<p>Udub undergrad is 4% international and 23% OOS. The 23% is higher than it used to be I think.</p>
<p>California undergraduate classes at the Universities can be so crowded that students can't take classes in the major until after the second quarter. This can contribute to a 5 year graduation cycle instead of 4, which adds expense while keeping students out of the tax paying revenue source.</p>
<p>We would do well to spend a little more on education.</p>
<p>The question presumes that the increased taxes will result in improved student services and/or lower costs. Richard Vedder's interesting book, Going</a> Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much suggests that most increases in state subsidies for public colleges haven't gone to lower tuition or smaller classes, but rather to expand administrative areas and add amenities.</p>
<p>I'd hope that legislators considering underwriting in-state schools would pay attention to how the funds are used, and perhaps make them contingent on specific student benefits.</p>
<p>Admin increases can be good for students when it goes to improve advising, placement, fin aid, etc. If you are talking fancy rec centers and student centers as amenities, most of these at large schools are funded out of student fees and not state funds. I can't think of too many other amenities at most schools. But I have not read the book either.</p>
<p>My comment was a bit of an oversimplification - I think Vedder devoted a whole chapter to the topic. While some increases in administrative headcount may produce a direct student benefit, many would produce at best an indirect benefit. One of Vedder's points was that a principal justification used when asking for state funds was the need to hold down tuition, but that was rarely a result from the incremental funds.</p>
<p>Overall, college cost increases have outpaced inflation in twenty out of twenty years. If taxpayers are being asked for greater contributions, it's reasonable to ask what administrations are doing to tighten their belt, get more classroom hours from profs, etc.</p>
<p>To their credit, some states do a good job of keeping college affordable for their residents.</p>
<p>Roger, I haven't read Vedder's book but would like to comment on the rising administrative expenses. While certainly a lot of those are services to students, including all kinds of advice and counseling, a whole lot is also a result of state and especially federal regulation and in support of the research and public outreach missions of the university and does not directly serve students. For example, we have offices for intellectual integrity, research involving human subjects, animal use and care, legal services (handling everything from contracts, to patents, to defending against legal liabilities and suits), contracts and grants (a lot of the activity of this office is for federal compliance, not just for standard accounting), and handicapper services and planning (compliance with Americans for Disability Act, etc.).</p>
<p>But we also have, instead of that old "computer center" building housing the "mainframe," an enormous staff devoted to providing all the information technology for faculty, staff, and students -- networks and network security both for the university as a whole and every major unit. The costs of running libraries have increased due to accelerating book and journal prices and, again, technology costs (which partly create efficiencies by moving away from hard copies to electronic services).</p>
<p>This doesn't touch much on the core services for students in areas of admissions, financial aid, counseling, advising, career services, and course schedulding. Nor does it touch on functions of communicatioins and public outreach or for building mainteance and services. Most classrooms these days are outfitted not just with networking but also electronics for audio-visual presentations.</p>
<p>At the heart of every good college is the face-to-face interactions of faculty with students, and students with students, in the classroom, laboratory, offices, and so on. But everything I mentioned in the previous three paragraphs make these precious interactions possible, including staying on the good side of state and federal regulations.</p>
<p>That touches on another area--the fastest increasing segment of major universities is research spending which is outpacing growth in other areas by a large percentage. As Mack mentioned this comes with a large administrative overhead to administer the funds and and hopefully patents and other results of the research. The university benefits by getting about 40% of the grant to pay for the overhead and facilities which often can go to help cover regular operating expenses. The entire economics of major universities are far different than they were 20-30 years ago. This is one reason the percent of state funding as a portion of the overall budget is often not comparable over the decades. State funding mostly goes to the actual educational part of the university with very little going into research funding.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity..that is maddening isnt it. Money endowed for education used to remodel a home. I recall when I taught school years ago, we were out of space so I was in this tiny teachers reading room with 20some kids. It was unairconditioned...no book shelf and no chalkboard. So I requested them but had to wait until the superintendents office was remodeled.</p>
<p>Taxguy..UMD is alot more that 8K a year..double that.</p>
<p>Angstridden, Tuition for University of Maryland for instate is $8030. Fees add another $6369 for a total of $14,399, which is still a steal compared to many private schools whose tuition alone exceeds this.</p>
<p>I should note that even for out of state, it isn't too bad at $19,599 for both tuition and fees.</p>
<p>See the following url:<a href="http://www.mba.umd.edu/financial/tuitionfees.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.mba.umd.edu/financial/tuitionfees.asp</a></p>
<p>Taxguy, you are looking at MBA costs.
Here are undergrad costs.</p>
<p>So tuition and mandatory fees are even less than I mentioned: They are only $7,821 for a resident and $20,145 for a non resident. Thus, we taxpayers are clearly eating some of the costs of education. </p>
<p>Thanks dstark</p>
<p>$20,145 is more than $19,599. You're starting to sound like a government official. :)</p>
<p>I am in a position to see a lot of waste and excess on college campus. But I also see the other things mentioned here--an embarrassing need for college to remediate the failures of the k-12 education system; an increased demand for services and administration, some of it absolutely mandated by laws and regulation; a real difference in how state institutions can handle declining funding, etc. </p>
<p>Unlike other industries, universities cannot downsize (in a sense). They are not just responsible for staying on top of the ever-increasing knowledge explosion in numerous fields--they are also repositories for all the knowledge which has gone before. They can't really give up or stop doing things. They can cut a few programs, they can enroll fewer students, but they cannot elect to impart less knowledge, or to not stay current.</p>
<p>I think the criticisms about some state universities not "performing" well are important. I think one thing we may want to revisit is whether pubic funds are being effectively spent on the right students. It's often not the university's fault when a student drops out. Some students don't have degree goals, don't know what they want, aren't serious about college--but they enroll anyway. Maybe if we had a better system for letting students take a gap year, stop out, figure out what they want, they'd be better candidates for the public investment that appropriations represent. On the other hand, we also need to recognize that "some college" provides benefits too, so dropouts do not represent a complete waste of public money.</p>
<p>The tuition inflation rate for publics seems to be higher than privates, but I have limited exposure to this. Am I correct. In your opinion, Are the Costs of public colleges changing at the rate of privates?</p>
<p>Mr.B:</p>
<p>It's a mistake to compare rates of change between different universities. It assumes that their situation is comparable. Some universities need to expand to accommodate a larger influx of students: ergo, more classroom space, more dorms, more faculty, more support staff, etc... Many state universities have left off crucial maintenance that cannot be put off any longer; so the tuition hike may reflect delayed maintenance costs that do not necessarily apply at other universities. A recent Chronicle of Higher Education issue examined the reasons behind increasing costs at Bates, a selective and expensive college. Heating costs, health insurance, a new cafeteria all played a part in raising tuition. Bates is a private school, but some of its expenditures are in line with those at any other school. </p>
<p>State universities have to face a peculiar boom and bust cycle in state funding. I remember when UW-Madison announced that it was marking its 100th anniversary by creating 40 new faculty positions--most went unfilled. By the time various departments were ready to hire, a couple of years later, its financial situation had become so dire that it suspended admitting students for a while.<br>
The CA system is particularly strained, it seems to me, by the growth in the student population. But in recent years, as most state education boards have sought to fulfill the NCLB requirements, funds have been diverted from tertiary to elementary and secondary education. If they have not been diverted outright, appropriations have not kept up with the needs of the local state universities and the students they serve.</p>
<p>By the way, the other night PBS had an excellent documentary that reviewed a student protest at UW-Madison during the Vietnam era. Apparently, it was the first such large-scale war protest at a major college campus during that era.</p>
<p>I was shocked at the recollections of the Madison City Police Department. Those guys hated the UW and still do. The classic town and gown confrontation.</p>
<p>Adding 5% to a $5000 tuition only brings in $250 real bucks. Adding 3% to a $30,000 tuition brings in $900 more bucks. Comparing percentage changes on far different base numbers is always dangerous.</p>
<p>Not if they use it to give more merit money to kids whose families can afford to pay. Yes if they're actually providing an accessible, low-cost education to people who might not otherwise go to college.</p>
<p>Comment on: "I was shocked at the recollections of the Madison City Police Department. Those guys hated the UW and still do. The classic town and gown confrontation."</p>
<p>This wasn't just a classic town-gown situation. I live in that kind of situation now, in a university town, where it's a life-style difference mainly; it has nothing to do with politics. </p>
<p>In Madison during the 60's (I was there when those events happened), there were many other elements.</p>
<p>First, real politics: attitudes toward the Vietnam War and the government in particular. </p>
<p>Second, a class phenomenon: a sense by the largely working-class based police that these privileged and largely middle-classed students were not grateful for what they had.</p>
<p>Third, antisemitism: a sense by some in the community that the political protests were being led or instigated by "out-of-staters" or "New Yorkers" or some other euphemism for Jews in Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Fourth, verbal assaults and dehumanization of the other side: "Oink, oink" by protestors to the police; "animals" by the police to the student protestors.</p>
<p>Fifth, incompetent planning for crowd control, and the particulars of a narrow State Street route from campus to the capital, with important cross streets; thus unauthorized protests effectly closed down a large part of the central city.</p>
<p>Police have learned a lot about handling comments and crowd control since the 60's. Did you ever see the teargas wagon they had to shoot out massive clouds of gas? Battleship gray with heavy wire over the windows. Actually it was pretty cool in a way.</p>