Public higher education - do you get it?

[Olivianna]

I live in a state ranked 50th in the United States in terms of the amount of money allocated by the legislature for public higher education. I am also a graduate student and teaching assistant in this system, and have experienced firsthand the worst budget cut in the University's history. What does this mean? The library's budget has been slashed, journal subscriptions canceled; the foreign language lab has closed; large numbers of faculty and staff are choosing the state's attractive early retirement packages, thus leaving facilties and departments drastically understaffed; elevators are broken; and buildings are in various states of disrepair. The sole message communicated by the state government to its young citizens is this: you do not matter, unless you can afford to go to a private college/university. I just don't get it. I received a BA at the oldest state university in the country - that had money up its wazoo - state of the art facilities and resouces - and is in the home state of Jesse Helms. Here , in Massachusetts, public education is worth crap, to the people responsible for making decisions.

What is wrong here? Now the state (MA) is talking about cutting the primary ed. budget - essentially laying off 100s of teachers. How does this happen? I understand that public education in this country is/has been facing a crisis for many years, and I don't understand why more people are not outraged by this. What has happened in our 21st century lives that we've left the young ones (in public school systems) to figure it out all on their own?

Excuse the lengthiness of this post, but I am curious to learn what others think, do, will do, won't do...those who are parents, educators, students, sisters, brothers...

Olivianna

 

[Calamity Jane]

I don't think that the problem is because the state doesn't care...

people are a lot more willing to bitch about the state of the public education system than they are to vote for bond issues or raise taxes to support the system.

 

[Olivianna]

I don't think that the problem is because the state doesn't care...

people are a lot more willing to bitch about the state of the public education system than they are to vote for bond issues or raise taxes to support the system.

I imagine that each state has its own special case. In MA, it isn't a matter of the state budget being incapable of allocating the needed funds - there is money there. It is a matter of conflicting interests - the legislature is full of graduates of private universities in and around Boston. The result is that there isn't enough of a voice in the state congress speaking up for public higher education. Believe me, the state has money. If the state is looking to trim up its spending, why hit the public university so hard?

The result of everything happening here is (if you want to call it this) - very organized bitching - by students, parents, professors.

I am hoping to solicit people in this forum to address the present crisis of public education, which I believe is far more grave than just a matter of raising taxes.
O

 

[Ishmael]

I imagine that each state has its own special case. In MA, it isn't a matter of the state budget being incapable of allocating the needed funds - there is money there. It is a matter of conflicting interests - the legislature is full of graduates of private universities in and around Boston. The result is that there isn't enough of a voice in the state congress speaking up for public higher education. Believe me, the state has money. If the state is looking to trim up its spending, why hit the public university so hard?

The result of everything happening here is (if you want to call it this) - very organized bitching - by students, parents, professors.

I am hoping to solicit people in this forum to address the present crisis of public education, which I believe is far more grave than just a matter of raising taxes.
O

Yep, in Mass. the problem isn't so much the money. It is one off the highest taxed state populations in the nation. Therein lies part of the problem. The burden on the taxpayer is sooooooooo high that no reasonable politician will touch it.

It does have a great deal to do with the allocation of funds. Before you blame the educational background of the politicians or your state, why don't you do a little homework and find out exactly WHERE the money is being spent. Welfare, unemployment, what?

Mass was headed for this fall long ago. I'm surprised that it took this long. It really is up to the voters to decide where they want the money spent. And the 'social services' that are soaking up the funds could really care less about the state university system. The more dummies running around, the more funds they receive from the state.

Oh well, so much for socially enlightened government.

Ishmael

 

[Olivianna]

Oh well, so much for socially enlightened government.

No kidding. How depressing. I do know more about what has been cut - in addition to public higher ed., mental health has been hit hard, but then it always is. I do not have a detailed report to give you. All that I know is that amidst poor budget planning, and a 1.1% increase in state revenue, public higher education was targeted first to receive cuts - nearly 7% of its budget. It is deadly.

I guess I just don't understand how people can so undervalue public education.

 

[Ishmael]

No kidding. How depressing. I do know more about what has been cut - in addition to public higher ed., mental health has been hit hard, but then it always is. I do not have a detailed report to give you. All that I know is that amidst poor budget planning, and a 1.1% increase in state revenue, public higher education was targeted first to receive cuts - nearly 7% of its budget. It is deadly.

I guess I just don't understand how people can so undervalue public education.

Go to your state gov. web site. Under agencies go to budget, 2002, and then select "Fiscal Health". Scroll down to the pie chart.

40.8% of your budget is spent on Health and Human services, 18.4% on education. Those are the two largest. What's wrong with that picture?

Ishmael

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Just wondering Olivianna,

What is the tax burden on the average citizen in Mass for general ed? Isn't it about the highest in the nation per student? Are most of the "Higher education" facilities in Mass not private? Why do taxpayers in Mass spend $12,000 or $14,000 per year per student to produce the same quality student that Utah or Oregon spend $5,000 or $7,000 for, and parochial schools can produce for $3,000 to $4,000? I'm not ripping you, just wondering why these thing go on and on in Taxachusetts?

Rhumb

 

[Olivianna]

Re: Just wondering Olivianna,

What is the tax burden on the average citizen in Mass for general ed? Isn't it about the highest in the nation per student? Are most of the "Higher education" facilities in Mass not private? Why do taxpayers in Mass spend $12,000 or $14,000 per year per student to produce the same quality student that Utah or Oregon spend $5,000 or $7,000 for, and parochial schools can produce for $3,000 to $4,000? I'm not ripping you, just wondering why these thing go on and on in Taxachusetts?

Rhumb

I don't know from where you have gotten your figures, but the fact is that in 1999 Massachusetts spent $163 per person on higher education, whereas the national average was $214. We rank 45th out of 50 in this area. How do you figure that taxpayers are spending up to $14,000 per student for higher ed.?
And, yes, MA is one of few states in the country (or the only one) where more people attend private schools than public. Why do you think that is?
I am just asking why it is that those who cannot afford to attend private colleges are left in the dust. BTW, more is spent on transportation in MA than on public higher ed.
O

 

[Closet Desire]

Time for a...

...different approach?

I took two degrees in the US and one in the UK. The ones in the US were at private universities so they don't entirely fit your model but the cost to the VA came out at about $60,000 for BS and $25,000 for the MLA (one year). When I came to the UK I had to pay the full cost (no tax subsidy) of about $25,000 for a five year PhD programme. Residents pay about $1500 a year in fees (a recent thing).

Now to my point. There is a conception in the US that everyone is entitled to attend university in spite of the very clear evidence that 30-40% of those who start never finish (study completed last year). It's higher at the public universities than at the private. Of the four children in my family I'm the only one who finished. This is important because in order to accomodate all these students--including those who quit--the system has to have facilities, staff, and other resources. Frankly put, a lot of money is spent or invested on people who will not finish.

My son is preparing to leave for university here in the UK later this year. The selection process to get into university begins at age 16 with a series of exams. Those who don't get high enough grades are channeled off to vocational programmes or leave school altogether to begin working. Those who do make the grade begin intensive courses which focus on their areas of ability. After two years they take more exams and then begin interviews at universities. They select five universities and then narrow the search from there. If they get the scores needed for that university then they are in. Their contribution is £1,000 a year while the tax system picks up the rest of the tab. Graduation rate is extremely high--90% or so.

The universities here are excellent--equal to anything in the US but perhaps their resources are better applied. I'm not suggesting that those who are not university material should be abandoned but it is far cheaper to train them somewhere other than at a university.

Just something to think about.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Time for a...

...different approach?

I took two degrees in the US and one in the UK. The ones in the US were at private universities so they don't entirely fit your model but the cost to the VA came out at about $60,000 for BS and $25,000 for the MLA (one year). When I came to the UK I had to pay the full cost (no tax subsidy) of about $25,000 for a five year PhD programme. Residents pay about $1500 a year in fees (a recent thing).

Now to my point. There is a conception in the US that everyone is entitled to attend university in spite of the very clear evidence that 30-40% of those who start never finish (study completed last year). It's higher at the public universities than at the private. Of the four children in my family I'm the only one who finished. This is important because in order to accomodate all these students--including those who quit--the system has to have facilities, staff, and other resources. Frankly put, a lot of money is spent or invested on people who will not finish.

My son is preparing to leave for university here in the UK later this year. The selection process to get into university begins at age 16 with a series of exams. Those who don't get high enough grades are channeled off to vocational programmes or leave school altogether to begin working. Those who do make the grade begin intensive courses which focus on their areas of ability. After two years they take more exams and then begin interviews at universities. They select five universities and then narrow the search from there. If they get the scores needed for that university then they are in. Their contribution is £1,000 a year while the tax system picks up the rest of the tab. Graduation rate is extremely high--90% or so.

The universities here are excellent--equal to anything in the US but perhaps their resources are better applied. I'm not suggesting that those who are not university material should be abandoned but it is far cheaper to train them somewhere other than at a university.

Just something to think about.

Well now, you hit the nail right on the head Closet Desire. Univ. is NOT an entitlement. No one cares if you go or not, and no one cares if you flunk out or not. You are allegedly an adult now, and fully responsible for yourself and your choices. Not the taxpayer.

Ishmael

 

[Willing and Unsure]

then here's my question.. i go to a public school in indiana. as do several of my friends (obviously) and we are all paying out of state tuition. the state of indiana government has recently made a major cut in their education funding because their officials squandered away what they had. the biggest problem that i see now, is that my school is facing nearly 8 million dollars in funding cut for next year, not to mention years to come. and that is just my school. this cuz in funding is in effect for everyone, k-higher ed. now, shouldnt people be caring about those kids that aren't even out of elementary school yet?

 

[Closet Desire]

Taxpayers...

...I don't believe it is an entitlement, but none of us who have attended university, even those who pay full rate, have paid anywhere near the full cost. Private universities don't receive taxpayer funds but they do receive support from a wide number of sources. Public universities do likewise as well as receive substantial support from the tax system.

This isn't a bad thing. I think the argument is that all of society benefits from educating those who will gain from it and sometimes in ways that are hard to quantify. The US has an enormous "brain pool" which accounts for the steady stream of innovations and accomplishments that flow from it. Without tax dollars pouring into education there could be a drought.

On the other hand, I think the funds should be invested wisely.

Maybe the best example I can think of is in law enforcement. I've had a few dealings with the police force over here in our line of work (as I did in the states). Before I left the US it was becoming common for new police applicants to have college degrees. Compared with the officers here (who are decent men and women by the way) the difference is striking.

Society benefits from effective education--whether it's universities turning out doctors, writers, engineers or vocational programmes turning out computer technicians, mechanics, or barbers (forgive my lack of imagination on careers--it's pretty late).

It's money well spent as long as it's not wasted IMHO.

 

[Ishmael]

then here's my question.. i go to a public school in indiana. as do several of my friends (obviously) and we are all paying out of state tuition. the state of indiana government has recently made a major cut in their education funding because their officials squandered away what they had. the biggest problem that i see now, is that my school is facing nearly 8 million dollars in funding cut for next year, not to mention years to come. and that is just my school. this cuz in funding is in effect for everyone, k-higher ed. now, shouldnt people be caring about those kids that aren't even out of elementary school yet?

You have to look at the details of the budget WS. The cuts may primarily be in the Univ. budgets.

The problem is twofold. The first being the attitude that only money will solve the education 'crisis'. This can be proven to be false by any number of means.

The second is that the state politico's presume that they will always have more money next year than they did this year. Allowances for an economic downturn aren't taken into consideration. So the gut reaction is to raise the taxes, the exact opposite of what you want to do under those conditions.

Ishmael

 

[Hamletmaschine]

At this moment, I think the relationship between the larger culture in the US and those in higher education is largely an antagonistic one. The taxpayers don't understand why they should pay for things they neither understand nor care about.

And since business and the Federal government pay to support the things they do kind of understand and think they see the value of (i.e., business schools and hard science research), they can cut funding without risking any of the things that matter to them.

 

[Ishmael]

At this moment, I think the relationship between the larger culture in the US and those in higher education is largely an antagonistic one. The taxpayers don't understand why they should pay for things they neither understand nor care about.

And since business and the Federal government pay to support the things they do kind of understand and think they see the value of (i.e., business schools and hard science research), they can cut funding without risking any of the things that matter to them.

True enough Hamlet.

First, higher education is not a 'right'. It's a privilege, much as driving a car.

Seocnd of all, how many history PhD's do we really need? There are some fields that are over represented. I'm sure the proponents will disagree, but that is their privilege too.

Ishmael

 

[Olivianna]

I would agree that not everyone should pursue certain kinds of education, but I think that we may lose sight here of the fact that many vocational and agricultural colleges are public institutions. In addition, it is not the case that every college student in public universities will waste their time and the taxpayer's money by studying subjects ill-suited for them. Not everyone is studying Derrida and Butler, but rather a large majority of young people are going into the sciences, computer tech., engineering, etc. How is it a waste to invest in the education of citizens then?

The problem of a high dropout rate for college freshman is not necessarily a testament to the innate inability of the dropout to complete and want to pursue a degree - this problem says more about the state of our primary public school system (elem., middle, high school), which does not appear to be preparing youth for higher education, nor does it seem to be fostering any sort of joy for learning.

Further - Ishmael, I do appreciate your comments, and I have been inspired by them to do further research into this topic. However, I am fairly well-versed in this topic as it pertains to Mass. It is the situation in this state that there is a clash of interest in the legislature due to a large number of the governing body's members having graduated from private universities. That is just how it goes.

Finally, I do not think that the opportunity to attend university is an entitlement; i.e. that everyone deserves and should get a ticket in. Quite a few people work very hard in public universities - and are able to attend them because of a reduction in fees and tuition (made possible by state support). In particular, state institutions attempt to entice their citizens by offering them lower tuition rates - as an investment in the state's future (educate 'em here and they'll stay here and enrich the economy, etc.). When the state goverment turns its back on its educational institution, it turns its back on itself. Ishmael, do you suggest that we do away with state-supported public higher ed. for 'adults', and let each person fend for themselves?
O

 

[Hamletmaschine]

The 'entitlement' issue is a thorny one. I agree that not everyone needs or is entitled to a college education. But tell that to parents who know as well as you or I that a college degree has about the same status today as a high school diploma had 40 years ago. They all think their little son or daughter deserves a college degree as much as the next kid. They just don't want to pay for it. (They don't want to pay for K-12 either, but they still want the entitlement.)

 

[lavender]

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Will you be my lobbyist?

 

[lavender]

 

[Willing and Unsure]

You have to look at the details of the budget WS. The cuts may primarily be in the Univ. budgets.

The problem is twofold. The first being the attitude that only money will solve the education 'crisis'. This can be proven to be false by any number of means.

The second is that the state politico's presume that they will always have more money next year than they did this year. Allowances for an economic downturn aren't taken into consideration. So the gut reaction is to raise the taxes, the exact opposite of what you want to do under those conditions.

Ishmael

as far as i know, they didnt raise state taxes, they just cut education. i dont know off the top of my head where they cut the most from, but they cut from all levels of education. and i really dont know if they were expecting a downturn or not, from what i know they squandered the money that would have been available on things that werent necessary ("business" trips and other such rendezvous). this was something that was expected to happen since Jan. 1 this year. just no one knew when they would sign it into effect. and now that they have, my university, not to mention others, have taken massive budget cuts. the elementary and high schools in the state have taken them as well. this isnt just osmething where they expected the money would be there and it isnt, this is much larger than that. imagine around 8 million dollars coming from every state university here, along with (on the lenient side, since i dont really know for sure) $100,000 from elementary/high schools.. that's an awful lot of money to have been not expected to be there.

 

[Ishmael]

No, it is our right to disagree, and I will do so vehemently. How can we not completely encourage higher education? How can we not encourage it for every individual who has the mental capacity to attain levels of higher education? It is a disservice to the community and to the individual. I agree that higher education is a privilege and not a right. But, there must continually be equal opportunity and equal access to these institutions. We cannot forget them, we cannot abandon them. We must continually work to improve them for the betterment of our society.

Higher education, in my opinion, is much more important than a helluva lot of money that consume our tax dollars.

We differ only on the 'entitlement' portion Lavy. It is not a right, or an entitlement.

Should it be encouraged? Yes, by all means. However my contention is that K-12 must be dealt with first. The Univ. should not be responsible to teach courses that should have been mastered before the student arrived. It is a waste of time and money to contemplate otherwise.

Ishmael

 

[Closet Desire]

How many...

...history grads do we need?

I can't speak for them as my degrees are mostly in English, but the MLA (which represents the discipline) has been lobbying for years to reduce the number of places available for Lit PhDs because it crowds the job market with cheaper labour (see the Walmart is evil thread). I've generally opposed such measures for reasons I'll explain in a sec.

Although I lecture from time-to-time, present papers, and write the occassional academic paper I didn't choose academia as a career. Instead I'm the director and co-owner of several private psychology practices--apparently one of the largest such businesses in the UK.

Last year there was a series on CNN by business leaders about the types of people they look for to fill middle management positions and the big surprise was a high value placed on PhD grads in the arts, history, language et.al. The skills necessary to do a PhD include perseverence, research, communication, and interpersonal skills. The leaders who commented said that the ability to complete a PhD demonstrated to them a person who could learn quickly, work accurately and conscientiously, and be dedicated. This attitude has been bolstered over the years in my dealings with business leaders who often have a very ecclectic academic background.

I think many people who do manage to make it through such programmes are disappointed when they can't find good positions in their disciplines. However, many of these people don't recognise that they just might be not only qualified but preferred in roles they don't think they are suitable for. I was one of them.

How has English and lit helped our business? It turns out that the ability to be creative and communicate clearly has been one of our greatest strengths. We try to emply top notch people but like any other business marketing that to the public and potential clients and convincing them of our quality depends on our image. Turns out being an English/art person has given us professional materials, in-house training books, correspondence, and so forth.

Several of the solicitors we use in our business (both in the US and the UK) started out as history students.

In the end I think it's more about ambition than a choice of studies.

Oh, and I'm very pleased to see vocational programmes and schools becoming more advanced and better funded. When I left high school university was the ONLY higher education on offer. Vocat was where you went to learn diesal mechanics and welding (noble and necessary professions to be sure) but there is so much more. States could take a cue from the military where specialised vocational training effectively trains very young people to maintain aircraft, operate electronic gear, and even run and service nuclear reactors.

 

[Ishmael]

Liberal arts grads.................

There has been a trend in that direction for the last twenty years in the States. It has worked out well for the realistic. Many aren't, and many are just unsuitable for management. Your point is well taken though.

I have had conversations with many that have rejected that path as being 'unpure'. Insist on finding a position within academia. They feel as if that is their due in life. Quite frankly, they aren't fully qualified for that either. (acadmic qualifications aside)

Until the creation of the Sec. of Education post in the federal government, many cities did have 'technical' high schools. Places where the academically challenge, or disinclined, could go to receive training in a valuable skill. With the advent of federalization of education, a 'one size fits all' attitude was initiated. The academically inclined high schools were used to fill the void, but have done so poorly.

My youngest son recently graduated from Univ. He attended after having served a tour in the armed forces. His first two semesters course work, core not electives, consisted of subjects that I had mastered by the end of my sophmore year in high school. I was shocked, he was bored. A horrible waste of money. I checked around and found out that it was typical curriculum. The first year of Univ. used to bring the high school grads up to the level they should have attained. The other point here is that the drop out rate was about the same as 40 years ago when Univ. was Univ.

Sad all the way around.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

I agree with ClosetDesire on a two-tiered system of education. Most people at the public Universities (this ties in somewhat with the recent Harvard thread) are there for job-related reasons, not academic. I think this lends to the watering-down of grades.

Additionally, too many true Freshmen are there just having a good time in the first real unsupervised moment of their life. That’s why I’m a fan of compulsory service whether military or public service to give people a chance to learn how to use their freedom in a more structured environment.


Lavy, simply because you will create people who feel bad about themselves, failures because they did not complete college. Believe it or not, for some people, raising a family is much more of an ideal than going to college. For me, it took 20 years for me to cure the wanderlust and mature enough to be successful in college. There were simply other things I wanted to accomplish. College should not be sold as an end-all or a life accomplishment. It should be sold as a path for those truly interested in study…



And to the thing I originally started to talk about. Being from a small state, I get the chance to rub elbows with the muckety-mucks of politics. Recently I had a conversation with one of our state leaders on their dealing with the current budget crises. The high schools had to fill out a questionnaire on where they could cut services. One of the bigger NE high schools had a priority list that at the top cut three teaching positions and at the bottom of the third page (cuts they would least like to make) was a new (sixth) assistant football coach and $50,000 in new uniforms and equipment. I am sure this sort of thing goes on at the college level too.