<p>Attending a college out-of-state is definitely a brain drain! Just think about it this way:</p>
<p>Most of the kids who do co-op or intern etc. find their connections through the school. And a LOT of those connections are local companies who have invested in the school (say, donations) and then want to pull interns/employees from the school. </p>
<p>If you go to Virginia (for example), you are much more likely to get “wooed” by a local company down there then you are to get a call from PNC.</p>
<p>How many “kids” attempt to do co-ops or internships?
How many “kids” succeed in finding co-ops or internships?
How many “kids” succeed in finding co-ops or internships close to home (with/without school help)?
How many “kids” first attempt to find jobs close to home?</p>
<p>I think most “kids” want to live close to home if they can find a job there. Regardless of where PA college students are educated, there is an educated work force available if there were employment opportunities in THIS state.</p>
<p>BTW - how much higher would tuition costs have to increase before PSU and Pitt no longer had to turn away MANY in state residents attempting to enroll? The reality is that both schools currently have far more applicants than they can accept.</p>
<p>I disagree with southeasternmom’s statement. A colleges reputation isn’t their acceptance rate. If that were the case, Penn state wouldn’t be so highly ranked as i believe that it is already 55%ish (I’m not sure so don’t quote me on that). PSU has excellent programs and is regarded as one of the best public schools in the country despite the average acceptance. There is a huge upward trend of applicants right now (even with a HUGEEE scandal), so even if tuition goes up, they wouldn’t necessarily have to accept more out of a smaller pool. Most in-state students don’t go to PSU because it is cheap. Because it’s NOT! If it isn’t obvious yet from my previous posts, i believe this is a good thing. We are taking a step in this state to move back towards capitalism and away from the trending socialist ideas that are plaguing america.</p>
<p>Most European universities are free; Canadian ones are very inexpensive - McGill is $2,167 per year tuition for Quebec residents. Oh yeah I forgot - all those countries are socialist.</p>
<p>The answers are…
many
many
none that I am aware of because those programs run through the colleges
many</p>
<p>If kids don’t have the requisite training, the won’t find jobs close to home. If home is Pittsburgh, and you need advanced training in computer science to work at Google, or if you need a strong background in molecular biology or neuroscience to work at Knopp Neurosciences, you aren’t going to get that at Robert Morris. Sorry. Google and Knopp do not want to hire CCAC students. They want the top people coming out of CMU and Pitt. If the talent pool dips, and that is what you are suggesting by pushing people out of state and having the schools lower their admission standards to fill up their rolls, companies will be less inclined to move to or stay in Pittsburgh. That happens all the time. Why do you think companies move to the Bay Area in California…Stanford and Berkeley provides a wealth of talent. They don’t move there because it is so conducive to starting a business politically. </p>
<p>But you are right, local students are more likely to stay local, so you certainly don’t want the quality of the local student talent pool to drop or shrink, you are going to be less likely to produce the workforce these high tech companies need, and less likely to keep a talented computer scientist in Pittsburgh vs Silicon Valley, especially if they originated from outside the state.</p>
<p>It is partly based on admission statistics, and that includes acceptance rate, SAT scores, class rank, etc. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, most people form their opinion of colleges based on US News rankings, and in those rankings, admissions statistics are a significant component of a university’s score.</p>
<p>European universities are not free. They may be cheaper, but last time i checked, there was a financial crisis over there. In addition, most European countries and canada have very high taxes for government help…those are socialist ideas.</p>
<p>12ARt - Please tell me what sectors only require a HS diploma?</p>
<p>My DH is a carpenter - he can’t get good, steady work at middle age because he doesn’t have a construction management degree. A few years ago, you could be a supervisor without a CM degree, but not anymore.</p>
<p>Our county Tech High School has over 68% going onto college. Back in my day, you chose Tech so that you were immediately employable.</p>
<p>So, please, tell me, for my kids who don’t want college, what sectors can I point them too?</p>
<p>I disagree with 12Artleye. A college’s selectivity is important to many prospective, high-performing students - the ones who can start the next Google or make important medical breakthroughs. These are the drivers of the future local economy. The key is to get more highly qualified candidates at the state flagships like Pitt and PSU.</p>
<p>@Longhaul In PA, (where i am from), a TON of high school students are going to work with natural gas companies. I also know quite a few people that have gotten employed with construction companies full time. I have two friends that are going into real estate w/o a degree and there are lots of agricultural jobs in the mid-atlantic that do not require a degree. In addition, anyone looking to start their own business like a few recient grads i know do not need a degree. </p>
<p>@Southeastmom I’m in school right now so i can’t open your link, but i can say that i have spent some decient time in Europe, as well as i know a half dozen foreign exchange students in europe…all i can say is that college is not free, despite what you may see on articles in the internet. I say this from my experience, and my friend’s. </p>
<p>@rmac399 - I aggree that selectivity is important, i am arguing that budget cuts won’t hurt the selectivity ratings and that a reputation isn’t ALL selectivity.</p>
<p>I’m glad your family could afford to spend $5,000 to hire a personal college consultant for you (as you noted on another thread today) and for you to travel throughout Europe. </p>
<p>However, for other families who are not part of the 1%, a $5,000 to $8,000 increase in in-state tuition to make up for state funding would really hurt.</p>
<p>A big price increase would also make many well-qualified in-state students shift to private colleges. With merit and need aid, the price of private universities would be cheaper for the best students in many cases than Pitt, at that point. In fact, my son got merit offers from 3 private colleges/universities last year that each charged over $40,000 sticker price for tuition, which made their net price equal to Pitt’s in-state tuition (who didn’t offer him any aid).</p>
<p>Of course, that is the Governor’s goal - he wants to privatize Pitt and Penn State, and wants to get rid of what he considers unfair competition for the private universities.</p>
<p>A coalition of PA. labor unions has compiled a list of over $2 billion of increased revenues and reduced costs that could be undertaken by the state government to avoid the need to slash funding for education. </p>
<p>These proposals received almost NO attention by the media. The media is letting people believe Corbett = that the only choice is to slash education funding and programs for the needy or to raise their income taxes.</p>
<p>Cost-Savings Recommendations: </p>
<p>Fair Oil and Gas Drilling Statewide Excise Tax: $247 million
Close the Delaware Corporate Tax Loophole: $550 million
Close the Sales Tax Discount Loophole: $74 million
Right-Sizing the Management – Worker Ratio :$214 million
State Contracting Reform: $200 million
Consolidate Prescription Drug Purchases: $50 million
Rebalance Long Term Care: $200 million
Vehicle Fleet Efficiencies: $11 million
Cost-Effective Payment Methods:$50 million
Cut Medicaid Provider Fraud and Abuse: $60 million
Halt Wasteful Charter and Cyber School Costs: $175 million
Reduce Prison Costs While Ensuring Public Safety: $60 million
Improve State Tax Credit Programs: $30 million
Improve State Tax Collections: $231 million
Modernize, Not Privatize, the PLCB: $75 million
Increase Collections under Pennsylvania’s Unclaimed Property Laws: $50 million
Process Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Payments for Other States: $50 million
Leverage More Federal Dollars through the Hospital Assessment: $50 million </p>
<p>Once again Charlie, please leave my situation out of it. Its irrelevant! I understand both sides as i grew up a better half of my life lower middle class. </p>
<p>On a side note, i commend you for your research as some of those solutions to cut the budget are good and i completely agree. </p>
<p>You are not going to change my mind, and i’m not going to change yours. Im just agreeing to disagree</p>
<p>Hey charlie - In the past 30 years, the price of college education has increased 10X, while inflation has been 4X, for a 2.5X increase in real terms … and higher education certainly wasn’t cheap back then. As a reality check, that’s far above the increase in health care costs, and we all know about that price trajectory.</p>
<p>The uncontrolled ramp-up in higher education costs has put all of us in a tough position, including the states and their taxpayers. Every year, universities increase their prices at least double the rate of inflation. It’s not just Pitt/Penn State; the problem is pervasive throughout higher ed.</p>
<p>So it’s not simply a matter of a funding shortfall. After decades of excess, many of us would like to see a bit of restraint. </p>
<p>Don’t you think that the universities could go on a diet as part of the solution? Is it really necessary to grow fatter annually? How about just hanging out at 350 pounds for awhile, fat and happy, at least until the recession is over?</p>
<p>Let me be the first to agree that Corbett’s approach is ham-handed. But at least someone is finally stepping up to the problem. Is it better public policy to keep feeding the beast? How has that approach worked out for PA students and taxpayers?</p>
<p>I’d prefer to see some intelligent belt-tightening, but that certainly hasn’t come voluntarily.</p>