The Fargo Forum Praises Governor Hoeven’s Plan to Throw Even More Money at Higher Education

Apparently the thing that impresses them is that they didn’t think there was another way to give more money to the irresponsible North Dakota Higher Education system.

Last week the governor announced the first phase of a higher education tuition support plan to make college more affordable to the state’s neediest students. It’s a good idea that recognizes real need and identifies at least 11,000 students who could benefit. When combined with the federal Pell Grant program, the governor’s Aid for College Tuition-North Dakota will cover most of the cost of tuition for eligible students.
The governor’s two-part student support proposal deserves enthusiastic support, even from his political antagonists. After all, even the most unrepentant partisans should recognize what’s good for all North Dakotans.

What strikes me is that the Forum and other state newspapers sounded just this way a year ago when the governor got a 21% increase in Higher Education funding in the budget that took effect last October. Apparently we were supposed to believe that 21% more state money would hold the line on tuition increases.
Well it didn’t. The 2006 to 2007 tuition at the University of North Dakota was $5,792; 2007 to 2008 was $6,130 and the upcoming year (2008 to 2009) is $6,514. That works out to 5.8% in the first year of the higher funding and 6.25% in the second year. You can see this is merely an extension of the trend; 2000-2001: $3,088; 2001-2002 $3,261; 2002-2003: $3,362; 2004-2005: $4,156; 2005-2006 $4,828. I don’t have the 2006 to 2007 tuition so if anyone has it please post it in the comments.
The only conclusion to be had is that giving the University system more money makes them want to spend MORE money.
Now, only a year later, the states newspapers want to push the massive increase in funding that they got from the legislative session down the memory hole. Face it the Hoeven budget was a complete failure. Now he’s got another plan to throw forty million at the problem another way.
All this is going to do is to empower the schools to raise tuition. After all the students won’t feel the bite as much with this extra money coming in. Last year the schools exempted professors’ kids from half of the tuition. I heard they were able to find budget cuts to pay for that. However they need more budget to educate everyone else.
Now if Governor Hoeven were to say that the only increase for higher education in his upcoming budget would be this forty million I could maybe see going along with it. However I’m thinking that in addition to this new spending he’s going to want to fund the universities directly by a massive amount of money. The Board of Higher Education wants a 53% increase in funding. I’m thinking that Governor spend-a-lot is going to do his best to give it to them.
You can’t fix an overspending problem by throwing more money at the overspenders. They will never have so much money they aren’t able to spend more.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array ec99

    “Colleges are, after all, essentially businesses selling education.”

    That’s one way to look at it. But what you get out of that is students believing they are buying their degree, and therefore actually mastering the material taught is unimportant.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I don’t really see the problem with colleges treating students as sources of revenue.

    Under the states model the justification for the massive subsidies is to help the students.

    When the college is charging what traffic will bear it negates the reasons we subsidize it.

    So the leadership in the state has to make a decision to either reign in the universities or privatize them.

  • ec99

    A close rendition of a quote I read some time ago:

    “A college becomes a university when it ceases to care about its students.”

  • http://www.drugaddiction.net/north-dakota Cindy

    Much of the blame for tuition increases can be laid at the feet of Kupchella. He saw every student as a source of revenue. Whether students actually get what they pay for is uncertain. How many courses out there are taught by faculty, and how many by adjuncts and graduate students. My bet is under Kupchella the number taught by the latter went way up; they’re both cheap ways of offering a class.
    ————————
    Cindy

    North Dakota Drug Addiction

  • ec99

    Much of the blame for tuition increases can be laid at the feet of Kupchella. He saw every student as a source of revenue. Whether students actually get what they pay for is uncertain. How many courses out there are taught by faculty, and how many by adjuncts and graduate students. My bet is under Kupchella the number taught by the latter went way up; they’re both cheap ways of offering a class.

    Disclosure: I pay those increases each year for my son’s education out there, so I am not an objective observer.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I think it’s a mistake to become a “research university.”

    We should be worried about the students, not about securing grants and all that.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    North Dakota’s media monopoly depends on members of the education cabal as a source for cheap column inches and show material.
    Can you say “quid pro quo?”

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I don’t really see the problem with colleges treating students as sources of revenue. Colleges are, after all, essentially businesses selling education.

    I think the real solution to skyrocketing tuition (much as its the solution to skyrocketing health care costs) is to stop subsidizing it.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development