<p>I know this may sound brain damaged,but what do you think of the idea of eliminating state universities ( or at least privatize them) and having the states fund college tuition with vouchers? They can provide more in vouchers based on need,which would help the neeediest the most. </p>
<p>I suggest this because of constant complaints among our state politicians about the high cost of our state university system and their need to cut funding. This way, states would save a bundle, students would be able to afford to go to the schools that have the best programs, whether in state or out of state, etc. ( although I might encourage higher funding of vouchers if the students attend in state colleges). It would be a win-win for all. What do you think?</p>
<p>One could interpret the recent Charter Legislation in the state of Virginia as, at least, a first step in that direction. There are different levels of autonomy provided for should the institutions elect to go that way. I think that it is not too far a reach to define institutions that elect the highest degree of automomy as "semi-private".</p>
<p>a derivative of your idea was actually discussed (albeit breifly) in the Calif legislature during the approval process for the new UC Merced. Someone suggested (can't remember the think tank?) that instead of spending literally millions to build a new campus, why not offer vouchers to kids to attend the private schools in this state or any college in neighboring states. If I recall, the math projecttions were compelling. </p>
<p>Needless to say, the buliders of bureacracy killed the idea quickly.</p>
<p>hmmm...interesting idea. yet, don't you think that kind of leaves wealthier students the cold shoulder? without state universities, the only options they have are community college or $200K gone (well, merit aid but that's a diff story).</p>
<p>As with any voucher system...this does support those who are looking for ways to subsidize their costs for private schools. It does nothing to support public schools. In fact...making state schools private entities would, in my opinion, increase substantially the costs of attendance at those schools as they would no longer have the state subsidies that help to support them and in turn provide "more affordable" college educations to instate students.</p>
<p>It is an interesting idea, one that would probably work better in some states than others. Here in CT more than 80% of college students attend public colleges and universities, so a voucher program wouldn't permit much mobility. (I don't see Yale kicking out some CEO's kid paying full fare to provide a seat for "middle class kid with voucher.")</p>
<p>(2) Some of the tuition savings plans already allow students to take part of the funds to a nonstate school.</p>
<p>(3) The state universities and colleges are an enormous engine for research and development that supports state economies, as well as ways to attract and enhance human capital for these economies. State legislatures and governors aren't going to cede this away. (Granted, this might not look like so much of a loss in states that have weaker state systems.)</p>
<p>State's should fund decent State Universities. It is embarrassing that a State like New York has trailed many other states, including : UV,UM, UT, all of the UC's, ect. Private Universities don't want these students. HYPS could all afford to expand if they wanted to, they don't want to and so students need public universities.</p>
<p>Lawmakers and some taxpayer groups complain about the cost of education because they do not realize the benefits which are external to the education system. It is hard to see that having a top notch Public University might be the reason corporations expand into your state. Consider what is happenning in the south...recently an auto maker turned away millions of tax benefits in southern states to build a new plant in Canada...reason....too much expense re-educating the southern workforce.</p>
<p>California already provides a cal grant to moderate and low income families that have students in private california colleges.</p>
<p>I would like California to build at least one more public University in the Mendocino/Ukiah area, with colleges for resort/hospitality (casino) management, performing arts, and Public Policy. It might help the over crowding of the other UCs. Merced is not enough.</p>
<p>What do voters think about the Public Universities - look how overcrowded they are...obviously a large number of people think Public Universities are their best chance.</p>
<p>I know here that Ohio State has a huge effect on agriculture in Ohio- and agriculture is HUGE in much of the state. This could have a huge effect on the state economy. There are lots of other flagship publics just like this. And the amount of research done at these flagships is enormous. I just don't see this working. :p</p>
<p>The UC issue is an interesting one. Merced was built to be a full research university. From what I have read, there is no shortage in supply of Ph.D. programs in CA without Merced, the shortage is in undergraduate programs. Seems that building high quality state LAC's would be a better idea, whether funded directly by the state or through vouchers.</p>
<p>It may be that because the UC system is so well respected that the four year state colleges don't seem to get enough respect..I am not even sure what a ranking list of the State University Colleges would look like...aside from Chico having a reputation for halloween parties...they seem to stay out of the headlines. Most Universities build their reputation on Graduate studies and research...whether private or public but Merced will have a growing number of undergraduates.</p>
<p>Essentially, the idea is that NY State gives $$$ to private colleges and universities in NY State to be used to educate disadvantaged kids who are residents of NY State. The school must agree to admit kids with stats well below the normal threshold and to use the $ for programs to assist those kids. The kids have to be "HEOP-approved." </p>
<p>The program works. Colleges like it because it allows them to attract kids who are disadvantaged who would not normally apply. (Most kids decide to go for HEOP status and then check out which schools participate. They know that if their stats are below the mean for the schools in question, they are MUCH more likely to get in if they apply through HEOP. ) These kids DO require extra support and the cost of that support is paid for by the state--a real boon to colleges, especially smaller LACs. </p>
<p>The kids like it because it gets them into better colleges and, once there, they know they will get academic support. (Many of these programs require the kids to go to summer school before the start of freshman year and the colleges are permitted to make acceptance contingent on successful completion of the summer program.) I suspect the kids also like the idea of having a chance to be in a special program with "kids like me." </p>
<p>The state likes it because the amount of $ given to the private colleges per student is less than the cost of educating them at a New York State school AND the studies that have been done show that the kids who go to the private schools graduate in greater #s than those with similar stats that go to state colleges. To help the kids through the state schools, they would have to have the sort of special services the HEOP program offers, so the real cost differential for the state is quite high. </p>
<p>Another benefit of the program is that it has given hard concrete evidence of what sorts of help work. If College X has a course in note-taking and the HEOP kids who participate do noticeably better than the HEOP kids in programs which focus on reading and math skills, then the following year HEOP can fund programs which teach kids note-taking skills--and introduce note taking skills courses at public universities. Each college or university participating in the program becomes a sort of mini-laboratory for figuring out how best to serve these kids.</p>
<p>I heartily concur with your premise and ideals about education. And, adding new bricks and mortar works only in a growing state (which Calif continues apace). But, once the college age cohort passes, states have the uneviable position of shrinking thier schools, or attracting more OOS kids. There was an article in the NYT about Alabama actively recruiting in neighboring states due to the decline of top kids in their state. Also, UMich has become a relative safety for Berkelely and UCLA rejects since that school needs to fill spots to offset declining residential enrollment.</p>
<p>Thus, why not offer Calif kids a "loan" to go to UVa, Mich or UWMadison (only top public schools, please) , which is forgivable if they come back and work in the state? The amount of the loan could be the 75% of approx cost that the state pays out of taxpayer funds to educate someone at a UC. Or, perhaps the UC's could partner with UMich and work out an arrangement for in-state tuition at that school, with receiprocity at SD or SB (think any northern kids would prefer the beach to Ann Arbor?).</p>
<p>Yes, prolly wacky ideas, but if the goal is to educate our citizens, it never hurts to think outside the box.</p>
<p>Privatizing education will kill the humanities and many of the social sciences. Universities, whether public or private, depend for a limited proportion of their expenses on tuition income. The rest comes from endowment or state and federal subsidies. Industries have teamed up with universities to fund applied research but this has the effect of 1. distorting the research agenda of universities away from pure research even in science and 2. introducing many potential conflicts of interest.
Well endowed private universities such as Harvard will weather this trend, but less well endowed or public universities run the risk of being turned into glorified vocational schools. If the biotech industry is interested in better educated manpower, is it also interested in having students know about Chaucer or Shakespeare or WWII?</p>
<p>I see all kinds of doomsayers noting that privatizing will kill the humanties, or not having a well educated populace will force industry to look at other states or "education is the foundation for a good democracy," which I agree with.</p>
<p>I am NOT advocating inferior education or the elimination of humanities. I am simply suggesting a different way to pay for education with vouchers. Kids will still be able to go to any private school that they choose and pick any major that they want including humanities.</p>
<p>Simply not having state universities should not make a local populace uneducated. They would simply get their education at the private school of their choosing.
In fact, in states with declining population, this voucher system seems to be even more beneficial.</p>
<p>States can even encourage kids to attend schools located in the states with bonus vouchers. Likewise, states can continue to subsidize private schools for certain programs. This is being done very well in New York. New York has 5 special state programs run by private schools but subsidized by NY State. Cornell has four of these programs such as hotel administration, all of which are considered top notch, and Alfred University School of Art and Design has an program specializing in ceramics that is top in the world. Why can't states adopt the same policies instead of recreating the wheel and having their own state universities?</p>
<p>Where privitization has been tried, it has worked very sucessfully. In fact, in New York, the semi-private programs are arguably better than those provided by NY State Universities, which admittedly can be a lot better and are considered mediocre compared to what is provided elsewhere.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that higher education be entirely privatized or only partly? As I said, tuition income covers only a small part of the expenses of running a university. If the universities are entirely privatized, I foresee a real distortion of curricular priorities; indeed, many academics claim it is already happening. It's interesting that the examples you cite are vocational. Ceramics instead of Chaucer? Hotel administration instead of Shakespeare? </p>
<p>Furthermore, NY state is not a good example of the benefits of vouchers, as it has an abundance of private universities that could take up the excess students from the state system. I can't see Midwestern or Western states being able to depend on private universities to educate the majority of their students.</p>
<p>There is a good reason why state universities in New England and New York are not as good as they should be, certainly not as good as Michigan, or Cal: the states have been relying on private universities to educate a large proportion of their population. That is not the case in the West or Midwest.</p>
<p>Yeah, let's eliminate UMass and allow everyone who goes there to apply to Harvard and MIT and a few other private schools in MA. More applicants, more reasons to raise tuition rather than lower it. How much of a dent will a voucher for $10k (more or less the tuition at UMass) do in a $30k tuition bill from Harvard--assuming that the student got in? That's the story of school vouchers for a large segment of the k-12 population.</p>