<p>Of course college graduates are needed in business. But the question is how many, and which majors. Do we need some liberal arts grads? Of course. As many, and the quality of some grads? Not likely.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I think that when federal student loans were started, they were for math, science and engineering students. Can we justify the expansion to all students on the basis of equality? Sure. On the basis of need to grow our economy? hmm not so certain.</p>
<p>One problem I see is that while some may say we do not need so many college grads, every parent wants their child to go to college. Thats only natural. </p>
<p>Thats why I support more aid for STEM students, and closing down bankruptcy exception for private student loans. Lets stop excessive borrowing. Lets encourage STEM kids.</p>
<p>Kipper: Penn State is also “State related.” Actually, that is a model being used in other states - to give their state universities more flexibility in operations, vs. having to work within a state government bureacracy. If you look at the rapidly rising admission standards and the ability to attract out of state students, those are indications that Penn State and Pitt are doing many things right.</p>
<p>Polarscribe: There is market saturation in most fields for college grads. We have a shortage of people in the trades. People are forcing their kids to go to college een when they lack the aptitude or the financial resources. What happens is you have kids go half way through and incur huge debt. Of the ones that graduate they have a soft degree and enter a saturated employment market with large amounts of debt. Had they chosen to go right to work they would not have incurred the debt and they would have four years of seniority and earnings. </p>
<p>A lot of these kids end up working at Starbucks and continue to defer payment on their $50,000 in student loans. That is not good for them or our society. A bachelors degree carries little weight these days. Everybody has one. Many of the people with degrees, even in the sciences don’t have the aptitude to do anything cutting edge. </p>
<p>What we need to do, if we are going to invest public funds in education is to focus earlier in education. Many low achieving high school graduates today have the equivalent education of a 8th grader a generation ago. We need better junior high and high school programs so kids don’t need to spend 16 years and a fotune to get a run-of-the-mill job.</p>
<p>By the way, I know several people (relatives through marriage) in their early to mid 20s with college degrees that can’t find work. They are working in Friendly’s, etc. after incurring $50,000 in debt. One is working in home remodelling and trying to learn the trade. They had SAT’s of about 1000 (2 part) and would have been better served by not going to college.</p>
<p>Polar, manufacturing jobs have been shrinking, but skilled trade jobs, at least where I live, are available. Plumbers, electrician. Those jobs can not be outsourced to China.</p>
<p>Kayf is exactly right. Manufacturing jobs are another story. We need to bring these back but it will be very difficult. As far as the unions being busted, unions are some of the biggest killers of manufacturing jobs. The collective bargaining agreements drove our product prices through the roof. The only way to compete in a global market is to create a quality product at a reasonable price. </p>
<p>As far as the trades, they are flourishing in most areas. The economy has hurt certain trades but they will come back (i.e. new home construction, remoldeling work). There will always be a need for pipe fitters, carpenters, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc. Right now, it is hard to get these services at a reasonable cost now. Electricians in my area charge $90 an hour for residential work. Starbuck pays about $9.00 an hour.</p>
<p>Unions kill manufacturing jobs? Only because they demand higher wages than Chinese and Mexicans.</p>
<p>Corporations are shipping jobs overseas because they can make more profit for their super-rich shareholders that way. Unions have zip to do with it.</p>
<p>As for construction - the era of endless suburb-building is dead. It’s not just a “downturn” - our nation will never see that level of speculative real estate craziness ever again. It was not sustainable then and there’s no reason to think that will change. Those jobs are not coming back.</p>
<p>The 400 richest Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of all Americans. That’s the real problem in our country.</p>
<p>Polarscribe: You truly believe that unions have nothing to do with inflating the cost of our manufactured goods? Think of the expense and logistics involved in sending these manufacturing plants to Asia and then bringing them back. Even with all of that is it less expensive than contracting with the unions.</p>
<p>You are wrong about home construction. As long as our population continues to increase, new construction will continue. </p>
<p>The share holders in corporations are not super-rich. The shareholders are average people like you and me who invest in mutual funds, etc. </p>
<p>And having wealthy people in this country is not a problem. That is capitalism. Some people are going to make more money than others and some are going to complain about it. Free enterprise and competition are what brought us to prosperity. You obviously have communist leanings - take the short ride from Alaska to Russia and tell me how much you like communism. The real problem with this country is all the whiny wimps that think they are entitled to something.</p>
<p>By the way, Corbett just made a technical change in state corporate tax rules that will cost the State $200 million this year in tax revenues. (It involves accelerated depreciation.) That money could have significantly reduced the severity of the college funding cuts. It shows that part of the state’s financial deficit was self-created, just like the corporate tax cuts Walker did in Wisconsin right before he took away collective bargaining rights. </p>
<p>Christie also did the same thing - he reduced income tax rates on high income residents right before he said there was a need to immediately reduce the pay and benefits of teachers.</p>
<p>Corbett also is planning to allow one coal company executive to have veto power over environmental permit processes. It is right in his budget document, and was covered on Rachel Maddow’s show.</p>
<p>of course corbett’s cuts have a negative impact on all pennsylvanians - except those with $$. he appointed campaign contributors to his cabinet. the one that sticks out in my mind is the guy appointed to economic development, alan walker. - a coal baron who donated heavily to the campaign. yes, read the budget as risingchemist says. you’ll see that mr. alan walker is given total and complete authority to override any other agency to push through contracts. you see, what is important to this governor isn’t pa families, education, healthcare, seniors, what’s important is the drilling companies and their profits. it’s a disgusting shame to see cuts to education while we’re not taxing these companies. across the board suffering is only across the board of the middle class. he might not be as blatantly disgusting as governor walker, but he comes awful close!</p>
You are clearly stating that OOS students are being charged more than what it actually costs to educate them at PSU & Pitt. In other words the PA public universities are making a profit off of OOS students. Where did you get those facts?</p>
<p>The point of that noting that PA is 38th in higher education spending is that the state has not been overly generous in spending, and therefore massive cuts are not appropriate. I haven’t run the numbers, but Corbett’s cuts could bring us down to Mississippi.</p>
<p>Democrats realized that Penn State and Pitt have other ways of raising funds (including research), and therefore didn’t need additional money. But that is different from slashing the basic funds they use to subsidize in-state undergrad tuition. </p>
<p>The state-owned universities are much more bare-bones operations. Many have already eliminated programs and laid off staff this year, including Kutztown. These new cuts would eliminate one-quarter of their total educational funding. That will result in massive layoffs, massive elimination of programs and massive increases in tuition.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Corbett is proposing only a 2% cut in the Governor’s Executive Office costs and in the budget of the State Legislature. He is paying his staffers more than Rendell. How about sharing the pain?</p>
<p>I don’t know of any public university that doesn’t charge more for OOS students. Some states have an agreement with surrounding states to charge in-state tuition to students from those states, but often it’s only for programs not offered in the student’s state.</p>
<p>charlieschm: You failed to supply a link/source for your statement about OOS students being charged more than what it actually costs to educate them at PSU & Pitt. In other words the PA public universities are making a profit off of OOS students. Where did you get those facts?</p>
<p>stevensmama: That’s common knowledge…and not an answer to the question directed to charlieschm</p>
<p>There are variable and fixed costs to running a university. There are a thousand ways to calculate average costs. If an out of state is paying a large share of the fixed costs and all of the marginal costs, then they are effectively helping to subsidize the in-state students. Pitt and Penn State’s out of state tuition costs are similar to many other nearby public universities.</p>
<p>Penn State and Pitt continue to retain their position across the US among public colleges in having the 1st and 2nd highest in-state tuition rates.</p>