<p>
I’d certainly hope so. Both PSU and Pitt “seem” to be more generous with OOS FA to attract the higher achieving OOS students, but the time might be at hand to raise the OOS tuition level to the point where they cannot recruit enough OOS students for geographical diversity. I don’t know what that number is, but a large percentage of my daughters Nursing class is from OOS.</p>
<p>I watched the news conference of Penn State President Spanier. He says that OOS students are paying the FULL cost of their education already. I would imagine the same is true for Pitt. Can’t imagine they would make OOS tuition subsidize the PA students, but who knows? More likely future scholarships would be scaled back. Spanier also said there is great concern that if tuition is raised too high, too many students would choose other options and they would lose more money.
[State</a> College, PA - Spanier: ‘Abraham Lincoln Is Weeping’ as Corbett Pushes Penn State Cuts](<a href=“http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/spanier-abraham-lincoln-is-weeping-as-corbett-pushes-penn-state-cuts-680540/]State”>http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/spanier-abraham-lincoln-is-weeping-as-corbett-pushes-penn-state-cuts-680540/)</p>
<p>Looks like Pitt set tuition for the current school year around July 16, 2010 so we’ll just have to wait and see. They raised IS by 5.5% and OOS by 3%. I’m guessing those increases will be tripled this year?</p>
<p>As an OOS parent who has a junior daughter considering Pitt and Penn State, I am watching this closely. Penn State is already very expensive OOS. If Pitt and Penn State have big increases over the next year, we are going to have to look elsewhere.</p>
<p>Penn State already treats out of state applicants the same as in state for admissions. That is unusual compared to most state universities, which give preference to their own state’s students. U. Park is already 1/3 out of state. </p>
<p>If this budget cut goes through, the next logical step for Penn State would be to: a) significantly increase in-state tuition and b) actively recruit a higher percentage of out of state students who pay full cost. In fact, they would be tempted to give preference in admissions to out of state students, which is happening in California. That would really screw PA. residents.</p>
<p>This is more of a political issue for me. Education funding is not a transfer payment, it’s an investment and Corbett’s priorities are selfish and short-sighted. Taxes in PA, and in Pittsburgh, are already about the lowest they’ve been in decades.</p>
<p>Whatever happens, I can afford my kid’s tuition even if it goes up 20% in a year. My parents faced that in the high-inflation 1970s. My 2 younger kids will have other college choices when the time comes, both in-state and out-of-state. But these education cuts are damaging to the economy and civil society; that’s the point.</p>
<p>
How are they selfish?
So there shouldn’t be a problem with raising taxes for an important priority like education? Yours may be a minority opinion among the voters of PA.</p>
<p>Refusing to consider severance taxes on oil and gas to accommodate campaign contributors is selfish. Pennsylvania is the only oil and gas producing state that does not impose these taxes. The citizens of the state should benefit if it is going to allow the exploitation of its natural resources and not just suffer (and pay for) the adverse environmental impacts.</p>
<p>Education is one of the jobs of the state government and an investment in the state’s future and economy. If the state is running deficits, yes new revenue will be required to pay for it. Sometimes, leaders need to lead and do the right thing notwithstanding the electoral consequences. It’s easy to get elected promising no new taxes when the state has massive deficits (it’s like promising free candy running for grade school student government) but it is irresponsible.</p>
<p>
What type of logic is this? Any decision that benefits any campaign contributor is an accommodation and selfish…even if the Governor was VERY clear during his campaign that he was NOT going to tax this?
No. Spend and tax is not the only choice. Reducing services and the size of state government is an alternative. As stated earlier, the voters that elected Governor Corbett and the current legislature have made it clear that they do not want their elected officials to raise taxes and fees.
Let me make sure I understand this: It is OK to promise no new taxes why running for government but it is irresponsible after being elected to keep your campaign promises? Perhaps the reason it is “easy to get elected promising no new taxes” is because the taxpayers/voters of the state actually do NOT want any increase in taxes even if it means a reduction in services. </p>
<p>I don’t vote for government “leaders” to do the right thing for me regardless of my wishes. I vote for them to “represent” me and my opinions. I don’t want to be “saved” by someone who knows whats best for me and how to spend MY tax money despite their campaign promises.</p>
<p>I’m glad you value education. I believe it is a necessity. I can afford private schools but if we don’t invest in education in our country, we’ll be developing a permanent underclass. Without an educated workforce, this country will fail in competition with other countries.</p>
<p>Corbett promised free candy and got himself elected. Good luck to Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>
Again your logic escapes me. Anyone that disagrees with your opinion doesn’t value education?
Not free candy. He promised not to increase the cost of candy, but to give us less of the candy. Too much candy can be unhealthy. It seems those that want/need the candy the most in this state are often the ones paying the least in taxes and other than seniors, are the least likely to drag their posteriors to the polls on voting day.</p>
<p>I would vote for you quakerstake! </p>
<p>@algages, the logic is simple: anyone who defunds education DOES NOT VALUE education.</p>
<p>“tr.v. de·fund·ed, de·fund·ing, de·funds. To stop the flow of funds to…”
Who has/is suggesting we need to “defund” education? Oh wait…you didn’t mean defund, you meant anyone that doesn’t fund education at the levels you and quakerstake think is appropriate doesn’t value education. I think I am going to be able to live with not meeting yours and quakerstake’s standards for “valuing education”.</p>
<p>One can argue about the State-supported Universities in Pennsylvania (although on this board, we are a constituency that would advocate for them and their full funding). However, do you really think Pennsylvania was overfunding education in general and needs less??? You want to make sure tax money is well-spent and taxpayers are getting what they pay for but cutting education without considering the consequences is crazy to me.</p>
<p>Can you say hypocrite?</p>
<p>[Governor’s</a> Web Site](<a href=“http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/governor’s_web_site/2985]Governor’s”>http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/governor’s_web_site/2985)</p>
<p>I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to lead the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as your governor. Together, we can achieve our common goal of making Pennsylvania a leader again; a leader in business growth, agriculture, job creation, transportation, energy production and education. </p>
<p>Umm…business growth and job creation require an edcuated workforce. I’m not sure how one expects that to happen when education isn’t made a priority, unless, of course, the priority is to make education unaffordable and unattainable for the citizens of Pennsylvania. If that was the goal, then I think he has achieved it.</p>
<p>
Post #12: "Let’s not lie to ourselves…this state has been underfunding education LONG before the latest Governor took office. "
Post #21 : “The problems with inadequate state funding of education in PA have been around for many decades.”
Post #39: “…those that have continued to vote for politicians in this state that have underfunded education?”</p>
<p>
Let’s not kid ourselves. If all you need to have business growth and job creation in PA is an educated workforce we’d have a LOT more jobs and a LOT fewer college grads without employment (or under employed). This state also needs a tax and business environment that is conducive to attracting business to both invest/reinvest in PA and to start new businesses here. The truth is that the lack of jobs in PA isn’t because education isn’t a priority, it’s because for too many years PA has had tax policies that discouraged the businesses that create jobs.</p>
<p>Yep, all you need is to lower taxes and the jobs pour in. Florida - no personal income tax - current unemployment rate 11.7%; Pennsylvania 8.1%.</p>
<p>^^^
All you need for job growth is no personal income tax? Why do you think that?</p>
<p>I was making the opposite point. PA is competing with other states. Tax policy is only one factor and not the most important one.</p>