Compare and contrast: Is it unfair to ask university students to pay more?
Ever since I read a passage in University Chancellor Jim Rogers’s speech on the state of the system, I’ve been casting about looking for some way to compare his stats with those of other states.
This is what Rogers said:
“The state pays about 80% of the System’s cost. The student pays 20%. If the state were to cut its contribution by 36%, the state would then contribute 51% and the students would contribute 49%, an increase of more than two and a half times our current tuition and fees. An increase in tuition and fees to fill the hole the Governor describes would make tuition and fees so high that it would be cheaper to go out of state to college. At a time when more Nevadans are unemployed and underemployed than ever before, how many could afford to attend Nevada’s colleges?”
Eureka, I found it.
It turns out the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability looked at how much the nation’s universities are subsidized by taxes and how much is paid by student tuition.
The stats are a couple of years old now and were trending upward every year, so there is no telling what the stats are now.
Here is what Delta Project found:
“Students are paying more of the total cost of their education at all institutions except private research universities. From 2002 to 2006, the share of educational costs represented by student tuition rose from just over one-third to nearly one-half at public four-year institutions. At private master’s and bachelor’s institutions, students are paying between 75 and 85 percent of the full cost of their education.”
This entry was posted on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009 at 09:02 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
19
Responses
to "Compare and contrast: Is it unfair to ask university students to pay more?"
Thomas,
Andrew Clinger's presentation on the state budget gave a breakdown of NSHE finances (slides 30-35):
http://budget.state.nv.us/budget_2009_11/presentations%5CBudget%20overview%2009-11.pdf
His presentation shows that taxpayer funding makes up 51.3 percent of the cost for NSHE while the national average is 32.6 percent. Only taxpayers in Alaska, Florida, and DC pay higher shares.
The big difference in Nevada is that "other funding" sources such as university endowments cover a miniscule 33.1 percent of costs compared to a 49.6 percent national average.
His reporting looks like it reflects FY09 data.
Andrew Clinger's presentation on the state budget gave a breakdown of NSHE finances (slides 30-35):
http://budget.state.nv.us/budget_2009_11/presentations%5CBudget%20overview%2009-11.pdf
His presentation shows that taxpayer funding makes up 51.3 percent of the cost for NSHE while the national average is 32.6 percent. Only taxpayers in Alaska, Florida, and DC pay higher shares.
The big difference in Nevada is that "other funding" sources such as university endowments cover a miniscule 33.1 percent of costs compared to a 49.6 percent national average.
His reporting looks like it reflects FY09 data.
I have two thoughts that are germane to the issue. First, for all his education and position it seems Chancellor Rogers fails to, or refuses to, understand the process and purpose of a budget. The budget is merely the planned allocation of revenues. This means that expenditures are estimated and divided to match the available finances as determined by State Law. It does not mean that the maximum expenditures are planned and then the lack of resources to cover those expenditures is bemoaned and the requisite recriminations posted on crude signs. Rogers's only alternative, if his resources are diminished, is to reduce spending a like amount. To make up the shortfall by gouging the very students that justify his position is criminal and exorbitant salary. Secondly, the scapegoats in all of this are always those who receive some Government subsidy or "entitlement." Amazing, isn't it that those old folks who spent their life and usually their earning in preparing these people for an education should give up their well earned security so the educated elite wannabes can use those funds for their own purpose. I guess it is only "entitlement" if somebody else is getting the money. If I get the money it is an investment in the future to which I have a vested interested due to my elders' citizenship, contributions, and sacrifice.
Mitchell has a bad case of selective reading / reasoning -- just like the governor. Maybe he just didn't notice that the Chancellor didn't dwell on just one issue. If the Luvguv's recommendations are approved, regardless of how much the tuition is raised to, there won't be the classes the students need, the faculty have moved away, and something the chancellor didn't talk about this time, the accreditations of our colleges and universities will likely disappear. The chancellor did say something about our college-bound kids having to go to other states to receive their education. One-issue Mitchell did it again.
I wonder who the RJ will sell newspapers to if the Vegas population can't read or write, or only reads Spanish........
Education is the key to your future as well as our Mitchell. Get with the program.
Education is the key to your future as well as our Mitchell. Get with the program.
Well this is off the topic, but I like you good folks here so I thought I'd share. Bought a gun to celebrate the new administration. I lovely black plastic AK-47 by century arms. The receiver is American made and quite nice for an AK. The weapon came with two magazines. That's all I got.
Mr. Mitchell,
What is occurring with Nevada education funding is a political creation from the tax and spenders. The UNLV debate is just a microcosm of a larger sense of entitlement that has been purveyed by the left.
This engineered "vox populi" is now the strongarm used by those that want what they have not earned.
It appalls me that much of the reinforcement for this groundswell of created need is coming from academia. Take a look at today's op-ed from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?th&emc=th), saying in part,
"So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack."
Hard to believe his award was for economics.
So there you have it. A wonderfully engineered program to create entitlements. And, if you disagree, you are somehow a flack...
What is occurring with Nevada education funding is a political creation from the tax and spenders. The UNLV debate is just a microcosm of a larger sense of entitlement that has been purveyed by the left.
This engineered "vox populi" is now the strongarm used by those that want what they have not earned.
It appalls me that much of the reinforcement for this groundswell of created need is coming from academia. Take a look at today's op-ed from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?th&emc=th), saying in part,
"So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack."
Hard to believe his award was for economics.
So there you have it. A wonderfully engineered program to create entitlements. And, if you disagree, you are somehow a flack...
Thomas,
Statistics like the "Delta project" can be misleading. Is this a national study? How does this compare to regional universities that compete with UNLV/UNR for students?
I have two college bound students within the next two years. I am willing to pay more tuition, but if it exceeds the amount for Utah universities, my sons will enroll there. They are both very bright students and will have no problem getting accepted there...
Where is the "middle ground" here? Can't there be some combination of student tuition increase, program cuts and additional revenue that can help the Nevada Higher Education system get through this?
It would be great to see you follow up with legislators, university regents, etc to allow your readers to gain a vision of possible multi-layered solutions rather than just the "doom and gloom" put out by the Governor's and Chancellor's offices.
Statistics like the "Delta project" can be misleading. Is this a national study? How does this compare to regional universities that compete with UNLV/UNR for students?
I have two college bound students within the next two years. I am willing to pay more tuition, but if it exceeds the amount for Utah universities, my sons will enroll there. They are both very bright students and will have no problem getting accepted there...
Where is the "middle ground" here? Can't there be some combination of student tuition increase, program cuts and additional revenue that can help the Nevada Higher Education system get through this?
It would be great to see you follow up with legislators, university regents, etc to allow your readers to gain a vision of possible multi-layered solutions rather than just the "doom and gloom" put out by the Governor's and Chancellor's offices.
Mike:
It's worth noting that Krugman's Nobel Prize was granted for his work in international trade. This is the only field of economics which he has a clear grasp on - he actively highlights the merits of free trade and the resulting productivity increases.
His Keynesian philosophies rely on a closed-market presumption that is completely inconsistent with his free trade viewpoint. Moreover, this part of his warped ideology is regularly eschewed by the majority of academic economists.
http://npri.org/publications/welcome-to-the-long-run
It's worth noting that Krugman's Nobel Prize was granted for his work in international trade. This is the only field of economics which he has a clear grasp on - he actively highlights the merits of free trade and the resulting productivity increases.
His Keynesian philosophies rely on a closed-market presumption that is completely inconsistent with his free trade viewpoint. Moreover, this part of his warped ideology is regularly eschewed by the majority of academic economists.
http://npri.org/publications/welcome-to-the-long-run
Listen carefully to responses by parents like Rich Warren (comment in this tread). If you lower the already marginal quality of higher ed in this state, or make it cost more than higher ed in Utah, Arizona, or California, parents will send their children (and money) OUT OF STATE to the more established schools. Do you capitalists understand that market logic? Are you satisfied with a mediocre education system?
P.S. Chancellor Rogers wanted a salary of $1 but is required by law to collect $22,000, which he donates to charity (look it up). And he's donated millions of dollars to higher education in Nevada, Arizona, and CA.
P.S. Chancellor Rogers wanted a salary of $1 but is required by law to collect $22,000, which he donates to charity (look it up). And he's donated millions of dollars to higher education in Nevada, Arizona, and CA.
JJ:
Speaking of Krugman, maybe you should look up his writing on the "gains from trade."
You're advancing a mercantilist argument with regard to higher education. There is no "market logic" to a mercantilist economy. In fact, markets replaced mercantilism in the late eighteenth century.
The "market logic" is that countries, states, and even individuals should specialize in the areas in which they enjoy a "comparative advantage" and then trade with others to acquire the other things they need. This maximizes overall wealth.
Higher education is a tradable good like anything else. If someone else is able to provide a better bargain for higher ed, then consumers should take advantage of it. That money will come back into the state as out-of-staters trade for entertainment or other goods and services that Nevadans provide relatively more efficiently.
Speaking of Krugman, maybe you should look up his writing on the "gains from trade."
You're advancing a mercantilist argument with regard to higher education. There is no "market logic" to a mercantilist economy. In fact, markets replaced mercantilism in the late eighteenth century.
The "market logic" is that countries, states, and even individuals should specialize in the areas in which they enjoy a "comparative advantage" and then trade with others to acquire the other things they need. This maximizes overall wealth.
Higher education is a tradable good like anything else. If someone else is able to provide a better bargain for higher ed, then consumers should take advantage of it. That money will come back into the state as out-of-staters trade for entertainment or other goods and services that Nevadans provide relatively more efficiently.
To those of you who say a newspaper editor's lack of enthusiasm for pouring ever more tax money into higher education during a recession is self defeating because this will result in illiterates who don't read the paper: Studies have shown that half of college graduates can't comprehend a typical newspaper editorial (bring on the snide remarks) and I can tell you the number who are actively engaged in following current events is marginal. I can cite studies, but you can look them up yourself. Our college campuses are hives of political correctness where dissent is shouted down. If something appears in the campus press someone doesn't like, it is trashed. We in the press are ardent supporters of solid, civic education. We are just looking for who is doing it.
Geoffrey,
Drop me an e-mail. I have a question for you.
Drop me an e-mail. I have a question for you.
Uh, Mr. Lawrence is arguing that Nevada should focus on "gaming" and the surroundings states should focus on "education"?
Yeah, put that on your recruiting advertisements. Okay...
That strategy is working very well right now, by that way, as our "recession proof" economy is among the hardest hit.
Yeah, put that on your recruiting advertisements. Okay...
That strategy is working very well right now, by that way, as our "recession proof" economy is among the hardest hit.
Higher ed is much different than basic education. I don't think there's any dispute that the Northeast has a strong advantage in higher ed because of Ivy League schools.
There is nothing wrong with trading with those states for higher ed services. If Nevadans were willing to engage in interstate trade, one would likely find that many industries would arise for which Nevada enjoys a comparative advantage.
There is nothing wrong with trading with those states for higher ed services. If Nevadans were willing to engage in interstate trade, one would likely find that many industries would arise for which Nevada enjoys a comparative advantage.
Not everyone can attend colleges and universities in the "Northeast" for a number of reasons, including cost, volume, and family reasons. That's simply rediculous reasoning. Flip through a U.S. News and World Report rankings, and you'll see regional rankings as well as "best values," etc. Many public urban universities across the nation are offering quality educations for a low cost. I agree with you that people will seek the best value, and Nevada Higher Ed was poised to offer that value--unless the State pulls the plug. As Rogers stated in his State of Higher Education address: it is up to the people to decide what their values and priorities are. If they choose NOT to value education, you can count me among the educatated professionals (with a family) who will leave this state ... to seek quality education.
But higher education is ridiculously oversold across the country, JJ. In many cases, students are encouraged to invest large amounts of time and money into degrees that do not merit the investment.
In many cases, students would be better off by going to trade schools and the like.
You appear to acknowledge that many degrees are not worth the investment by citing cost concerns. Indeed, I agree with you. Subsidizing higher education encourages more people to pursue degrees that do not merit the investment - because the cost is sluffed off on other people.
If a student wants to pursue a degree that is worth the investment, he/she should have little difficulty securing financing to go to an elite school. Public and private loans are readily available for higher education.
I'm not saying that people should categorically choose not to value higher education. I'm simply highlighting the fact that in many cases it does not merit the investment and simply saddles the student in unnecessary amounts of debt - all because as a society we have oversold the notion of higher ed.
Nevada illustrates this point very well. Despite the fact that levels of higher ed are relatively low, per capita personal income is 7th in the nation. Nevadans have discovered that higher ed degrees are not, in every case, a requisite for success.
Good article on issue:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6654468&page=1
In many cases, students would be better off by going to trade schools and the like.
You appear to acknowledge that many degrees are not worth the investment by citing cost concerns. Indeed, I agree with you. Subsidizing higher education encourages more people to pursue degrees that do not merit the investment - because the cost is sluffed off on other people.
If a student wants to pursue a degree that is worth the investment, he/she should have little difficulty securing financing to go to an elite school. Public and private loans are readily available for higher education.
I'm not saying that people should categorically choose not to value higher education. I'm simply highlighting the fact that in many cases it does not merit the investment and simply saddles the student in unnecessary amounts of debt - all because as a society we have oversold the notion of higher ed.
Nevada illustrates this point very well. Despite the fact that levels of higher ed are relatively low, per capita personal income is 7th in the nation. Nevadans have discovered that higher ed degrees are not, in every case, a requisite for success.
Good article on issue:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6654468&page=1
More and more jobs require a college education to be successful. Most business employers expect a college degree. Even the service industry expects highly literate individuals to work computers, interface with customers. Most of these so-called "green" jobs will require a college degree. Industry-university partnerships will be necessary for the R&D work necessary. Nevada could try to capitalize on this, is trying to capitalize on this. Higher education is essential component (it's also cheaper than private R&D work...).
But I agree one doesn't need a college degree to park cars, deal cards, or turn sheets. That seems to be the belief of the gaming/power establishment. "The world needs ditch diggers, too." And Nevada ranks #1 in its production of ditch diggers. Another marketing slogan!
That's also why the median age of UNLV students is higher than national average, by the way. The students shortly realize they need an education to advance out of the entry-level service jobs.
But I agree one doesn't need a college degree to park cars, deal cards, or turn sheets. That seems to be the belief of the gaming/power establishment. "The world needs ditch diggers, too." And Nevada ranks #1 in its production of ditch diggers. Another marketing slogan!
That's also why the median age of UNLV students is higher than national average, by the way. The students shortly realize they need an education to advance out of the entry-level service jobs.
See also "The Benefits of an Educated Workforce," which includes many statements by gaming executives on the knowledge-intensive nature of much gaming industry work: http://system.nevada.edu/Initiative/Proposed-B/Budget-Cut/09.23.08_Benefits-of-an-Educated-Wor.pdf
You completely missed the point, JJ. I was talking about how trade schools are, in many cases, a much better investment than a four-year university.
If one is investing in an engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science or other technical degree, then the four-year university is a good investment.
If, on the other hand, the student is seeking a degree in art, drama, women's studies or other such degrees for which there is little to no demand within society, then the only reason it is seen to be a good investment is because the student can force others to pay for it.
Higher education is often sold as being meritorious in and of itself, regardless of the program of study. This leads to a gross mis-allocation of resources, an unnaturally high demand on the educational establishment and, hence, skyrocketing costs.
Remember that the purpose of education is to acquire marketable skills. A bachelor's degree is not the only means of doing this. Indeed, many students earn a four-year degree without ever acquiring marketable skills of any type. Throwing money away blindly at an educational establishment does not make anyone more or less qualified. Nor does the lack of a four-year degree indicate a lack of intelligence or critical thought. Once again, how many college graduates truly display critical thought? A very small minority.
BTW, the majority of subsidized "green" jobs will be in simple manufacturing. Those jobs do not generally require a four-year degree of any type. It's actually moving backwards from an information-based economy to an economy resembling that of the 1950s.
If one is investing in an engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science or other technical degree, then the four-year university is a good investment.
If, on the other hand, the student is seeking a degree in art, drama, women's studies or other such degrees for which there is little to no demand within society, then the only reason it is seen to be a good investment is because the student can force others to pay for it.
Higher education is often sold as being meritorious in and of itself, regardless of the program of study. This leads to a gross mis-allocation of resources, an unnaturally high demand on the educational establishment and, hence, skyrocketing costs.
Remember that the purpose of education is to acquire marketable skills. A bachelor's degree is not the only means of doing this. Indeed, many students earn a four-year degree without ever acquiring marketable skills of any type. Throwing money away blindly at an educational establishment does not make anyone more or less qualified. Nor does the lack of a four-year degree indicate a lack of intelligence or critical thought. Once again, how many college graduates truly display critical thought? A very small minority.
BTW, the majority of subsidized "green" jobs will be in simple manufacturing. Those jobs do not generally require a four-year degree of any type. It's actually moving backwards from an information-based economy to an economy resembling that of the 1950s.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (19)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.