RSS FEEDS
huw posted on 10/1/2009 3:13:00 PM
I don't see the reader's comment posted?
Elizabeth Bryan posted on 10/1/2009 1:09:00 PM
Here's my response to a reader who argued that IUP's recreation center was paid for by "student fees" not "state money" and claimed the PASSHE is transparent.
Spending funds on large non-academic projects, like the recreation center, offsets the state subsidies awarded by the state. Universities receive subsidies from the state in order to lower tuition and fees, but as funds have increased, students’ costs continue to rise because schools choose to spend more on new building projects instead of lowering tuition. This is a result of a larger problem referred to as the college “arms race” and the subsidy system has caused it to flourish at PASSHE and state-related schools. These decisions are all well and good if we’re talking about a private school, but the PASSHE’s mission is to “provide high quality education at the lowest possible cost to students.”
Secondly, in terms of transparency, we advocate an online “check-book registry” where any taxpayer can see exactly how the state is spending tax dollars. The PASSHE should be held to the same level of transparency that we want to see from all state and local governments. I recently found out that you need to file a Right To Know Request just to view each universities operating budget. While some schools offer totals in broad categories, consistent standards and a state-wide portal for tracking expenditures (and performance) should be in place to guard against wasteful spending.
huw posted on 9/28/2009 4:36:00 PM
You're all in fantasy land here.
The state legislature is unlikely to do any of what you suggest. I'm all for funding students to attend the school of their choice - but where do you get the money? Again are you proposing taking the state appropriations and granting it directly to students?
Jason Beigh posted on 9/28/2009 2:45:00 PM
Nate,
After correspondence with Elizabeth, I am more clear on this point. I had not understood this position from the original article. As I explained to her, I do agree that incremental changes in the right direction, are better than none.
Personally, I would like to see the State (and Federal) government get out of all of the areas of government they should not be involved in, education being only one of them. Here in PA, we are watching our lawmakers struggle over passing a balanced budget, and it all seems so simple to me. I simply don't think most lawmakers can see the forest through the trees.
If our legislators could muster up the courage to make some large changes such as divesting themselves of state assets such as state parks, forests and game lands; auctioning off the state run liquor stores; and selling off the entire interstate highway system to private business, our legislators would have more money than they would know what to do with (not that they wouldn't find a way to waste it).
Combine this with education reform, welfare reform and an overall downsizing of state government (starting with turning our legislature to a part time volunteer body) and PA would become the most desirable place to live in the United Stats.
If this win fall were used to attract companies to relocate their businesses to PA, and to incentivize talented individuals to come to the state by offering significant tax relief for a period of time, we would solve our fiscal issues for years to come. We would have a stronger economic base to draw from, and less big government oppression to stagnate our economy.
I guess there is no harm in dreaming. Keep up the good work!
Nathan Benefield posted on 9/28/2009 9:40:00 AM
Jason,
Thanks for the comments. We agree with most everything you said. You should note that recommendations are an effort to move from the status quo to the ideal delivery of higher education.
I think you missed the significance of the sentence following – "Instead of the current system, state subsidies should be directed to students, and awarded regardless of which institution they attend." That is, instead of the current system, in which a student can get say a $5000 grant to attend Penn State but only $500 to attend a technical school, they would get $1500, to spend at the school of their choice – whether that be a community college, trade school, lower-cost for profit college like University of Phoenix, etc.
We also share your concern with the devaluing of the degree, and using it solely as a screening tool by employers. This trend has been largely driven by inflated standards and poor performance at the K-12 level; we previously wrote on that topic here:
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/low-standards-de-value-diplomas
Jason Beigh posted on 9/28/2009 9:13:00 AM
Though I agree that there needs to be significant reform in this area, I think you really missed the important point in your essay and contradicted yourself.
I really thought when you stated “...rising levels of financial aid increase the demand for college degrees...” you were going to follow the real problem with higher education in America. As government continues to subsidize education and guarantee student loans, the demand increases. This artificial demand drives up cost.
From 1987 to 1997, the Consumer Price Index for college tuition and fees rose 111 percent, compared with 41 percent for all other goods and services. The increased cost of education is the single fastest growing cost in our economy. It has outpaced the increase in the price of a gallon of gas and it has outpaced the increased cost of health care. I constantly hear liberals bashing big oil companies for their price increases and “gross profits” because they believe corporations are evil. We are in the middle a huge national debate over reforming health care because that system is broken and out of control. Where is the same outrage from the liberals when it comes to higher education?
It is my opinion that the more government gets involved in education, the more costly and inefficient it becomes. I do not believe “Funding students, not institutions, should be the priority if the General Assembly is truly concerned about college affordability.” is consistent with the above quote from you in the same article. This approach does not address the issue of an artificially increased demand.
Truth be told, we have too many college educated people who lack critical thinking skills and are no smarter than high school graduates of past generations. This is because the curriculum in high schools and colleges have been “dumbed down” to accommodate the masses. Many high school graduates can barely read and write, and have little if any mathematics skills. Now days, a college degree has become as expected as a diploma was 20 years ago. To set oneself apart, you must now obtain an advanced degree.
Additionally, we have a serious shortage of people who are trained in the industrial trades, because a college education has been so easy to come by, and is being pushed by high school guidance counselors. An experienced, well trained plumber, electrician or auto mechanic can make as much, if not more than someone with a bachelors degree.
It is my opinion that state and federal funding should be decreased, and the quality of education needs to be increased by upping the standards at both the high school and college level. More students need to attend trade schools, technical schools and community colleges which are all much more affordable than universities.
Just one mans opinion.
huw posted on 9/28/2009 9:11:00 AM
Lincoln's student body is heavily low income. These students face crushing financial issues in attending college and that is frequently why they are unable to continue on to graduation. The tuition is one of the lowest in Pa but still many of these students can't afford to go - there's little or no commuting to Lincoln. Rendells tuition relief proposal would make a significant impact on grad rates here but Lincoln is not part of the state system so it was not included in the proposal. The particular students who attend Lincoln would be well served by the cwf article's proposal to have funding follow the students. That would also significantly raise grad rates. But again how do you provide that funding for needy students while insisting on defunding the system. Would the 13 million sent to Lincoln be made available as aid to the students? That might be an effective way to go. BTW the amount of funding Lincoln receives is insignificant compared to the appropriations for the state system and the state related universities. That's where the real problem lies. Lets say you reduce appropriations to these colleges by 25%. What would happen? The more popular ones, PSU main campus, WCPU, Millersville would make minor cuts and then INCREASE prices. There is more demand than supply, they turn away thousands of qualified full paying apps every year. The less popular schools, like Cheyney and Mansfield would probably go out of business. What institutions like Kutztown or Temple would do is hard to predict. I suspect they would also raise prices. The end effect of reducing appropriations would be to continue the current trend - the stratification of higher ed where access and choice is determined by income and not through merit. In other words wealthier students would continue to flock to PSU, Pitt, WCPU while middle class students would face fewer choices and likely end up at CC's. This is what happened in CA after the recent round of budget cuts. So if we were to implement what the CWF article suggests and fund students would the legislature be prepared to direct large amounts of the appropriations directly to needy students who could then take that funding to the institution of their choice? I suspect the legislature with all it's special interest obligations would not do that.
Ed Stem posted on 9/28/2009 8:28:00 AM
The Pennsylvania Legislature is giving a $13 million state appropriation to Lincoln University of PA in the 2009 budget.
Per a recent graduation report, Lincoln University of PA has a mere 38% graduation rate! They charge $7,578 for tuition.
Both the taxpayers and the students are being cheated by this university. Year after year, kids dropping out with huge debt. Year after year PA taxpayers give this failing university more money.
The only people who are well served by this process are the Lincoln University administrators and faculty. They still get their salary, health benefits and state pension regardless of their level of performance.
Imagine the useless debt these students and their parents are encumbered with when they leave the university with no degree!
Any other business that had these kind of results would be under investigation for consumer fraud.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/Diplomas%20and%20Dropouts%20final.pdf
Elizabeth Bryan posted on 9/25/2009 9:32:00 AM
How do you get there? By showing how colleges are a special interest and that more government funding will only produce more lobbying efforts. The current system doesn't just hurt low-income students- it hurts all families and wastes taxpayer money. Rendell's proposals will only make it worse by rewarding universities with more funding.
huw posted on 9/24/2009 4:33:00 PM
Vedder is BS and your paragraph
three regarding college prices is nonsense. However your conclusion, that the money must target the students with need is absolutely correct. The system here in Pa is basically subsidized education for wealthier pennsylvanians. Politicians from both parties are married to that approach.What Rendell proposed was a continuation of that approach, which would enable less wealthy students to access the state system - they are currently being squeezed out by high prices. What has really happened in higher ed is that prices have continued to rise 5% or so a year over the last 25 years. Subsidies, whether from PHeaa or Pell grants have not kept pace so families became more and more gapped. IN the nineties loans made up the difference but as the gap continued to expand the loan burden became too great and lower income students were phased out mostly to community colleges. In pa today you can be a top 5% student nationally, and if you are low income, not have access to the state colleges or state related universities. Rendell's idea would would have solved this dilemma but would have maintained the current system. Your proposal to direct money to the students who need it is a great idea but how to you get there from here. Most legislators in Pa are going to be reluctant to move away from the current system which rewards middle income and wealthier constituents - the people who vote for them. At this point it is just wishful thinking
Post Your Comment Here
