<p>Kids of parents that can afford college are the only valuable kids of society…</p>
<p>The rest of the kids …should be happy to make a few bucks an hour or can be served in fancy restaurants on large dishes with their eyes open…</p>
<p>Yikes, talk about taking something out of context…simply said, taxpayer dollars shold not finance state universities to the degree they have…support needy students, I am ok with that…subsidize tuition for everyone, I think not…maybe there should be little money going to the schools and students that actually need it, receive it…or have a sliding scale for tuition based on income. ;)</p>
<p>I wonder how many of you who support state schools being heavily subsidized by taxpayers are willing to pay more in taxes to continue to do so…I’ll bet few</p>
<p>qdogpa…subsidizing harvard is ok…a billion a year?</p>
<p>OK …it really is probably hundreds of millions a year…just to be fair to harvard…</p>
<p>I am willing to pay a lot more for education…and a lot less for defense…</p>
<p>of course…we would have more money for public schools if we didn’t subsidize private schools…</p>
<p>My son will likely be going to a state university too.</p>
<p>No one likes to pay more.</p>
<p>That being said, many of the above posts make good points. There is a lot of fat.</p>
<p>Everyday on CC, I see someone posting some sort of message that they don’t feel they should be paying for this, or they don’t feel they should be paying for that.</p>
<p>If we continue with this attitude, we will go the way of Greece.</p>
<p>Also, with the internet, a lot of education can be streamlined. For example, why do kids at 1000 different colleges have to watch 1000 different professors lecture on the cause of the American Revolution in history class. Why can’t a school simply collect the very best lectures from the top Harvard professors on that subject, and have the kids watch those.</p>
<p>Illinois and California are essentially broke. </p>
<p>America is simply not as rich as it used to be. We can’t keep living beyond our means.</p>
<p>So while I sympathize with tuition increases, I do understand the reason for them.</p>
<p>“Living within your means” means “Living within your means” - nothing more, nothing less. Everyone has to do it, including government.</p>
<p>I am very tired of my school tax dollars not going to my kids educations, but going to unbelievable health care and retirement benefits for the teachers (that grow by 15% to 20% each and every year).</p>
<p>Way past time for a little common sense and having the teachers pay 25% of their health care cost just like everone else and having pensions more in line with the rest of society.</p>
<p>Then, more of the tax dollars can go to our kids actual education…and maybe slowing down the rate of increases in taxes would not be such a bad thing.</p>
<p>If that is called “living within your means”, I am all for it.</p>
<p>No, subsidizing any college is wasteful…you could throw any amount of money at some public school districts,and it won’t matter…</p>
<p>You can say that with anything…even Apple wastes money…</p>
<p>dstark - if you attended Harvard or had a kid there or actually bothered to learn much about Harvard you would find out that it is hardly the bastion of wealth and privilege that you seem to think. The majority of the students are on FA and their families are paying about $5k a year to attend. An enormous portion of Harvard’s wealth is directed at extending the opportunity to attend Harvard to every income bracket of our society. Beyond that rather altruistic and socially conscious initiative, you will find a vast amount of Harvard’s research efforts are conducted on behalf of lifting up human health and economic status across the globe. </p>
<p>To try to characterize Harvard or its peer schools as privileged, elite and soaking the tax payer is woefully uninformed and silly.</p>
<p>Where Harvard is indeed elite and closed off to most of society is its admissions standards.</p>
<p>My public school district laid off a handful of teachers and staff…BUT decided to put artificial turf on the football field…what is even more despicable, is that the ‘public’,ie town sports programs,can not use the facility…just for HS football and perhaps some HS soccer…</p>
<p>Sewhappy…you are kidding me right…</p>
<p>How many students go to Harvard that are not on scholarships?</p>
<p>How many are on scholarships but their families make over $100,000 a year?</p>
<p>Since you know so much about Harvard…you need to look up a few things…maybe refresh your memory?</p>
<p>Interesting that you don’t have a problem with taxpayers subsidizing a private school…</p>
<p>“heated sidewalks”</p>
<p>Perhaps this is actually a cost-savings or neutral expense. If heating the sidewalks prevents snow build-up, then they don’t have to spend man-hours plowing the sidewalks. And, less equipment/maintenance is needed. It may also be a safety precaution.</p>
<p>*And so only the rich will be able to send their kids to college? *</p>
<p>Hopefully it should never come to that. Many families can figure out a way to cover the costs of commuting to a CC and then a local state school with careful budgeting, savings, part-time jobs, summer jobs, and loans. Going away to school is a luxury…people need to realize that. Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding the “going away” experience either directly or indirectly.</p>
<p>That said, for those who live in high public tuition states and have strong stats, look at other schools that will give you enough merit that it’s cheaper to go elsewhere. </p>
<p>*At the Urbana campus, entry-level tuition and fees for a full-time resident taking 30 credit hours were $14,414 this year, up nearly 45 percent from five years earlier. *</p>
<p>I have no problem with top ranked publics charging a high amount (or even much higher) if there is aid for low income and the lesser ranked publics are priced much less. UIUC is ranked #45, so it can justify charging more (again, providing aid for lowish incomes).</p>
<p>When I look at the instate tuition of Illinois State U at about $12k per year for a lowish ranked school (#160), it makes no sense. The instate tuition at UI-C is $13k for a school ranked 150. There are few reasons to ever go to ISU or UI-C if you have high stats because you can go to a better school with a merit scholarship and pay about the same or less. </p>
<p>It’s one thing to charge a premium for UIUC, but to charge nearly the same for UI-C or ISU or the others seems odd to me.</p>
<p>BTW…for these schools to provide aid for lowish incomes, NCP info should be required.</p>
<p>Dstark, try actually doing a little reading on the topic. If you make less than 60K and your kid gets into Harvard she will go free. If you make under about 150K you will pay about $10-15k. I suggest you google Princeton, aother evil private school soaking the tax payer, if you really want to read about a spectacularly generous FA program.</p>
<p>[Financial</a> Aid Office](<a href=“http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do]Financial”>http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do)</p>
<p>Qdogpa -I’m more than happy to pay taxes that go towards U of I, even though I didn’t go there and my kids aren’t either. Do you not understand the roles state universities play outside of the east?</p>
<p>If “heated sidewalks” resulted in a cost savings, then we would be seeing them all over the place.</p>
<p>Nope, I know another money losing extravagance when I see it.</p>
<p>yes…sewhappy…the is true…</p>
<p>“Dstark, try actually doing a little reading on the topic. If you make less than 60K and your kid gets into Harvard she will go free. If you make under about 150K you will pay about $10-15k. I suggest you google Princeton, aother evil private school soaking the tax payer, if you really want to read about a spectacularly generous FA program.”</p>
<p>So how many kids are going for free? </p>
<p>How many students come from families that are full payers?</p>
<p>Harvard is generous to some students. Harvard should be generous because Harvard feeds on the government’s teat.</p>
<p>It is easy to be generous when you receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies…every year.</p>
<p><a href=“Harvard’s Extension School Affects Pell Statistics”>http://chronicle.com/article/Harvards-Extension-School/127065/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this and don’t see why tax dollars are supporting privates. We could change this. I understand the arguments against property taxes for these entities, but don’t see that this really works out better for the local communities. It may be just one of those things a small group tells a larger group over and over and over until it becomes accepted fact?</p>
<p>edit: any research going on in privates could happen at publics as far as I can tell</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The states that built the state universities and community colleges certainly did not think so. They realized that a better educated population would result in more and higher paying employment and businesses within the state; the larger economy would, of course, generate more tax revenue that would more than pay for the state university subsidies.</p>
<p>Imagine what the economy would be like if only a few percent of the population (selected mainly by family wealth) could attend a college or university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would the artificial turf be a cost-saver in the long run in that it does not require as much maintenance (mowing, watering, fertilizing, repair after it gets damaged in games and practices, etc.)? Of course, they could really cut costs more by dropping football and soccer at the high school.</p>
<p>State Us’ taking tax payers money to pay football coaches millions is absurd. (even though I’m a big football fan)
If states have no money, they have to reduce funding to state U’s. They have to live within their means.
But at the same time they need to remove the restrictions that the state U’s have to take >70% students in-state.
Michigan had enormous budget crunch and they managed well. They were the only major public Us that have been hiring prof’s in the last 3 years. The trick?, get more students out-of -state.
Of course many second tier publics cannot compete OOS students. So let the market decide. If you can’t compete you have to close shop. We have too many college grad who gets a subpar education anyway.</p>
<p>How many kids go for free at Harvard you ask.</p>
<p>The latest Common Data Set I found for Harvard was for 2008 -2009 (tuition, fees, room, and board were listed as $48,828).</p>
<p>999 out of 1,662 entering freshman received need based grants and scholarships and the avergae was $39,164.</p>
<p>Wow! 60% of the class was getting free tuition and fees and getting a good part of their room and board covered!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf[/url]”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf</a></p>