"Rescuing Our Public Universities"

Parents Forum
1

<p>Don't know if this was posted earlier.
[url=<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502468.html%5Dwashingtonpost.com%5B/url"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502468.html]washingtonpost.com[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

<p>Op-ed piece from UC Berkeley chancellors. Proposal for federal governement support with more access for out-of-state kids (i.e. truly national public universities).</p>

<p>Seems like Berkeley profs are gonna use their political capital with the Obama administration to try and prop up public higher education.</p>

2

<p>Just do it the old-fashioned way–earmarks. Worked for U Washington.</p>

3

<br>

<br>

<p>The residents of California, Florida, Virginia, Michigan, etc, would be furious if enrollments included “fewer students from their own state(s).” How annoying would it be to have paid taxes (for decades) only to have some rule/law change and now your kid can’t get in because too many OOS are let in.</p>

<p>Plus, it would create a greater need for kids to have to live on campus or to incur greater traveling costs… In California, some kids are lucky enough to live near a UC or Cal State, so they live at home while going to school. This, alone, can save about $50,000 in college costs. </p>

<p>If the schools were open to more OOS students, then more “local” students would have to seek their educations elsewhere. And, if “elsewhere” means seeking their educations OOS, then the added cost of long-distance traveling would also increase the cost of their educations.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Have these two noted the precarious condition of most people’s personal finances these days? Not to mention the current amount of Federal debt? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Washington” = taxpayers. 'Nuff said.</p>

<p>This entire article looks like a lot of “magical thinking” to me – as in, say it enough times and it will happen. NOT!!</p>

5

<p>And the very first earmarks did go to universities. From Bill Moyers Feb. 20, 2009 interview with Robert Kaiser, author of “So Damn Much Money”:</p>

<p>[Bill</a> Moyers Journal . Robert G. Kaiser | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02202009/profile.html]Bill”>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02202009/profile.html)</p>

<p>BILL MOYERS: And his first clients were not greedy corporations, but they were-
ROBERT KAISER: Colleges and universities. And he was - it’s a wonderful story, really. He invented, he and his original partner, the modern earmark that John McCain got so agitated about. That you’ve talked about so often on this program. They had a first client was Jean Mayer, the president of Tufts University, famous nutritionist. And these two guys in the lobbying firm, and had worked with Mayer on nutrition issues for McGovern, when they worked on McGovern’s hunger committee. They were friends. Mayer says, “I got an idea, come and talk to me. My congressman here, wants to help me, Tufts University, what can he do to tell me?” Well, his congressman was a guy named Tip O’Neill. Then only the Majority Leader.
BILL MOYERS: The Majority Leader and Speaker.
ROBERT KAISER: And with O’Neill’s help, they figured out how to get $26 million for Tufts to build a center on Human Nutrition Research.
BILL MOYERS: Not a bad thing.
ROBERT KAISER: Not a bad thing, by itself. This was the first modern earmark, I argue. Then they got a veterinary school for Tufts. Then they got a medical library for Tufts. Then Boston College, over across town, heard about this, they hired Cassidy. Then Boston University wanted to get on board. John Silber, the new president, he hired Cassidy. And suddenly, this little lobbying firm, had a big new business going of academic earmarks.
BILL MOYERS: Of actually getting money designated for specific university projects?
ROBERT KAISER: Exactly. And as you said, you know, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, what’s wrong with it is that, you know, Tufts wanted to build a Nutrition Research Center, it got the money. But nobody asked if Princeton had a better idea, or if University of Texas had a better idea. It was a fix. The fix was in for Tufts. That’s the essence of the earmark system. The congressman gets the credit, because the fix is in. The lobbyist gets the money, because he got the fix in. It’s a wonderful circle, it pleases everybody, but it doesn’t create a fair, competitive, open system.
BILL MOYERS: And Cassidy became so successful doing this for universities, as you write in the book, that corporations begin to say, “Hey, look what that guy is doing. He could do that for us, right?”</p>

6

<p>“The result of that bold action is a national resource: a structure for higher education that is admired, and copied, around the globe in places such as Japan, Germany and Canada.”</p>

<p>I don’t think Germany copied our system, though with the Bologna agreement, Euro universities are transitioning to a similar degree structure.</p>

<p>“Our private and public research and teaching universities have contributed greatly to American prosperity. Public universities by definition teach large numbers of students and substantially help shape our nation.”</p>

<p>Yes, public universities have done so. Though I went to a private university, I believe that the land-grant universities are the crown jewel of our system of higher education.</p>

<p>“While America is fortunate to have many great private universities, we do not need to add to the list by privatizing Berkeley, Illinois, Rutgers, etc.”
“Given the precarious condition of state finances, we propose that President Obama emulate President Lincoln by creating a 21st-century version of the Morrill Act.” </p>

<p>This is one of the first alternatives to privatizing our great public universities that I‘ve heard. Admittedly, the idea of a 21st century Morrill Act is intriguing. </p>

<p>“Specifically, the federal government should create a hybrid model in which a limited number of … universities receive …support from the federal government …” </p>

<p>This is one of the biggest drawbacks to the proposal. Which states and universities will step aside so a limited number of universities in other states can receive assistance?</p>

<p>“To ensure stability, the federal government should agree to match, at a rate of 2-to-1, and the state government at 1-to-1, private endowment funds raised by these public universities…”</p>

<p>For a time, the State of Oklahoma matched privately raised funds for OU and OSU.</p>

<p>“This proposal for a national federal-state university system may require new models of financial governance that include federal and state oversight.”</p>

<p>In the implementation of the original Morrill Act, Congress pretty much left it to the states to handle. Some, like Wisconsin, almost squandered their land-grants before UW got off the ground. Others took several years to get things started. </p>

<p>“The great benefit to all states, particularly those that do not yet have internationally acclaimed public universities, would be the opportunity for residents to attend other flagship state universities without paying out-of-state fees.”</p>

<p>Fat chance. I could never see the states with less well-renowned public universities agreeing to this. Could anyone see New York State or New Jersey, or, even Mississippi, agreeing to this agreeing to this in deference to California, Michigan, or Wisconsin? On the other hand, states like California set out to build a public system second to none and states like Wisconsin and Minnesota built universities with a range and depth in their programs not evident in other states with far more resources, and they are national resources that should be preserved. </p>

<p>Anyway, California dreamin’…</p>

7

<p>Come on, the Wisconsin Legislature got $500 and a cow for most of the Wisconsin land-grants. It might have actually been a good thing as they felt guilty and began funding the school. I believe some schools had to use only the land funds for their funding.</p>

8

<p>This is a good idea. It will give each state an equal chance to build its strong colleges. It will help colleges have more geographical diversity and will give students opportunities to travel and learn from people of other states. Private colleges attract students because of geographical diversity. Why the majority of public colleges in the nation should not have this attraction? Are we afraid that public colleges will compete against private colleges?
It does not matter some states have stronger colleges than some other states. Students graduate from one state will move around to benefit other states and the entire nation. To survive the global world competition, our US states should not rival with other US states. And why private colleges give free education to students from other countries and nobody complains?</p>

9

<br>

<br>

<p>private unis are private businesses…they can give their $$ to anyone they want. No one has the right to complain.</p>

10

<p>^^^
barrons, to add insult to injury, there were no Federal lands left in New York State in 1862, so the Cornell land grants were selected from federal lands in Wisconsin. Of course, New York selected good timberlands, and sold them for a good price, yielding a much higher endowment for Cornell than UW got for its land grants. So, perhaps the Feds should give some money to UW to make up for Cornell’s land grab in Wisconsin. Let’s see…at 2009 prices, that would come to…wow, UW will get a windfall!
(But, Wisconsin’s below-market value land prices did attract immigrants, who certainly shaped the character of the state, and ultimately, shaped the University.)</p>

11

<p>“private unis are private businesses…”</p>

<p>Private universities are tax-exempt corporations chartered by the state to serve a public purpose, and they feed themselves well at the public trough. Some of them even get earmarks.</p>

12

<p>

Not quite. Private colleges especially graduate schools get large amount of grants from the federal government. The tax write off from private colleges and donors draw money from public funds.</p>

13

<p>“And why private colleges give free education to students from other countries and nobody complains?”</p>

<p>“Private colleges attract students because of geographical diversity. Why the majority of public colleges in the nation should not have this attraction?”</p>

<p>I think you partly answered your own question.</p>

14

<p>“I think you partly answered your own question.”</p>

<p>I believe so. I also think your concern is answered.
"I could never see the states with less well-renowned public universities agreeing to this. Could anyone see New York State or New Jersey, or, even Mississippi, agreeing to this agreeing to this in deference to California, Michigan, or Wisconsin? "</p>