NY makes the condition that the free public tuition will be initially considered loans that must be paid back. If they stay in the NY state for a job, the loan would be waived for as many years as the tuition was paid

Would think some families will move to NY to qualify their kids. This could make Buffalo, Binghampton. Stony Brook and Albany even more selective and hurt private NY schools. But a lot of grads could choose to work at Starbucks until the loan is waived after 4 or 5 years. NY could see a lot of new debt.

A run on NYC so people can find and retain work for the length of the loan period.

No new housing infrastructure at the main four SUNY schools to keep their campuses selective, but others in the system will line right up to take the load, be it residential or commuter.

Tiny private NY schools are screwed. The bigger ones not so much. I'd wager the tiny ones have already had to diversify their enrollment profiles decades ago, and dipped into their coffers to offer very generous aid packages. This doesn't help. SUNY carries a favorable reputation, even though some schools are better than others. Free SUNY will kill some of the little guys.

This could be great for the SUNYs in the short run.

But in the long run this could hurt the SUNYs because taxes will have to be raised to fund this program, and New York is already seeing people flee from the high cost of living. And the only people who will stay because of this program are the low-productivity workers who won't benefit from moving out of state.

Rationing is the end game of every government subsidized "universal" program

Like European universities, they'll end up have to drastically reduce seats and increase admission scores. The result is that most seats will end up going to the children of the upper middle class and or the politically connected.

This will then cause outrage in such a blue state but they will fail to see the actual cause of this and will double down and demand that the schools accept anyone who applies thus creating an overwhelmed system that can't fund itself which collapses.

Economics always wins over pipe dreams of having your cake and eating it too

This is a massive win for talented young New Yorkers who are interested in ag, labor, enviro science, and vet.

This is not a college sports topic. It's politics.


It has nothing to do with student-athletes, who get scholarships anyway.

(04-12-2017 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  This is not a college sports topic. It's politics.


It has nothing to do with student-athletes, who get scholarships anyway.

There was a thread on Mizzou's enrollment. Didn't see a post by you complaining. The NCAA is at its essence politics and political.

Students will still have to pay fees, books, room and board. Fees are important to most athletic departments and the SUNY's will likely get more.

If Missouri had to close, or had to leave the SEC due to problems with its enrollment, that would obviously affect College Sports and Conference Realignment.


This topic has nothing to do with College Sports and Conference Realignment. None of the SUNY athletics teams will move conferences or be affected in any other way because of this.

(04-12-2017 11:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If Missouri had to close, or had to leave the SEC due to problems with its enrollment, that would obviously affect College Sports and Conference Realignment.


This topic has nothing to do with College Sports and Conference Realignment. None of the SUNY athletics teams will move conferences or be affected in any other way because of this.

So the SUNY's gaining enrollment and athletic dollars doesn't pertain to possible conference changes or athletic offerings?

Enrollment has nothing to do with anything, and what are you talking about athletic dollars??

(04-12-2017 11:15 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 11:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If Missouri had to close, or had to leave the SEC due to problems with its enrollment, that would obviously affect College Sports and Conference Realignment.


This topic has nothing to do with College Sports and Conference Realignment. None of the SUNY athletics teams will move conferences or be affected in any other way because of this.

So the SUNY's gaining enrollment and athletic dollars doesn't pertain to possible conference changes or athletic offerings?

Ok, try this. It may reduce the scholarship cost burden on the athletic departments, as the cost of scholarships would go to zero. Could increase the number of quality walk ons as well.

(04-12-2017 12:14 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 11:15 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 11:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If Missouri had to close, or had to leave the SEC due to problems with its enrollment, that would obviously affect College Sports and Conference Realignment.


This topic has nothing to do with College Sports and Conference Realignment. None of the SUNY athletics teams will move conferences or be affected in any other way because of this.

So the SUNY's gaining enrollment and athletic dollars doesn't pertain to possible conference changes or athletic offerings?

Ok, try this. It may reduce the scholarship cost burden on the athletic departments, as the cost of scholarships would go to zero. Could increase the number of quality walk ons as well.

Except it won't. The students will still be charged tuition, and the tuition will be forgiven years after they graduate. So the Athletic Department will still have to fund a scholarship for the student.

Right. And even if this proposal paid for the tuition portion of the student's costs up-front, that's still not any kind of majority of the athletic dept budget.



You guys are essentially arguing that the Ivy League need-based model will increase athletic quality!

(04-12-2017 09:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This could be great for the SUNYs in the short run.

But in the long run this could hurt the SUNYs because taxes will have to be raised to fund this program, and New York is already seeing people flee from the high cost of living. And the only people who will stay because of this program are the low-productivity workers who won't benefit from moving out of state.

Yeah, I don't want to think about the costs. Infrastructure, staffing, and then shoving the burden even further onto out-of-state students.

It's a conundrum. I worked for a really good public school, and while the students got a good product with stellar faculty, the overall morale at the place blew. Felt entitled to Ivy League service and features, would promote working at the place like it was a private liberal arts school, but would throw your state title and the civil service hierarchy at you in an instant. Faculty, administrators, and staff leave, and then find better prospects in these "downgrade" institutions, but, again, find success and lose the hypocritical nonsense. So, you can fool some people with that nonsense when you recruit...after awhile, the secret's out (thank heavens for the internet), and now you have a school who can't get what it wants in staffing and faculty because it doesn't respect the people they have (who they wanted just the same before they could get them).

What I really don't envy is what is to become of Stony Brook. Those guys went straight up so fast...this only makes it all the more competitive and perhaps issue prone. When I graduated high school, I would have gotten in without a hiccup. Today, I might not. That's less than twenty years, and that kind of change in an arena that is known for its glacial speed for change? Man, I bet the faculty there are miserable, even the tenured ones (because, even though you have that, you have department chairs and deans calling HR trying to lure you to retire to give up your staffing spot).

I used to love the idea of good public education. I'm afraid I'm no longer embracing that. I know how the sausage is made all too well now.

(04-12-2017 12:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 12:14 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 11:15 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 11:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If Missouri had to close, or had to leave the SEC due to problems with its enrollment, that would obviously affect College Sports and Conference Realignment.


This topic has nothing to do with College Sports and Conference Realignment. None of the SUNY athletics teams will move conferences or be affected in any other way because of this.

So the SUNY's gaining enrollment and athletic dollars doesn't pertain to possible conference changes or athletic offerings?

Ok, try this. It may reduce the scholarship cost burden on the athletic departments, as the cost of scholarships would go to zero. Could increase the number of quality walk ons as well.

Except it won't. The students will still be charged tuition, and the tuition will be forgiven years after they graduate. So the Athletic Department will still have to fund a scholarship for the student.

It's essentially a state subsidy for public ADs to the extent that the athletes happen to stay in NY. It also probably does help w/ walk-ons.

It adds to the money being thrown at a fixed number of college seats. Net effect higher price of tuition, greater debt for students and higher taxes.

This does not address the fundamental issue which is the number of residential seats and the availability of industry useful major slots.

(04-12-2017 03:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It adds to the money being thrown at a fixed number of college seats. Net effect higher price of tuition, greater debt for students and higher taxes.

This does not address the fundamental issue which is the number of residential seats and the availability of industry useful major slots.

1) I don't immediately see how this raises tuition.
2) I think that the theory is that keeping talent/innivation at home will eventually lead to higher taxes, so the program will be self-funding.

I think that there are significantly better ways of doing what they're doing, but that isn't my call to make.

(04-12-2017 04:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) I don't immediately see how this raises tuition.

Why wouldn't they raise in-state tuition?? The students won't be paying it.

(04-12-2017 04:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 04:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) I don't immediately see how this raises tuition.

Why wouldn't they raise in-state tuition?? The students won't be paying it.

I thought that you meant from the students' perspectives.

That line of thinking only impacts in-state students, and they're offered a ride for free if they stay in state.

I misunderstood you.

Tuition will raise, but indirectly. It means the State will be subsidizing via the inefficient way of Student loans. As an economic scheme this is idiotic.

Fundamentally it raises taxes by increasing the State commitment to the schools. That isnj't magic money, it comes from somewhere.

Again the biggest reason this is inefficient is the State funding via such a scheme is not directed. This will not go to improve the schools, just operations. It means ZERO new seats, ZERO new professors. It does not fix the problems, it merely shuffles at the margins who might get one of those seats.