(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a nice argument but wholly irrelevant. Do smaller trees thrive among larger ones? Not usually. Nothing in life is fair. The economic conditions that were prevalent when when schools in the 1800's were formed were quite different from those founded early in the 20th century. Many of the JR colleges and formal "Normal" colleges which had the function of training teachers but which grew into universities happened because of the GI Bill, the Pell Grant, and Baby Boomers and children of Baby Boomers at a time that consumer credit first gained a foothold in the American economy.

Right now we are in a higher education recession. Automation, low paying entry level corporate jobs, and the longer work life of citizens have suppressed the ROI on an undergraduate degree. So fewer young people see a college degree as essential when trades can earn them as much or more than those low paying corporate cubicle jobs and do it with less overhead. So what we have are states which are increasing the undergraduate enrollment at their oldest and best funded schools by lowering entrance requirements and building facilities. Why?

What about the states where their economies don't function so much on blue collar and trade work? According to this it seems the top 10 blue collar states are Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Alabama, Michigan, Kentucky, Wyoming, Arkansas, Mississippi, and North Dakota. I could see those states de-emphasizing the smaller directional schools where applicable. But what about the white collar states that still depend on higher education? Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Massachusetts.

(04-10-2018 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I find the argument that subsidies once helped athletic programs that began to emerge at our schools in the 1880's and 1890's to be specious. The economic and demographic conditions were quite different. I like that argument to the one that says because there are 500 jiffy marts in New York City we can 500 in Kalamazoo Michigan. The economic climate and demographics are so different that the argument doesn't translate.

Their long range intent is to close or reduce funding to smaller duplicated institutions and to subsidize the research at the older schools through undergraduate tuition. The downsizing of higher education has begun. And while students love their schools the schools are just an entity funded in most cases by taxpayers and they will flourish and die by the market demand. It is simply more efficient to fund the larger schools and funnel the students of a state there. This cuts the number of state jobs that create huge insurance and retirement liabilities for the state, it raises the bar on the quality of instruction because more people will be seeking fewer positions, and it provides in house the funding for research deficits that are beginning to occur due to lack of funding by the state and Federal Government.

It would be great for the people if we had a huge drawback in attorneys and politicians but that isn't likely yet. But to continue to fund outmoded forms of education simply because of alumni loyalty and the dreams of their fans of becoming Big State U is a folly that plays on emotions rather than fiscal responsibility.

A state school is a government entity like the Post Office or the IRS. Yet we recognize the need to cut the bloated IRS and to have competition for the Post Office. But if good old beloved State U is threatened we treat it like a family member has been attacked rather than an attempt at efficiency in government. It's not rational.

What about the old and large State U's that the state governments will direct resources at in your theory, but currently aren't true powers in Division I.

The schools I can think of that fit this profile would be Boise State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Buffalo, New Mexico, Nevada/UNLV, Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, USF, Colorado State, and San Diego State. And there may be more that I'm not thinking of. There's other states too that aren't represented well in Division I (like Hawaii and Wyoming), but I don't think they'll have that consolidation influx like you're talking about because they don't really have any other state schools to consolidate... and they also may be in areas where the options of trade schools may be more enticing.