UMass had the pendulum swing from 60-40 to seemingly 40-60 and now looks like efforts for a 50-50 split is taking hold. Installment one is in this years budget.

Quote:AMHERST, Mass. – University of Massachusetts Amherst Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy today praised legislative leaders and Gov. Deval Patrick for their commitment to public higher education as the governor signed a budget that ensures a freeze in tuition and mandatory fees for the upcoming year.

“We recognize the many difficult choices state leaders face in choosing to fund priorities, and this additional investment in UMass expresses their commitment to supporting the university’s mission of excellence and affordability for students in our 150th anniversary year,” Subbaswamy said.

The chancellor noted that Gov. Patrick’s proposal to support UMass President Robert Caret’s “50-50 plan” gained vital momentum when House Speaker Robert DeLeo incorporated the request for $39 million in additional UMass funding within a framework of limited tax increases adopted by the House.
...
As advocated by Caret, this year’s $479 million state appropriation for the five-campus system is the first installment of a two-year investment that would lead to an equitable sharing of the cost of public higher education between families and the state, a 50-50 split. Last year, the state share of educating a student was 43 percent. Legislative leaders have expressed support for incorporating a second installment of the 50-50 plan in next year’s budget.

Link

The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

Here is the State Share of Instruction for 2014 (Ohio MAC schools)

Main Campus
Ohio 117.0 mil
Toledo 103.8 mil
Kent St. 101.9 mil
Akron 90.9 mil
Bowling Green 64.3 mil
Miami 56.8 mil

All Campuses
Ohio 139.6 mil
Kent St. 133.6 mil
Toledo 103.8 mil
Akron 94.5 mil
Bowling Green 68.9 mil
Miami 68.9 mil

https://www.ohiohighered.org/sites/ohioh....07.13.pdf

BG and Miami both get about 1/2 from the state as what Ohio and Kent receive.

FY 2013 Budget for Ohio including restricted dollars.

Total Budget 707.6 mil
State Support 149.5 mil (21.1%)
Federal Support 82 mil (11.6%)
Total Federal+State 231.5 million (32.7%)
Tuition and Fees 324.8 million (45.9%)

Federal + State funding for Ohio University roughly equals 1/3 of the total operating budget.

http://www.ohio.edu/finance/bpa/upload/F...tion-E.pdf

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

And here I was thinking if anyone was going to correct the thread title it would be to point out that it should be "from" not "for".

Kitton posted: BG and Miami both get about 1/2 from the state as what Ohio and Kent receive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eCK's question: Why is that?

(07-17-2013 06:22 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

And here I was thinking if anyone was going to correct the thread title it would be to point out that it should be "from" not "for".

Thanks, two things you should realize. One, verbal skills are one of my weakness. If I don't think of a word, I use a word that comes close. The second is that it's a combination of the site and my keyboard that needs hard hits, as missing letters are common and always going back in my post to add the missing letters.

Will fix and thanks again.

There are three commonwealth states that I know of, Mass, Kentucky and Virginia. Regardless on going off in tangent, a percentage is just that. If state A funds education at 150 and it's share is 40% its 60. If state B funds at 100 and at 47% it's 47. Masachusetts does not fund well and was 47th in per capita a while back. Of course that is another twist.

The big news is the bolded. Instead of increasing tuition and fees as when the economy goes south and cut funding, this yeare we are climbing the hill and inflation cost is being paid by the state. Good news for the students.

(07-17-2013 08:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 06:22 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

And here I was thinking if anyone was going to correct the thread title it would be to point out that it should be "from" not "for".

Thanks, two things you should realize. One, verbal skills are one of my weakness. If I don't think of a word, I use a word that comes close. The second is that it's a combination of the site and my keyboard that needs hard hits, as missing letters are common and always going back in my post to add the missing letters.

Will fix and thanks again.

There are three commonwealth states that I know of, Mass, Kentucky and Virginia. Regardless on going off in tangent, a percentage is just that. If state A funds education at 150 and it's share is 40% its 60. If state B funds at 100 and at 47% it's 47. Masachusetts does not fund well and was 47th in per capita a while back. Of course that is another twist.

The big news is the bolded. Instead of increasing tuition and fees as when the economy goes south and cut funding, this yeare we are climbing the hill and inflation cost is being paid by the state. Good news for the students.

I'm not sure what the issue with the number of commonwealths vs states is because I don't see any comments on it. Perhaps that was covered in the article.

Anyway - the state share of funding is easy to predict:
As the economy sours, state revenue dries up and many states (perhaps all) have balanced budget amendments that require them to make cuts when revenues fall - education included. As a state recovers and tax revenues rise again, they can afford to put money back into programs - like education. Frankly - states and localities (who also are required to have balanced budgets) are very pro-cyclical. They pull money out of the economy just when the economy most desperately needs it to be put in. In essence - they work against what the federal government is doing when they try and spend their way out of a recession (stimulus spending - if you will).

Commonwealth states was a total tangent and not related to anything. (-:

Did look it up and forgot Pennsylvania.
Link

These were the direct support amounts allocated in the state budget process for SUNY University operations:

Buffalo - $131,760,600
Stony Brook - $130,726,000
Albany - $54,526,100
Binghamton- $39,712,700

Before this year all tuition went to the legislature who then allocated it to campuses along with state funds...but not before often closing state budget gaps with a portion of actual tuition money. That shady practice finally ended this year so tuition funds go directly to UB. The $131M is a fraction of UB's total revenues ($1.1Bil). Much more comes from tuition, private sources, and federal research allocations.

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

I disagree.

One trillion of student loan debt suggests our country has gotten way off track in financing higher education.

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

Every school in the MAC is a public, State supported institution. It was determined long ago, that State supported, affordable education is of benefit to the public at large, and in societies best interest overall.

Now, I am assuming that you are a Bowling Green Alum. So, now that you have received your discount education, now that you have "Got Yours", it is screw everybody else?

I hope, then, you only plan on sending your children to private institutions.

(07-18-2013 05:02 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

I disagree.

One trillion of student loan debt suggests our country has gotten way off track in financing higher education.

It doesn't suggest that in the least. Your conclusion is poor to start with and readily dismissed w/ even the most basic research.

(07-18-2013 09:06 AM)bullsnotbills Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

Every school in the MAC is a public, State supported institution. It was determined long ago, that State supported, affordable education is of benefit to the public at large, and in societies best interest overall.

So? Turns out they were wrong. Not the first time in the history of mankind.

Quote:Now, I am assuming that you are a Bowling Green Alum.

I am not a graduate, if that's what you mean.

Quote:So, now that you have received your discount education, now that you have "Got Yours", it is screw everybody else?

No.

Quote:I hope, then, you only plan on sending your children to private institutions.

At this point you've travelled several steps down a path that was wrong to begin with.

But to be gracious, what I hope for is that my kids will be allowed to take desired higher ed classes at a fair market rate. I hope to see the credentialism that currently pervades US society, disappear.

A breif glance at history will show such a scheme worked well for many years.

(07-18-2013 05:02 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

I disagree.

One trillion of student loan debt suggests our country has gotten way off track in financing higher education.

Actually that debt is largely GSL loans (in other words discounted education financing paid for by U.S. taxpayers) and a very large portion of that is owed by people who just don't make payments on it after they've graduated (or otherwise discontinued their educations).

The GSL program is its own worst enemy in terms of fiscal responsibility because it encourages lots of students who probably shouldn't be in college at all (but rather in a trade school - or in the workforce) to rack up lots of debt, chasing a degree that they are ill prepared to complete.

A large percentage of it is spent at degree factories (schools that expect very little other than the check to clear and decent attendance in order to receive an 'A' - like the U of Phoenix). Students rack up 10s of thousands of GSL debt and graduate with a useless degree and no discernible new skill.

With no better career or job prospects, they default on their loans - or worse yet, they continue into another degree program (often at the same sham of a school) in order to delay the start of their repayments until later - racking up 10s of thousands in more debt.

These "colleges" cater to students who are often unable to read the financial aid contracts they sign, or have flunked out of other schools (many several times - proving they shouldn't be in college). If the government wanted to improve the system, they should only offer GSLs to students whose tuition is already publicly subsidized (public colleges and universities). That decision would close down U of Phoenix in a week.

(07-18-2013 09:06 AM)bullsnotbills Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

Every school in the MAC is a public, State supported institution. It was determined long ago, that State supported, affordable education is of benefit to the public at large, and in societies best interest overall.

Now, I am assuming that you are a Bowling Green Alum. So, now that you have received your discount education, now that you have "Got Yours", it is screw everybody else?

I hope, then, you only plan on sending your children to private institutions.

He is for privatizing just about everything the government does(or eliminate it) including education and he "taught" at BGSU(I really feel sorry for the students he "taught" and for the waste of tax payer money that he was paid to "teach" them). As for right now, he home schools his kids(shudder).

(07-18-2013 01:31 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:02 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 08:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The state doesn't pay, it's the taxpayers.

And the answer to "should" is zero.

I disagree.

One trillion of student loan debt suggests our country has gotten way off track in financing higher education.

Actually that debt is largely GSL loans (in other words discounted education financing paid for by U.S. taxpayers) and a very large portion of that is owed by people who just don't make payments on it after they've graduated (or otherwise discontinued their educations).

The GSL program is its own worst enemy in terms of fiscal responsibility because it encourages lots of students who probably shouldn't be in college at all (but rather in a trade school - or in the workforce) to rack up lots of debt, chasing a degree that they are ill prepared to complete.

A large percentage of it is spent at degree factories (schools that expect very little other than the check to clear and decent attendance in order to receive an 'A' - like the U of Phoenix). Students rack up 10s of thousands of GSL debt and graduate with a useless degree and no discernible new skill.

With no better career or job prospects, they default on their loans - or worse yet, they continue into another degree program (often at the same sham of a school) in order to delay the start of their repayments until later - racking up 10s of thousands in more debt.

These "colleges" cater to students who are often unable to read the financial aid contracts they sign, or have flunked out of other schools (many several times - proving they shouldn't be in college). If the government wanted to improve the system, they should only offer GSLs to students whose tuition is already publicly subsidized (public colleges and universities). That decision would close down U of Phoenix in a week.

Very interesting perspective on student loans shared here.

I think this thread is close to 'spin room' material (or heading in that direction)

It sounds pretty politically-laced to me. This forum is about MAC athletics

Yet, I don't see any discussion about how a MAC school(s) can grow themselves or their athletic programs.

(07-22-2013 03:31 PM)emu steve Wrote:  I think this thread is close to 'spin room' material (or heading in that direction)

It sounds pretty politically-laced to me. This forum is about MAC athletics

Yet, I don't see any discussion about how a MAC school(s) can grow themselves or their athletic programs.

MAC schools have a limited ability to grow themselves because of declining economies in most of their states and being overshadowed by a land grant school out-of-state. The exception to this may be Buffalo.

The problem MAC schools face growing their athletic programs is stability in their administrative and academic leadership. Most MAC schools have their best coaches (and even presidents) moving on to other universities to be replaced with retreads like Carol Cartwright that lack any vision.

(07-17-2013 07:28 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Kitton posted: BG and Miami both get about 1/2 from the state as what Ohio and Kent receive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eCK's question: Why is that?

The answer is different depending on whether you are talking about Kent State or Ohio.

With Kent State the difference in $$$ received is largely explained away by the greater Full Time Equivalent (FTE) count due to a larger enrollment.

Main Campus
Kent St. 101.9 mil (28,602) per student-3,563
Bowling Green 64.3 mil (17,706) per student-3,632
Miami 56.8 mil (16,514) per student-3,434

There really is not too much of a difference when you compare Kent, Miami and BG's state subsidy on a per school basis.

With Ohio, the difference is partially explained because of higher FTE and partially because of having a Medical School along with a few other high priority institutes.

Main Campus
Ohio State 342 mil (56,857) per student-6,015
Cincinnati 160.3 mil (33,532) per student-4,782
Ohio 117 mil (21,900) per student-5,343

As research universities OSU, UC and OU are receiving more money per student than the liberal arts focused schools.