Strickland/College Tuition Freeze???

Freezing tuition would force Ohio U. to cut $8.6 million, president says
Friday, April 6, 2007 2:11 PM

Ohio University would have to cut $8.6 million from its budget for the next fiscal year if it freezes tuition in exchange for additional state money, President Roderick J. McDavis said today.

McDavis plans to introduce the budget plan to the board of trustees April 20; the board is to vote on a budget at its June meeting.

Gov. Ted Strickland has proposed a deal with Ohio's public colleges that offers an average of 5 percent more in state money next fiscal year if they freeze tuition for the fall.

No votes yet

Am I the only one who thinks the tuition problem is not due to the state's failure to keep throwing money at the universities but one of poor fiscal management of our universities.

Tuition raises at our state colleges and universities have exceeded the cost of living index for the past ten years. My question is how long will it take before the cost of tuition exceeds the ability of people to attend a university?

Owen's is one alternative solution to the rising costs of going to college. So to a degree is the merger of the University of Toledo with the Medical College of Ohio.

Do we really need two universities (U.T. and BGSU) twenty miles apart offering similar courses of study?

bill once that showed public-supported tuition, while lower overall, rose at a faster rate than private-school tuition.

The premise of the study was that public-supported colleges/universities got so accustomed to the extra funds that the administrations and students began to consider 'extras' as necessities. The speculation was that, as more and more of the costs were paid for by the state, the demands for such 'free' things increased.

And this makes sense when you consider that when it's not YOU paying for things, you don't really pay that much attention to the actual cost ramifications.

The place I graduated from has kicked all the fraternities off campus and has raised tuition to a whopping $42,000 per year. I remember paying my way through school from a business I owned. No chance now of sending my kids there with today's tuition, especially since the kegs are gone.

I like the freeze. We've warped what education truly is from first grade to college. For example, we dont' need a new math textbook every couple years. Math doesn't change.....ever.

We shouldn't have college professors that write books or do research 90% of the time and receive a salary paid for by the students and state. I'm all for research and writing, but the funding for that needs to come from elsewhere. We need to transform our universities into places where teaching comes first and research comes second. At many of our universities we've flipped that. As a result the amount of time students spend with professors is very small.

The state and students should not be funding money-losing athletics. If a sports program loses money at a university it should be cut. It's not right to force students and the state to pay for programs that provide no educational benefit whatsoever. Football and basketball at most schools are money-makers, so they can stay. The rest probably need to go (if we want to get back to what college really is).

You're confusing me, HH. You don't want the students to pay for a professor's time in the classroom? You've put a particular spin on that ball and I don't see where it's going.

And what's so terrible about teaching and researching? We could be more liberal about how such things are procedured in college. For example, a professor might feel more comfortable doing more teaching than researching, even to the extent that he does NO research. He can just spend his off time continuing his education as any rational academic does. On the flip side, we can have more research-y professors, even to the point where they never see a classroom.

Call me a nut, but there are two major streams of funding that just happen to support these two types of academics. Students can fund the classroom time, and corporations can fund the lab time. I've got no problem with either population of beneficiaries from paying the bills of what generates their benefits.

As always, poor students and businesses will have the most difficulty obtaining results out of educational institutions. We used to have a general population that believed in charity, and I want to see our culture return to investing charity in their hands once more ... which is the only sensible way of alleviating the problem of the beleaguered poor. This of course means removing charity from the government.

Even in Ohio, which has the second-highest average public college tuition in the country, you can get a bachelors degree for less than $40k. Given that college graduates make on average $1 million more than high school graduates during their working life, why is college an albatross around someone's neck?

"The truth is, if most people were financially sensible instead of quite foolish, homes would remain in the x1.0 to x4.0 range of their incomes, and they could also save money to afford to pay for those homes WITH CASH."

The average household income in Toledo is $32k. So how exactly are we supposed to save enough money to pay for a house in cash? If you're paying rent and trying to save for a house on $32k a year, you might get a house around the time you retire. When you buy a house with a mortgage, the money going towards rent covers the mortgage payment and the money that would have been used to buy a house in the distant future can be invested.

"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I'll try to restate what i was saying a little better. IMO the heart of college is educating students. That's the primary goal. That may sound obvious, but I believe many universities have forgotten that. Another very important role of universities is to provide research (for science, business, planning, etc) that can be used for the greater good. However, research should never come before educating students (which is the heart and soul of college).

The way it currently stands is that there are professors who spend 90+% of their time researching or writing but still receive part of their salary from students' tuition. In medical school this is particularly true. We have professors who never step into our lecture hall, never. Yet we still pay at least some of their salary.

It's perfectly fine for a professor to research 100% of the time, but they must do so with 0% of their salary and support coming from students. They should use grants from the government or private foundations. I support research completely (in fact I work in a research lab now...I won't bore you with the details), but I don't think research should be funded by the students.

For some reason our society equates research dollars with quality of education. For example, Harvard Medical School is ranked first in the country (by USNews) largely because they have the most researchers in the country. Their number one ranking doesn't take into account the quality of teaching their students receive. In fact, by many accounts the quality of lecture-based instruction at Harvard is actually below most medical schools. Society's belief that "research equals quality education" has led to all universities competing with each other to improve their standing in academia. As a result top research professors have become something akin to free agents in professional sports. There's somewhat of a bidding war between universities to attract these professors for their research, and guess who pays for those bidding wars? Students. Student tuition should only be used to support the professors who actually teach them.

I hope that cleared my view up a little.

"Perhaps you should ask all the college grads I've worked with in Ohio making the same poor income as I was, in addition to the sporadic employment they were also meeting up with. Or is that not qualified data for you?"

No, that's not qualified data, not in the least bit. What exactly where their degrees in? Where they working in the field their degree was in? If not, why? Also, if they no longer work with you, have they obtained jobs with compensation packages higher, equal to, or lower than the compensation offered by your employer? Only after all that data has been examined can you consider your personal anecdote as evidence in determining the value of a college degree.

"In fact, put away your age in dollars each week, into a savings account earning the basic rate, and then come back to me in 5 years and tell me how effin' impossible it is to save money."

On top of my retirement account contribution, I put $100 a paycheck into a 5.05% APY HISA at HSBC Direct, $75 a paycheck into my IRA, and $25 into an emergency HISA account at EmigrantDirect. I never said it was impossible to save, I said waiting to buy a house with cash is a waste of money.

And if your savings are not keeping up with inflation, you're losing money. I was earning a whopping .05% APY at my old bank. That means if I kept $1000 in my old savings account, I'd have earned enough in interest after taxes to buy 20 oz. bottle of Coke in four years. At .05% APY, I'd be better off keeping the money in a shoebox under my bed because one account fee can wipe out any interest gains.

"Really, sometimes I just can't believe that I have to tell adults how to save money. Do you need me to tell you how to wipe your ass, too?"

You haven't told anyone how to save money, you've told people how to not spend money. There's a huge difference between the two. If you don't buy something and don't properly invest the money, you've wasted a large chunk of the money you "saved".

And no, I don't need help with wiping. It's front to back, not back to front.

"The savings rate in America is about negative 1%. Sorry, few people are taking you up on your offer."

From a 2005 NYT article entitled "Is It a Savings Crisis Or a Math Error?":

"For example, income includes wages and salaries, interest on bonds, and stock dividends. But it doesn't include capital gains on stocks, profits from selling a house, or withdrawals from 401(k) plans. Nearly 70 percent of families own homes, nearly half of all households own stocks and mutual funds, and an increasing number of baby boomers are turning to 401(k)'s for income. Those trends, some say, can make a big difference. ''The structure of the household portfolio has changed over time,'' said David Malpass, chief economist at Bear Stearns.

Convinced that Americans aren't frittering away all their income, Mr. Malpass plumbed the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds data, a trove of information on Americans' spending and saving habits. In 2004, he found that the net worth of all households -- their assets minus their liabilities -- stood at $48.525 trillion, up 9.6 percent from 2003. Sure, rising home prices helped. ''But even if you take out houses completely, it still shows huge savings,'' he said.

Last year, financial assets rose to $36.8 trillion from $34.1 trillion. Time deposits and savings accounts -- money sitting in the bank -- rose 10.6 percent in 2004, to $4.29 trillion. Because asset building has grown faster than debt, the improvement in households' balance sheets has been substantial in the last few years."

Hmm. Sounds like the savings rate calculation is flawed. And I'm helping it look worse that it actually is. In February, I moved my money out of the stock market fearing something bad was about to happen, vis a vie China. I was right. My portfolio was on a tear during the second half of last year and was up ~50%, but when I sold the stock, that 50% gain wasn't counted as income. However, the money was moved into T-bills and the entire amount, including the gains not counted as income, was deducted from my total income when calculating the savings rate. In the eyes of the government, I have a negative savings rate when in reality my net worth is higher now that it's ever been.

"You just have to realize a bunch of your "necessary" expenses are nothing of the sort. You don't need insurance."

Actually, I do. Without insurance, my medical bills would total ~$500 a month. With my insurance, I spend ~$150 a month, including the premium. The $350 a month difference would eat up the money I put into savings each month.

"They have you wound up so tight with credit cards and cheap Chinese plastic shit that you really don't understand the value of the dollar anymore (... assuming you ever did, since children now grow up into the financial propaganda system)."

I don't have any credit card debt. I've got a gas card and credit card from my bank that I carry no balance on. And recently I've been dabbling in forex trading, so I know exactly what the value of a dollar is.

"Want proof that you're being trained to want things you don't need? One of the Fed governors, Robert McTeer of Dallas, made a slip in 2001 and said:

"If we all join hands together and buy a new SUV, everything will be OK."

He showed the attitude of the financial elite.'

You might want to actually read that quote in context before passing judgment:

"My term for what happened to the economy as we were gliding in for the proverbial soft landing is that we hit an air pocket. Fortunately, we were flying high enough so that the sudden decline in growth didn't cause us to crash-land. If we all join hands and go buy a new SUV, everything will be all right. Preferably a Navigator.

I can explain why the stock market fell like it did last spring. Wile E. Coyote looked down. You remember that the Road Runner always managed to stop just before going over the cliff. Wile couldn't stop. But he never fell until he looked down. Somebody looked down and saw all foam and no beer!

Looking down will pop a bubble. What I don't understand is why bubbles form in the first place

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.