What do you all think of the idea of eliminating state universities?

Parents Forum
21

<p>Sigh, Marite, there are over 3000 accredited schools around. Only about 2-3% of them are very competitive; many of the rest are very good but want students. Less state schools will mean that other private schools will take up the slack. Let the free market rule as it does with other types of businesses. Harvard and the HYPS are very special cats since too many folks want to go there. Many of these schools, such as Carnegie Mellon and Wash U St Louis and even schools like Syracuse, are known to have high tuition which goes, in part, to subsidizing merit and need based aid. Wash U and CMU for years has been known to lure kids with a lot of aid. Thus, let the free market decide what to charge and how much aid to give. If a school prices itself out of sight, students will go elsewhere, which is probably the way it should be.</p>

<p>I am also in favor of vouchers and subsidizing certain private school programs instead of having expensive stand alone state schools.I would have both concepts tested in most statess</p>

22

<p>You have a very narrow view of what a state university does. Education is about one third of what a major university does. They also do research, heal the sick, focus on state problems and development, and bring all types of vitality to a community. At most major schools today the state funding is less than 30% of the budget.</p>

23

<p>Taxguy, I used Harvard and MIT because MA has an abundance of private colleges, yet I doubt very much that among them, they could absorb the UMass students, irrespective of admission standards. Would the 3,000+ accredited schools be able to absorb the students from the two major state sytems--UC (2003 enrollments 159,486) and UT (2002 enrollment 169,635)--let alone other state systems?</p>

24

<p>Marite notes,"Would the 3,000+ accredited schools be able to absorb the students from the two major state sytems--UC (2003 enrollments 159,486) and UT (2002 enrollment 169,635)--let alone other state systems"</p>

<p>Response: hmm, I don't know,but that would be an interesting research project. Certainly, over time, private schools would indeed be able to absorb these kids. I don't know, however, if it would happen immediately.</p>

<p>Barron notes,"You have a very narrow view of what a state university does. Education is about one third of what a major university does. They also do research, heal the sick, focus on state problems and development, and bring all types of vitality to a community"</p>

<p>Response Barrons that is where subsidizing private schools by the state comes into play. This way , the state can subsidize programs, medical research and other state interests. It would stilll be a lot cheaper than running their own stand alone state institutions.</p>

25

<p>The three tier public college system in California (UCs, Cal States, CCs), while not perfect, has been an enormous engine of success for the state. In one of the few cases of far-sighted wisdom displayed by politicians, California leaders long ago realized that providing a well-educated populace and cutting-edge research was the surest way to stability and economic growth. Thus they chose to create and fund perhaps best state college system in the country. And it has paid off handsomely. </p>

<p>Fueled in large part by research conducted at the UCs and supplied with a steady stream of college graduates from the many state schools, California has grown into the world's 5th largest economy (if it were an independent country). California has about the same population as Canada, and Canada is far richer in natural resources. But the GDP if CA is more than 10 times that of Canada. The 10 UCs, ~25 CalStates, and many CCs can't claim all of the credit, but they are a huge factor in CA's success. It's the same can-do attitude that led the voters of California to fund the $2 billion stem cell reasearch intitiative. If it's important and it ain't happening elsewhere, we'll do it here ourselves -- and as in the case of the UCs and Cal States, the whole country will be better off for California having made that investment.</p>

<p>Would Stanford, USC, Caltech, The Claremonts, and a smattering of Catholic colleges and LACs have done all this on their own had California not created the state schools? Dream on. The citizens of California have gotten their money's worth, and the rest of the country has been welcome to come along for the ride.</p>

26

<p>Coureur:</p>

<p>I totally agree with you.</p>

27

<p>What is stopping Harvard, Stamford, Columbia from taking more students now....how would that change under a voucher system...The public systems need to be strengthened not undermined. I would not oppose having reciprocity agreements between states regarding special admission and tuition agreements. I believe the western states already have some arraignment..I think that is why so many students come from Hawaii to certain Western state schools.</p>

<p>Where do you plan to tell the students at the following Public Universities to take their vouchers?</p>

<p>Universities of California–Berkeley, UCLA, UCD, UCSD,Irvine ect....<br>
University of Virginia<br>
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor<br>
U. of North Carolina–Chapel Hill<br>
College of William and Mary (VA)
Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison<br>
Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign<br>
University of Washington<br>
Pennsylvania State U.–University Park<br>
The entire SUNY System Albany, Buffalo, Binghampton, Stoney Brook
University of Florida<br>
University of Texas–Austin<br>
Univ. of Maryland–College Park<br>
University of Georgia<br>
University of Pittsburgh<br>
Ohio State University–Columbus<br>
Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN)
Rutgers–New Brunswick (NJ)
Texas A&M Univ.–College Station<br>
University of Iowa<br>
Miami University–Oxford (OH)
University of Delaware<br>
University of Connecticut<br>
University of Utah<br>
Washington State University<br>
There has to be about a quarter of a million students in the UC system alone....will Stanford absorb UCLA, CAL, UCSD and UCD students or will it be good for the state for them to attend lesser schools?</p>

<p>I think the best strategy is to beef up the public Universities....</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
What is stopping Harvard, Stamford, Columbia from taking more students now....how would that change under a voucher system...

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>taking in more students would change the dynamics. HYPSC would no longer be mid-sized, they would become large. The same would apply to LACs: they would cease to be the small, intimate communities and would need to enlarge to absorb the student populations from state universities. Let's remember that except for a very few exceptions, non-state universities and colleges are not large; but state university systems are.</p></li>
<li><p>there is literally no space for more students at most of these mid-sized universities. More students means more faculty, more classroom, lab and housing space needed. Harvard's expansion plans into Allston call for adding more students (~1,000 more) but those plans are to be implemented over a 25-year period. the addition of students is not the main purpose of the expansion but a bow in the direction of those who are concerned that the focus on science of the expansion plans may undermine the strength of the humanities and social sciences. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>But teaching is only a small part of the picture. universities are not fulfilling the same function as k-12 schools. Barrons has it absolutely right. Teaching is only a part of what universities do. Universities also do research. And this is where I am concerned that a loss of state subsidies would drive them into the arms of industry with all the distorting and restrictive possibilities this entails.</p>

<p>Mr. B, you are right. The reason (some) public universities are not as good as they should be is the lack of appropriate funding. This is shown very clearly in MA where the abundance of private universities and colleges has made the state legislature feel that it can limit funding for the state university (ZooMass) with sad results. UMAss-Amherst used to have a very well regarded computer science program that fed the computer industry along Rte. 128 (Wang, Digital, lots of start-ups). No more.</p>

29

<p>Coincidentally, today's Boston Globe reports that over the next few days, about 97,000 students are expected to descend on Cambridge and Boston. Only one of the schools they will be attending, UMass-Boston, is a public university, and I believe that it is mostly a commuter school.</p>

30

<p>Another relevant issue that hasn't been discussed so far on this thread is how state funding of public universities and colleges has been changing; and still another is how the state universities are governed.</p>

<p>To take the latter point first, some university systems are "unified" with a central bureaucracy that putatively helps to make the whole system more efficient and effiective (e.g.., SUNY), some are "tubs on own bottoms" (e.g., state of Michigan), and some are in between. In my opinion by far the strongest ones are "tubs on own bottoms" systems, which provide strong incentives for the individual campuses to develop independent sources of funding (not just tuition) and to compete effectively in the national higher educational marketplace. A lot more could be said about this but I think systems with a strong centralized management lead to widespread mediocracy of the system.</p>

<p>On the financial side, for many years there has been a trend toward decreasing state general fund support for higher education -- as a share of all costs. As a result, the campuses, especially those with "independent" taxing power, i.e., the ability to raise tuition without the need for central approval (by the system, the governor, or the legislature) have managed to maintain and improve their quality. Campuses with with strong research faculties have been able to obtain huge amounts of funding for research (in medicine, science, engineering, education, social science, etc.). And further they have been able to build endowment. These independent (i.e., non state budget) funds are what makes the University of Michigan great, not the diminishing share of the budget provided by the state budget. What makes it possible for UWis to attract a first-rate faculty, despite offering lower salaries than other universities of its class, is, among other things, WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Fund).</p>

<p>A consequence of this "disfunding" of the major state universities, of course, is rising tuition rates. In effect, however, the state universities are already gradually being "privatized" in the sense that a majority of their operating funds come from tuition and fees, grants and contracts, and endowment (development). Given the fiscal strains that the states have been going through over time, and in particular in the last couple of years, it's no surprise that in order to maintain quality and fulfill their various missions the universities have been raising tuition -- a lot. Some universities with a truly "national" pull, e.g., UNC, UMich, UVa (there are others) are able to get a bonus furthermore by charging even higher rates for out-of-state (OOS) students. While going after OOS students sometimes riles the state legislatures, and they may put formal or informal limits on the percentages (e.g., "informally" about 30% OOS for UMich), what this means is that stronger national universities can charge a higher average price.</p>

<p>As I posted earlier, I don't see any likelihood of an abolition of state funded universities. But we should be aware of what's already been happening with funding.</p>

31

<p>adding to Mackinaw comments: </p>

<p>We are also seeing further segregation of the type of learning at public supported sshools. Technical professions are being emphasised at publics and humanities being less funded. We are moving back towards the landgrant college concept because the cost of teaching technical fields is so much higher than the humanities which very few privates can do efiiciently and the government can do so well.</p>

<p>The students who wish to specialize in humanities will by choice and economics be willingly be guided towards privates who are more able to teach nontechnical material. </p>

<p>Besides, who would want a public supported institution teach a religion or a political thought?</p>

32

<p>I would want all public supported institutions to teach political thought and economics. These social sciences are the foundation of our democracy...Berkeley does a good job of teaching these subjects as do most of the other notable Publics.</p>

<p>What would the purpose of privatizing education be other than to restrict access for the middle and lower class families? I haven't done a study but I would bet my old socks that proportionately middle and lower incomed families suffer rejection from the top schools more than children coming from families earning over $200,000...in part because of institutuional barriers:...underfunded public high schools with overworked and inexperienced counselors, lack of coursework designed around the college application process including private tutoring for SAT and AP tests and in part because of preferential policies for legacy and private school programs.</p>

<p>In California alone, where would the UC students go?....there aren't enough vouchers or college spaces for them all....Of the top 50 Universities close to half are public the other half would not want to absorb all of those students, nor would it improve their schools as Marite wisely noted.</p>

<p>Poor policy and a major dose of ignorance has caused states to rely on increased tuition and overcrowding to balance their education budgets..to the extent that some private school degrees are cheaper because of their financial aid and the enhanced ability to graduate within 4 years (less overcrowding yields less closed out required courses).</p>

<p>The voucher system would help the on line universities to flourish but I have a hard time finding these schools on any ranking list. The quality of education would diminish and we would have cheated our children...to possibly save a few bucks.</p>

<p>I would rather see a state find a short term source of revenue and dedicate it to creating endowments for Public Universities. Even a voluntary sign off on state income tax returns to go to a public university endowment fund would be a good start.</p>

33

<p>I don't see states increasing the endowments of public universities. I do see the universities themselves doing this if they have sufficient incentive to do so. My own state university recently found it fairly easy to add $1 billion to its endowment, but it should have shot for more; and I suspect it will do so in the near future.</p>

<p>The state legislatures and governors have reduced the state's share of support for public higher education in part precisely because they can avoid raising "general" taxes this way -- but in reality creating a "users tax" on those who attend the state's colleges. The pressure on state budgets has come in part from the tax limitation movement, and in part from some of the same political forces that have preferred to spend more on prisons and "corrections" (which don't correct anything). There is a huge trade-off between covering the costs of locking people up for extended sentence for minor crimes and spending on programs that would focus on the circumstances that breed higher crime.</p>

34

<p>coureur--well said. California does an amazing job of making college education accessible to all. I can't imagine a voucher system being able to accomplish what the state schools (includes the UC's, Calstates and community colleges) here do. I don't see many private colleges being able to step up to the plate and take care of the kids (and older students) that our community colleges here do.</p>

35

<p>I also could see rampant fraud and creation of diploma mills in response to such a system. Many DC area gov workers have been exposed to have mail order type degrees they used to get promotions and such. It was rampant fraud.</p>

36

<p>I have a question. If all state buildings are closed because of vouchers, what happens to those thousands of buildings?</p>

37

<p>Folks, I never said close state universities but privatize them. Schools like UC , Umd, etc would stay in existance. The states would then allow vouchers to its citizens,who would get an extra benefit if they attend an instate school in order to keep the money in the state. An in state school does not, however, mean only a former state university. Thus, the spaces available should remain the same.</p>

38

<p>What of all the other functions the state university provides--research, ag support, public hospitals, etc. Many of their functions are not related to students and enrollment.</p>

39

<p>Barrons, the states can sponsor research,or subsidize patients that don't have medical insurance etc. All this can be accomplished without having stand alone state universities.</p>

40

<p>The auto analogy:</p>

<p>One of the problems that our state (OR) has in common with (CA) is that the publc pension system are amongst the best in the nation. How long can the taxpayer expect to pay a quarter of every tax dollar and rising, to pay pension liability of existing government employees and virtually guarantee their jobs, pay increases and pensions under all conditions? </p>

<p>Perhaps the better ranked schools are better ranked is because they do a better job and are more efficient for the same tuition dollar. Publics have an opportunity to make changes now, because in 10 years, there will be an oversupply of colleges. Some schools will have to close, change, become more focused, have more appeal, merge; its not going to be the top 50 schools that will change although they will be instrumental in that change. ...Just like to the domestic auto industry. </p>

<p>I'm not ranting and raving against teachers but against the inequalities in the current system. cliche; "I'm paid by the government-I'm here to help you."</p>