States Investing the Most (and Least) in Higher Education

[Life Long Learning]

Note Wyoming vs Vermont....speaks volumes.  
https://howmuch.net/articles/states-inve...-education

[dfrecore]

I don't get what this shows. CA is listed as a middle-of-the-pack state, and yet we have the cheapest CC's in the country ($46/cr for residents, or free for many with our new Promise program); and our CSU-system schools (23 of them) are cheaper than the national average. Yes, our UC-system schools are more expensive, but there are fewer and they have a lot fewer students going there.

So if it's cheap or free to do 2+ years there, and cheaper than the national average to do 2-4 at a CSU, why aren't we ranked better? You can get a bachelor's degree, with 2 years of free CC and 2 years at a CSU for about $15k in tuition or less. Not understanding how this "spending" works.

[Life Long Learning]

Vermont talks about education but does not fund it at the state level.  The University of Vermont instate tuition is $8,196 and out-of-state tuition is $20,640.

Wyoming funds it at the state level.  The Unniversity of Wyoming instate tuition is $4,350 and out-of-state tuition for the 15-Western states is $6,525.

This chart clearly shows why.

[dfrecore]

Vermont talks about education but does not fund it at the state level.  The University of Vermont instate tuition is $8,196 and out-of-state tuition is $20,640.

Wyoming funds it at the state level.  The Unniversity of Wyoming instate tuition is $4,350 and out-of-state tuition for the 15-Western states is $6,525.

This chart clearly shows why.

As "clear" as you think this is, I'm still not seeing it.  I certainly don't see (or read about) any "why's" in the short article.  It just has states color-coded, with a top-10 list, and virtually no other explanations.  Maybe there's more to the article than I can see, am I missing something to click on?

Looking at in-state tuition only, I just compared the Univ of Alaska - Fairbanks to CSU San Marcos here in CA.

UAF is split between LL and UL, so $4269/sem x 4 sem + $4989/sem x 4 sem = $37,032
CSUSM is $7715/yr x 4 yrs = $30,848

So AK invests more per pupil - at $13,612/pupil - but it's still cheaper to go to a CA school, even though they only spend $8,447/pupil.

I just don't understand the relationship between what a state spends, and what it costs for a student to go to a college in-state there.  It's not adding up.  What am I missing?

-------------------------

Edit - for apples-to-apples comparison, CSUSM cost is tuition AND fees. You only listed tuition for UW.

The cost for tuition and fees at UW is $6372/yr x 4 yrs = $25,488. So, WY spends $9,790 more per pupil per year than CA, and yet CA's tuition and fees are only $1,343 more a year. Where is that extra money being WY spends being spent? Again, what am I missing??

[Life Long Learning]

Too many State public universities are trying to live off the feds more and more. These are State colleges NOT Federal Colleges. State funding is just one income stream for public State universities. Universities vary by types of income money (pure education vs research). Also, universities can be greedy. Most private Ivy colleges have Hugh endowments but still, charge $$$$ tuition. Same with States and it varies by state. Bernie Sanders does not come from a state that cares about public education, but Wyoming does. It's clear in the funding. Purdue's personality is they have not raised tuition in 7-years? Oregon always raises tuition and lives off out-of-state Cali kids. Every State is different. Look at the money trail.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015...overnments

[dfrecore]

Too many State public universities are trying to live off the feds more and more.  These are State colleges NOT Federal Colleges.  State funding is just one income stream for public State universities.  Universities vary by types of income money (pure education vs research).  Also, universities can be greedy.  Most private Ivy colleges have Hugh endowments but still, charge $$$$ tuition.  Same with States and it varies by state.  Bernie Sanders does not come from a state that cares about public education, but Wyoming does.  It's clear in the funding.  Purdue's personality is they have not raised tuition in 7-years?   Oregon always raises tuition and lives off out-of-state Cali kids.  Every State is different.  Look at the money trail.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015...overnments

I don't actually want to do a bunch of research, I was just trying to figure out what the graph is really showing - which I'm going to go with not much.  If a state can spend less and yet still manage to offer lower tuition than a state that spends more, then it just makes no sense to look at that number.

I will continue to look at what in-state tuition is for schools, and not worry about this "spend" number that doesn't reflect anything meaningful.

[videogamesrock]

I’m currently reading Education Free & Compulsory by Murray Rothbard which is free to read off of mises.org and is only like 76 pages. After also reading Free to Choose, I’m going to say that government should completely get out of education all together. It costs more and more every year yet students are learning less and less at whose cost? Those who will never attend college so that those more affluent can have it cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using DegreeForum.net