<p>Corbett is publicly saying he doesn’t believe all theexisting college branch campuses are needed. Corbett also is publicly saying that he wants public universities to consider whether they should become totally private (which would result in much higher tuition for PA. residents).</p>
<p>Corbett has also said that he wants to phase out ALL state dollars to public colleges, and instead just rely upon need-based grants to individual students. In effect, he wants to go to a voucher system for colleges. However, he is also cutting those state grants to individuals with financial need. </p>
<p>However, most of the press in PA. serve little more than as a steno pool, and the newspapers just print AP articles. They are letting Corbett get away with saying that the only alternative is an income tax increase, when actually there are alternatives such as slowing down his cuts to business taxes and closing the Delaware Loophole that allows many large corporations to avoid PA. taxes.</p>
<p>Charlie - do you have a link to those public statements from Corbett? I’ve been on the road all week without ready access to local news. The thing is, individual grants have been chopped as well. PHEAA need-based grants have been cut back and the SciTech merit grants were closed to new recipients last year. There was a Governor Scholar (sic) program a few years back, which is completely gone. If Corbett really plans to issue college vouchers they won’t be worth much. I guess that’s what you were saying.</p>
<p>Seniors vote, and younger ones often don’t. I think it really comes down to that.</p>
<p>As a small businessman myself, I could argue that PA’s tax environment is quite favorable to small businesses. It’s easy to form an S Corporation and pay the 3.07% personal rate. It’s much better here than in NY or CA, for example. There are so many other ways around the 10% corporate rate that it’s hard to believe many companies actually pay that much. </p>
<p>There are so many other more important factors driving economic development. CMU and Pitt, especially, have been economic drivers with direct employment and start-ups. Both are members of the Association of American Universities. Penn State and UPenn are also members, so 4 of the 61 AAU members are located in Pennsylvania. Without them, we would be living in an economic wasteland. Corbett should be investing in this, not cutting back.</p>
<p>It is interesting to see other states using their universities as economic engines. The cities realize this - Pittsburgh and Philadelphia both know that most of their employment growth has come from universities and health care, and that health care is directly connected to the universities. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania attracts huge numbers of affluent out of state students, some of whom stay and create new businesses. Part of the reason is that most of Pennsylvania’s public universities were of higher quality than what was offered in New Jersey, on the average. One third of the students at Pitt and University Park are out of state, and there are also high numbers at East Stroudsburg, Temple, West Chester and others. However, with these severe cuts, that situation could rapidly change. Those out of state students effectively subsidize the tuition of in-state students. </p>
<p>One person said Corbett is trying to do “Privatization With a Plan.” He makes very few clear public statements about what he really intends to do. </p>
<p>Here is what Corbett said the day after his budget speech on PA. Cable News, when he actually took a real question from a citizen about the university cuts: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>He kept saying that he taught in a school for a year. (He then left to go to a 4th tier law school along the Mexican border - I guess he couldn’t get into Pitt, Dickinson or Temple’s law schools). </p></li>
<li><p>He justified the cuts to Penn State by complaining that it costs $93,000 to earn a Penn State degree. He said Penn State needs to decide whether it is a public or private university. (Is he encouraging Penn State and Pitt to go private, and charge much more tuition to Pennsylvania residents???) </p></li>
<li><p>He didn’t mention that he also is cutting community colleges, which provide the most affordable tuition and serve large numbers of low income students and displaced workers in need of retraining. </p></li>
<li><p>He justified the cuts to the universities by saying that truck drivers make more than school teachers. </p></li>
<li><p>He justified the cuts to the universities by saying that there are not enough teaching jobs for all of the people who graduate from public and private colleges in PA. with teaching degrees. </p></li>
<li><p>He kept repeating that he refused to increase taxes. He didn’t mention that his budget includes a $247 million business tax reduction that approximately equal to the $257 million he wants to cut from public colleges. He also didn’t mention other ways of raising revenue, such as closing the Delaware loophole that allows large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of PA. taxes by funneling profits to subsidiaries in the state of Delaware. Many other states have closed that loophole. By the way, the vast majority of corporations in Pa. don’t pay any corporate income tax to the state.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The governor is doing just what he said he would when he got elected. Everyone might not like it, but at least he is sticking to his platform, not people pleasing for re-election. It is my personal opinion that he is correct to cut some funding. Our government is spending too much and spending needs to be cut. That requires removing funds from people and industries that are used to it; obviously people are going to be upset about it. Those who cannot afford the tuition hikes will simply get more need-based aid as long as their EFC doesn’t change. </p>
<p>It is NOT the responsibility of the government to provide students with a college degree. They must provide the opportunity for a high school diploma. Over subsidizing college education is, over time, is making a college degree the equivalent of a high school diploma. </p>
<p>Finally, i noticed somebody was criticizing that these schools are essentially private now because of low state funding. That this would make them too expensive like the rest of the private schools. I, as well as MANY others can attend many private universities cheaper than MANY public universities. Sometimes that is because of a families EFC. sometimes it is because of scholarships. </p>
<p>I’m not trying to start a war here, it is just my personal opinion. I am an admitted student to Pitt for Fall 2012, and my decision to attend will not include the consideration of a small tuition change due to less state support; but instead, what i think the education is worth, how much i like the school, and what opportunities Pitt will provide me.</p>
<p>Take a look at the data for each public university on collegeboard.com. None of the public universities in PA. come close to meeting all of students’ financial need. Penn State is only about 50%. The Governor is at the same time cutting the PHEAA program that provides need based grants directly to students.</p>
<p>There are some solutions - close the Delaware Loophole that allows many corporations to unfairly avoid PA. taxes. Delay the reductions in the State business tax rates. Raise the gas tax fee to a rate that is equal to an average for similar states, instead of having one of the lowest rates in the country. Spend some of the state’s surplus, which Corbett says he needs to save for “a rainy day.” Hey, its really raining down here.</p>
<p>Other states such as Maryland are handling these matters in a much more intelligent matter. They are rewarding universities with funding if they improve cost-efficiencies, avoid large tuition increases and increase enrollments in science, technological and other fields where there are the greatest needs. That may involve financially penalizing some universities that refuse to adapt. However, it doesn’t involve blindly slashing every university’s funding with a machete.</p>
<p>The person posting above says he is OK with a “small tuition increase.” The small tuition increase will occur anyway just to keep up with inflation. The issue is a large tuition increase or major cutbacks in course offerings and majors if the total state cut equals 50% over 2 years, as the Governor proposes.</p>
<p>Nobody is forcing anyone to attend PA public schools. If they want to be competitive, they have to adapt, aka free market, aka capitalism. As far as cutting grants…good! We should be giving more interest free loans and such, not free money or grants. Schools can do that on a merit base. PA doesn’t owe anyone a free or cheap education. Qualified kids can earn a free or cheap education.</p>
<p>PA might not owe its citizens a cheap research-based higher education, but the other 49 states have decided that it is a higher priority than Pennsylvania. If a youth brain drain of occurs as a Pennsylvania as a result because it is cheaper to go to out of state public schools than instate, or if there is a loss of an educated workforce to attract new companies, then the already aging state will suffer the consequences. In Pittsburgh especially, the major economic engines of that whole region are the universities there. So you have to ask, what are the priorities? It is the right of Pennsylvanians to say that higher education isn’t important, but I’m not sure it is smart. </p>
<p>Also, you are talking about a cut to one sector that will be over 50% over two years if this proposal is passed when the total state budget will have only been reduced by about 4% (and that was all last year, this year it is flat, but higher ed is getting a 30% cut). That is more than disproportionate.</p>
<p>Further, if you want to go back to the founding fathers, we can look at the charter of the University of Pittsburgh in 1787, awarded just months before the Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia.</p>
<p>It stated "the education of youth ought to be a primary object with every government.” </p>
<p>Pitt’s founder, Hugh Henry Brackenridge, a chaplain in George Washington’s army and later a Pennsylvania supreme court judge state in the arguments for the school’s charter that: “We all know that the strength of a state greatly consists in the superior mental powers of its inhabitants.”</p>
<p>I suppose things have changed quite a bit in Pennsylvania since 1787.</p>
<p>“It is NOT the responsibility of the government to provide students with a college degree. They must provide the opportunity for a high school diploma. Over subsidizing college education is, over time, is making a college degree the equivalent of a high school diploma.”</p>
<p>High school diplomas don’t cut it anymore in the current global information society. Governments recognize this and help us remain competitive by making it financially easier for many to get a college degree to get jobs in all kinds of industries. The argument above is specious. Pennquack hit the mark.</p>
<p>By the way, ant-government school funding folks, stop with the caps. We can read. Please.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I believe Pitt became supported by the state in the 1960s because the U. at the time was having financial problems.</p></li>
<li><p>Loans are fine up to a point. However, the interest rate for new federally subsidized college loans will double after July of this year. There will no longer be any federal subsidy of the interest on graduate and professional school loans. The full interest will accrue while a student is in school.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>High school diplomas work for many sectors. I’m not saying college degrees arent important, because they are. The government should not be responsible for the bill though. Our country is 15 trillion in debt! Maybe other states should follow in PA’s footsteps. </p>
Sure…increase corporate taxes. Tax the other guy. The same old mantra.</p>
<p>Raise the gas tax? Are you aware that in PA we already pay at least a nickel more a gallon than the US average? Sure lets pile on some NEW or larger tax.</p>
I’m not sure how attending college out of state could/would be considered a “youth brain drain”. States lose their educated young people when there are not enough jobs/employers for them to work close to home. We should be FAR more concerned with taxing these employers out of PA than worrying about whether someone educated at tOSU will not be attractive to PA employers.</p>
<p>Great point in that article about Pitt not being able to continue to charge state college tuition when it is not being supported like a state college. Even though Pitt and Penn State are expensive as state schools go, they are no where near private school costs.</p>
<p>And ironically, received a higher proportion of its budget from the state prior to 1966 than it does now.</p>
<p>It was private, and still is private in governance, but has always received state support, back to its original state charter when it was granted land from the state to help initially finance it.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for the other poster, but states also don’t attract new business when they don’t have an educated work force, particularly in the high tech sectors. Once you lose a student, to say Virginia or Maryland, my guess is it is harder to get them back, and high tech companies will follow. The bottom line is, low education manufacturing jobs are not making a come back.</p>
<p>It’s not an easy decision, but the there is certainly a thoroughly disproportionate cut into higher education. It’s up to the state to decide if that sector is important for its future. Apparently, it is deciding that it isn’t.</p>
<p>Like it or not, Pennsylvania has to compete for companies and population with New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio. An educated work force is a major draw for a company. A state without zero public research universities might raise some eyebrows.</p>