I don’t think anyone was knocking PASSHE schools academically. They serve a purpose. There are some strong programs at these schools. A lot of them were teachers colleges back in the day. My neighbor was a professor at one. Very intelligent and interesting conversationist. I know people that graduated from these schools and make 7 figures per year.
The argument is that there are too many schools, in the wrong locations, and they’re bloated whether it’s a PASSHE school, PSU branch or Pitt branch.
JPE wrote:
“Combine that with LHU (and most other state-owned schools) having an almost 200 point lower average SAT score, and you see what we have. State Schools have largely become the choice for students with poor academic records - many who are simply not college material.”
The quote above is a direct attack and ill-intended.
Some long term thought should be given connecting CC’s Pitt/PSU Branches and the Passhe system. At the end of the current day…the passhe system is the largest provider of higher education in PA.
With a combined enrollment of about 107,000 students, the State System is the largest provider of higher education in Pennsylvania, and is among the largest university systems in the United States. The vast majority of students reside in the Commonwealth, and will stay here after graduation.
From an outsider (non PA resident), it seems like the PSU branches are mostly just expensive versions of community colleges focused on transfer to PSU main. In other states, ordinary and less expensive community colleges fulfill the transfer prep function, so if the ordinary community colleges in PA are unsuitable for this purpose, then that seems like a poor system design that makes it more difficult for PA residents to afford college.
Bester, I respectfully ask that you reconsider my comments. They in no way were intended as an attack, unless you consider my direct confrontation of a problem as an attack. But please consider this…today, and increasingly in the future, government/taxpayers are going to be asked to contribute enormous sums of money to save these schools. Debt is mounting, enrollment is declining, and they’ve been kicking the can on this for years. In what world does it make sense to further subsidize shrinking schools where only 10-37% of the kids are graduating with a degree?
Worse yet, how is it not a disservice to knowingly allow more than half of the freshmen class to accumulate school loan debt (which cannot be dismissed through bankruptcy) without attaining a degree in order to repay it?
If I come across as bitter, forgive me. But when I see how this has been handled over the past 2 decades, where the system seems more interesting in preserving the system than an affordable education, I can’t help be more than a bit concerned for our kids and our state.
Thanks but we shall agree to disagree. You spew statements as facts and that is clearly not the case. Look at the facts I previously posted or the college scorecard. The best most even information we have to compare the facts.
Passhe produces so many great things but haters gonna hate…
Interesting response - make an ambiguous claim about a falsehood, without offering a correction, and then finish by calling a name. As a courtesy, I took the time to review the link you provided earlier. However, I was disappointed to find that not only does it not contain information relevant to my comments, it has information which is 2 years old. It is far from the best information available, as the enrollment figures which you cite earlier (107,000) are now down to 95,000, with further declines anticipated. To be fair, not all campuses are in the same boat, but only a few are in fair or thriving conditions.
For those who have interest in actual information as it pertains to this thread, I’ll offer a few links to news reports from perhaps the most engaged beat reporter on this topic. Bill Schackner has covered this beat for many years, so his work chronicles the changes over the years. I’ll just post one of his stories, but search his name and you’ll find all you could ever want to learn. This clip is bit dated, but really explains a lot about how colleges started to accumulate debt, despite the expected demographic changes.
Schackner also has some other good stories, which explain how universities have set up other legal entities to legally rack up debt, such as housing corporations or foundations for new housing projects. This keeps some debt from showing up on their balance sheets, but it is an eventual obligation, nonetheless.
To corroborate the current enrollment figures, here is a link to one of many stories to confirm the 11 percent drop from the “official” figure from the state system web site.
I won’t dignify the name calling with a like response. But understand that people can have different opinions (for noble, not hateful, reasons), and only by addressing the discussion with substance can we ever come to a factual solution, or at least a common and truthful understanding. To do otherwise is not a serious or useful way to resolve an issue.
I apologize for offending. Why does Shackner not include CC and psu/pitt branchs in the same light. Or better yet, why don’t you include them in your analysis?
@bester1 I really can’t answer that question, although that would certainly be a more difficult beat to cover as far as obtaining information, as you would be chasing info from so many different schools, as opposed to the centralized state system. I could see a perceived greater importance for monitoring a state-owned systems over CC and state related branches, simply due to the more direct connection to state money.
If you read some of his articles, many are the direct result of major PASSHE news, such as the 2017 consultant report, and the supposed “new plan” or discussions of closings/mergers. Certainly bigger university topics than we’ve seen elsewhere, with the except of the Sandusky scandal of course.
Another revealing story covers Edinboro, and how they lowered standards to try to increase enrollment, but have recently decided to raise standards. They lowered their SAT standards to 800, with disastrous results. Reportedly, they actually increased enrollment this year with the new higher standards - quite an accomplishment.
I have read some earlier posts in this forum, questioning the role of CC or state related branchs. They certainly have also seen enrollment declines. However, they seem to be weathering the storm a bit better than most PASSHE schools, with lower rates of decline, and no reduction of average SAT. State related branches have also seemed to have responded better to the market, by offering more options for things like advanced nursing and engineering.
But they’ve also managed to limit cost increases much better than the state-owned schools. With 2 boys of college age, I’ve spent considerable time investigating programs, tuition, finance, etc. Both of my sons found the same, or better financial packages at state-related and private schools, all which had higher average SAT stats.
Penn State prefers non residents/Can’t controlcosts
Auditor General DePasquale Says Penn State Shows Some Progress Since Sandusky Scandal; Background Checks Still Missing, Tuition Growth Outrageous
All I am saying is that there are problems everywhere. Most can’t afford PSU/Pitt main whether they are “college material” or not. PSU Branches in most cases(not all) are glorified cc’s that just jack up the fees.
Passhe offers a much more affordable(although still not inexpensive) experience with accredited programs, many,many successful students and it is the largest provider of higher education in the Commonwealth of Pa.
Many of our students still go to PASSHE schools (and branch schools for Pitt/PSU). I will say they are rarely our best students as those get essentially equal offers (or better) from private schools.
That said, students are successful from them (success defined as being able to support themselves post college). There are some who drop out, but go back to reference that they are not usually our best students to start with.
I think I said it before, but I’m with the camp who believes they should shut a couple down and strengthen the others.
I agree that upgrading dorms has added to the cost.
Clarion, SRU, IUP, Edinboro and more built new suite style dorms, I think only SRU and maybe Edinboro and WVU, maybe Bloomsburg still has one traditional dorm.
@TomSrOfBoston That’s a tough statistic set to find with any accuracy or ease. Here is a 2017 article I found with a pretty detailed look, but the information is a bit dated. If you also look at their varied data sources and timelines, I suspect the numbers are bit jaded. 4 year graduation numbers in this piece range from 5% to 50%. My own alma mater, LHU, only shows 28% in 4 years, and 47.1% after 6 years. Odd thing is, they show two different sources for the LHU information, and some schools don’t even list the graduation rates, so this is hardly rock solid info. But the former journalist in me is a bit suspicious, when I see 2009-2012 numbers being used in a 2017 article.
Retention is even tougher to find, but I’d be comfortable assuming that the higher the graduation rate, the better the retention.
@mommdc Here’s a pretty good article that details your point. A lot of schools went on a spending (an borrowing) spree, despite knowing that enrollment would be falling. Now they have empty rooms and debt obligations.
It really hit me 2 years ago when I took my son to college. His private school still has the traditional dorm setup, for which the college charges a lower housing rate. The buildings well maintained, and just fine despite being built in the 60’s. I think the state system missed a good lesson, and an opportunity, to provide a lower cost with their well built, older dorms. Instead, I think they fell into the same lending trap that so many homeowners fell into 10-15 years ago. I think it would be wise to use these financial blunders as learning opportunities, and taught as part of a university curriculum, just as the crash of '29 and great recession should be taught. Great value there.
Most of these PASSHE schools, except maybe WVU have a high percentage of Pell eligible students.
Some students have to take semesters off to work, some utilize the per credit tuition model IUP offers and take minimum credits to be full time so that most of their cost is covered by Pell and state grant, that in turn delays graduation.
But I know students there who were completing pre-health/professional requirements in 3 years or did a BS/MS in 5 years for speech pathology.
So lower graduation rates don’t just point to less academically prepared students.
IUP reduced the housing cost this year for sophomore students who chose to stay on campus.
I think this was a move in the right direction because they compete with plentiful off campus housing.
But a meal plan was still mandatory.
I think it might have been a good idea to build fewer Suite-Style dorms, and instead provide some apartment style options for upperclassmen (with a kitchen).
@mommdc I was thinking that the 6 year graduation rate would be a better stat for PASSHE schools.
I grew-up near Cal U. Thinking of the kids that attended many were smart enough but had other issues like finances or family constraints where they might have to take off a semester here and there. Of course there were some that just weren’t academically prepared.