I expect state governments to eventually require the vast majority of their public colleges and universities to be more state related (ala Penn State & Pitt) rather than the public colleges we know them as.


For example, let's say one decides he/she wants to go to LSU, and they live in the state of Louisiana. Under the current system, he/she would only have to pay the in-state tuition which isn't too bad compared to what tuition someone in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have to shell out to send his/her child to Penn State, which I've heard is basically a private institution that offers discounts to in-state residents.

Under what I am theorizing, if LSU became a state-related institution, tuition would jump up considerably, and be more in line with what someone from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have to pay! However, the state wouldn't have to spend nearly as much $$'s on LSU than in the past, because LSU would be great deal more self sufficient, with a smaller state subsidy. I'm surprised that the Georgia Institute of Technology hasn't pulled this move off yet, because I think they would be in a better position than a lot of other state universities, including my own UGa, to do this because of the way they are structured and how they operate.
The money the state of Louisiana saves by not sending it to LSU would instead be used for other things, like trying to improve Louisiana public high schools.

(03-12-2021 08:58 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I expect state governments to eventually require the vast majority of their public colleges and universities to be more state related (ala Penn State & Pitt) rather than the public colleges we know them as.


For example, let's say one decides he/she wants to go to LSU, and they live in the state of Louisiana. Under the current system, he/she would only have to pay the in-state tuition which isn't too bad compared to what tuition someone in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have to shell out to send his/her child to Penn State, which I've heard is basically a private institution that offers discounts to in-state residents.

Under what I am theorizing, if LSU became a state-related institution, tuition would jump up considerably, and be more in line with what someone from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have to pay! However, the state wouldn't have to spend nearly as much $$'s on LSU than in the past, because LSU would be great deal more self sufficient, with a smaller state subsidy. I'm surprised that the Georgia Institute of Technology hasn't pulled this move off yet, because I think they would be in a better position than a lot of other state universities, including my own UGa, to do this because of the way they are structured and how they operate.
The money the state of Louisiana saves by not sending it to LSU would instead be used for other things, like trying to improve Louisiana public high schools.

There working on a few things in Louisiana right now, the LSU System receives more state money per student compared the Louisiana or Souther system. (These are the three public university systems in the state). Because of this LSU is able to keep there tuition the way it is. If they would lower the amount of money received per student (which should have happened along time ago) they will have to raise tuition and reduce the amount of teaching staff.

I would try and forced the Penn State and Pittsburgh to a public and not a private. I do not like my education system run by private companies. What it would do is change what could be taught there. Like more Religion than anything else. Banned an autobiography on books like Sitting Bull and the likes. Change history to the views of the far right. Things like that. We are not like countries like Iran or China. We should be free to have our education system as is, but need to fix issues with it.

Georgia Tech's enrollment has exploded through online information technology related offerings. They also have satellite campuses in France, Shanghai, and Savannah. That's the real growth path for Georgia Tech. Elite education offered worldwide at a reasonable price with no b******* non-STEM offerings. The obstacles for Georgia Tech to become a private are twofold. The first is the Georgia board of regents which is 50% incompetent and 50% lackeys for UGA. The other is part of privatization will likely be the requirement to buy back real estate assets from the state at market value. The value of Georgia Tech's real estate offerings given their location in midtown is absolutely enormous. We would be talking billions of dollars here.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

On the other hand, Virginia taxpayer money has been going to UVa since it was founded, and given that the university isn't going to pay all that money back with interest, that's a pretty good argument for continuing to allow Virginia residents to attend UVa at a lower cost than non-residents have to pay.

UC Berkeley leaders have mused about going private.

I worry that what is left of access for State residents, and nominal control by the government will go away completely. States have been allowing far too much leeway in the operation of their flagships, letting them become largely autonomous and beyond legal and moral constraints of the tax payers. Those schools like that status and will fight tooth and nail to avoid greater control and more general access to their product.

In States like California and Virginia where great investment has already been made and prime real estate not to be had, it makes no sense to cut them loose. Rather they should be reigned in and their charters renewed, over the howls of those who liked the severing of the charter to be primarily an educator of the children of their sponsoring State.

But I'm in the minority, people seem to like elitism.

It would take a constitutional amendment in Arizona

(03-12-2021 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

On the other hand, Virginia taxpayer money has been going to UVa since it was founded, and given that the university isn't going to pay all that money back with interest, that's a pretty good argument for continuing to allow Virginia residents to attend UVa at a lower cost than non-residents have to pay.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought Pitt and Penn State still give some forms of preferential treatment to in-state Pennsylvania residents. Agree that UVA owes something to the Commonwealth...it is the flagship institution, it wants to attract a higher number of Commonwealth students. The difference is that the Governor and legislators won’t be demanding a strict quota percentage of residents...there will be a more nuanced negotiation.

The point is that the state should stop subsidizing the generally wealthier families. Elite, selective universities’ admissions naturally skew to the well-off...yet rich people don’t need the welfare.

(03-12-2021 01:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UC Berkeley leaders have mused about going private.

I worry that what is left of access for State residents, and nominal control by the government will go away completely. States have been allowing far too much leeway in the operation of their flagships, letting them become largely autonomous and beyond legal and moral constraints of the tax payers. Those schools like that status and will fight tooth and nail to avoid greater control and more general access to their product.

In States like California and Virginia where great investment has already been made and prime real estate not to be had, it makes no sense to cut them loose. Rather they should be reigned in and their charters renewed, over the howls of those who liked the severing of the charter to be primarily an educator of the children of their sponsoring State.

But I'm in the minority, people seem to like elitism.

I just don’t trust that state government officials really know how to run elite universities. In Virginia, the elite public universities (UVA, W&M, etc) generally have to meet in-state enrollment guidelines (70% or 75%). In California, the UC system seems to be around 90% to 95%. These are just very crude metrics. The state government can still maintain some influence by continuing to select the Board of Trustees/Visitors at these institutions. But funding elite universities is just a horrible investment and bad precedent.

BTW - Cal State system has nearly double the enrollment of UC system...that may be a slightly better investment.

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

There's two legitimate reasons:

First, it can allow the state to force enrollment increases, giving more students an elite-quality education. However, in practice, only a few states (Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, maybe a few others) actually achieve this goal at their flagship.


The other nominal reason is that it gives the states influence over which programs are funded.

Should Cal spend $100 million on expansion of their law school? Or on a massive new biomedical research lab? Speaking of that new lab, should both Cal and UCLA invest in a new one? Or does the state only need one?

So basically the argument is that the outcome is better if the state centrally plans 3% of their GDP than if they allow competition. Call me skeptical.

The state of Alabama is constitutionally mandated to maintain The University of Alabama and Auburn University, although the campuses could be relocated anywhere within the state if the schools' Boards of Trustees chose to do so.

I could see privatization being an option at places like Montevallo, West Alabama, North Alabama, Jacksonville State, and maybe even Troy. South Alabama has a medical school so I doubt there would be any interest in turning that private.

Privatization is never going to happen in the sense that universities disaffiliate from state governments. There is no incentive for that. All that will happen is that state governments will slash funding for public universities, which then must operate like private universities re: tuition and funding. I’d expect this to be far more likely in red states than blue states.

I wish PA would sever itself from Penn State. I’m not against the state-related concept, just the arrangement PSU has.

(03-12-2021 08:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wish PA would sever itself from Penn State. I’m not against the state-related concept, just the arrangement PSU has.

Why

(03-12-2021 06:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

There's two legitimate reasons:

First, it can allow the state to force enrollment increases, giving more students an elite-quality education. However, in practice, only a few states (Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, maybe a few others) actually achieve this goal at their flagship.


The other nominal reason is that it gives the states influence over which programs are funded.

Should Cal spend $100 million on expansion of their law school? Or on a massive new biomedical research lab? Speaking of that new lab, should both Cal and UCLA invest in a new one? Or does the state only need one?

So basically the argument is that the outcome is better if the state centrally plans 3% of their GDP than if they allow competition. Call me skeptical.

WVU has traditionally taken a beating from other institutions in that it has kept it's mission to "provide for the education of West Virginia students" and therefore has an "open" enrollment policy...much like OSU used to have.

Now, in practice, over half of the WVU student body comes from out-of-state...especially NY, NJ, and MD...because "out-of-state" tuition at WVU is still less than "in state" tuition at Rutgers or the SUNY system. But still, WVU is obligated to provide a seat for a WV student first; and that seems to me to be a rather noble thing. WV residents subsidize WVU...it should serve West Virginians first.

But that has cost WVU in the "reputation" department.

(03-12-2021 11:22 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I would try and forced the Penn State and Pittsburgh to a public and not a private. I do not like my education system run by private companies. What it would do is change what could be taught there. Like more Religion than anything else. Banned an autobiography on books like Sitting Bull and the likes. Change history to the views of the far right. Things like that. We are not like countries like Iran or China. We should be free to have our education system as is, but need to fix issues with it.

So you don't want the universities under state control? Because that's what most are in China and Iran. I'm confused on what you advocate.

I'm pretty sure China hasn't changed it curriculum to the views of the far right or to have more religion than anything else.

(03-12-2021 06:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

On the other hand, Virginia taxpayer money has been going to UVa since it was founded, and given that the university isn't going to pay all that money back with interest, that's a pretty good argument for continuing to allow Virginia residents to attend UVa at a lower cost than non-residents have to pay.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought Pitt and Penn State still give some forms of preferential treatment to in-state Pennsylvania residents. Agree that UVA owes something to the Commonwealth...it is the flagship institution, it wants to attract a higher number of Commonwealth students. The difference is that the Governor and legislators won’t be demanding a strict quota percentage of residents...there will be a more nuanced negotiation.

The point is that the state should stop subsidizing the generally wealthier families. Elite, selective universities’ admissions naturally skew to the well-off...yet rich people don’t need the welfare.

I did say that PSU and Pitt give an in-state discount. Could have sworn I did.

(03-12-2021 08:31 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 08:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wish PA would sever itself from Penn State. I’m not against the state-related concept, just the arrangement PSU has.

Why

At the core of it is the redundancies created between Penn State's satellite campuses and the state's PASSHE institutions. And then the resource and quality gap between University Park and the satellite campuses, added with the structure Penn State has built to "protect" University Park from inter-campus transfers (more four-year degree programs at select satellite campuses to expand the 2+2 program, crossed with increased enrollment restrictions into University Park programs).

PSU is competing against PASSHE schools for similar populations. It gets state funding for taking on PA students.

You can't serve two masters. You have PASSHE schools ailing and shrinking with infrastructural issues and challenges (granted, we're seeing some mergers finally coming to fold between the smallest schools) because the state is strapped. Well, it's strapped partly because you have to feed Penn State (including taking on PSU employees into the state retirement system - this is something Temple and Pitt employees do not get to do).

It's debatable whether PSU is really investing in these campuses at any pace or rate it does with Main Campus. You're still paying close to Main Campus prices for the Penn State "name" but a lesser fraction of the experience. Meanwhile, the value of the PASSHE school is there (a considerably cheaper option) but is henpecked to explore and expand its mission and core. What you have are these fourteen PASSHE institutions in varying states of operation (only a few at best remotely doing really well) then coupled with these twenty PSU satellites (some are nothing more than a few paltry buildings). There isn't enough money to go around, and the result is this once-great state higher education system paired with a rudderless PSU model. Quality and value both down.

It's on the state, really. It's taking on essentially two systems, but the biggest resource "gobbler" of the state-related system mirrors the public system at every campus but University Park.

Pitt and Temple (and Lincoln), the other commonwealth schools, didn't over-saturate the area and expand, controlled its size and expenses, and doesn't put its workforce into the public retirement system. I can get onboard with a Penn State like that.

(03-12-2021 08:55 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 06:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 11:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  From a public policy perspective, I don’t get why state governments are still providing funding and tax benefits to many higher-level “public” universities. IMO, Pennsylvania has it right with their treatment of Pitt, Penn State, etc.

It makes sense for governments to fund/subsidize community colleges...schools that are not selective and provide higher education to the general population. Elite public universities, such as UVA, have the foundations and resources to be financially independent. A lot of these universities could become private non-profits and effectively continue their missions.

There's two legitimate reasons:

First, it can allow the state to force enrollment increases, giving more students an elite-quality education. However, in practice, only a few states (Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, maybe a few others) actually achieve this goal at their flagship.


The other nominal reason is that it gives the states influence over which programs are funded.

Should Cal spend $100 million on expansion of their law school? Or on a massive new biomedical research lab? Speaking of that new lab, should both Cal and UCLA invest in a new one? Or does the state only need one?

So basically the argument is that the outcome is better if the state centrally plans 3% of their GDP than if they allow competition. Call me skeptical.

WVU has traditionally taken a beating from other institutions in that it has kept it's mission to "provide for the education of West Virginia students" and therefore has an "open" enrollment policy...much like OSU used to have.

Now, in practice, over half of the WVU student body comes from out-of-state...especially NY, NJ, and MD...because "out-of-state" tuition at WVU is still less than "in state" tuition at Rutgers or the SUNY system. But still, WVU is obligated to provide a seat for a WV student first; and that seems to me to be a rather noble thing. WV residents subsidize WVU...it should serve West Virginians first.

But that has cost WVU in the "reputation" department.

SUNY has a different set of issues going back to not establishing a true public land grant college to serve as a de facto flagship. Instead, they let Cornell do so and waited until after WWII to incorporate the teachers colleges (and the subsequent purchasing of UB and Binghamton) to establish the SUNY system. Getting an in-state discount to attend one of the four statuary colleges at Cornell is still a substantial premium over SUNY tuition.