SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Portland businessman John E. von Schlegell has retired from the Oregon Board of Education after five years of service — and left quite a conversation about the future of higher education in his wake. It came in the form of a letter to Governor Kulongoski about what Oregon's public higher education system should look like in the future.
At least one of von Schlegell's colleagues on the Board disagrees with him.
Board Vice President Tony Van Vliet is a professor emeritus at Oregon State University and spent two decades in the Oregon Legislature. He says the way the state gets its money in the first place is the 800-pound gorilla. And he cautions against a complete break with the current system.
Are you a college student? Do you have a child in college? How would you like to see the state's higher eduation system change? Would you support changes to the tax system to provide more a more stable funding base for Oregon's public colleges and universities? What could we be doing better right now with the funds we have?
GUESTS:
- Tony Van Vliet: Vice president of the Oregon Board of Higher Education
- Ed Ray: President of Oregon State University
- Dalton Miller-Jones: Member of the Oregon Board of Higher Education and professor at Portland State University
- Brian Fox: Student at Southern Oregon University and student member of the Oregon Board of Higher Education
Photo credit: Paul Worthington / Creative Commons
-
I agree wholeheartedly with your final statement but let us not constrain a vaguely specified age range labeled as "boomers". This symbolic labeling of a generation does little or nothing to define the unique qualifications of many who have pursued a passion of immersing themselves into self education of a so needed subject, say of science and art for their entire life, then to share it openly with others [without and monetary compensation to job loss and budget cuts in education.] I have never completed a degree yet I have been providing these lectures and observational astronomy for over ten years now.
I have been balancing roles as a supportive mentor of a needed science and art teaching that is so lacking in the schools (astronomy) and related art [that I believe all students should engage in] and at the same time providing volunteer services as a thorough evaluator of educational systems while performing these lectures and presentations for the public and schools.
Many educational institutions are now cutting funding and many teachers jobs have been eliminated also, due to economic depression. I still offer the lectures about my published, awarded and famous astronomy art as there appear to be a demand for them as this has a known effect and benefit to students in theses subjects, hoping for some minimal compensation but agree to take only a commendation letter as I know that my presentations are worthy to students and the public. I have spoken about this art as it relates to the science on NPR's Talk of the Nation. I receive emails as people want to offer to buy the art [it is not for sale.]
Am I living in a dichotomous world of the proverbial starving artist?
What has not been said enough about this? The public who view the art want to take it for free. Many institutions expect the lecturer to provide presentation for free. How is an artist or lecturer to survive?
-
This might not seem like a popular answer, but the system has enough funding.
I am an intelligent guy, I am almost done with my college degree, I started on it in 1998, I wasn't special enough to get scholarships, like most people who don't want to be teachers College is just punching a ticket.
We shouldn't hand out those tickets though, and NO ONE should be guaranteed a college education, I paid my own way by working and with the Montgomery GI Bill, if we just give away Degrees you will need a bachelors to work at McDonalds.
Anyone who works at it can do College, anything worth having will require work. Don't take away advantages from people who worked for them.
-
I am not sure anyone does guarantee a college education.
You are right, though, if you just hand out degrees, you will need a bachelors to work at McDonalds. And, that is happening to some degree now because primary and secondary education, on average, is not strong enough to meet the requirements for some relatively basic jobs.
Ideally, primary and secondary education would be strong enough to educate people well enough to live comfortable, productive lives thereby reducing the load on universities since people no longer have to get a Sociology degree to be managers at Gap.
From there, I would just make public universities free (save maybe activity fees, housing, etc.).
I have nothing but respect for people that work and earn a degree, but why should you have to do that? Think about how much more challenging you could make, say, an engineering degree if you didn't have to work around students that have to work to pay for their education. You could probably produce students with bachelors degrees comparable to masters degrees.
-
Sklar007,
"Think about how much more challenging you could make, say, an engineering degree if you didn't have to work around students that have to work to pay for their education"
I hope I am mis-understanfing this, going on the assumption that people who aren't full-time students are getting in the way of those who have no other life concerns? You have to be kidding me. I am actually offended you could mean this, I loved having people at different life stages with different responsibilites around me in classes at college, I gained more from interactions with a diverse group of people that i spent time in class with than I did from course work.
I think its tragic that you would want to see a class full of 18 y/o with no expierence, and no real life history. Your logic would turn higher education into 13th-16th grades.....
-
Ok, I was referring to students coming out of high school that have to work to go to school. But, you are right, adults continuing education have to work regardless. So, that was a pretty d**k think to say. And you are right, having a variety of students does enhance the experience a great deal.
I stand by the rest of my post, though. I basically proposed the university system in most of Europe. It hasn't turned their universities into extended high schools.
...and the European systems have extensive support, including free tuition, for any adult that wants to pursue a degree.
-
I read Mr. von Schlegell's letter and I agreed with many of the points he made. There is too much micromanagement of our universities from the legislature, and the OUS board should have more authority and independence. I do think board members should continue to be appointed by the Governor, as ultimately they need to be accountable to the public.
But the major problem facing our universities is funding. We cannot continue to provide a quality higher education for Oregonians when funding levels are among the lowest per capita of all of the states, especially if we want to continue to operate institutions throughout the state, provide expensive majors, such as engineering, that are critical to the state's economic growth, and bring more Oregonians into the system. As is stands, my generation (20s) is on track to be less educated than my parents generation. This is not happening in other advanced, industrial democracies, and it is a threat to our future standard of living.
Here's my fianancing reform idea: it's called "One Dollar for Higher Education." Let's use an initiative or legislative referral to ask the voters to establish a $1 property tax for universities. (In comparison, the property tax for K-12 education is $5 per thousand of assessed value). That would generate about $500 million per biennium. The general fund would be required to at least match every dollar raised, so that would provide the university system with a minimum $1 billion per biennium budget, substantially higher than the current $800 million per biennium. And because property taxes are relatively stable and grow about 4-5% a year, this would provide our universities with a guaranteed, stable minimum budget that could ensure quality and expand the system to reach more Oregonians. We should sell it as an investment in the future of our state, and hopefully it would be something that business and labor, republicans and democrats could support.
-
Why should working people be asked to pay for this when the schools squander massive amounts of money and sell worthless degrees? If the education is worth so much ask the students to pay for it.
-
I'm a professional tradesman at one of Oregon's universities and I can honestly say funding for maintenance is woefully short. Years of cuts to maintenance and custodial budgets have left our once beautiful buildings filthy and run down. We do not perform maintenance, we simply make repairs as things break down, costing far more than it should.
Our department's mission is to be one other universities strive to emulate. With our current lack of proper funding and focus on appearance, rather than functionality, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to emulate this mess.
It would help greatly if we shift focus from procedure to results. We also must double our efforts to replace antiquated infrastructure to avoid catastrophic failures.
Maintenance seems to be unpopular because much of it is behind the scenes and out of sight. I feel maintenance is the best investment that will rarely be noticed.
-
Sure there is no budget for this. They are spending all of that money on professors who don't show up to work, fancy parties, $400,000 plus for a party house for the president. Heck, I don't have to tell you. I'm sure you see more waste than I do.
-
I agree with many of Von Schlegell's concerns, but think the issues run even deeper.
The existing buisiness model of Oregon's public higher education probably is not sustainable. Online colleges and universities are beginning to offer courses and degrees at costs far less than OUS. Why should Oregon continue to fund OUS when Oregon students could get online degrees for far less.
That the Board of Higher Ed did not or could not consider Von Schlegell's proposals brings into question the Board's capacity to think through the challenges posed by online programs.
I think other options should also be on the table - such as privatizing all or parts of OUS and shifting to higher ed vouchers for Oregon students.
-
How I see it...
The students are some of the best lobbyists in the state, and they get the legislature to hold tuition down, but the legislature doesn't reciprocate with increasing funding. The cost of providing higher education is a REAL cost that you can't just ignore, so with these artificial "hold downs" that are basically just the legislators trying to stay in office (the primary power of the Oregon students is their ability to hold legislators accountable through voting- after all, they don't have any money to donate to campaigns), as a result of this messed up system public higher education just continues to become emaciated.
The answer is to give the entire system the flexibility to control tuition/major decisions. Students might freak out about the lack of control over tuition, but the truth is that the people who work in higher education aren't twisting their mustaches and plotting anything evil... they are passionate about helping people go to college. Trust them with the ability to properly manage their institutions.
We should find more money, but if we can't do that we must let the entire system go to a public corporation model like OHSU. The system/chancellors office manages to keep the focus on meeting the needs of the entire state, rather than just the goals of one institution.
The real problem here is the messed up tax system in Oregon, and our initiative system that has left us unable to properly provide for the services that are critical to the future of this state. Until we deal with that, the best answer is for us to give flexibility to the system and have it be centrally controlled/properly managed.
Just my .02
(To uncommonsense-Using the GI bill to pay for college is a form of public support akin to the Pell grant, or the opportunity grant. Anyone who got into college by using one form of public support and doesn't support extending that opportunity to others is...well... hypocritical.)
-
A university education is not a right... I wouldn't support any new funding for universities until:
- Extracurricular activities (e.g., all sports programs, stadiums, pools, gyms and any other programs not directly related to a degree program) are fully self-supporting.
- Curricula breadth are right-sized to those skills society needs most: Technical skills, the Sciences and Teaching.
It's easy to say that we should raise property taxes and drive retiree's out of their homes, or put a sales tax in place (yes, I'll buy less) or increase income taxes (I'll buy even less).
I see the universities with their hand out, what I don't see is an effort to make them more relevant to today's society... stuck in the 60's just like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were (until recently). The largesse of egalitarianism is dead, it's not affordable, let's get over it and move on.
-
If primary and secondary education is a right, how is a university education not a right?
I certainly would not mind seeing college sports go away, but getting rid of everything "not directly related to a degree program" is not as simple as it seems. I have no problem providing pools and gyms for students. Also, remember that a lot of amenities and activities are funded, at least in part, by fees paid by students.
While you might not see any value in Sociology, English, History, or Art degrees, I do...and I am an engineer. What I think you are really want is for our society to stop requiring such degrees for relatively basic jobs (I used a Gap store manager as an example).
That requires strengthening primary and secondary education so that universities no longer have to deal with students that are there simply because the bachelor degree is the new high school diploma.
-
I couldn't agree more. Add to this the myth that only people with a uni degree can be successful and you have a perfect storm for failure.
-
Instead of the current model of all taxpayers subsidizing public education, and higher ed students borrow/pay as they go, what if, in the simplest form, students would not pay nearly as much for college when they attend, but would pay an additional income tax (a percent or two, no matter where they live) after they graduated? Of course, it would be a bit more complicated for those students who don't complete degrees...
This would not immediately bring in revenue, but may allow Universities to borrow assuming a future revenue stream.
Bob
-
I love this idea Bob. Have the people who benefit from the education pay for it! The better of a job they do educating you, the more you benefit and the more you pay. I love it! You are hired. ;)
-
Hey, yeah, I agree with this idea too. And guess what, I do pay more in income tax. 13% more. Yay, everybody already wins!
Do people here really think they are inventing the graduated income tax?
-
I'm a Ph.D. student at Oregon State University *hopefully* nearing the completion of my degree. What I have witnessed since matriculating in 2005 is a constant increase in student fees. This term they add up to about $1000. The fees are increased in order to keep the rise in tuition in check. The rub with this is that student fees are not covered by assistantships or fellowships. This is rapidly making graduate school unaffordable for the majority of students.
-
Believing that higher education isn't a right is an idiotic notion. How can you live in this society and not recognize the way that having other educated citizens impacts your daily life.
They pay far more taxes, vote more, volunteer more, and promote a higher level of discourse. Having college educate neighbors impacts my daily life. I don't want to have a racist or sexist neighbor - higher education works to improve the quality of the content of the character of it's students.
How can you not recognize that the higher education system impacts your life regardless of whether or not you're a student. I want to live in a strong economically diverse state, where students come out of college with an entrepreneurial spirit and give back.
And regarding the types of degrees.... I know far too many people who are madly successful that have "worthless degrees" like philosophy or english to buy the argument that tech degrees are all that we should offer. Going to college is not just about getting a job, it's where you become a more well rounded person and learn how to think. That can be done in a host of disciplines.
-
I like your points and will add that the traditional purpose of education is not to produce specifically-educated widgets to meet the needs of corporations, but to help people become well rounded individuals who add value to society.
-
The original purpose of a university education is irrelevant today... well-rounded people who are on the gov't teat are boat-anchors to the rest of us. It IS about getting a job and holding up your end, whether that be health care costs, paying down the debt, social services and, yes, University subsidies.
Yes there are people with liberal art's degree's that are successful... more that are not.
Off-Topic: Might want to exercise care in characterizing the mass of people without degree's as racist or sexist, makes a person appear to be one of those elite closet bigots that is all for equality, but wouldn't want an uneducated minority as a neighbor... really weakens your position and has nothing to do with the topic.
-
I am a vet and a student at PSU and I feel that by and large the actual students like me are being left out of the over all discussion. I feel that the students voice should be one of the things that people listen to the most. Our system isn't broken and there isn't a huge problem with the current system, with the exception of lack of support from the legislature.
I strongly feel that education is a right, not a privilege for the few in the state that can afford it out of pocket. A system that is public provides equal opprotunity for any qualified student to find funding. However a privatized system, or one which incorporates certain elements of a private system, would not allow equal opportuity. I fear that qualified students will be pushed aside based soley on the students finacial background.
-
apowell,
I am sure we have quite a bit in common, The Army paid for most of my college.
I think a college education is not a right, and we paid dearly for the education benefits we recieved, and if for no other reasons that being selfish, why should I encourage others to not work for something that has taken so much of my time, effort and energy.
College is availible to ANYONE who trys hard, finds a way, and makes some sacrafice. A degree doesn't make you smarter, or more capable, but it shows at a minimum that you took steps to make your self more qualified than your peers.
Acadamia is it's own world, it teaches people that they need it, (tounge in cheek here).
-
The state should stop funding public higher education. I have no problem with granting scholarships and grants. The entire higher-ed system is broken, from the tenure system to the wholesale fraud committed on students who have been told that they have to have a degree to be successful. An example is the ridiculous number of useless degrees SOLD to students because the uni needs the money, not because Oregon or the nation or the world needs more people with useless degrees. It's fraud to sell a degree with little or no job prospects, only to send these young citizens out into the world with $50,000+ in debt and no skills to get a job. This entire system rests on the backs of working people, many of whom may not even have the need of a university education.
-
This entire system rests on the backs of working people, many of whom may not even have the need of a university education.
No, that's quite wrong. I will admit that I went to school on a publicly funded scholarship, but I pay that back through a higher tax bracket. And that's why I am perfectly fine with not only taxes, but a graduated tax scale as well.
Oh, and stop using the loaded phrase "working person" as if not having a degree makes you a better person.
-
Is the rush of students into college to get degrees actually going to help them get jobs when they graduate? There don't seem to be enough jobs for all the students who earn degrees.
-
Shhh,
Don't let the secret out. It is bad but not as bad if you have a college degree:
http://oregonecon.blogspot.com/2009/06/unemployment-and-education.html
Sometimes they do not get jobs in the field they studied for but, the advantage still holds.
-
Ed Ray spoke of "kicking butt". What metrics do we use to measure success? Perhaps Oregon has the most efficient college system and does not need to regress to the norm by spending more money.
-Dan
-
Public schools are funded because they are free. Why in the world should we fund Colleges that we pay enormous amounts to attend?!!
-
How efficiently do Oregon public universities use their funding?
-
How would you measure that?
-
The Oregon State alumni magazine provides profiles on noteworthy alumni. A university could track how alumni do in their careers after graduation. But those statistics would focus on career orientation -- only one facet of "success". The question is multi-faceted.
How many of you people who graduated in XXXX have jobs or careers you like?
How does the research universities provide benefit society? I enjoyed learning about Jane Lubchenko's ocean research. Almost made me return to university to pursue oceanography. To figure out what is happening to the environment somebody has to be observing it carefully, no? Ocean research on it's surface may not provide immediate benefits today, but 20 years from now the research could become immensely valuable.
I also think about the question from an investment perspective. How well does university management use the dollars it receives? Where are the income, cash flow and cash balance statements? Do public universities really have a deficit or are they being squeaky wheels?
When I attended university several of my professors in engineering and computer science returned to private industry. They stated that the pay cut to work at a public institution was less signifcant than losing their skills which were highly sought by corporations.
In the technical fields which constantly evolve universities must work hand-in-hand with corporations to stay relevant. What use is learning COBOL when corporations use C#, Python, etc.?
If we spend $X on a research project what are the tangible ways we can decide whether that investment is effective? What is success? Write it down. Satisfied students? Satisifed faculty? Documentable improvement to a specific challenge? And so on.
Public universities have survived for a long time when funding didn't seem to be as big a problem as it is today. What has changed?
-
How many of you people who graduated in XXXX have jobs or careers you like?
Does that mean that, in bad times, the efficiency of a university goes down because less graduates have jobs? Conversely, in good times, when companies are hiring anyone and everyone, does the mean a university is more efficient even though their graduates may not be as well qualified as graduates from other universities?
How does the research universities provide benefit society? ... If we spend $X on a research project what are the tangible ways we can decide whether that investment is effective?
Academic pursuits are very hard to quantify. The focus is completely different from private enterprises. Research in a university setting is a what-if proposition rather than a make-a-marketable-product proposition. The research can be equally valuable in failure as it could be in success, and that value is impossible to measure.
Honestly, you really shouldn't try to measure the value of research. It happens naturally anyway. Students gravitate to the universities that are making news in their field of interest. If a lot of students are excited about going to OSU, for instance, because they are making a lot of news in oceanography, why bother trying to measure the value of their research?
How well does university management use the dollars it receives?
That's very subjective for the reasons listed above. You may not think spending money on, say, researching language is useful, but maybe I do. You might not thinking spending money on pools and gyms for students is money well spent, but I do.
-
Required reading: Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two-Income Trap." Throwing more money at higher ed, whether through increased taxes, student loans, or any other means, simply encourages spending and tuition increases.
The solution is to make the tough choices. Are stadiums and athletic programs really needed? Is there duplication of programs across different institutions? Is administration bloated? Are tenured faculty any better than contract teachers from the private sector? As long as we add money without increasing efficiency the system will continue to drain the wallets of parents who want a good education for their children.
-
A major problem with eduction, especially higher ed, is that the basic mode of delivery has not changed over the past 2000 years, i.e. an instructor meets with the students and lectures. This is the equivalent of ancient craftsmen making one complete unit at a time. It seems that we could increase productivity by choosing the best professors to give lectures that are either stored on digital media or transmitted to several campuses at once. Students could view the media at home and email or call in questions at a set time. As many university classes are already very large, this method would not degrade teacher-student contact and could eliminate problems with seating, hearing, and the carbon-footprint associated with commuting to a central campus.
-
Check out EOU and how they are leading in this area via their on-line, on-site and on-campus programs...www.eou.edu
-
re: comment from Bdavies
Thanks for the link. This could be a good model to follow for all universities and not just for those serving regions where commuting is impractical. One thing that I note is that the tuition is very similar for the online and oncampus credit hour. This may stem from the view that colleges sell the credits which represent the value. Why not charge for the actual cost involved in the online. Once setup charges are covered, this charge should be quite low, probably lower than community colleges, to pay for the onsite testing and tutoring. We could then leave it up to the student to choose paying at current levels for the "classic teaching experience" or at greatly reduced levels for the online learning. Even students attending on-campus classes could decide to take some classes on online to save costs (and perhaps get a better education when the professor teaching the current class is a "dud".
-
The real question is: Does the state believe higher education is a PUBLIC Good or a PRIVATE good. If it is a public good--i.e., the benefits of a educated citizenship is important for the overall good of society, then the state needs to pay for this (like a police force). If it is a private good, (i.e., higher slaries, etc.) then the costs needs to be borne by the students.
To me, it is clear that this is not an "either/or" question as there are clear benefits to society of an educated citizenship--graduates tend to volunteer more, tend to vote more, tend to donate to charities more, tend to lend a hand to others more frequently, etc. And at the same time, there are priviate benefts and therefore the students should share in the costs.
-
I am Christopher Proudfoot; I am a student at PSU and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors for the Oregon Student association. I am in Salem right now preparing to testify in from of the Senate Education and General Governance Committee. What students and this state need is the funding to keep Higher Education affordable and Accessible to ALL students. I am about to speak about the Oregon Opportunity Grant, Oregon's only need based grant. Now, more then ever is it important to provide the funds for this grant and keep the opportunities available for students like me to excel and become the future economic growth that Oregon needs. We need to think about solutions that do this.
-
Having worked for OSU over many years in both classified and professional faculty positions for various student support and recruitment, fundraising and alumni relation roles I can honestly say that the systematic flaws run deeper than funding alone.
Yes, the culture is diseased.
The Faculty is stretched too thin. Resources are too few. Student tuition costs and fees are too high and too many. Alumni feel like nothing more than dollar signs in the eyes of Foundation and Alumni Relation groups.
I completely agree with a systematic overhaul of the OUS system and incorporating corporate leadership to oversee this change. There are too many layers of management throughout the system - not only do layers need to be flattened, processes need to become leaner. Union agreements and tenure stifle the growth of new ideas and cultivation of new talent within the OUS system.
There are many wonderful, brilliant and engaged faculty and professional staff in the OUS system who are fighting to succeed and grow against the majority who are institutionalized into complacency and are no longer held accountable for productivity.
For far too long the internal focus has been on political posturing and self-advancement; it’s time to shift the focus to creating a truly engaging, future-thinking and creative environment from the top-down.
I support a radical change in our OUS system. And don’t even get me started on board members…
-
I am a professional living in Eastern Oregon. I am earning my undergraduate in Business entirely online. I had to look for universities outside of Oregon that offered online degrees. Many colleges have proctored examinations where I would have to attend a local testing center. This also was not an option during my work schedule. I first looked at Oregon universities, but found that no Oregon University meets my needs as a working professional. Why doesn’t an Oregon public university meet the needs of working professionals in rural communities, or out of state, by having entirely online degrees?
Alan
-
Have you looked at EOU for business courses that are on completely on-line?
-
I have looked at EOU and their program does not meet my needs. I still have to attend testing facilities, and the program is limited in options.
-
With the EOU MBA, I would have to attend extended locations off-site "as enrollment allows." http://www.eou.edu/business/mba/
This is not an option!
-
May I ask what school you are getting your MBA from?
-
I think that we have as an article of "faith" that we Oregonians consider education to be an investment that benefits both the students and all of Oregon.
I think that our "faith" ought to be made concrete in the form of a contract with the students that in return for our subsidizing their higher education, they will pay one or two percent of their income for the rest of their lives back into an "Oregon higher education fund endowment" to benefit the students of the future. Eventually that endowment would nearly fully fund our higher education system.
Ive League colleges do essentially that through their alumni giving programs and I think we ought to try and imitate them.
Same with research contract funding and commercializing research developments.
I would read to the students every year some statement that we Oregonians work hard and willingly pay our taxes to subsidize their education and we want the best for them as they work and play through school and develop into good contributing and participating Oregon citizens.
-
On the surface this might seem reasonable, but in practice it can't possibly work. What about students that transfer in or out? exchange students? students who are foreign nationals? students who are US citizens but not Oregonians? Students with advanced degrees? Must their incomes be penalized by two to three times the amount of those who choose to receive only a bachelor's?
-
1-2% of their income for the rest of their lives?
That's a great idea! I will do even better, though. I am willing to pay 13%. Yep, 13%. And, even better, I already do because I am two tax brackets higher than the average person that funded my education.
And you know what, I work hard too. Do not talk down to people with degrees because you think they "played" through school and do not "work hard" after graduating.
My job may be different than your's, but don't act like you are a better person because you didn't "play" through school.
If medical science ever changes your life or the life of someone close to you, think of me, the contributions that I, engineers like me, and the companies we work for have made to medical science. ...and remember that we all pay a crap load more in taxes now.
-
"...And you know what, I work hard too. Do not talk down to people with degrees because you think they "played" through school and do not "work hard" after graduating."
"My job may be different than your's, but don't act like you are a better person because you didn't "play" through school. ..."
slakr007 — Tue Sept. 29th 10:07a.m.
If you didn't have any fun in college you missed out on a big part of it. Every person I went to school at Oregon State with worked their butts off studying and then we played hard too. We went to football and basketball games, dances, and every other sort of play we could think of. All work and no play makes for a dull life. Study hard and play hard, that was our way in college.
I have no doubt that you work hard in your job after leaving school, and I intended no slight to folks with degrees. I hope that you will learn to play some too.The idea of a contract is to direct money specifically to higher education and to prevent Conservatives from redirecting it to building and running prisons or give away in tax cuts to the wealthy.
-
OK. I did have fun in school too, your original phase ("...best for them as they work and play through school...") just threw me. Other posts that were definitively against subsidizing education colored my perception of your post.
Add to that time I spent in Florida opposing people that believe very strongly that public education of any kind is a total waste of money. This topic and a lot of the posts really shifted me into offensive mode.
I don't think it is really necessary to have a dedicated tax on college degrees, though. The graduated income tax is probably plently. The rest should be handled, as you said later, by shaping public opinion back to a pro-education stance.
Plus, prison advocates are going to run into reality eventually. A state or two may go bankrupt in the process, but no one can really argue that the math of prisons works out. If you spend enough time cutting taxes, criminalizing everything, and shifting more and more tax dollars to build and support prisons, the math is undeniable.
-
"...Plus, prison advocates are going to run into reality eventually. A state or two may go bankrupt in the process, but no one can really argue that the math of prisons works out. If you spend enough time cutting taxes, criminalizing everything, and shifting more and more tax dollars to build and support prisons, the math is undeniable."
slakr007 — Tue Sept. 29th 3:23p.m.
You've got my agreement there. And I think we agree about telling kids to have fun while studying hard too, to get the whole college experience. I don't want kids to think of education as a drudge.
Would you agree to some low percent tax if it was not added to your current tax bill but you were allowed to dedicate it as part of your current tax bill specifically to higher ed?
Hmm, I bet that would raise all kinds of political hell, everyone would want to specify that their taxes only go to their pet projects. So I wonder what would happen if all taxpayers were given an option over dedicating just one or two percent of their tax bill to their personal choice, that might be an interesting experiment. Then legislators would have to do a better job to sell their ideas about what to dedicate money to. -
Take it another step... buy a piece of Johnny's future as a venture capitalist. Would be interesting to see the statistics in what degree's people would prefer funding. :-)
-
Hello, my name is Jonathan. I am the student body president at Portland State University.
Ok, so we are going to privitize the universities unless we repeal measures 5,11, and 57 they simply put a vice on the state general fund and do not provide for enough money for universities to survive.
However what about following the RAM model for dispursement of funds for Higher education. The state board of education decided not to follow this model and subsitized the regional universities (eastern, western, southern, etc.) with money that usually goes to the "big three" (psu, osu, uo). If we were to follow our model we may not need to privitize so quickly.
-
That sounds good - except that the reason we are not following the RAM model is that the regional universities would not survive if we did. Your suggestion would mean the regionals would be eliminated. I suspect that is a political non starter. I think it would better serve the state if we found a way to make the regionals more successful. I tend to think that some sort of merger or alliance between the regionals and the big three (UO and SOU since they are both liberal arts, OSU and EOU since both have an ag focus, PSU and OIT since both have a sustainability/engineering focus, OSU and WOU because they are geographically close) and making it easy for students to go back and forth between campuses would be worth exploring. But there is no question that the State of Oregon is not matching its ambitions for our higher education system (and the education level of Oregonians) with the funding necessary to make it happen.
-
Brian...how much would be saved by combining the universities you mention, what would be gained, what efficiences would occur. I present that very little would be actually accomplished by this. EOU, also, is not an ag school, rather, its focus is education, business and arts & sciences at the undergraduate levels with a few masters degree programs in special areas.
The regional universities are, as you suggest, a very different model than the bigs. Research dollars--which bring in substaintail "indirect cost recovery", ability to increase tuition, spread fixed costs over larger numbers, etc. all make up significant differences in the financial operations between the "bigs" and the regionals. The regionals have a very important role to play in their area. For example, EOU is the ONLY four year university serving 55% of the state's geogrpahic area. OSU has its extension; but you can't get a degree via the extension offices--great research, yes, degree, no...And, despite what many people may think, students from Eastern Oregon are not likely to go to the western side of the state--they will go to Boise State, UofI, Washington State-Tri Cities...thus, leaving the state and most likely not coming back...
Should the regionals affiliate and be treated different--yes. Should the bigs also be treated different--yes...they each have thier role to play and service to the state.
-
Bdavies - I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not suggesting that the LaGrande campus (or any of the other regional campuses) be closed. My idea is that mergers would involve efficiencies and growth opportunities for all of the campuses. I certainly am not in a position to come up with numerical projections, but there ought to be some administrative efficiencies from a merger or alliance. There are other ways to get these efficiencies - there's been a lot of talk about all of the regional universities outsourcing basic business services to a single shared business center. But I think the merger model could be superior because it would give the regionals the very valuable brand names of the big three and could pave the way for more significant collaboration.
What is there to gain? I think the goal is to increase enrollment at all of the regionals. What if it were painless - as easy as normally registering for classes - for a student at OSU-Corvallis to spend a year, or even just a term, at OSU-LaGrande? For an engineering student at PSU to spend a couple quarters in Klamath Falls with their renewable energy program? The reality is that the big three are starting to approach capacity limitations in various respects. UO is extremely short on housing, so they have already started a partnership with SOU where students get admitted to UO, do their first two years in Ashland, then finish in Eugene. Why not go all the way and make SOU into the University of Oregon - Ashland campus and make it just as easy for any students to go back and forth? Maybe it could get to the point where even professors on occaision go back and forth. I think the opportunities from working together could be really amazing and could give the regionals what they need (enrollment and a more valuable brand) and the big three what they increasingly need (capacity, efficiencies in the system). For example, why should both WOU and OSU have separate education colleges with separate programs, administrations, etc. (Now our education college is moving to Bend, but if it weren't, it seems like there would be opportunities for efficiencies and synergies there.)
-
Speaking of getting, and retaining, good faculty - salaries at PSU are an embarrassment. My partner is a tenured science professor who brings in millions of dollars in grant money to the University. Yet his salary is in the $50 K range. This is particularly galling when compared to the salary of managment at PSU and even to colleagues at OSU and U of O. Why is it that PSU faculty salaries are lower in the same system, especially when cost of living is higher here in Portland?
The result is that although my partner has always been strongly committed to PSU and his job, he is getting fed up and beginning to think he may have to leave.
-
I am Cristal Sandoval a senior at Western Oregon University and a board member of the Oregon Students of Color Colalition, one of three governing boards of the Oregon Student Association. Students need to be a part of this dicussion because we know better than anywho why it is so important to keep things affordable. Yesterday, i stood in the financial aid line and i am about to represent the Oregon Student Association before the Senate of Education Committee to discuss the importance of the Oregon Opportunity Grant. Many of my peers have recieved cuts in thier grant and they are facing some hard decisions. We need to focus our state on educating Oregonians. There is no need to make a shift in our system but instead a shift in how what we prioritize. Instead of continually cutting out colleges we need to support them.
-
We need to educate the public about the benefits of education in an ongoing advertising campaign.
It is not a cost but an investment.
Prisons are not an investment but a cost.
-
Let's change the taxation system. As many of you know during the Industrial Revolution finances backed industry and manufacturing. You also probably know that finances now back finances. Our taxation system is still taxing 'industry' ... either individual work or businesses.
Since taxing in Democracies are used for those things that are used by the general population, we now must begin to change the taxation system that permits States and Governments to tax financial transactions.
As Peter DeFazio mentioned in his Town Hall meetings, placing 1/10th of 1% taxation on Securities Transactions can pay for health care (and other State needs).
Let's look at this new form of taxation
-
Why not just stop lowering capital gains taxes instead of creating a whole new tax?
-
Add a higher education tax on all PlayStation, Wii, Xbox360 and related games sold in Oregon. Be bold, $4.00 on devices and $2.00 a game. That will drive up revenue and make kids spend some time thinking about their studies instead of having fun and/or escaping reality.
-
As long as everyone is so fired up about money issues maybe "someone" who actually knows "who has the negatives on whom" should start by looking into the flagrant waste and top-heavy-in numbers-and-salaries of administrators starting with the Chancellors Office.
There are a lot of feeders from the public trough in administrative management who don't want taxpayers to know how taxpayer funds are being misused.
-
Do you want to know why Oregon’s economy sucks? Because Oregon spends more on her PRISONS than on her UNIVERSITIES! Gee, I wonder why our unemployment rate is the 2nd highest in the country—a real mystery, quite the head-scratcher. Maybe I should become a criminal, that appears to be the only way that Oregon will take an interest and invest in a person.
You could give full scholarships to five students for what it costs to incarcerate one person. And then those five graduates will go on to pay higher taxes, vote more often, volunteer more, and all in all do the things we like responsible citizens to do. But instead, we incarcerate people…and what do they do? Most likely, end up back in jail.
Oregon—which do you think is the wisest investment??
-
College education must be made affordable. Today's college student has a lot more to worry about. Polls indicate that the hugest concerns that today's college student faces is their financial situation, since the average college degree has a price that has risen dramatically above the rate of inflation. Today's economy has less middle class job opportunities, and recent polls by AP and MTV U indicate that the ability to pay off student debt is inhibited, and many grads are returning back to their parent's homes to make ends meet.Today's college students need debt relief more than ever, and economic mismanagement is short changing our future leaders.
-
Comments are now closed.
I'm not sure marketing is the answer to better education available to more people. And I think Portland actually has some good and fairly inexpensive colleges available. I also think people in higher education are being creative about how they get more people into their doors and educated. Commendable!
I think the real challenge is the number of people who want to go to college or back to college being able to readily afford it with the economic downturn. I know colleges are doing everything in their power to make it more affordable. I'm just wondering if "everything in their power" is enough; federal and state government could free some funds to help our schools (preschool - college). It's an investment in our future.
Also interesting, many people over 50 are going back to school now. As the economic downturn has claimed more Boomers, they're turning to local colleges to fulfill life-long dreams or get more training. Many local colleges have done a great job of getting those folks in the door, too. I also think some of these Boomers have time on their hands and have something to give back to the schools in the area and that schools (not just higher education) should be actively recruiting them.