<p>"Student protests and raucous Capitol rallies have drawn much attention to the 50 percent cuts proposed for Pennsylvania's 18 state-owned and state-related universities.</p>
<p>Less visible, but equally concerned, are administrators at private colleges in Pennsylvania. Their institutions also face 50 percent cuts in aid, which they say will make it more difficult to serve low-income state residents.</p>
<p>About 31 percent of students who received need-based state grants attended private universities in Pennsylvania last year, according to the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency..."</p>
<p>I support this 100%. Let the private colleges fly on their own to a much greater extent and send the funds to the state schools, making them better and more affordable to everyone. I 'd like to see the state flagships being the top schools in this country.</p>
<p>If PA is anything like NJ, many kids attend privates using income-based state aid (TAG grants and such). There are not enough seats at public colleges to accommodate everyone who wants to attend. The NJ legislature doesn’t have the money to open up a bunch of new colleges, so they decided in 2010 that it was cheaper for them to allow students to use public funds for existing private colleges. The government of PA may come to the same conclusion.</p>
<p>California is having a crisis due to the high demand for their excellent university system. They don’t have enough seats in their public schools. But if they pulled money from the privates, they can add more community universities. PA can do the same. They can increase the sizes of the Penn State satellites and community colleges. In the end, there will be a savings and a shore up of the state schools. PA already has a good start on some excellent in state schools. This would just enhance them more and give some of the less popular schools a boost in both applications and quality.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. The cost of new infrastructure, administration costs, faculty salaries and benefits etc. associated with opening new campuses or expanding existing ones can far outweigh the cost of giving non-restricted education grants to lower-income students to use at in-state schools (public or private). New Jersey looked into expanding the state school system and backed off for that reason.</p>
<p>Calif is just silly to give so much in Cal Grants to privates. They give more “per student” to privates than they do to publics. Why should USC and Stanford be getting state aid?</p>
<p>Problems with so-called sattelite campus’s is that they are viewed upon as the ugly step sister of the Main campus.I will use PA as an example…Penn State at main campus is highly thought of,PSU in Abington,or Altoona is not…Same goes for Temple and Temple Ambler,etc…Pitt main is also highly desired,not Ptt-Bradford…I know few,if any,who applied directly to any of the above sattelites,but knw of many who applied to the main campus…Some were accepted to main,others “pushed” to sattelites,and not one person decided to attend the sattelite after being declined acceptance at main…</p>
<p>That doesn’t have to be the case, though. Given proper funding and institutional focus, so-called “satellites” can become desirable universities. Look at the UC system - Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara, etc are just “satellite schools,” but they’re nonetheless highly respected major research universities.</p>
<p>Even UCLA started as the “University of California, Southern Division” or whatever, a satellite of Cal.</p>
<p>the UCs really aren’t satellites like the Penn St schools are. The UCs are individual universities with their own teams/names/etc. the fact that a UC may have originated as a satellite doesn’t matter because each has been its own university for a long time.</p>
<p>States opt for 2 different kinds of systems. A system like the UCs or UTs, where each university is its own school, or a system like Penn State or Purdue, that has satellite campuses that aren’t “stand alone” universities with their own identities/teams/names, etc. </p>
<p>Satellite campuses will always seem like lesser campuses with less school spirit and less “college life.”</p>
Maybe because CA has about three times as many people as PA and therefore can probably support a larger number of high-profile research universities?</p>
<p>So you’re saying Pennsylvania can only support three major research universities, which are already significantly more expensive for in-state students than comparable state flagships?</p>
<p>It strikes me as uselessly duplicative for Penn State and Pitt to have their own systems of dozens of little “satellites.” Expand a couple to full-fledged universities a-la the UC system, give a few to PASSHE and shut down the rest. For those who are transferring, direct them through the community college system.</p>
<p>Here are the UC campuses:
Berkeley
Davis
Irvine
Los Angeles
Merced
Riverside
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz</p>
<p>Even if we count all nine of these serving undergrads as “major research universities”, on a proportional basis PA should only be able to support three comparable schools.</p>
<p>But Pennsylvania’s three are not really “state schools” - they’re “state-related” and, as I said, are significantly more expensive for in-state students than comparable flagships in other states.</p>
<p>Either way, the “satellites” don’t make sense as-is. The reason for a “system” is to establish a baseline of equivalence - all of the UC campuses (except Merced, which is still in development) are significant research universities. Berkeley is certainly primus inter pares, but even “lesser” campuses such as Riverside can stand on their own quite well.</p>
<p>If nobody considers the Penn State satellites remotely equivalent, educationally, to their flagship parent, they’re pointless. They might have the “Penn State” name, but it’s like slapping a BMW badge on a Chevy. Nobody’s fooled.</p>
<p>^ I never said that the whole “state-related” situation was good, merely that it is not realistic to expect the state of Pennsylvania to support something like the UC system. The cost point is indeed a serious issue.</p>
<p>Secondly, remember that California has the CalState and CalPoly systems as well. My understanding is that the satellite campuses of PSU and Pitt serve a similar function in PA.</p>
<p>The Cal State role is served by the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, or PASSHE - which, like the CSUs, grew out of the state teacher’s colleges. And they’re actually public universities.</p>
<p>The whole state of California has precisely three systems of higher education: UCs, CSUs and community colleges. Back in the 60s, they sat down, wrote a Master Plan defining the role of each system, and have stuck to it. You don’t see every UC trying to launch its own little fiefdom of satellites… that’s what the CSUs are for. </p>
<p>Yet in Pennsylvania, all three “state-related” schools have their own satellite system, bureaucracy, etc. They’re ego-boosting mission creep. And because they’re independent of the state, Pennsylvania can’t technically stop them, I don’t think. Which is silly.</p>
<p>Pa’s system of lousy sattelite campuses is no different then NJ,whose flagship is Rutgers,with sattelites in Newark and Camden,2 places you wouldn’t go if it were free to attend…</p>
<p>^^ Interesting. I am generally a proponent of KISS principles, and that doesn’t sound like an effective system.</p>
<p>I’d still argue that PA doesn’t need a larger number of major research universities, but you’ve convinced me that the system could use a change.</p>
<p>PA has 3 major state related universities, Penn State, Temple and PItt. They do have their satellite campuses. I don’t know much about Pitt’s or Temples, but Penn State does have some that are considered decent such as Behrend and Harrisburg, especially with the automatic transfer privilege to the main campus when junior standing is achieved.</p>
<p>There are also a number of other colleges, some former teachers’ colleges such as Indiana U of Pa, Clarion, Shippenburg, Slippery Rock.just to name a few. </p>
<p>I don’t know if there was any intent to copy the CA system. NY did intentionally set up their SUNYs in a system to follow the CA model, but it no longer follows that plan and has achieved no where near the quality and name recognition that the flagships of CA and PA have. </p>
<p>All three states give out grants for those students who are low income. It used to be that PA students could bring those grants on a reduced basis out of state even. Not so with the Cal Grants and TAP programs of CA and NY. State money stays in state. CA only gives the funds to state schools.</p>