<p>The state funding ONLY supports lower tuition for in-state students. Cutting that funding would hurt in-state students, but there wouldn’t be much effect on classes, resources and opportunities for those attending. Pitt has the endowment, offers scholarships to out-of-state students, attracts a lot of research and grant funding, etc.</p>
<p>Pitt can go back to fully private much easier than Penn State could. Both have been making noise about it. In Pitt’s case, they would become like Syracuse again. One of the Penn State trustees spoke out loud about the Cornell model, but I’m not sure that could really work for Penn State. Both seem reluctant to give up the public mission, but they have to be thinking about it. Right now, the level of state funding probably doesn’t fully fund the difference in tuition. At the same time, the state insists on more control. At some point the schools may decide to sever ties with the state.</p>
<p>This isn’t true. They’ve mentioned multiple times that a loss of state funding (and therefore turning private) would also probably mean the closure of the 4 branch campuses (Johnstown, Greensburg, Bradford, and Titusville). That’s a HUGE blow for all the students, faculty, and staff that work at and attend these schools.</p>
<p>if penn State and Pitt lose their state funding, they will close all of their branch campuses that are located in Republican legislative districts.</p>
<p>My guess is that Pitt would try to find some arrange with the state, ala the Cornell model, to keep its branch campuses “state-related”. Titusville would be in real trouble, but I don’t think they shut all of them. They’ve added a lot of programs and facilities to Greensburg and Johnstown lately (Bradford too), so I could see them scaling back programs and maybe combining some. My guess is that PSU would try to keep its branches state-related as well, along with its agriculture school and tech school. PSU has so many branches though, I don’t know how they wouldn’t have to close some of them.</p>
<p>@awesome - here is my basis for saying that. The state funding is currently $185.4M and the tuition difference is currently $9408 in Arts and Sciences. Therefore, the state covers the tuition subsidy for up to 19,707 full-time-equivalents (FTE).</p>
<p>The 2012 university fact book lists 25,707 FTE from Pennsylvania attending all campuses. That means the state isn’t covering the tuition subsidy for everyone from PA. I could refine this estimate but I don’t feel it would change the conclusion.</p>
<p>There are 6,543 FTE on all the branch campuses, and I assume the vast majority are in-state. If the tuition subsidy erodes further, their pool of students will dry up and they would have to close. The numbers indicate that the state is not directly supporting branch campuses; the support is indirect through tuition subsidy, which allows in-state students to atttend.</p>
<p>I don’t think the branch campuses can stay with Pitt or Penn State if they go private. Currently they serve mostly in-state students who can’t (immediately) get into the main campus, or need to be within commuting distance, and that mission goes away for a private school. There aren’t many private schools with branch campuses, and those that exist seem to be overseas or built into a new up-scale opportunity (e.g. [Cornell</a> in NYC](<a href=“Cornell in NYC | Cornell University”>Cornell in NYC | Cornell University)).</p>
<p>I think the Pitt or Penn State branches would have to merge into the state-owned system, which hopefully becomes stronger as a result.</p>
<p>Another factor: if the in-state tuition goes up substantially because of continual slashing of state funding, the average quality of the undergrad in-state students who decide to go to Pitt will go down. Other options will look more cost-effective to the better students in PA. That decline will bring down overall stats, which will make Pitt less attractive to top out of state students. That decline in turn will hurt faculty recruitment, and the cycle worsens.</p>
<p>All of Pitt’s regional campuses were founded when Pitt was still private. But you are right, that is not typical.</p>
<p>UPJ has very strong community support. I can’t see it closing.</p>
<p>Pitt-Bradford has the advantage of being on the NY State border, so it has more out-of-state students than the rest, but that is all it has going for it.</p>
<p>The things Pitt’s regionals have going for them (except Titusville which is tiny and only two years) is that they are actually well regarded as schools in their own right. Princeton Review, for instance, gives them good marks and US News has ranked UPJ and UPB in the past. The harsh reality is that most of Penn State’s 19 branches are not well regarded and most have pretty poor admissions stats. There is more hope for Pitt’s campuses than PSU’s, IMO. But I think they’d try to keep their tuition subsidized by the state if they could, because large tuition increases at these will really hurt their admissions numbers, but I don’t know if that will result in shutting down Pitt’s three 4-year regional campuses completely.</p>
<p>That will probably happen at first, at least in the short term. Pitt is at 32% OOS right now. It has been ramping up OOS recruitment for the last half-decade or more because of the yearly slashing of state support even prior to these mega cuts, because as was pointed out above, the state isn’t even covering the in-state tuition discount at this point. That % will jump to 50% or more. The other thing Pitt will likely do to combat drop in student quality is cap or roll back admissions. Pitt has been expanding the number of students it takes every year, but at the same time has been able to become more selective, so it can simply halt the increase in admissions to combat less demand due to higher tuition. The other thing I think you will see, and Pitt has also been doing this, is putting even more reserves and fundraising effort into financial aid. So while you’re probably right in the short term about it hurting Pitt, these things will be phased in and out (not done abruptly) so I don’t think in the long run the quality of Pitt will suffer. It could even increase, but at the cost of the loss of affordable access to Pitt for Pennsylvania’s citizens.</p>
<p>So, in effect, the Governor’s Budget Cuts will cut access to the high quality universities that PA. residents have been building up for all of these years. Out of state students will increase and most in-state students won’t be able to afford it.</p>
<p>Exactly PA residents will not be able to attend that which we helped create with our tax dollars. Except the Wealthy, of course and Dr’s etc who work for Penn State as we also underwrite their children’s college education. Corbett has made it clear how he feels about Education in PA, K-12 and Secondary. He prefers an uneducated electorate. He refuses to tax Marcellus Shale even as they destroy our public resources leaving us an enormous mess to clean up. Last year, he cut Education $1 Billion.</p>
Exactly how many of your tax dollars was used to create PSU and Pitt?
No he doesn’t. He “prefers” a state that doesn’t spend more than the revenues it receives. He also “prefers” not to increase the taxes the residents of HIS state pay. That would of course be beneficial primarily to those that actually pay taxes in PA…not necessarily the voters that did not vote for him.</p>
<p>The chart shows how devastating cuts could be avoided to higher education and public schools in Pa by simply closing tax loopholes, delaying a business tax cut and not starting a new loan program. PA. is the ONLY state in the country that does not tax cigars and chewing tobacco. We are one of the few states that still allows corporations to use the Delaware Loophole to avoid paying corporate income taxes.</p>
<p>I am sure there is another election in a few years. Perhaps PA can elect a Governor and representatives that will further increase it’s national reputation as a state that is not friendly to business and where too few taxpayers support too many “residents”. Hope springs eternal…LOL</p>