<p>"Gov. Tom Corbett criticized Penn State University leaders Friday afternoon, saying they should look to cut their spending before raising tuition, and that he wouldnt attend the next trustees meeting."</p>
<p>Corbett</a> blasts Penn State for trustee meeting in New York City</p>
<p>He sucks. End story.</p>
<p>First, the meeting is being held in NYC in order to recognize and communicate with major donors and corporate partners of the University. That is exactly what needs to be done to promote private funding and career opportunities for grads. </p>
<p>Second, a state needs one or two flagship public universities. Is he trying to crush Penn State into being Southern Swampgas State University?</p>
<p>Third, PA is not overfunding its public colleges. The average funding per in-state student to Penn and Pitt for example is much lower than many comparable universities in other states. Considering inflation, state funding to Penn State and Pitt has not increased in over a decade.</p>
<p>A member of the Paterno family would take the cuts further:
[Take</a> PSU’s slice of budget pie and give it to others | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/03/take_psus_slide_of_budget_pie.html]Take”>Take PSU's slice of budget pie and give it to others - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>Charlie: Why does a state need flagship public colleges? I think they are a waste of taxpayers’ money. Post-secondary education is not a right. Why should the state provide it? </p>
<p>People are always looking for a government hand out. It really sickens me. If it were up to me I wouldnt approve funding for any of these schools.</p>
<p>Why would you say it’s a waste of the taxpayers money when these institutions create jobs and provide the ability for state residents to have more productive careers (increasing the business and personal tax base in the process)? Why shouldn’t taxpayer funds go to things beneficial to the state citizenry that aren’t directly outlined as a right? That’s akin to a business not funding research that’ll bring it a future profit because it’s not explicitly written in their mission statement.</p>
<p>
Perhaps a more accurate example for PA would be: “a business funding research despite not being able to meet payroll because it is explicitly written in their mission statement”.</p>
<p>A business that stops doing R&D will eventually die or be acquired, unless the stoppage is just temporary. A similar thing will happen to PA relative to any other states who manage to do this better; the state will lose even more population, especially among the youngest, along with wealth.</p>
<p>Post secondary education may not be a “right”, but we can’t run a modern economy without it. There is no guarantee that kids from well-off families are going to make the best doctors, engineers, scientists, nurses, teachers, whatever. Some of those well-off kids are bright and motivated, while others are spoiled and lazy. This is why we need public flagship schools, so that the best young people have a chance. Education is not a hand-out, we EXPECT it to pay off in dollars. That is not true of Medicare and Social Security, which are truly hand-outs, nor is it true of the various tax credits, which generally favor one sector over another.</p>
<p>Sure, the education money has to be spent effectively but that doesn’t appear to be the governor’s motive.</p>
<p>Interesting article by Scott Paterno. Governor Rendell tried to push all the federal stimulus money down to the state-owned system and community colleges, but he got jerked back. Are we the only state having this strange state-affiliated system with Pitt, Penn State, Temple, and the other one?</p>
<p>If Corbett shifted funding as Paterno suggested it would be more defensible. At least there would be a strategy. However, if the state-affiliated schools all went back to private it would leave PA without a public engineering program, which is a kind of litmus test. But maybe it’s not essential. Our neighbors WV, OH, and MD all have public schools with engineering, but I don’t think NY does.</p>
<p>I think Scott Paterno’s real interest in the matter was in is using it (and his relevant name recognition) in an attempt to try breath a little life back in his very brief political career.</p>
<p>That’s a terrible analogy. The state receives no benefit from providing welfare colleges. There are plenty of private colleges (that are generally better, by the way). I have no problem with the government sudsidizing education to those in need via financial aid but running these monstrocities of universities on the taxpayers’ backs is wrong. It is socialism. </p>
<p>Philosophically, the government has no business getting involved in academia. The idea that the government is paying the salaries of people who shape the thinking of our populace gives them too much control. What about the idea of free thought? Would there have been a French or American Revolution if the goverment controlled academia during the enlightenment?</p>
<p>People choose to go to public universities for one reason - money. They are willing to put up with larger classes, less access to faculty, difficulty in scheduling required classes, etc. to save money. They are looking for something for nothing. There is no reason that our tax payers should have to fund it. These colleges are basically a social program aimed at the middle class. College is not an entitlement.</p>
<p>In all seriousness, what is next, federal universities?</p>
<p>We already have them. You might have heard of them. They’re called the military academies.</p>
<p>RisingChemist, I want you to name me a single technologically-advanced nation that doesn’t have a system of publicly-subsidized higher education designed to be accessible and affordable to the middle class.</p>
<p><crickets></crickets></p>
<p>RisingChemist - by your definition then there is only one acceptable college in this country - Grove City College. That (and perhaps one other school that I can’t recall) is the only accredited institute of higher learning in this country that takes zero federal dollars. ANY school that accepts ANY local, state or federal money either in the form of finanical aid, research, grants, loans, etc, etc, etc, is participating in a governmental social program.</p>
<p>By the way, Penn State University is not “owned” by the government.</p>
<p>polarscribe: This is America. We don’t have to be like other countries. Maybe you want to keep up these welfare programs because you are too lazy for competition. You won’t get a hand out from me. </p>
<p>The service academies require a commitment of time after graduation. They are not a free hand out. These state colleges are the soup kitchens of higher learning.</p>
<p>Quiettype: Grants and academic funding are available and, as a result, institutions take the money. There is a difference. These are directed at increasing the academic quality of a school, not at providing low cost tuition. They are not welfare. But, since you mention it, there is way too much spending on pointless grants too.</p>
<p>Actually, I think those who only want the wealthy to be able to afford an education are the ones who are afraid of competition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you think we can be a modern, industrialized, technologically-advanced nation without a highly-educated population? Please explain to me how that would work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, you can’t defend your position with logic so you resort to personal attacks. Brilliant stuff.</p>
<p>
You can have both a modern, industrialized, technologically-advanced nation AND a highly-educated population without government financed secondary education. What you won’t have is equal opportunity to secondary education without regard to financial need. It is not necessary to educate anywhere near 100% of a population in order to have a modern, industrialized, technologically-advanced nation.</p>
<p>@aglages; yes, India and China both have an educated middle class, plus a small aristocracy, along with a huge, poverty-stricken underclass. Questions for you and RisingChemist; where do you think you really fit into a scheme like that? And where do your descendants fit in 20+ years?</p>
<p>“You can have both a modern, industrialized, technologically-advanced nation AND a highly-educated population without government financed secondary education.” Where’s the evidence? What model shall we pattern ourselves after? </p>
<p>BTW, PA legislature look slike they’re going to reduce the 50% cut anyway so that’s possibly some good news.</p>