More higher education cuts?

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

How would you feel if your landloard slightly raised your rent, say just a few hundred dollars a year would you be ok with that? How is it different. People don't like to part with their money

Well...what would my landlord be doing with this extra money? If he raised my rent and then did something to better my apartment complex then I would be perfectly fine with it.

People don't like to part with their money but then they bitch and moan about the government being in debt.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Here is a White paper from the Jackrabbit Advocates' website that might help answer the question. It is a few years old but still relevant.

http://www.statealum.com/s/1108/inde...id=1&pgid=1246

South Dakota State University

and

Public Higher Education in South Dakota:

The Case for Grassroots Advocacy.

By Matthew L. Fuks

President & CEO

SDSU Alumni Association

During each comparatively brief South Dakota legislative session, the ever-increasing number of competing interests makes it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to gain appreciation and support for the long-term benefits derived from state funding for public higher education, in general, and for South Dakota State University in particular. A new approach to educating and informing elected state policymakers may be required.


The Trend: Students pay more. Taxpayers pay less.

South Dakota has been part of a national trend over the previous generation: A greater and greater proportion of the cost of public higher education instruction is paid for by students and their families through tuition and fees. Conversely, driven by ever increasing demands from health care, public safety, social services and K-12 education for state funding, taxpayers through state general fund appropriations have been paying a smaller and smaller proportion of instructional costs at universities. Some call this trend “The Privatization of Public Higher Education.”

This phenomenon — public higher education users paying a larger percentage of the cost of instruction over time — certainly is not new to South Dakota, nor is it unique to the state. Since the late 1970s, state government budget processes steadily have shifted higher percentages of the costs of instruction to students and their families. The tipping point at South Dakota State University, for instance, occurred during the 2007-2008 academic year when 52.4 percent of higher education instructional costs were borne by the individual student. Students paid for 53.4 percent of their instructional costs during the 2008-2009 academic year. Forecasts both in South Dakota and nationally are for this trend to continue as the economy recovers from the most serious downturn in many decades. Demands for resources will continue to increase from the health care, public safety, social services, and primary and secondary education sectors, yet state government’s general tax revenues will struggle to regain previous levels and rates of growth. During the upcoming year, students at South Dakota State likely will pay 54 percent of their costs of education and taxpayers 46 percent.

It has long been accepted that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit. The benefits to the public from a well-educated, inspired population and workforce include higher household incomes, stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future. The benefits to individuals with college or university degrees include greater earning power from professional careers, higher standards of well-being and greater prospects for personal prosperity. This principle of both public and private benefits from higher education investments is the foundation for a partnership between taxpayers and students in funding public higher education partially with tuition and fees and partially with state government general funds. The appropriate combination of taxpayer and tuition and fee funding has no definitive, objective answer. The combination of funding is the result of the policy- and budget-making processes of state government. What is clear, however, is that access to the benefits of public higher education become more and more limiting to students from low- and moderate-income households as the cost of instruction shifts from state government general funds to tuition and fee revenues. What is also very clear is that as access to public higher education for individuals becomes restricted because of higher tuition and fees, the long-term public benefits of stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future associated with a highly educated, inspired population are reduced. . . . (read more)


Go State!

There are lots of things that are good for economic growth, vibrant communities, and a more prosperous future that don't require tax dollars to function.

The cynic in me says: OMG, SDSU might have to cut 64 jobs!!!! Welcome to the last 3-5 years in the real world. There are plenty of business who have suffered a lot worse than a 10% reduction in a portion of their income recently. Times are tough, they are for everybody. Time to skinny up, get through it, and hope better days are ahead.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Times are tough, they are for everybody. Time to skinny up, get through it, and hope better days are ahead.

And you could say the same things about raising taxes. Suck it up.

I guess my parents did a poor job of raising a little Republican

[LakeJack]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Well...what would my landlord be doing with this extra money? If he raised my rent and then did something to better my apartment complex then I would be perfectly fine with it.

People don't like to part with their money but then they bitch and moan about the government being in debt.

He isn't going to make any improvments. He just won't have to cut things from what you already have.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

He isn't going to make any improvments. He just won't have to cut things from what you already have.

So I can pay an extra couple bucks a month or he is going to take away my hot water? Yeah I'll pony up. I'll bitch about it, but I'd rather pay than not have hot water.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Well...what would my landlord be doing with this extra money? If he raised my rent and then did something to better my apartment complex then I would be perfectly fine with it.

People don't like to part with their money but then they bitch and moan about the government being in debt.

How would you feel if your landlord raised your rent, and with the extra money bought a new fridge for the guy across the hall? With a new fridge, he might get a better tenant the next go-round. This new tenant might even offer you a beer on moving day. So, in effect, for your extra couple hundred a year, you got a beer. Your stove is still old, the parking lot still doesn't get plowed, and your AC still doesn't work quite right. A new fridge for your neighbor could be considered bettering the apartment complex, so you would be perfectly fine with this scenario, right?

[89rabbit]

Re: More higher education cuts?

There are lots of things that are good for economic growth, vibrant communities, and a more prosperous future that don't require tax dollars to function.

The cynic in me says: OMG, SDSU might have to cut 64 jobs!!!! Welcome to the last 3-5 years in the real world. There are plenty of business who have suffered a lot worse than a 10% reduction in a portion of their income recently. Times are tough, they are for everybody. Time to skinny up, get through it, and hope better days are ahead.

So is your point that you reject the assumption that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit? And if so can I logically assume that you are against public higher education, and would prefer only private schools? That certainly can be a valid point of view. A point of view that I wouldn't share but could respect.



P.S. South Dakota Public Higher Education has already taken cuts the past two legislative sessions, the only government agency to do so.


Go State!

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

How would you feel if your landlord raised your rent, and with the extra money bought a new fridge for the guy across the hall? With a new fridge, he might get a better tenant the next go-round. This new tenant might even offer you a beer on moving day. So, in effect, for your extra couple hundred a year, you got a beer. Your stove is still old, the parking lot still doesn't get plowed, and your AC still doesn't work quite right. A new fridge for your neighbor could be considered bettering the apartment complex, so you would be perfectly fine with this scenario, right?

Yep. I get benefits from some things in the government that other people don't get access too, yet everyone pays for. There are other things that I pay for through taxes that I don't use. This is how it works and I am okay with that.

Honestly though, if SD implemented a sales tax increase tonight and told no one about it, how many people would notice? No one. But if they implemented a sales tax increase and told everyone, people would FREAK OUT! Yet if they didn't know it had been increased, it would be unnoticeable.

[Yote53]

Re: More higher education cuts?

If we are going to talk about real change in higher ed then somebody needs to explain to me why a state this size has 6 campuses and adding a 7th (Sioux Falls, don't kid yourself, we know where the Univesity Center is going). For serious cuts they should consider closing a campus or two and moving those resources to Brookings or Vermillion. I understand 100 years ago we needed more campuses to cover the state in order to provide access, but people are more mobile today and the need for so many campuses has outlived its time. Are DSU, BHSU, or NSU really necessary at this point. Could those students on those campuses be served just as readily by USD, SDSU, & SD Tech?

Not a popular suggestion but one that needs mentioning.

[JimmyJack]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I realize this sentiment will be unpopular on this particular forum, but what's wrong with raising tuition at SDSU and USD, and the other schools? If each student at SDSU paid another $160 a year, those 64 jobs at SDSU could probably be saved. Students are the ones receiving direct benefit of their education, why shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill?

There is no way you could raise tuition enough to cover a $17 million shortfall. There are diminishing returns with tuition increases. Increase it too much, and you get fewer students, meaning you end up losing revenue anyway.

[bigticket1]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I realize this sentiment will be unpopular on this particular forum, but what's wrong with raising tuition at SDSU and USD, and the other schools? If each student at SDSU paid another $160 a year, those 64 jobs at SDSU could probably be saved. Students are the ones receiving direct benefit of their education, why shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill?

But what about all the indirect benefits the citizens of South Dakota receive from graduates of SD colleges ? Who teaches their kids in K-12 schools ? Who saves their lives and tends to them when they are in the hospital or go to their doctor ? Who produces the food they eat (at the lowest cost in the world) ? Who does the R & D that allows farmers to do that ? The list goes on and on and on.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: More higher education cuts?

So is your point that you reject the assumption that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit? And if so can I logically assume that you are against public higher education, and would prefer only private schools? That certainly can be a valid point of view. A point of view that I wouldn't share but could respect.



P.S. South Dakota Public Higher Education has already taken cuts the past two legislative sessions, the only government agency to do so.


Go State!

Good points.

I don't question that higher education is a benefit to a society. I also think its BS that higher education has gotten the ax twice while others have gone untouched.

My point is, times are tough. Lots of people have had to alter their personal or business budgets and plans for the future. Why should government be any different?

[JimmyJack]

Re: More higher education cuts?

There are lots of things that are good for economic growth, vibrant communities, and a more prosperous future that don't require tax dollars to function.

The cynic in me says: OMG, SDSU might have to cut 64 jobs!!!! Welcome to the last 3-5 years in the real world. There are plenty of business who have suffered a lot worse than a 10% reduction in a portion of their income recently. Times are tough, they are for everybody. Time to skinny up, get through it, and hope better days are ahead.

Higher education is not a business. Higher education is a public service that INVESTS dollars in our human capital, preparing young people so they'll have better lives and more opportunities than we had. That's pretty much every parent's hope for their children. I see it as an obligation to invest in the future. We're not making iPhones here.

Skinny up? You realize that with these cuts, the state contribution to higher education will have been cut from nearly $180 million in FY2009 to $150 million in FY2012. Meanwhile, enrollment has continued to increase dramatically. We're pretty lean already.

[Nidaros]

Re: More higher education cuts?

But what about all the indirect benefits the citizens of South Dakota receive from graduates of SD colleges ? Who teaches their kids in K-12 schools ? Who saves their lives and tends to them when they are in the hospital or go to their doctor ? Who produces the food they eat (at the lowest cost in the world) ? Who does the R & D that allows farmers to do that ? The list goes on and on and on.

I agree with your comments. We are very dependant on each other and we are in this war together. Thats why government exists for our common welfare. Nuts to this tea bag stuff, we all benefit in one way or another from services provided by government including higher education. Cutting the services is never the answer unless you go unaffected by this move. Then it seems okay. Kind of selfish if you ask me.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I agree with your comments. We are very dependant on each other and we are in this war together. Thats why government exists for our common welfare. Nuts to this tea bag stuff, we all benefit in one way or another from services provided by government including higher education. Cutting the services is never the answer unless you go unaffected by this move. Then it seems okay. Kind of selfish if you ask me.

I take offense to your use of a sexual act to reference a different point of view. Its junior high humor, and it isn't clever.