of income: their funding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What could stop professors from using their grant money to fund a student while they become residents of the state they're going to school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nothing, and that's precisely what does happen. But, like I said, the profs at the private schools (i.e. Stanford) have to fully cover their students costs whether they become state residents or not. The profs at the public schools do not, because the students can get a state residency tuition discount. In effect, what that means is that public schools profs get a "grant advantage" over private school profs. Why should they get that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Once their residency is of the state they're attending in, should they be treated any differently than someone who has been living there for twenty years?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You tell me. That sounds like a political question.</p>
<p>The way you should look at the situation is to consider a guy who has been living and working and paying taxes in California for 20 years, but can't get into UC (or his kids can't get into UC), and then telling him that his taxes are instead going to support a guy who has just arrived from somewhere else and has never paid a dime in California taxes before, but who is now going to UC (and just declared state residency). How do think the former guy is going to feel?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the government is very involved in food pricing. There are farm subsidies, price supports, pullout programs, etc. The government knows that healthy food must be available to all at a reasonable price or there will be a lot of problems in society. The government is also heavily involved in supporting agri-business. The difference between food programs and education programs is that food programs are national while education programs are run at the state level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, there is an even more fundamental difference. The government is not a food end-provider. What that means is what I said before - the government does not run supermarkets, it does not run restaurants. Granted, the government sets food standards and directs the food markets, including pricing, but it does not itself provide the end product. </p>
<p>In the case of education, the government itself provides the end product, in the form of public schools. It is the necessity of that that I question. Does the government really need to actually provide education. Wouldn't it just be enough to set standards and shape the market, but then let the private sector actually work out the specifics about how to meet those standards? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just like with food, the society is better off if there is a resonable level of higher education available to all at a resonable cost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, see above. The US is clearly the most well-fed nations in the world, so much so that obesity is one of the nation's top killers. What that means is that the private sector is clearly doing a very good (in fact, probably too good) of a job in providing food. Contrast that with nations where food was provided by government stores. The USSR comes to mind, with the shrunken selections and mass queueing. Gorbachev was spurred to launch political reforms when he marveled at the variety of foodstuffs available at Western (private) supermarkets. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that California, Michigan, Virginia and some other states have high quality higher education is a testament to the citizens of the states that place a high value on access to high quality higher education to its citizens who are qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said before, I think I can come up with another story: that it really had to do with accidents of history. For example, have you noticed that not a single state that has an Ivy also has a strong public university system? Do you think that's really a coincidence? I think it simply shows that the Ivies got there first and 'sucked out all of the available oxygen'. Massachusetts, for example, will probably never have a truly great public school system not because their citizens don't care about education (in fact, Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to pass compulsory education laws), but simply because Harvard dominates the Massachusetts educational landscape and has for nearly 4 centuries. The only other school in the state that has ever successfully competed against Harvard is MIT, and they did so only by vigorously exploiting a sector in which Harvard was weak (technical training). </p>
<p>Put another way, let's say that the Ivies had been founded in California. Do you then really think that the UC system - if it would have even been built at all - would be as strong as it is now? Let's face it. If UC successfully exploited an opportunity, it also meant that there was opportunity to be had. UC was already established years before Stanford or Caltech even existed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What you are really looking for a is a national college system that is open to all and supported by a national tax base.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I'm not really "looking" for anything. I am simply pointing out that the status quo didn't have to be this way. We could have easily ended up with a quite different system. There was nothing inevitable about the current state of affairs.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The upshot is that Berkeley (and all UC's) admits a significant percentage of students - almost all of whom are instate - who will either flunk out or will barely graduate (i.e. with a GPA barely above a 2.0). These students would have been better off if they had just gone to an easier school, including perhaps a state school in one of the other states.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Or, if these students were instead picked up by an Ivy, or another private school, they will be watched and tutored and pulled through to graduation. The private schools, which are much smaller than these large publics, have a vested interest in ensuring all their students graduate. They don't let students fall through the cracks. The larger public universities don't have the bandwidth to monitor all their students. Going to a large public, including all the UCs, is a challenge. You are not assigned, or even guaranteed the classes you need, you need to fight for them. You need to be self reliant in getting any or all administration done yourself. Professors are graded on research, not teaching, so they have no interest in inflating grades. Helicoptored students find a harsh reality at large public universities.</p>