TubaCat
1st Chair
Posts: 2,403
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: Bearcats, tubas
Location: Murphy's
|
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: (09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote: (09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.
I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.
For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).
It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.
Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.
The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.
The 3500 number can't be correct. I've always heard that they've done a pretty good job of maintaining socio-economic diversity and haven't let themselves turn into another Miami. THIS has their Columbus campus Pell Grant recipient percentage at 23% (UC->25%). The 3500 must be the number of Pell Grant recipients who have some tuition left to pay after all grants, need based scholarships and merit scholarships are taken into consideration.
So bringing this back to that $1B addition to the endowment going to fund financial aid. At a 4.5% annual disbursement, that's going to pump out $45M/year. Be conservative and take $15M off the top for this program. That leaves another $30M for merit aid. Miami is utterly delusional if they think they are ever going to have admissions parity with (much less superiority over) OSU again.
As for griping about the single-flagship model. As I've mentioned before, that's how Ohio was set up, and it fundamentally benefited UC back in the day. Hell, it's the very reason that OSU was founded. What UC needs to do is find a way to separate itself from the rest of the pack and establish itself as Ohio's Virginia Tech or Michigan State rather than taking the Ono path and tilting at the windmill of co-flagship status or "multiple flagships" which accomplished nothing. The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.
Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.
You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2017 08:41 AM by TubaCat.)
|
|