Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Your State University Doesn't Want You

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the unless-you're-good-at-the-football dept.

Education 551

theodp writes "According to a new survey of college admissions directors by Inside Higher Ed, the admissions strategy judged most important is the recruitment of more out-of-state and international students, who can pay significantly more at public institutions. Ten percent of those surveyed also reported admitting full-pay students with lower grades and test scores than other admitted applicants, and a majority of schools either use or plan to use controversial commission-paid agents to recruit foreign students (commission-based recruitment is barred in the U.S.). 'This isn't about globalization or increased educational diversity,' asserts USC's Jerome A. Lucido. 'They need the money.' So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

cancel ×

551 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491076)

Considering how much tuition has increased at my local state schools over the last decade or so, I'm not sure they want *anyone*. I really feel sorry for kids today. It wasn't that long ago that I went to college. And tuition has almost tripled at my old school since then (while incomes have barely budged). If I had to do it over again today, there is no way I would have been able to afford it without crippling student loan debt. Sadly this rise has happened in a time when it has become almost essential to get a college degree if you want any kind of decent job.

There was an excellent article [nytimes.com] on this a couple of years ago in the NY Times.

Costs of education? (5, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491210)

The cost of education really has sky-rocketed. Perhaps a study or two needs to be done on the real cost of education, because to hear tell, the educators aren't getting big raises, and this even occurs at schools with no need for capital expansion. So where is all this additional money going?

Perhaps state funded schools should need to justify every increase in their tuition, and certainly business projects, such as stadiums and sports teams, should be excised out of the report (ie, they need to be self-funding)

Re:Costs of education? (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491320)

Largely for state schools it's coming from reduced income from the states general budget. Somewhere along the line we bought into both "everyone needs a college degree" and "government shouldn't do anything" and so we have an entire generation that is going to be saddled by mountains of debt just to be able to get a job. It's kind of the company store all over but at a macro level instead of just in small towns.

Re:Costs of education? (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491790)

You are dead on right. In Texas, the legislature has been eating away at state support for higher education after eliminating caps on state university tuition. The legislature said with a straight face that this would not increase tuition, but it doubled over the last decade. The Texas GOP views higher education as "liberal brainwashing", so I expect the GOP controlled government to continue down this path.

Re:Costs of education? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491394)

"So where is all this additional money going?"

Mission creep. Education is still a central tenant, but various support offices plus deans and assistant chancellors heading departments that have no direct ties to educating students cost money.

Re:Costs of education? (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491494)

It's amazing, you make it easy for people to get money to pay for some specific thing and the price of that thing skyrockets for no apparent reason.

It's not like this has happened with other things, say handing out home loans like candy causing house prices to shoot up.

And the additional money goes to the administators, after all they are the ones who are clearly doing all the work to increase the institution's revenue. And of course to those stadiums you mentioned, since that helps the administrators perform better at the dick measuring conferences.

Re:Costs of education? (4, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491586)

My state university has all these beautiful new buildings that are half empty because they can't afford the faculty to put into them.

Re:Costs of education? (4, Insightful)

claus.wilke (51904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491732)

That's because it's easy to raise private funds for buildings, but it's much harder to raise private funds for faculty salary.

Re:Costs of education? (1)

orthancstone (665890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491724)

It's amazing, you make it easy for people to get money to pay for some specific thing and the price of that thing skyrockets for no apparent reason.

Also amazing: When you slash state funding by massive levels, the institutions now have to find revenue elsewhere. Can't imagine who they'd bilk for extra dollars...

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (5, Informative)

claus.wilke (51904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491276)

It is important to mention that throughout the US, tuition has gone up at least partially in a response to declining state funding. If states are not willing to fund their state schools, then the state schools have little option other than operating just like the private schools.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491528)

I'm sure the numbers vary per school, but since the 60s my Big10 school's state funding has dropped from ~80% to ~15%. Meanwhile, tuition and fees have grown from ~20% to almost 70% of revenue.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491784)

That's a large part of it, another large part of it is that the folks running the schools are under a delusion that scholarships will cover the costs. Which isn't true. Most folks are saddled with large loans and those that aren't are typically progeny of rich parents.

Also, the estimates for what parents can afford to pay to cover the cost, is a large part of the problem. There's no law that requires parents to pay, and yet it gets factored into financial aid calculations. Sometimes it means that people who shouldn't be getting it do and other times it results in people that should be getting it aren't. And in cases like me, because the parents didn't feel like doing the paperwork for the FAFSA it means that they'll get nothing beyond the ones on the IRS forms.

Ultimately, even if it were true, that wouldn't be an excuse to inflate costs or be less vigilant about making students pay for things that aren't reasonably related to their education.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (2)

memnock (466995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491296)

Bumper sticker:
"If you think college is expensive, try ignorance."

I agree that the cost has risen quite steeply. But I think a free-market person would argue that if the degree betters your chance of a higher income, then that shouldn't deter you. Of course, those people are probably done with the little debt they had when college was cheaper and are already rich. They don't realize what that debt is like, as you pointed out, crippling in some cases.

OTOH, the kids could try to be more reasonable about what is really necessary to get them through school. Don't need a new car or a lot of new clothes. My uni's library lends laptops and IPads (for only a few hours, but they are available). And I've always worked while in school. Not full-time, but close to that many hours for some stretches.

Further, I don't know if a college degree is really necessary for a lot of "decent jobs". I know this being a tech site, folks are thinking more from the perspective of high tech industries requiring a lot technical training, but there are other jobs that pay well enough without a lot of school. UPS driver, plumber, firefighter. Having said that, the future of our economy seems to be heading in one of two directions jobs-wise: really technical, well-paying jobs that do require a good deal of school of which there don't seem to be a lot of, or a lot of menial, service jobs that don't pay as well. There'll still be plumbers and firefighters, but I picture big plumbing conglomerates that hire plumbers as contractors who will get crap pay compared to what they used to get when they were independent/proprietors.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491496)

There'll still be plumbers and firefighters

Of course there will be. They have unions.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491308)

This can't be true, the Fed says there is no inflation

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491398)

Between tuition hikes at private schools and public universities, and the concerted push to dismantle public education in the U.S. ever since the 1980s...well, there was a reason the U.S. started the public school system in the first place and decided to educate everybody instead of leaving such an institution wholly to the market. I fear the rich will have to rediscover the situation they were in with a massive uneducated population before they stop this downward spiral.

Re:I don't think my state university wants ANYONE (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491706)

I really feel sorry for kids today. It wasn't that long ago that I went to college. And tuition has almost tripled at my old school since then (while incomes have barely budged).

I echo the feeling but in my case the fees have increased by an infinite multiple. From zero to £9,000 (US $14,000) per year. Really, I don't think that degree/non-degree salary differentials make it worth while in the UK.

Fuck no (0)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491078)

Yay first post

Alright! (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491084)

Capitalism, Fuck Yeah!

Re:Alright! (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491216)

Capitalism, Fuck Yeah!

This comment for the most customer unfocused industry in the country? The whole point was that the gaming the government funding, which is not capitalism. More pure capitalism would actually fix a lot of the problems state schools are having. Of course it would create a lot more... (University of Phoenix anyone?)

Re:Alright! (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491460)

Capitalism works quite well in regard to University of Phoenix. Nobody respects them. Only at institutions (like the government) where the degree only means a checkbox would your UPhoenix degree mean anything.

Re:Alright! (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491500)

This is only a perversion of capitalism if a) the out of state funding over-compensates for the in-state taxpayer funding the schools receive (which is becoming more of an issue as many have pointed out) and b) if the school actually admits out of state students with lower qualifications than in-state ones (it has yet to be proven, the only "evidence" is an anonymous survey). The fix for both of these issues is just a little bit more transparency; expose how much extra revenue is derived from out-of-state students and see if it matches up per head with the in-state students and the state's contribution to the school (the school has an obligation to require more money from out of state students). Then, publish anonymous admissions data and challenge anyone to find a pattern of statistically significant leniency on out of state students.

Re:Alright! (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491604)

More pure capitalism would actually fix a lot of the problems state schools are having.

Like what? University of California (among others) is pretty capitalized these days, selling off bonds to finance new projects. Then, of course, they have to pay that back at interest. It can't be good for anyone; if they could get appropriate state funding instead then the drive for constant expansion wouldn't plague their plans for the future.

There's a PBS Frontline about it on Netflix.

Re:Alright! (0)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491694)

The closest to capatilism that these universities actually exhibit is their sports programs; The same programs that bring in millions of dollars to the institution but are derided by the uber liberal as hedonisitic neanderthals that should be studied as genetic throwbacks rather than the enlightened of true academia. The rest of the institutition is so heavily subsidised that it could be best described as a failed experiment in cross-breeding of political ideas, taxing the populace to keep it afloat while charging them again to allow them access to its original purpose.

Capitalism sure as hell isnt taught in the classrooms anymore. Not in any objective light anyway.

Easy money (2)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491102)

Pennsylvania has got to be a forerunner in all of this. The state run/subsidized colleges seem to have a heavy preference to those with a fatter check. Then again, why shouldn't they be? Those same kids are also eligible for more grants and by adding minorities and foreign students to their undergraduate portfolio the college can get additional state and federal funding. At the same time the "higher" tuition those kids pay for a heavily paid for by some group other than the actual student.

Re:Easy money (3, Insightful)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491238)

Well, the answer to "Why shouldn't they be?" is because they are supported by the state they reside in under the premise they will support the local populace first. Essentially they are getting the benefits of being a state school while shirking the inherent responsibilities that come with that.

Re:Easy money (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491274)

Yeah that was an ugly mistake. Guess that shows just how well I took in PSU's lectures and studies...ha

Re:Easy money (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491582)

The problem being that less and less of the state funding is coming in. Hence the need to recruit higher (monetary) value students. Pulling random numbers out of my butt, lets pretend that it costs a given uni 40 million dollars a year to operate. Ten years ago, that university got 20 million a year from the state. With half it's funding coming from the state, only 20 million had to come from tuition, grants, or endowments. Now the state is only giving them 5 million. That means to maintain they must raise 35 million from outside sources now instead of twenty. They can't increase tuition on in-state students, and they can only increase enrollment so much (not to mention that enrollment increases costs too). The only real solution is to find students that they *can* charge more.

In reality no states have cut funding *that* dramatically of course; but still the loss of say 35 or 40% of your state funding, as a state school, hurts. You have to make up the money somewhere. This is a "somewhere".

Re:Easy money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491328)

I am one of those directly affected by the article. I become a full-time university employee in order to afford college. I will probably be laid off some time between January and June; they are privitizing our jobs. Officially there will be no layoffs, employees will either be handed to the private company or they will be transferred to other open positions. There is nothing to gaurentee that the benefits will be similar (if going to the private company) nor that compensation will be similar.

I make approximately $4k less then the average starting salary for my degree yet I have over a decade of experience.Numerous times I've been told I'm underpaid by my supervisors even by university standards. When I looked for a job 3-4 years ago they all gave me a bum references despite claims to the contrary (I have friends at some of the companies I interviewed with; in one case it was my friend directly talking to my former supervisor) in order to prevent me from leaving; the university justifies it as I am too valuable to loose.

Unfortunately, I had a kid at 18 (I love her to death) who lives with me, but the courts still favor the mother. I have to pay to get her to her mother's every month which costs more then the $50 in child support her mother pays. If I were to move to a coast where I hear there are plenty of jobs, I would have to fly with her into the city of her mother's residence (small town; big $$$) twice a month and for holidays. I really feel obligated to try and stay close for my daughter, but that just may not be possible.

In terms of pensions, everyone assume we will receive none despite paying into the system for a number of years and despite the fact that as a state employee we do not pay into social security and thus will not receive any benefits from it.

Capitalism - make your own (0)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491108)

What, do you think you have the right to education wherever you choose?

This is capitalism and the land of free enterprise - just start your own university if you think you can do any better.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (4, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491180)

Yep. This is Capitalism, where workers are forced to accept the same wages for over a decade while costs for everything continue to rise.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491228)

Start their own business if they think they can do better;

but what's the bets that if they did they would turn out like all the other people who did better and realise they don't need to pay "workers" any more than the "workers" are willing to work for...

Re:Capitalism - make your own (5, Interesting)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491400)

You can't just start a business without capital. Right-wingers always assume people have the ability to gather savings when they are under-paid and/or under-employed, then start businesses in fields with such large capital requirements that it would be impossible. Just try to start a cellular provider, or internet provider, or restaurant, etc. You pretty much have to find a rich person to finance you, and that is also not as easy as Right-wingers always assume it is. Simply put, the middle class has been eroded and pressured so badly there are not many capable of doing this. If you look at the number of "entrepreneurs" attempting to start businesses over the last 30 years it has been a steady decline mostly due to people not being able to survive let alone save anything on the wages they make. We live in a capitalist society with less-and-less markets capable of being exploited due to massive corporations, off-shoring, and the money supply being concentrated into only a few hands. Then, if you want a good job, you need a good education and thus are slapped with crippling debt for the rest of your life. How can you start a business when all your savings go to paying off interest?

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491548)

and the same middle classes slit their own throats supporting the same corporations that badly serve them, being unable to link choice with consequence or being unable to suffer today for a better tomorrow.

"help, the world doesn't suit me... it's... HARD"

It's always been hard... it's always been easier to whine about what someone else should do... but if you constrain what the other person does, he may find it to be no longer worth his while and stop doing it too...

You can start business without capital, but it is hard to start a for-profit business without capital.

Start a co-operative college without capital. Teach in the homes to start with, pay with food or work. But no-one does that cos it makes them poor to start with, and they would rather take a pay cheque now, and whine.

But in my country the Polish are (were) famous for having done it that way, for having stuck together, supported eachother and having become the best and the most skilled in one generation, through polish clubs, polish schools, and the next wave are doing it again where I live.

It's nothing but work work work and no money. That's the cost.

And the "rich person" won't fund you easily because then they wouldn't be right.

it's not capital that makes riches, but someone's work work work.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491570)

I meant the "rich" person wouldn't fund you cos then they wouldn't be rich.
They get rich with their own work, ideas and effort in relation to use of their capital, and the ones who still have the riches learn to be careful how they use it or they lose it.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491634)

What you speak of certainly does not sound like capitalism at all.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491752)

Right-wingers always assume people have the ability to gather savings when they are under-paid and/or under-employed

I did while I was in college. No student loans, only a $10/hr 30hr/week internship. I just didn't buy piles of CDs and worthless do-dads like other kids. You don't _need_ cable and 50" flatscreens.
If I could pay for school, books, food, apartment, etc and still save on $300/week back then, I'm sure someone with two part time minimum wage jobs could have too.
Now granted, I never saved enough to start a business, but I've never heard a right winger say that starting a business is easy peasy.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491370)

Actually that's not capitalism, that's money destruction, and it's an attitude that is permeating throughout government [slashdot.org] , academia [slashdot.org] , market turned to a casino by this idea [slashdot.org] , POTUS [slashdot.org] and banks [slashdot.org] and public [slashdot.org] as well.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491554)

Wealth destruction due to greed, which is the basic tenant of capitalism. Why pay your employees twice as much in the US when you can get someone in China to do it and make more money for yourself? We hemorrhage our money out all over the world so there is no surprise the Fed's have to print more of it for domestic use. You can model it with a differential equation. Essentially, if you have some resource that is continually depreciating (i.e. a dollar due to printing, inflation, whatever) and you spend more of it than you take in, there is less value overall even though you may have the same number of resources in circulation in your own nation. After WWII, we weren't the ones that had our industrial centers bombed to rubble, so we supplied the world with products since we had the capacity. Money flowed mostly INTO the US. Lo-and-behold we had 50 years of prosperity until China stepped up and replaced us as the major manufacturer for the world. Politicians don't seem to want to do anything about that.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491220)

What, do you think you have the right to education wherever you choose?
Actually, yes. From the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491272)

yeah.. not quite what is says, is it... and the reason is not to benefit the students individually, but the nation as a whole.

What better way to encourage education that make it profitable so that more educational establishments spring up?

That means wider education AND wide employment of educators AND import spending from foreign students.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491374)

Encouragement is not assurance.

That being said I believe their should be a level of education for all citizens. But honestly generic BA's are worth about as much as the paper they are printed on. College is almost useless in terms of actual education unless you're pursuing a specialized profession (medicine, law, engineering, etc.). If you cant learn the garbage you get in most programs before you leave high school, then college is little more than a massive tax on stupid.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491260)

Yes indeed. Over $2500 of my property tax bill goes to education, and that's rising each year. I'd say my kids should damn well be entitled to free local education if I choose not to go private.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491434)

If universities were pure capitalism, my state taxes would be reduced by the amount I'm currently paying to subsidize higher education. I could put the funds in a safe interest bearing investment until my children were ready to attend college and then pay in full. In State / Out Of State would be entirely meaningless, and we would be free to choose the university with the best cost/benefit ratio, wherever that may be.

But it's not capitalism.

Everybody who thinks the government will make things better (health care?) should look at this.

Re:Capitalism - make your own (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491714)

And yet there are private schools and colleges...

Conflating facts (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491116)

It's a purposeful distortion to ask if rank-and-file *employees* should get a pension after a lifetime of service, simply because one single administrator (uni pres) has a huge paycheck. That's like asking if the front desk secretary should be allowed to have a cigarette break because the Goldman Sachs CEO is already out playing golf.

MOD Parent up, please Re:Conflating facts (5, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491796)

Parent is insightfully addressing the misleading question in the summary:

"should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

This appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the idea of providing a pension system to state employees without providing any evidence that those employees haven't earned that pension.

This rhetorical attempt to represent the compensation of a university *president* as justification for reduce compensation for the majority of university employees is logically fallacious, and seems like an attack on those employees simply because they work for a state or a state education system..

I expect better. Yes, even from Slashdot.

As a university professor: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491154)

Our funding in Wisconsin was slashed by our governor. Our pay has been slashed for the last 4 years. Enrollment is down, which means money for supplies is trickling down to zero. So when we go to China (a new program instituted this year) to import foreign students, we're doing it to stay solvent.

Who should be mad? I would say the taxpayers of the state, but they get what they pay for. Even though they have paid into the system their whole lives, they would rather save a few bucks in taxes each year than have access to cheap, amazing education in their state.

Re:As a university professor: (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491262)

Education is a future benefit. Food is a current benefit. Some people are having to make that kind of choice now.

Re:As a university professor: (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491464)

This is what food stamps and Pell grants are for.

Re:As a university professor: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491708)

If you don't have enough money for food, you aren't going to pay taxes. You qualify for full tax exemption (my full time working mother-in-law is in this exact situation). So no, no one has to make that choice right now.

Re:As a university professor: (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491402)

"Enrollment is down"

What the hell is Wisconsin doing wrong? Every school I've looked at has growing enrollment. It's the natural thing in a recession: the opportunity cost of attending school far lower when you don't have a job to quit in the first place.

Quit Blaming Capitalism (3, Insightful)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491172)

These are state sponsored institutions, i.e. they receive a good share of tax money from your local gov.

Capitalists will take anyone that can pay the bills and not cause a problem.

Re:Quit Blaming Capitalism (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491202)

Also, this means you pay taxes, they collect, then tell you to f- off when you want to go to school there.
If they need that much assistance, they shouldn't be operational in the first place.

Re:Quit Blaming Capitalism (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491298)

These are state sponsored institutions, i.e. they receive a good share of tax money from your local gov.

The cause of this is exactly that schools receive a hell of a lot less tax money from state governments than they used to.

"Capitalists will take anyone that can pay the bills..." and only those who can pay the bills. And they deliver an inferior product -- for-profit colleges and universities are notoriously poor. If you want a quality education for everyone; we need public funding; if you want a so-so education for the children of the rich and little or no education for the poor, then let the capitalists run the schools.

Re:Quit Blaming Capitalism (2)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491362)

Aren't the most reputable institutions in America generally NOT state institutions?

Also, whether or not to fund a university is something the politicians do. People have voted to have less education. Isn't that fair enough?

Re:Quit Blaming Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491686)

That's right, this issue clearly boils down to a decision between "public funding" or "capitalist run". Furthermore, the options are mutually exclusive, one option is obviously better and the other one sucks, and the only reason we don't go for the better option is because idiots control the system...

Or maybe it's more complicated than that? Maybe your broad generalization is off base and reflects a bias on your part, instead of reality?

Not in New Hampshire (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491334)

The state government provides something like 15% of UNH's budget, and that was cut in HALF last year. GJ, teabaggers.

Illinois (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491614)

"i.e. they receive a good share of tax money from your local gov."

While here in Illinois our state government is DELINQUENT in paying its share to the University of Illinois system.

Re:Quit Blaming Capitalism (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491704)

I am working at a "state school" right now, which receives a whopping 5% of its budget from the state. Do not be so quick to assume that "state school" means "paid for by the state government."

public pensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491174)

So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

- no, and no pension system should be public in the first place. [slashdot.org]

Old news (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491182)

This was happening at the university I went to back when I was in it.

Someone has to pay for all those managers... (5, Interesting)

G-Man (79561) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491198)

"What happened, for instance, to swell the bureaucracy at the UC over the past two decades? There now are nearly as many senior managers (8,144) as tenured and tenure-track faculty (8,521). As recently as 1993, the ratio between these groups was much different - 2,429 to 6,846.

Put another way, 18 years ago the student-to-upper management ratio was 62-to-1. Now it's all the way down to 2-to-1. The ratio of students to regular faculty, meanwhile, has risen from 22-to-1 in 1993 to 26-to-1."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/585302/201109191844/By-The-Way-We-Teach-A-Little-Too.htm [investors.com]

Re:Someone has to pay for all those managers... (1)

G-Man (79561) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491364)

Note: I assume the '2-to-1' is a typo and the author actually meant '27-to-1'

Re:Someone has to pay for all those managers... (2)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491392)

Same thing has occured in my own local public school system. They have a ratio of .78 administrators per teacher and a staff of 18 lobbyists!

More recently they wanted to spend 135 million on a new administraton building to consolidate mulitple office spaces while students are being taught in 20 year old trailers. All this in the second wealthist county in the nation.

Re:Someone has to pay for all those managers... (1)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491576)

"What happened, for instance, to swell the bureaucracy at the UC over the past two decades? There now are nearly as many senior managers (8,144) as tenured and tenure-track faculty (8,521). As recently as 1993, the ratio between these groups was much different - 2,429 to 6,846.

Put another way, 18 years ago the student-to-upper management ratio was 62-to-1. Now it's all the way down to 2-to-1. The ratio of students to regular faculty, meanwhile, has risen from 22-to-1 in 1993 to 26-to-1."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/585302/201109191844/By-The-Way-We-Teach-A-Little-Too.htm [investors.com]

That seems strange - somehow even though the number of managers only went up by a factor of about 3 (from 2400 to 8100) the manager-student ratio when down by a factor of 31? (from 62-to-1 for 2-to-1 ?) Are there really half as many managers at UC as there are students? And yet there are more tenure-track faculty than managers by their numbers - shouldn't the teacher-student ratio be (if only marginally) larger than the manager-student ratio?

This is what all those subsidies did (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491200)

Created price inflation and increased the administration staff that isn't on the front line actually teaching students.

Rather than downsize administration and actually meet the needs of students, they look to those with more cash flow.

Gravity is a bitch.

Re:This is what all those subsidies did (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491382)

Yup, the bureaucrat fires everyone else, but never ends up firing himself.

How does it work over there? (2)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491214)

You'd have thought the lower tuition fees for in-state kids was due to a public purse of some sort, so that the institution doesn't get less for their own kids. It's crazy to set up an incentive to get out-of-state kids for a state school.

Re:How does it work over there? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491504)

In many states public universities are banned from charging tuition to in-state students. This is ostensibly because the state funds the teacher's salaries. But of course, they can still charge it for out of state students, so there is a huge incentive to recruit them in order to increase income. They prefer doing this to controlling costs.

Higher Edumacation (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491254)

That's academia at it's finest. They will take the state and federal funds but put preference on the out-of-state or international students. And then they look down their nose at anyone that's not "enlightened" by their institutions. They push policies that ensure their power and authority and deride the unwashed masses who havent yet lost their common sense.

Confirms a lot of my state university experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491278)

If only I could have read this article before I had to share a dorm room with some rich moron from New Jersey whose dad owned a car dealership. Oh, and he dealt drugs out of our room, too. While I was there. Studying.

Take your douchebags back, California and New England!

I'm 50 years old, overweight and out of shape... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491300)

... so yeah, who can blame them?

Submitter can't do math (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491326)

The 16,000+ figure for out-of-state students is wrong. According to the linked statistics, it's only 11,442. Submitter erroneously added the total "Non-Ohians" figure and the "foreign students figure together.

One way to double check the correct math is to subtract the 52,635 Ohians from 64,077 total students, yielding 11,442 Non-Ohians. Subtracting 4,940 foreign students means there are 6,502 out of state students.

Geography also a factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491346)

This has been a problem for long time. 10 years ago VA schools at the time said that they have to take the same number (or percentage probably) of kids from each county in the state. Well I happened to live in a densely populated county and all the kids applied to the state schools. Guess what happens? It's super competitive to get in. But, if you are from out of state you can have a much lower GPA and SAT scores have a better chance of getting in than the kids that live there. They (myself included) pay more to go out of state. What school wouldn't want the money?

Also a lot of people I went to high school with applied and got denied or wait-listed ended up going to a local community college for a year then transferring in as sophomores and juniors as a way of bypassing the state school admissions process.

Re:Geography also a factor (1)

infaustus (936456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491544)

It is not true that out-of-state students have an easier time getting into VA schools, at least not the good ones (UVA and WM.) They have much higher SAT scores and better GPAs because out of state enrollment is restricted to 1/3 of students. It's also not terribly difficult to get in from NoVA. Most of the people I know who got rejected and used that excuse were not the bright, even if they thought their weighted 4.0+ GPAs made them perfect candidates.

GVSU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491396)

Grand Valley State University really pumped the whole "local first" good for the local economy/our students make West Michigan better by staying in the area, but I know several people who attended GVSU recently who couldn't get funding for their master's degrees (other than loans) and, even worse, could even get practicums at GVSU when they were pursuing a master's degree in Higher Education. Heck, GVSU's library spends most of its time hiring people who earned their MLS degrees from other states, instead of people who earned their degrees from one of the two MLS programs in Michigan (something like 6-8 'entry level' hires in a two year period). In short, screw you GVSU.

Is this a trick question? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491416)

So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

I'm sure a lot of people are going to be cool with this.

Did they just make up that 16,000+ number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491422)

The linked page shows a total university enrollment of 64,077, of which 52,635 are Ohioans. That leaves 11,442 non-Ohioans, 4,940 of which are foreign, leaving 6,502 students that I would consider "out-of-state". So how did they make up that number? Did they put an extra "1" in front of 6,502 or did they count the foreigners twice and add 11,442 to 4,940?

dom

My state university gives only %12.5 to the budget (1)

Lexible (1038928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491432)

The strategies of recruiting out-of-state and foreign students reflects decades of disinvestment in public education by the state government. Where I teach the state legislature retains 100% of the control over our budget despite contributing only 1/8th of that same budget. This pattern exists in state throughout the U.S.. If you want a quality public university system get on the phone, write letters and organize to pressure your state government to fund it.

There's coming a breaking point... (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491474)

...where the US higher educational system is going to have to realize that the current model isn't fiscally sustainable. As long as your tuition rates are growing faster than people's income, SOMETHING'S gotta eventually give. They'll have to see that all the extra bells and whistles that are currently considered "essential" to the university aren't so much so, and they'll just have to pear it down to just boring-old-teaching.

Re:There's coming a breaking point... (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491630)

Of-course tuition fees and medical insurance premiums and medical costs are all growing, but this has nothing to do with what people are making, this has everything to do with what people can get in loans.

It's exactly the same principle that applies to the housing bubble - could people actually afford to buy houses that are half a million or maybe a million dollars? Majority of people can't really afford these, but they were given that opportunity by the system that gave them the loans. It's all about government guaranteeing loans, government insuring loans, government pushing banks to give loans, it's all about credit that cannot actually exist.

Prices are going up not because of actual costs in case of medical insurance or health care or tuition or houses, prices are going up because of the amount of money that is available to chase them, and the amount of money that is available is not coming from individuals, it's coming from the government.

Here is an explanation of the next round of this phenomena. [slashdot.org]

Re:There's coming a breaking point... (2)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491772)

Lots of people won't go to college, because they can't afford it. Smart employers will realize that some of the best candidates don't have a degree. Universities will start to become irrelevant for many jobs. It's already this way in software development. We don't even look at education when hiring, just experience.

Funny that a guy who can't do math... (1)

Microsift (223381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491484)

...or read a table is complaining about higher education. Ohio State University doesn't have 16,000+ out of state students, it has 11,442 (according to the document the post links to). Foreign students are included in that number. There are 52,635 Ohioans, 11,442 non-Ohioans for a total enrollment of 64,077.

Re:Funny that a guy who can't do math... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491662)

You mean THE Ohio State University, right?

Re:Funny that a guy who can't do math... (0)

Mattwolf7 (633112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491782)

I'm confused as well.
a.) Why does this Slashdot post have a quote that I can't seem to find in the articles, much less see any mention of OSU in the articles at all?
b.) Gee's pension isn't a "full state-funded pension", he pays contributions just like every other state employee.
c.) Isn't a $1 million dollar salary to the President of a $4.82 billion enterprise fair? "If The Ohio State University were a company, it would be listed on the Fortune 500." (http://www.osu.edu/facts.php)

NO public emploees should receive pensions!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491510)

"So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

We cannot afford old school (no pun intended) pension programs, especially public union pension when the tax payers have to foot the bill while most, themselves, have to self fund their retirements.

Government unions are absolutely a horrible, horrible idea. They have to go!!!!!!!!!

Re:NO public emploees should receive pensions!!!! (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491794)

You're just a Republican thief. Public union pensions, like any pensions, are paid for by the workers. They put off collecting a significant part of their pay for their work while they're working, in exchange for getting it back with some interest later when they can't work anymore. They loan the money to the government, or to their private employer.

Most Americans collect Social Security to base funding their retirements, the safest way to finance it. But you Republican thieves are working to steal that, too.

The problem with the system is that you Republicans insisted on spending the $TRILLIONS workers loaned our government on fraud wars instead of productive investment in Americans. But you Republicans want more of the wars, but none of the investment in Americans. That's the "old school" that is burning down around us.

Keep the money (1)

haggus71 (1051238) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491552)

First, they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to raise more money in this method. If state funding of education were prioritized over, say, road beautification projects or officials' salaries, maybe they wouldn't resort to these methods

Second, and more important, the schools need to remember they are STATE schools, funded by the state. If they want to recruit outside the state, they should have their funding from the state deducted for every out-of-state student over a certain percentage of the school body they enroll. Hey, they are making as much as 5-10 times the money off these out-of-state kids, so they should have funds withheld appropiately. These places tend to forget the money they get from local taxpayers dwarfs any amount they get for recruiting out-of-state.

Not really State University anymore (1)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491566)

Across the country, state legislatures have been treating public higher education as a "splurge"; something that's nice to have but not really necessary. Welfare is a necessity, but public higher ed is not. Gotta love that logic.

Public funding has been a declining percentage of the universities' budgets for a long time. In a few years, they won't be "public" at all.

Most IT workers should go to tech / trade / appren (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491584)

Most IT workers should go to tech / trade schools and apprenticeships.

And not forcing them to go 4 year (that trun out to be longer then 4 due to the high number of needed credits in the past you needed less)

Also how does high level theory vs doing more hands on work help you be a better help desk or desktop guy? What is use is all that high level math? Some math is ok but some it of it is better for high level design that is way past what most IT workers do.

Now for coding I can see lot's of math and theory (to a point) but going to far on theory is bad for coders.

Networking, support, and admin needs to be on it's own track from the coding side of work. And even on the Networking, support, and admin side that can also be broken out a few of there own tracks aka big scale network setups vs admin + a smaller network setup.

The filler classes are nice to a point but it has gone a little to far as the number of credits needed has gone up over the years. Now a better system is to cut them down and or make some IT classes just out side your main focus count as filler for the needed credits part.

Ideal way is to have a 2 year mixed class room / apprenticeship system and no internship B.S. It should be a real payed (at least mini wage) apprenticeship like how electricians and plumbers systems are setup.

Now keep the 4 year for the high level stuff (with a way to join midway if you did the 2 year mixed class room / apprenticeship in the past)

Re:Most IT workers should go to tech / trade / app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491798)

I agree completely, I've wasted most of the money I have spent on education. I was working at ISPs administering servers, and doing hi level tech support before I ever went to college through self education. IT work can be self taught in most of the non development fields and sometimes even then through a desire to buy books and learn on your own.

  I pretty much have handed now 2 schools a boat load of cash to learn nothing, waste my time, and listen to teacher who half the time have never worked in the field doing the classes they teach(sometime saying things that are flat out wrong) just to have a piece of paper that says I already know what I know.

Through the years I have had multiple interns tell me they have learned more from me in a year or two interning than they learned in the entirety of college, sure there is a place for it for some, but many jobs could just as easily be taught on the job without the crippling student loan debt.

HeHeHeHeHoHoHoHoHaHaHaHa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491638)

Don't you know that public institutions are simply there to provide life support for football programs? The lions must be fed, unfortunately there is no bread at these circuses.

Converting to in-state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491648)

The bigger mess comes when out-of-state students apply for in-state status, which they are generally able to do after the first 1.5-2 years of school. At the same time, states set limits for the percentage of out-of-state students who can be granted in-state tuition.

So, states end up with subjective, nonrepeatable selection processes for judging who is granted in-state status. You could buy a house or run for office [usatodayeducate.com] and still not be considered in-state for tuition purposes.

Did no-one think of... (1)

Wishful (526901) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491650)

Gotta train that cheap labour from other countries so we can continue to out source jobs to them !

Meritocracy in America (2)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491664)

Interesting atricle from The Economist, from 2004, about social/financial mobility in America. http://www.economist.com/node/3518560 [economist.com]

Investment in the future (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491680)

I see it simple. The student invests his personal time into his future and the state should help him doing so. Other form of investing something in the future of the inhabitants of a state are also helped, like tax exemptions etc. Lets say 10000 Students from you state studying will in you universities for 3 years each roughly corresponds to a 1.5 billion dollar investment of their personal lifetime ($50000/year). If they will earn twice as much money the next 30 years, they will get in total a return on the order of 15billion from this investment, and the state which they live may get a even higher amount back from it. So why not to help them to invest this?

Immigration Quotas (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37491692)

Like any other state/national entity, states should apply max quotas of immigrants to who they admit from outside, who are all subsidized by the taxpayers in the state. There's both financial and educational (diversity, quality) benefits to admitting as many outsiders as the state can get, before the net effects exclude actual residents too from the net benefits.

Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37491734)

Whenever there is a discussion of cost increase for education (or medical) the first thought is finding yet more money to pay for the increase. Why is there little to no discussion on why there is an increase. We do that with personal budgets. As an ex-Project Manager I say, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>