<p>UCDAlum, how do you explain Cal, Michigan, UCLA and UVa all having 85%-90% graduation rates when their private peers are graduating 90%-95% of their students? Given your statement, you would expect a much larger difference in graduation rates, particularly when you consider the fact that their private peers are much smaller and as such, have slightly stronger student bodies at the bottom quartile.</p>
<p>As for not being guaranteed a class, that is often exagerated. First of all, not matter the university, a student will never be guaranteed a class. Secondly, I have personally never been locked out of a class and statistically speaking, the odds of being locked out of a class at most respectable state universities are no greater than at a respectable private university.</p>
<p>I went to a UC (Davis), as did my husband (Cal), as does my daughter(UCLA). We have all had the thrill of having the class we needed that quarter coming up full when we are eligible to sign up for classes. (In my day it was the sprint from department to department to hand in your class card, now adays it's the hovering over the computer hoping the internet doesn't go down when your window opens.) Yes, eventually you will have more units than other people who want that class and will be first priority for it, but then it will be a problem graduating in 4 years. People who graduate from the UCs have not only earned the degree, they have proven they can cut through the red tape and work the system to get what they need to get. </p>
<p>My husband actually graduated from both Berkeley and Stanford, and he said the difference was amazing.</p>
<p>I guess the UCs are really bad. That seldom happens at Michigan. Obvously, it happens to a small degree anywhere. I too have friends who attended Cornell, Northwestern, Stanford etc...and they always complained about large classes (80+ students for intermediate level classes), horrible advisors who didn't care about students and of course, being locked out of a class they wanted to take. And those weren't one offs. They weren't the exception. Such occurances were common place. There are never guarantees, regardless of the university. </p>
<p>But you haven't answered my question. How do you explain the 89% graduation rates at Cal and UCLA? Are they lying? Most elite private universities have graduation rates in the 90%-95% range.</p>
<p>The graduation rates of the elite public schools like UMich, Berkeley and UVA are on par with private schools, but the same is not the case once you get past the Tier-1 public schools. What about states other than Virginia, Michigan and California? Students are exposed to bureaucratic nightmares with regards to registering for classes and are often left with little to no academic advising.</p>
<p>I agree EAD, but that's one of my main issues when comparing publics to Ivies. Ivies are just 8 universities, all elite. Publics go from really horrible to Cal, which is a legitimate top 10 university. One should bot use a broad brush when discussing public universities. Besdies, UCDAlum was referring to Cal.</p>
<p>Sakky, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of PhD students paying tuition in the first place, since they're not even taking classes past their first year, generally, and pretty much become full time (and then some) research employees of the university. Upgrades to classrooms, new academic buildings, student centers, and those sorts of things seem to have a minimal effect upon graduate students, and it's always seemed weird to me that they're expected to come up with some form of tuition. It's always seemed like a way for universities to milk fellowships and corporate sponsors for a ton of money.</p>
<p>I do see what you're saying about how researchers at public universities get a break on the amount of their research funds which has to be put towards tuition, and how it is a bit of an unfair advantage. If anything, though, this should be seen as an unfair advantage for the California taxpayer at publics, since they're able to get the same caliber work for what amounts to almost no cost to the taxpayers.</p>
<p>We've all heard stats about how schools spend $XXXXX many more dollars on their undergrads than they charge for tuition, does anyone know what the average spending per graduate student is for large universities?</p>
<p>State schools give lower tuition to residents for a few reasons. Taxes of course. And since states have their own economies and trades, they want you to graduate from their schools and then contribute back to the state by working in the state. It's all about money. Harvard doesnt really have an incentive to hope its grads stay in the state because Harvard isn't affiliated with Mass..</p>
<p>The idea that state residents are more likely to stay in-state and provide human capital for a growing state economy may be a little outmoded. People are pretty mobile these days. In a state with a lousy economy like Michigan, a quality education from a school like U Mich is probably a one-way ticket out of state for a very large percentage of in-state students, so that Michigan taxpayers end up subsidizing a very large "brain drain" (though of course there's still political demand for it because resident taxpayers want their kids to get a quality education so they can get good jobs, in-state or out-of-state). On the other hand, some schools are talent magnets, drawing the best and the brightest from all parts of the country, indeed all parts of the world, and contributing to a thriving local economy. Certainly Stanford has played that role for Silicon Valley, Harvard-MIT for greater Boston. Cal somewhat less so at the undergrad level because of its strict quota on OOS students and high OOS tuition coupled with low OOS financial aid. Michigan draws a large number of OOS students (35%, compared to 8% at Cal), but my guess is most of them end up leaving; Ann Arbor's economy is pretty strong with lots of knowledge-intensive jobs, but it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the overall state economy. I should think some states might want to rethink the tuition differential, especially if they want to view public universities as engines of economic growth as many now do.</p>
<p>^^^That's far too enlightened a view. We're talking about politicians here and there is no way that they are going to promote the idea of inviting in more OOS students to attend their flagship colleges. If you think this is shortsighted on their part, I would agree, but it is reality. If anything, I expect there to be greater tuition increases for OOS students and political pressure to increase the IS percentage of students at places like U Michigan and U Virginia which currently each take about 1/3 from OOS.</p>
<p>Is it possible for the government to perhaps provide income tax breaks or mandate companies(Big 3, healthcare giants, etc.) to provide special benefits for grads of state schools who choose to settle locally and thus contribute to the state economy instead of relocating? I would imagine UMich grads would need real incentives to stay in-state where the economy is dying when they could just as easily go to the East Coast or go out West.</p>
<p>EAD: It's certainly possible, but don't bet on it happening.</p>
<p>One of the major problems in Upstate New York is that we have a very good K-12 public school system, and a great mix of public and private institutions of higher education that do a wonderful job of educating students. But the students are leaving in droves after they graduate. Charlotte NC is filled with SUNY grads. Same with Dallas. </p>
<p>The irony is that a lot of our higher tax base goes to educate these students, but then they are chased out of the state for lack of jobs, which is really a function of high taxes. It's more complicated than that, but you don't want to get me started on New York State politics.</p>
<p>Back in 1993, the Clinton administration actually proposed something like what you suggest by offering the idea that the government should underwrite all student loans. Loans would then be repaid as a function of income and occupation (so a teacher would have a lower monthly payment than a Wall Street banker) and be paid as part of your bi-weekly W-2 tax withholding. </p>
<p>Under such a framework it would be very easy to administer a system like the one you propose. But the banks shot it down. If you're interested there is an excellent book called "The Bill' that follows the legislation process for the bill. It resulted in the Americorps program and the current hodgepodge framework of private and public loans that is crumbling apart as we speak.</p>
<p>Personally I feel that New York State should provide student loan write-offs to any STEM graduate who lives and work Upstate following graduation. It would certainly be a lot cheaper at recruiting companies with tax breaks at the cost of half a million dollars per job.</p>
<p>One mechanism would be for the state to provide a college loan forgiveness benefit to graduates of state colleges who remain in-state. You could probably even do it as a refundable tax credit on the state income tax.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I don't think all politicians are as venal as you seem to think. I live in Minnesota. Our legislature has a pretty clear understanding that the University of Minnesota is a powerful engine of the Twin Cities' increasingly knowledge-based economy, and the Twin Cities economy in turn drives the economy of the state (along with Rochester and the Mayo Clinic, where the University is building a new campus to feed Rochester's growing health care research complex). They see the U as a talent magnet, not only for faculty and grad students doing primary and applied research, but also for undergrads. I don't think we'll see an elimination of out-of-state tuition anytime soon, but there's at least a lot of support for continuing our tuition reciprocity agreements with surrounding states, partly because it allows a lot of Minnesota kids to go to UW-Madison or elsewhere in the UW system on the cheap, but also because it brings a lot of smart, talented, hard-working kids in from Wisconsin and the Dakotas to feed the growing Twin Cities economy. (And it's pretty much a one-way street as far as the Dakotas are concerned, as not that many Minnesota kids are dying to end up in Grand Forks, Fargo, or Vermillion). I know we here in the Upper Midwest are a bastion of progressivism, but if our legislature gets it, it can't be too many years before others start to see the light.</p>
<p>I could only dream that Upstate New York wakes up one day to find itself no longer attached to downstate, but instead to the land of 10,000 lakes.</p>
<p>"there's at least a lot of support for continuing our tuition reciprocity agreements with surrounding states"</p>
<p>I wish more states set up systems like this. I think it's good for everyone involved when the kids who prefer to be a little farther from home have an "in-state" option. I don't know why Illinois and Indiana don't do this, for instance. I bet there would be equal interest on both sides.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it possible for the government to perhaps provide income tax breaks or mandate companies(Big 3, healthcare giants, etc.) to provide special benefits for grads of state schools who choose to settle locally and thus contribute to the state economy instead of relocating? I would imagine UMich grads would need real incentives to stay in-state where the economy is dying when they could just as easily go to the East Coast or go out West.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know Pennsylvania has programs for students which major in technical fields and agree to get a job and work within Pennsylvania after graduation. Don't remember how much and if it's grants once they enter school or loan forgiveness after school, since I knew I'd probably be going out of state for graduate students and might not return after that (though I do miss PA :().</p>