Tuition increases for undergraduates attending public colleges and universities in their home states appear to be all over the map this fall.
The range so far ”” from no change at Maine’s community colleges to double digits at some Virginia and Arizona universities ”” reflect the variety of strategies schools and states are trying to balance their economic challenges with those of students and parents.
“States are starting from different places,” says Julie Bell of the National Conference of State Legislatures. But in general, money for higher education “just isn’t there.”
Reduce both tenured academic and support staff salaries.
Reduce textbook prices.
No publishing of new textbooks every year to three years unless their is a significant change in content that is driven by a ‘true’ academic need. When such changes to textbook content are less than 1% to 10% of content, publish and provide low cost addenda to the students instead of requiring new textbooks.
Prestigious universities are just that, “prestigious.” Undergraduate students need good solid teachers. A ‘name’ professor who orates to a lecture hall full of undergraduates is not nearly as effective a teacher as a well qualified classroom instructor teaching AND INTERACTING in a classroom with 15 to 20 undergraduates.
Prestigious schools select the ‘creme la creme’ of the applicants for undergraduate study because of their ‘allure’ and their known reputations for ‘networking’ and the ‘boost’ that their school-names give to a graduate’s employability.
But many other schools can provide equal and often superior educational opportunities. These other schools also produce a ‘better-balanced’ graduate. A graduate who is in touch with reality and not floating on clouds of self-gratifying elitism.
And now back to “known reputations for networking.” This is an insidious characteristic of “prestigious” schools that attracts students who want to be “insiders” or “elitists.” “Networking” is a system that exists apart from company ownership or government laws and regulations and which ‘short-circuits’ the concept of a meritocracy which is supposed to open career advancement opportunities to all professionals regardless of the source of their undergraduate degrees.
“Networking” is largely responsible for the existing incestuous dominance in government of both non-elected/elected graduates of schools like Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.
These “prestigious” schools are also known for their particular philosphical/political outlooks. They produce undergraduates with a strong tendency to be of a particular political ilk. This results in our having an elitist national leadership that is not representative of the values and traditions of the average American.
It is increasingly unclear how to value institutionalized higher education, not even to mention what supposedly amounts to the extra value of “prestige” institutions. Business and government throughout the world seem to be headed by self-made and street-wise people who were at best “C students.” The “A students” work for them.
Reply to #2.
My experience indicates that you are correct regarding the ‘success potential’ of “A” students and “C.”
Studies have also indicated that the ability to obtain high grades in an academic environment often have a low correlation with a student’s abilility to successfully apply his mind, skills and education in the real world.
This is as true of the hard sciences as it is of the softer sciences and as it is of the liberal arts.