(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: (04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: (04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote: (04-07-2017 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: How does it "make money?" In-state tuition levels are too low to pay for themselves. The only way it makes money is if the state gives the university a pro-rata amount based one each student, and it's the height of idiocy to count out-of-state students in a scheme like that.
How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple
1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors
You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.
So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.
there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well
you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost
you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment
as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality
you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well
you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab
you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research
if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students
there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties
if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students
well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them
There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.
That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.
why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that
the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side
all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university
you are also leaving out other factors as well
these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash
they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)
they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes
so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly
then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles
for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start
but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state
plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start
Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth
once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more
but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places
every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on
government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from
Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low
I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful
but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries