2016 elections - because it's never too early

[alfred russel]

Berkuts plan:

The federal government takes all the money they currently pay out in loans, grants, direct aid to public universities, etc. Stick in a bucket. This defines the initial funding level for the program, and should largely be currently revenue neutral. It should be defined as being funded going forward on the basis of some rational increase tied to percentage of the federal budget.

No states or universities get a nickel unless they sign up for the Federal Public Education Plan.

If they do sign up for said plan, they get an allocation of funds on a per student basis - in a broad stroke they get "total funding/total students" per qualifying student attending a public university or community college or other public institution of higher learning.

However - in order to qualify, you must:

1. Be a public school
2. Agree to a set of rules that amount to very minimal costs for in state residents attending their schools - basically some fees and such at most.

It should be understood that any costs for running the state public universities should come from the state itself. States can and should compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education financed by the Federal Public Education Plan and whatever state funds the states choose to allocate from *state* budgets. Tuition for in state students is no longer a revenue source.

Any needed funding should be made up by *state* tax increases on the middle-upper classes, which can be sold on the basis of "Hey, we are saving you 100k per kid in tuition!".

I think this is entirely doable given current funding levels.

Three things:

-What is the point of excluding private schools? Some of our best institutions are private, and many students wish to attend those schools. If the feds want to subsidize schools on a per student basis for the education they provide, why exclude non state run institutions?
-The emphasis on in state seems misguided. The rationale for in state tuition is that the state is the one paying for a significant portion of the bill, and thus children of the state's taxpayers should be subsidized. If the federal government is paying the bill, why not open things up to all US citizens?
-The restriction on in state tuition being used for budgetary purposes by the schools seems dangerous. Already many schools are looking to foreign students to fill many spots as they will pay full freight. If tuition restrictions are not made for both in state and out of state, as well as international, the consequences may be that admission for in state becomes exceedingly difficult.
-If you want schools to "compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education", freezing out private schools and a system incentivizing students to stay in state seems the opposite way to achieve it.
-There is no way I can think of to preclude states from taxing classes other than the upper middle class to pay for education. In Georgia, a lot of the funding comes from the lottery.

[Berkut]

Re: Hillary's free tuition, I wonder what the reason for limiting the offer to in-state students is.

Out of state costs more because public in state universities are subsidized, typically on a per student basis.

So an out of state student has to pay the in state tuition, plus whatever share of the schools budget comes from state funding.

So it makes sense to limit this only to in state students, since state schools charge a lot more for out of state students.

[Zanza]

As Germany was cited as an example:
You have to finish high school with a formal test that qualifies you for university or you have to have specific professional experience. About 50% of a generation fulfill these formal requirement. In very popular subjects you also need a good or very good GPA in that formal qualification or you need to wait a long time (e.g. medicine, psychology).

this is terrible and screws over anyone who fell through the cracks early in life. it's like china's system: creates artificial barriers that prevents advancement.

There are plenty of ways to gain the formal qualification after high school. E.g. Our previous chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

[Berkut]

Berkuts plan:

The federal government takes all the money they currently pay out in loans, grants, direct aid to public universities, etc. Stick in a bucket. This defines the initial funding level for the program, and should largely be currently revenue neutral. It should be defined as being funded going forward on the basis of some rational increase tied to percentage of the federal budget.

No states or universities get a nickel unless they sign up for the Federal Public Education Plan.

If they do sign up for said plan, they get an allocation of funds on a per student basis - in a broad stroke they get "total funding/total students" per qualifying student attending a public university or community college or other public institution of higher learning.

However - in order to qualify, you must:

1. Be a public school
2. Agree to a set of rules that amount to very minimal costs for in state residents attending their schools - basically some fees and such at most.

It should be understood that any costs for running the state public universities should come from the state itself. States can and should compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education financed by the Federal Public Education Plan and whatever state funds the states choose to allocate from *state* budgets. Tuition for in state students is no longer a revenue source.

Any needed funding should be made up by *state* tax increases on the middle-upper classes, which can be sold on the basis of "Hey, we are saving you 100k per kid in tuition!".

I think this is entirely doable given current funding levels.

Three things:

-What is the point of excluding private schools? Some of our best institutions are private, and many students wish to attend those schools. If the feds want to subsidize schools on a per student basis for the education they provide, why exclude non state run institutions?

I thought a little about this - in theory you are right. If the Fed is providing funds on a per student basis, why not provide those same funds to private schools as well? It is basically the charter school argument.

It ahs some merit, but at the end of the day I think it is better to just leave private schools on their own.

For one, they tend to not need the funds, and I am ok with letting public institutions focus on public education.
For two, if you stick your hand out for public money, you have to also accept public oversight. I think having a segment of higher education outside the federal mandate is a good thing.

-The emphasis on in state seems misguided. The rationale for in state tuition is that the state is the one paying for a significant portion of the bill, and thus children of the state's taxpayers should be subsidized. If the federal government is paying the bill, why not open things up to all US citizens?

They are only paying part of the bill. I would be fine with the feds paying that to whatever public school the student attends (in state or out) but I don't think that you can reasonably expect that states could not choose to charge extra for out of state students. Otherwise California will be subsidizing Alabama, and everyone from Alabama will just send their kids to California and refuse to fund their in state schools.

-The restriction on in state tuition being used for budgetary purposes by the schools seems dangerous. Already many schools are looking to foreign students to fill many spots as they will pay full freight. If tuition restrictions are not made for both in state and out of state, as well as international, the consequences may be that admission for in state becomes exceedingly difficult.

Not sure I understand. The restriction is that you cannot charge in state students tuition. You can (and would) still charge out of state students the difference between what the feds fund and the actual cost, and you would charge international students the full cost.

-If you want schools to "compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education", freezing out private schools and a system incentivizing students to stay in state seems the opposite way to achieve it.

I disagree  - I think private schools provide a product that is fundamentally different, and valued as such. Harvard is still Harvard.

If there are some marginal private schools that are don't provide any added value such that they cannot compete with public schools and they go out of business?

Shrug.

-There is no way I can think of to preclude states from taxing classes other than the upper middle class to pay for education. In Georgia, a lot of the funding comes from the lottery.

My plan would not proscribe how states choose to fund their schools. They can do so however they like.

[Berkut]

Under my plan....

Lets say costs $100/semester per student to run SUNY-Berkut School of Law and Agriculture.

The Feds give me $64/student/semester as my share of the fed chunk of money.

I have to make up the other $36/student. For simplicity sake, lets assume New York just allocates that out of their budget.

For an out of state student, I would charge them $36/semester, and get the other $64 from the fed as normal. Or maybe I discount it because I want to attract out of state students. Maybe not. Up to me.

For an international student, I get no money from the Fed, so I charge them $100/semester. Again, maybe I discount it if I want to attract more of them, maybe not.

[LaCroix]

There are plenty of ways to gain the formal qualification after high school. E.g. Our previous chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

ah, so people aren't barred if they do poorly early in life but get shit together and do well later?

[Zanza]

There are plenty of ways to gain the formal qualification after high school. E.g. Our previous chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

ah, so people aren't barred if they do poorly early in life but get shit together and do well later?

No. It is based on merit. If you qualify later in life, you can still go to university. That said the government loans are typically only available until age 30 or in some exceptions age 35.

[LaCroix]

If you qualify later in life, you can still go to university.

then my tenth german grade teacher was wrong 

[alfred russel]

Under my plan....

Lets say costs $100/semester per student to run SUNY-Berkut School of Law and Agriculture.

The Feds give me $64/student/semester as my share of the fed chunk of money.

I have to make up the other $36/student. For simplicity sake, lets assume New York just allocates that out of their budget.

For an out of state student, I would charge them $36/semester, and get the other $64 from the fed as normal. Or maybe I discount it because I want to attract out of state students. Maybe not. Up to me.

For an international student, I get no money from the Fed, so I charge them $100/semester. Again, maybe I discount it if I want to attract more of them, maybe not.

But this is all very subjective. You are in admissions and getting close to filling up a class. Your university wide costs won't change much with marginally more students (you aren't going to build new buildings or hire more faculty). The budget is tight, as it often is at public universities--the reality generally is that your state funding is fixed. You can admit in state students and get $64 from the feds, or a bunch of international students from China with wealthy parents and get $100 - maybe even more.

[alfred russel]

I disagree  - I think private schools provide a product that is fundamentally different, and valued as such. Harvard is still Harvard.

If there are some marginal private schools that are don't provide any added value such that they cannot compete with public schools and they go out of business?

Shrug.

Harvard is not a typical private university.

The problem is this: it is extremely hard to compete with free or nearly free. If the government started producing and giving everyone free Honda Accord equivalents, there would still be private automobile purchases--some people will want their Mercedes, and I doubt many Bentley buyers would switch to an accord equivalent. But I'm sure private car sales would plummet--even if ultimately the private market could produce higher quality products at a lower cost.

[Berkut]

Under my plan....

Lets say costs $100/semester per student to run SUNY-Berkut School of Law and Agriculture.

The Feds give me $64/student/semester as my share of the fed chunk of money.

I have to make up the other $36/student. For simplicity sake, lets assume New York just allocates that out of their budget.

For an out of state student, I would charge them $36/semester, and get the other $64 from the fed as normal. Or maybe I discount it because I want to attract out of state students. Maybe not. Up to me.

For an international student, I get no money from the Fed, so I charge them $100/semester. Again, maybe I discount it if I want to attract more of them, maybe not.

But this is all very subjective. You are in admissions and getting close to filling up a class. Your university wide costs won't change much with marginally more students (you aren't going to build new buildings or hire more faculty). The budget is tight, as it often is at public universities--the reality generally is that your state funding is fixed. You can admit in state students and get $64 from the feds, or a bunch of international students from China with wealthy parents and get $100 - maybe even more.

I trust the market and political structure around the particular state(s) to manage that.

There are a lot of public universities, and they don't all need to be run exactly the same and with the exact same goals and target populations.

If taking in someone from India at $100 is a better deal than a in state student at $64, and the political structure around this state funded institution allows such discretion, then that is fine. I think those kinds of things will sort themselves out, we don't need proscriptive rules in place to sort them out before we even understand the reality of how it actually works out in practice.

Indeed, IMO, the desire to pre-fix imagined problems like this is what tends to screw up most public programs to begin with...

[Berkut]

I disagree  - I think private schools provide a product that is fundamentally different, and valued as such. Harvard is still Harvard.

If there are some marginal private schools that are don't provide any added value such that they cannot compete with public schools and they go out of business?

Shrug.

Harvard is not a typical private university.

The problem is this: it is extremely hard to compete with free or nearly free. If the government started producing and giving everyone free Honda Accord equivalents, there would still be private automobile purchases--some people will want their Mercedes, and I doubt many Bentley buyers would switch to an accord equivalent. But I'm sure private car sales would plummet--even if ultimately the private market could produce higher quality products at a lower cost.

OK. I can live with that. I don't think private universities that don't provide any particular benefit over public universities are so worthy of protection that it should force us to continue with a clearly broken system where we *know* that the problems are incredible.

There is no question that the federal government (along with the states) deciding to publically fund public universities isn't going to be disruptive.

[alfred russel]

I trust the market and political structure around the particular state(s) to manage that.

There are a lot of public universities, and they don't all need to be run exactly the same and with the exact same goals and target populations.

If taking in someone from India at $100 is a better deal than a in state student at $64, and the political structure around this state funded institution allows such discretion, then that is fine. I think those kinds of things will sort themselves out, we don't need proscriptive rules in place to sort them out before we even understand the reality of how it actually works out in practice.

Indeed, IMO, the desire to pre-fix imagined problems like this is what tends to screw up most public programs to begin with...

This isn't an imagined problem. This is something that is happening right now, in a number of states.

Here are two articles on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/us/recruiting-students-overseas-to-fill-seats-not-to-meet-standards.html?_r=0

Dr. Ransdell said the university had decided to recruit international students years ago to expose local students to global cultures. But recently, he said, the effort has become more of an economic necessity, partly because of drastic state funding cuts for higher education — a pattern seen across the country.

To combat these cuts, colleges began to look at foreign students, who pay full tuition, as their financial salvation. And although federal law prohibits them from using recruiters in the United States who are paid based on the number of students they enroll, the law does not ban the use of such recruiters abroad.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/international-students-stream-into-u-s-colleges-1427248801

Amid rising costs, shrinking state support and student resistance to tuition increases, foreign students have become crucial to many public universities. Some hire foreign consultants to recruit students overseas, while others send their own staff on scouting missions. Officials at many state universities say the higher-paying students essentially subsidize in-state students.

But the perception that foreign students, in addition to out-of-state Americans, displace state residents has fueled a backlash in some states.

The University of California system recently announced it will cap the percentage of out-of-state and foreign undergraduate students at the Los Angeles and Berkeley campuses at the current level, 22%. University of Iowa regents last year adopted a plan to tie state funding of public universities to the number of in-state students enrolled.

Brenda Nard of Salem, Ore., said she encountered many out-of-state and foreign students during her daughter's recent college search. "You wrestle with it because you want your kids to have the most opportunity," she said. "I understand the state needs the money yet I also wonder if it eliminates opportunities for some Oregonians."

Tina Orwall, a Washington state legislator, in 2012 introduced an amendment to a tuition bill that allowed the University of Washington to increase enrollment as long as the number of in-state residents remained at a minimum level. The amendment, prompted by an influx of both foreign and out-of-state students, passed.

"I was hearing from constituents that their sons and daughters were being denied admission into our state institutions despite being very strong academic students," she said.

The growth in international students also has caused tensions on some campuses. At Michigan State University, where the Chinese undergraduate population has risen eightfold in nine years to nearly 4,000, staff and students have been promoting dialogue since luxury cars owned by Chinese students were vandalized in 2012.

"There is a widespread notion that dollars are being spent on foreign students and that they are displacing U.S. students, even if in general that isn't right," said John Bound, a University of Michigan economist who has studied the influx.

U.S. research universities have long attracted foreigners, typically graduate students on a tight budget who fund their advanced degrees with fellowships and teaching jobs.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. restricted student visas. Now, the foreign student population is booming. In particular, "the undergraduate [international] phenomenon has just exploded," said Mr. Bound.

Some lawmakers are encouraging the trend. In Colorado, legislators passed a law in 2010 that exempts state colleges from a 45% cap on out-of-state students.

The University of Colorado Boulder has a goal for international students to represent 10% of the student population in the next three to five years, up from 6.5% currently. CU's top three foreign countries for undergraduates today are China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, respectively.

"We are relatively new to the game," said CU Boulder admissions director Kevin MacLennan. Last fall, he dispatched staff to 40 countries in a recruitment drive. For the 2015-16 school year, the university saw a 41% jump in international applications for its freshman class. Mr. MacLennan said international students fulfill a vision of "globalizing" the campus. They are also a financial boon, as state funds dwindled to 4% of the university's budget last year from 12% in 2000.

International undergraduates pay $35,231 annually in tuition and fees, compared with $10,971 for Colorado residents and $33,333 for out-of-state U.S. students.

[frunk]

I think Berkut's system would help fight that though, since the Feds would be partially funding the in state student (which is not true now).  If lack of funding for the university drives them to seek out of state students, making in state students generate more money would only help.

[Berkut]

The University of California system recently announced it will cap the percentage of out-of-state and foreign undergraduate students at the Los Angeles and Berkeley campuses at the current level, 22%. University of Iowa regents last year adopted a plan to tie state funding of public universities to the number of in-state students enrolled.

....hence my point that this can be solved through the market or via the political process.