Profile | Michele Samuelson
Website | Red County - Travis County, TX
» Follow Me on Twitter
» My Facebook
Author's Latest Posts |
- NY-23: Why Hoffman's loss is not a win for moderates
- Early voting results in Travis County, Texas
- Writing on the wall for Dems as locals switch parties
- Prop. 4 opposition much wider than MSM thinks
- Point: Fiorina Wants Big Brother to Sheriff the “Wild Wild” Web
More»
Why Texans Need to Vote NO on Prop. 4
By Michele Samuelson | 10/05/09 | 11:52 PM EDT | 3 Comments
I've held back on this because I wanted to give readers a chance to read the initial analysis of Proposition 4. There are a lot of arguments out there in favor of it (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has their endorsement here). I think you need to know, Prop. 4 is a bad idea.
One of the "elephant in the room" problems in Texas is higher education funding. The legislature "deregulated" tuition in 2003 to help balance the budget, and since then, Texas' public universities have become less affordable for many, if not most, Texas families. The Texas Tomorrow Fund has ceased to exist as a direct result of tuition dereg, and the Texas Tuition Promise Fund will eventually collapse as well. Since tuition deregulation, tuition has skyrocketed, increasing by an average of 86% since 2003 (and there's a great breakdown of where that money has gone, at least in the case of UT-Austin, here). The result of all of this is a higher demand for financial aid, most of which is backed by state or federal tax dollars. Meanwhile, the university systems pay lobbyists to head to Austin and Washington to beg for more money.
Now, the "Tier 2" schools in Texas (specifically UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas, the University of North Texas, the University of Houston (home of the tuition funds scandal I discussed in May), Texas Tech, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio) want to receive special funding to attract federal research grants for their professors.
At the expense, of course, of classroom education.
Proponents of Prop 4 like to talk about how many "Tier 1" research universities there are in California (11) and New York (8) as opposed to Texas (3 - UT, Texas A&M, and Rice). What they don't tell you is that the graduates of those schools in California and New York come to Texas - because we have an excellent business climate (have you seen the list of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas? We have more than New York).
Tier 1 university is not a term that means "higher enrollment rate" or "higher graduation rate." It does not mean affordable tuition. UT, A&M, and Rice are three of the most expensive schools in the state. UT and A&M are certainly the most expensive public schools in Texas. Time was, a student who was smart enough for those schools but who couldn't afford or didn't want to go into debt to attend them went to one of the listed "Tier 2" schools. There used to be something approaching legitimate competition. Becoming more "prestigious" research campuses might be the perfect excuse to continue raising tuition. After all, you're getting a better education from a Tier 1 school, right?
Wrong. It isn't about education - it's about marketing. What is your university known for, and how easily do prospective employers recognize your alma mater? That's where these Tier 2 schools are rooting their argument for more money (Texas Tech in particular, if the Star-Telegram's statement about Sen. Duncan is to be believed). Nothing is there to stop them from raising tuition at the same time - in fact, some use "being competitive" as an excuse to raise tuition, like UT-Arlington's student body president argues in this 2008 article, or like the Texas Tech student leadership approved of earlier this year.
And tuition hikes are vicious things. Higher tuition cost = higher demand for financial aid = higher taxes to pay for federal loans, federal grants, etc. It isn't just tuition, either - universities like "Tier 2" and Prop 4 beneficiary UT-Arlington get around tuition caps and other such accountability measures with increases in student fees. The point is, the more it costs to get a post-secondary education, the more the government is going to step in to subsidize it.
The really insidious thing about Prop. 4 is that it creates a whole new constitutional fund, but doesn't create a mechanism for sunset. Which means the initial money will eventually run out, and the universities will come back and ask for more. The people of Texas have one chance to vote on this: now. If this is approved, the legislature will have to address reauthorizing funds down the road - and we all know that the university lobby will make sure this is funded in perpetuity, with YOUR tax dollars.
The Star-Telegram says "the money is available. We should use it." That is a rotten argument. The money is available now, sure. But what about after 2011? What about in 2031? When government spends money one time, it rarely (read: NEVER) stops spending.
Make no mistake - until we address university funding and accountability, no time will be a good time to create new funds. We need to say NO to Prop. 4.
TAGS: texas constitutional amendment, higher education
| 
|
3 Comments | Related Topics »Travis County (TX) | Denton County (TX)
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
This is all on the periphery of the takeover of student loans industry by the federal government that is going on right now.
There's no doubt that we can expect escape clauses, or even requirements built into future student loan programs that have the applicant completing national service for loan forgiveness. Nevermind that it is an endless supply of government dollars that is raising the cost of education to the point of needing financial aid to begin with.
- reply
|I have no opinion on prop 4, but I am writing this to show the fallacy in your article. The exact point being how much of a university is education vs marketing. I would like to show you at different levels why you are wrong.
1. A university is about specializing is a particular field so you could become better in many ways in life(monetary, socially, skills, thinker, inventor, etc etc)
2. "ALL" the companies who hire see how employable a student is, by conducting a procedure called "interview" to test your knowledge. If you have had a good education (good profs, exposure to latest technologies) there is a high probability of one doing well in the interview.
3. Try to convince the employers that univeristy is about "marketing" and not education. So in your in your opinion Harvard is up there because they market well? Have you seen any ad reaching out to students to join harvard? or MIT? or Berkeley?
4. In your own logic, GOOD EDUCATION(high employability) is what these schools are known for, and that is why employers recognize them. And it makes all the difference if your a student, coz you want to be hired as soon as you graduate, and, be hired by the best. It makes a big difference if your son/daughter goes to Harvard Vs a small time school, doesnt it?
5. University is not a conveyor belt for rolling out graduates in millions, just to have a degree. And not everybody is university material(let alone become graduate students in engineering, math). So do not compare the tuition debt average to everybody in the state. If you really want to compare, compare UT-Austin and Rice students who have debt vs students from UNT or UTSA. That would give you an accurate estimate of how important quality of education is.
6. A university is not about football clubs giving out degrees so that they can play in college football.
Lastly, I really want to ask you "which school you went to" for writing such an article, but i wont.
- reply
|I've talked to many college students who are looking for internships. Why do they want internships? Because no matter how smart your degree says you are, getting a job after college is about who you know and have you succeeded at performing tasks your employer has given you. The only way to discover what jobs you are capable of and how you will perform in those jobs is to try them out as internships.
In Texas, we push all students from 3rd grade all the way to seniors to go to college. High school curriculum is based on college readiness standards, not on learning practical information and learning the tools you need to succeed in life. How many electricians and plumbers need to take calculus in high school? How many kids were pushed to go to college because they were expected to and then realized that they could do just fine in life without the degree?
By pushing everybody into colleges and trying to get all of those students to get a college degree, it has watered down many universities and rendered many bachelors degrees useless. If everybody has a degree, how do you gain a competitive advantage in a job interview? It is not through having a professor who has received additional state and federal grants to perform research.
At some point, citizens are going to learn that throwing money at a problem does not create the solution. Solutions take work, not funding. Solutions take getting your hands dirty and possibly failing at some point to realize what can be done better. I hate to think that the current public policy is based on subsidizing those things that do not have a good return on their investments for the simple reason that a government official asked for more money and nobody thought through the economic ramifications of additional funding.
- reply
|Post new comment