<p>
[quote]
Taxpayer support for public universities, measured per student, has plunged more precipitously since 2001 than at any time in two decades, and several university presidents are calling the decline a de facto privatization of the institutions that played a crucial role in the creation of the American middle class.
[/quote]
<p>Would you be willing to pay a tax increase if it were dedicated to increasing your state university or college funding?</p>
<p>Not with the results they are producing at many schools........low graduation rates and poor quality of graduates.......not when I can use the same funds to support private schools that do a better job. I would support allowing students to obtain larger loan amounts FED SUBSIDIZED.</p>
<p>Yes. Ditto for public schools K-12 in CA.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Hazmat- I would agree to pay for additional universities- but not branches or expansions of existing ones.</p>
<p>I see our flagship university paying the president $762,000 in benefits and salary, spent over half a million dollars remodeling his home to consolidate two bedrooms and two bathrooms into an enormous master suite- the majority of this money was taken from an endowment created for scientific and educational purposes. If the schools have enough money that they don't need to spend money earmarked for education ON education- they don't need anymore of mine</p>
<p>IMO, public our colleges definitely need help, but our K-12 system needs it more. Think about how much money could be saved at the state college level, if the Cal States did not have to remediate ~60% of its entering Frosh class. </p>
<p>I think a better funding solution is for Calif to receive back its own fair share of federal income taxes, so we can pay for our education system locally.</p>
<p>The marginal amount needed to provide the increment in funding needed to keep state U's competitve is pretty small. In a state like Washington $100 Million out of a budget in the $12 Billion per year area. That's under 1%. Much of this will be offset by higher inflows for research and the ability to charge higher tuition for a quality product.</p>
<p>Barrons notes,"The marginal amount needed to provide the increment in funding needed to keep state U's competitve is pretty small."</p>
<p>Response: I would suggest that this varies not only from state to state but from college to college.Private schools spend a large percentage of what they take in,based on the private school income/expense graphs that I have seen ( such as CMU). Thus, they aren't usually making a bundle on tuition based on what I have seen. </p>
<p>Some of our state universities and colleges in Maryland get a very sizeable subsidy. Frankly, with instate tuition for most state universities in Maryland costing less than 8K per year, either they are well subsidized or private schools are way overcharging based on costs. However, as noted above, the private schools aren't making a bundle on tuition.</p>
<p>I would not approve a pay increase to subsidize state universities. In fact, my vote would be to slowly eliminate them all in favor of vouchers based on need. Thus, I would like to see the private sector take control of secondary education. </p>
<p>As was noted in a prior thread, this can't be achieved suddenly because there may not be enough private school slots to absorb all the state university kids. Thus, thus the elimination of state institutions that aren't self supporting, may take many decades to implement. I would, however, tend to implement this concept. </p>
<p>I should note that state schools that are self suporting with tuition and reseach would be left in tact but privatized. Thus, my policy wouldn't affect schools such as Michigan and Berkeley etc.</p>
<p>State funding for K-12 education is really sad- that should be first priority as it was for us when we had our first child. If they don't have a solid education in K-12, it isn't going to matter too much how much money you have for college.
Gradution requirements for Washington state high schools are low- only 19 credits and no foreign language required at all.
Class sizes are large , building/renovation of buildings is way behind schedule and I won't even mention what passes for text books in many subjects.
I see students from other countries benefitting from our public universities while our own students struggle to graduate high school. Is that what we want?</p>
<p>At the ug level foreign students pay full OOS tuition with no aid. It's up to the school to price OOS tuition at a full cost level that provides some profit that can be used to help fund the instate and buildings, etc. That's what most of the schools with high OOS levels do and it is very lucrative for the school. Michigan would die without 30% OOS and the $$$ it brings.
At the grad level it is pretty much impossible to fill programs with just US students. Grad students are a major source of cheap labor at research U's and a core resource. The schools can't function as cheaply without them.</p>
<p>Agree with Barrons here. Foreign grad students are not a net cost to the universities. The only drawback to foreign grad students is that a lot of them leave the US after graduating. But another thing that's increasingly going on is that our public and private universities are getting into competition with foreign universities, and with the increasing difficulties since 9/11 of international students getting their visas to the U.S. there is more reason for them to take their talents elsewhere.</p>
<p>Edit: Oh, and in response to the OP's question, my answer is yes I'd pay an earmark on taxes to increase support of public education at all levels.</p>
<p>*Would you be willing to pay a tax increase if it were dedicated to increasing your state university or college funding? *</p>
<p>That is an idea that California might try and extend to K12. Oh well, as long as other sources work well to support the state universities, why bother.</p>
<p>Hey Mackinaw, you aren't somehow a professor at a state university are you?</p>
<p>I realize that most foreign students are full pay as opposed to students who are instate and subsidized by taxpayers or receive other wise merit aid ( football players ;) )
I know that having diversity in student body adds to experience- however I see it becoming much more difficult for average good ( resident) students to attend university.
even if you have a two year certificate- with great grades from local community college to save money- it is now very difficult to transfer to an instate 4 yr school, under the direct transfer agreement.</p>
<p>With 26 % of the freshman class ( 2001)at the UW being full pay ( I assume) international students- why are they still suggesting we raise taxes?</p>
<p>The numbers of international students for fall went up 26% not a total 26%
:o
I am trying to find the ratio of out of state students * know US news has it- but wanted to know if it had changed for admitting freshman- not interested in grad schools.</p>
<p>I think investing in education is smart, (southern states lost a Toyota expansion because they couldn't provide workers with a decent education level.) Educated people and education tend to attract business to a community. It would be nice if California could capture more of its federal tax payments, and then put that toward schools.</p>
<p>Taxguy, somehow I am (as you know). But I don't think my opinion on this issue is "determined" by that. To be honest, I don't have that many more earning years and it won't affect me personally if the financing mechanism changes a lot. But I think the upward trends in the costs to students to attend public universities are a negative from the perspective of assuring quality education to those who are qualified, as are many of the restrictions on public funding of K-12 in many states which nobody can argue has helped to improve education at that level in the last two decades.</p>
<p>In my state, when the public at large is asked where they think the state budget should be cut least, they say K-12 education and Medicaid (sic). They would like to see greater cuts in spending on prisons and corrections, and on state revenue sharing with local governments. And their willingness to cut higher education is in between these two poles. </p>
<p>Most people are unaware that the share of state university budgets paid by general fund taxes has fallen to about 40% today, compared with 60% two decades ago. I do think univerisities, especially established ones, should be expected to generate a lot of revenue on their own in the form of gifts and grants, contracts, and the like. But only a few current public universities could survive with a large additional cut in their state general fund support (assuming tuition were not changed). Mine isn't one of those.</p>
<p>Some people think it bad when an educated person who is working in the field has an opinion. I think it makes it particularly relevant.</p>
<p>I certainly would pay additional taxes to improve funding of public universities. Some view taxes as a burden but improving education needs to be viewed as an investment which will pay dividends in the future. I do not know what the statistics are but a vast majority of lower and middle class students rely on public colleges for their post grad education. If we fail to provide them with that opportunity which will help them to succeed in their adult lives our society will pay a dear price later on.</p>
<p>It is intellectual endeavors which are the generators of wealth today and is a reason the USA was such an economic powerhouse in the last half ot the 20th century. The rest of the world, and particularly Asia, is rapidly catching up and if we fail to invest in our children we will be less competitive.</p>
<p>Republicans constantly talk about growing the economy to enable us to meet the challenges facing us, endorse tax policies which encourage economic investment in business and industry. Isn't investing in the education of the engineers, scientists, managers, doctors, architects, economists, etc just as important an investment?</p>
<p>And if the middle class continues to be squeezed more and more each year, who will be left to buy all the goods and services which our businesses provide?</p>
<p>There are, of course, three (and one could perhaps argue more), levels of public education. The flagship state universities (research U's that grant Ph.D's --the UC's in CA, UW, WSU in WA, etc), regional universities and colleges (the cal state schools, in CA), and the community colleges. The major research U's tend to be able to bring $$ in through grants, alumni giving, sports, etc to help offset the decline in state funding, and they could attract enough students willing to pay more because of the programs they can offer. The community colleges are in high demand, these are the schools being tasked with building the bridges to higher education for generations for whom college has historically been an impossible dream, and providing outstanding technical training. They tend to be organized to respond quickly to marketplace changes and community needs. Demand is so heavy, many have extended waiting lists for many programs. </p>
<p>I believe, however, that it is the the group of colleges that comprise the regional universities that are the hardest hit by underfunding. These schools are not small, have overworked faculty, continuing belt tightening pressures, and often provide that first-generation college experience for so many. </p>
<p>I would pay more to see these schools better funded. These are schools where privatization will likely see cutbacks, dropping enrollments, and closures. It is at these schools where multicultural workforce integration truly occurs, where students learn to dream, and whose sons and daughters learn there is such a thing as a meritocracy. They are essential in building the generational stepping stones America promises (and who accept many of the CC transfers). These schools tend to pay faculty less, and ask them to teach more. One finds truly dedicated teaching faculty at these schools. I fear they are being ignored, much to our detriment.</p>
<p>No in Calif...not until the state gets it's budget in order.</p>