Fund higher education?Nah!We have to give that new NSA
building free utilities! And we have a $1 billion dollar prison relocation
handout to Niederhouser, Ivory, and Herbert. Why else would Niedhouser so
recently have bought land so near the prison? We gotta reward our senators with
taxpayer money, right? We can't fund education for the benefit of millions
of students and relocate the prison for the benefit of a few in our legislature!
Money don't grow on trees!
Higher ed has taken a beating by the legislature in years past -- accusations
that the universities are providing "degrees to no where" or have
"liberal" professors teaching our children liberal ideas (e.g. climate
change; evolution; the moon landing; women's studies, etc.) that are
contrary to Utah values. There have even been legislative attempts to abolish
tenure for faculty. It isn't easy to hire the best and brightest faculty
with overt attacks such as these making national headlines and circulating in
the academic community. Sadly, higher ed is getting short shrift
across the country with legislatures cutting funding because universities can
charge higher tuition to make up the shortfall. The outcome, however, is that
more and more native student cannot then afford to go to school, or get further
delays. There are even more attempts to recruit out-of-state and
foreign students who pay more for tuition and then can make up funding deficits.
While it is good for diversity, it also means that for every out-of-state
student, there's one less spot for a native student whose family has been
paying taxes to support the schools for years prior to their children entering
Shouldn't the growth in student population fund the growth?I
mean if more students go to your University... you get more tuition, and more
money to fund growth.There are many private Universities opening and
growing in SLC. If they can do it on tuition alone (without $69 million in
government subsidies)... why can't UVU and others?===If taxes have to go up to fund higher education... tuition should go up as
well. If every person has to pay more... the student should pay a little more
too. That's how you fund growth in any other business I know of (sell
more, or charge more for your product or service).Expecting the
public to fund higher education is well and good. But you better be pretty
darned efficient with those dollars before you demand more.And you
should be able to charge what your product/service is worth to the consumer (AKA
student).The consumer/student is the one who benefits most from
attending the University. They should be expected to pay for what they get.
But they do contribute to the collective after graduation... so I don't
mind the government paying part of it.
So the DNews says fund higher ed but money is not the answer to k-12?
Shouldn't higher ed be able to do more with less as well?
Universities should be funded by the students. Prices will fall as those high
prices drive new students away. Why are universities doing things the same old
way in the computer age anyhow? A few students need the personal treatment, but
most, or much, of this could be done remotely nowadays. If you want the
traditional "university experience" you could pay for it still at the
going market rate. Personally I found tutorials helpful but found lectures a
waste of time; lectures could have been put on tape and there was only time for
a couple of questions at the end of the lecture. I did well in higher education
but there was so much apparent waste.
@ Baron Scarpia. Take it from someone who just went through the Higher education
system at the U. Everyone of the accusations is literaly true. I was a business
major and never in all my education graduate or undergraduate education had I to
listen to so much material laced with green energy advocates,government
programs, manipulation of regulation and law to push corporate cronyism, Pro gay
advocasy etc. granted they weren't as open about it as they were at
Cornell, Harvard etc. but they snuck it in wherever they could. Half my
professors taugh at most 1-2 courses and the rest was tenure and research. I
don't mind if universities do that but tax payers shouldn't have to
foot the bill for it.The greatest hypocrisy was having Jesse Jackson come speak
on MLK day about tolerance and openess having read his material and others from
dominant black communities I'd like them to compare the mesages and see if
there is a difference. I call for reformation in academia the material is
resembling to much the old pontiff decrees of the dark ages.
Quote"Shouldn't the growth in student population fund the
growth?"There has to be room for the new students so they can
fund themselves. Chicken and egg.
the old switcharoo,There is a lag time to adjust, but it's not a
chicken-egg situation. It's just how growth works. It's how any
business expands.When demand increases... they use the funds from
that increased demand to grow. Or better yet... they project increased demand
and borrow to increase capacity proactively to be positioned to satisfy
increased demand (and paying back the expansion from increased income).Apple is a good example... they forecast increased demand for their product,
so they build new facilities to handle the increased demand. If they
don't forecast correctly... there is a temporary shortage while they build
and staff new facilities to keep up with demand. They don't tell the
government to send them more funding. They expect customers to fund the
expansion. They either gamble that more customers are coming and expand (and
payback), or they wait until the new demand exists and use those funds to
expand.It's not like you can't accept more students while
you adjust. Higher ed isn't that finite.No problem if we send
more funding. But increased tuition (more people paying tuition) should help.
Providing more funding should also be accompanied by a specific list of
objectives, so that the money is not spent on golf courses and such, and also be
monitored to document that the goals have been achieved. Universities often
receive a pass on accountability.
The University of Utah usually goes to the public (rich donors) when they need
to build a new building or make some major improvement on campus. And the
donors fund it.What would the increased funding from the government
be used for? Higher salaries?Like somebody pointed out, we need to
see a list of priorities and have some accountability that they money would go
towards those priorities, and not just slip between the cracks, resulting in the
same people coming before the legislature again next year (and every year)
looking for more money and more money (but it never gets applied to the top