I doubt anything changes unless Penn St has a bigger voice in this and they are the quietest. Frankly, I think they’re fine with status quo. Yeah they’d like a few more Altoona farm families to afford, but they’re turning away applicants, don’t have banks big enough to house their donations and have legislature in back pocket. They voted Pitt no, Temple no, and passed on psu vote. They’re the state school, until they complain more, you’re lucky they don’t eliminate it entirely.
Pitt trustee votes against funding for Pitt
- Thread starter Franb
- Start date
I know they don't exist. I stated that. I never said that this measure would change any rankings. I just believe - as a lifelong career analyst - that the best theoretical measure to compare state-to-state is in-state funding for in-state schools for state residents.
I've also never argued that PA ranks low among some measures. Facts are facts and FTE rankings can't be denied. My point has been with those that hyperbolically claim "PA is last in funding" when it isn't and whether the FTE-based datapoint is the best measure just because it is the easiest to find.
Tuition doesn't seem to be hurting Pitt, though. Someone on the pay board posted that applications hit a high of 58,000 for this coming year.
Sure, I agree that one can go back to your posts and that it is true that you never specifically said this or argued that. However, that essentially amounts to an admission of being intentionally imprecise or omissive.
Depends what you mean by hurt. High in-state tuition may not hurt Pitt's main campus enrollment because demand for Pitt's educational services has outstripped any increase in main campus enrollment slots. This is partially due to the perceived quality of education Pitt is offering in the higher ed market and also partially because it is competing for in-state students against other in-state research universities whose tuition is also similarly high. Sticker price for Pitt's tuition (i.e. out-of-state student tuition price) is also similar to most other peer public research institutions in other states. Therefore, Pitt's main campus remains price competitive for both in-state and out-of-state students among peer institutions. It is also partially true that enrollment demand is high because out-of-state student interest in Pitt has been increasing at the expense of in-state slots. One could argue all of this increased demand is in spite of the higher tuition cost, but decades of this higher in-state cost probably has had some effect of restraining Pitt's growth both in enrollment size and quality compared to where it would be if it received a higher amount of public subsidy over this time period. In my personal opinion, I would say Pitt's main campus is also constrained by the limitations of its urban physical plant, so I don't think its higher cost has impacted enrollment growth so much, but the effects of restraining improvements in quality over the last few decades is a possibility. So primarily, arguments for examples of how higher tuition has negatively impacted Pitt's main campus are more hypothetical than concrete because Pitt's tution isn't out of line for its in-state market.
That said, higher tuition has primarily hurt PA residents who aren't afforded the same discounted tuition that is available the citizens of other states resulting in more debt for PA citizens. The effect of this high in-state tuition has also lowered the comparative cost barrier for students to seek education outside of Pennsylvania, which also factors into negative demographic consequences as PA struggles to retain a young, educated workforce.
Where higher tuition has really crushed Pitt is at its regional campuses which were designed to serve as local providers of education to their communities for those who couldn't, or didn't want to, leave their local region (and a reminder, all four of these campuses were established before Pitt became state-related, primarily at the invitation of those local communities). Although Pitt has disproportionately held tuition at these campuses lower, it is not as price competitive with its in-state peers: the PASSHE system and/or community colleges. These are the forgotten communities and students, still over 18% of Pitt's undergrads but down from 26% 20 years ago. When people discuss Pitt when they tend to primarily restrain their thinking to a half mile radius around the Cathedral of Learning.
Last edited:
This isn’t really the dynamic. Penn State is generally in a worse admissions position than Pitt is (both at the main campus and especially at the branches, even though both schools are struggling in their branch campus admissions). Pitt’s admissions statistics are better, their application pool is more competitive, and their financial aid is better, albeit still subpar. Pitt, simply put, is in a better place as a university than Penn State is, and that gap has been growing for a few years now.
To the other point, the legislature has their own beefs with Penn State that are independent of the legislature’s beefs with Pitt (though they’re both right-wing culture war issues, just different ones). They’re in the same boat as Pitt and Temple right now and don’t have their appropriation. The only (legitimate) reasons why Lincoln’s funding passed and the others didn’t are: (1) Lincoln is a much smaller school and the appropriation is only about $15M, rather than the hundreds of millions that the other three receive, and (2) they don’t have any kind of medical research or healthcare apparatus that have made the other three victim of the legislature’s culture war shtick.
There is a recent local news article discussing Pitt's drop in regional campus admissions, which was skewed by the fact Pitt essentially shut down admissions at Titusville to convert it into a "training hub." I think that was a smart move that save the campus and some of its regional impact for that area, but part the of the enrollment loss at Pitt's regionals was intentional, although they are still struggling.
There is a pretty big difference between Pitt's 3 regional undergrad campuses and Penn State's 19 branches. Pitt's are just designed, from the physical plant to academic offerings, much differently than all but 3 or so of Penn State's branches. UPJ, UPB, and UPG all are intended to be 4 year, self-contained, residential colleges. The physical structure of their campuses also reflect that. They all have a breadth of four year programs which Pitt has continued to invest in, continually adding and upgrading academic programs and facilities at all three campuses. Even athletically, UPJ is NCAA D2 while UPG and UPB are NCAA DIII. PSU branches, on the other hand, are mostly designed as commuter schools with a limited number of buildings, few housing options if any, very limited number of 4 year programs, and were really designed to funnel local students with lower admission scores to the main campus after two years...more than 50% of total PSU system undergrads transfer to another campus. Most of these branches are more like community colleges than residential colleges, and that is true in both function and quality, including the fact that 14 of them compete at the junior college level of athletics. On the other hand, Pitt's regional campuses quality is reflected in their listing in US News regional rankings, where you can find none of Penn State's. Pitt's are more like the PASSHE schools in intent and design, which are also of a much higher quality than PSU's branches. It really does a disservice to lump the two systems together when discussing because they largely aren't comparable.
Lincoln is tiny, only 1,824 students, a 23% decline from only four years ago, and surprisingly, 47% are from out-of-state. It is not a healthy institution at all, and a gap in state support could kill it. Another reason probably got funding, and that it continues to be supported as it limps along, is that it is probably not good political optics to withhold funding or see close one of the two HBCU's in PA.
Last edited:
Some of what you say seems illogical. Applications are at a high but you think they could be even higher with more support. Sure, the basic laws of economics say that lower costs will increase demand. But why is that a goal when applicants are already turned away by the thousands?
Are you saying PA residents are going to out-of-state schools because the non-resident tuition at those schools is less than resident tuition in PA? Seems like a stretch to me.
So Pitt's branch campus is down. So are many of the state schools. I'm from Clarion and that school shrinks every year to the point where rumors are constantly out there that it will close.
It must be tiresome dying on every hill you encounter.......
Are they high? Compared to which schools? Maybe, maybe not. Who are Pitt's peers or aspirational peers? I would say Pitt's peers, or aspirational peers, at least for its undergrad mission, are other mid-sized urban research universities ...places like BU or Tulane.
For fall 2022, just a smattering...
BU's applicant pool: 81K for 3.6K slots
Northeastern: 91K for 2.5K slots
Tulane's: 32K for 1.2K slots
UCLA: 150K for 6.4K slots
Pitt's: 53K for 4.4K slots
I also mentioned that the low subsidization has taken place over decades. It is a cumulative effect. Pitt's has admitted >50% of its applicants most of the last 25 years, sometimes going over 60%. That's not considered the highest selectivity. Only three years over that span has it dipped just below 50%, including this past year for the first time in a long while. The more applicants you have, obviously the more selective you can be, but you still have to be competitive with the financial packages that determine total cost of attendance. It breaks down in matriculation numbers when you are too expensive compared to peers that are recruiting the same student. Many would also argue that the average make up of your student population contributes to the overall environment of the school and can improve the experience for other students (and even faculty), and it clearly is something believed by most domestic university rankings because they include it in their metrics, and no one can deny the impact of US News & World Report on perception regardless of whether you agree with the criteria included in their metrics. Having taught at a few colleges over the years, my anecdotal exeprience lends me to believe that better average student quality does contribute positively.
And yes, I am saying that the price gap is absolutely a factor for students looking out of state when they are comparing Pitt's cost of tuition to other state's out-of-state costs of tuition. A smaller gap in price absolutely lowers the burden for deciding to stay in-state or go out-of-state. These students aren't generally paying sticker price for out-of-state tuition most of the time, and whatever OOS aid packages they receive get compared to the packages for in-state choices and are a big determining factor. The game these days is to apply to a dozen schools or more and see which ones offer the best deals so the size of the gap matters a lot. It is much more likely for a PA student to end up at a school, say, like Virginia Tech if also looking at Pitt, than it is for a Virginia student to look at Pitt compared to VT or UVA, given the gap in difference of cost and aid packages. Anecdotally, I know several PA residents that ended up at OOS publics because the gap in cost was reasonable but I know several Pitt legacies in VA that eliminated Pitt because of that gap was just too big.
If you are okay with Clarion or UPJ closing, then I would imagine where the state prioritizes higher ed funding is suitable in your opinion.
Last edited:
Can there be a discussion about colleges and Universities holding the line on costs?
No! Kids need a rock climbing wall as part of the college experience..... and a one bedroom dorm with a private bath..... and Vegan menu items cooked to order in a 24 hour cafeteria..... and no classes before 10 or after 3..... and a dog/cat park. Heaven forbid a college kid could exist without a pet and a place for it to run free.
I have no idea why you think I'm OK with Clarion closing.
I'm done with your misinterpretation of my posts.
Consumption Amenities in Higher Education | Brookings
A great deal of attention has been paid to the issue of rising costs in higher education, and while there are a variety of explanations, the media often focuses on luxurious campus amenities as a major culprit. This week, Beth Akers provides a framework for thinking about amenities in higher...
www.brookings.edu
What contributes to rising college costs? | EAB
In responding to critics, higher education leaders must not only bust myths about the high cost of campus amenities.
The amenities people like to point to as being so outrageous, and some of them are, are mostly a small fraction of a university budget and a one time cost. The real issue is employing terminal degree experts with competitive wages that keep up with a CPI index that is largely based on the ability to outsource the production of Walmart widgets to Vietnam.
LOLConsumption Amenities in Higher Education | Brookings
A great deal of attention has been paid to the issue of rising costs in higher education, and while there are a variety of explanations, the media often focuses on luxurious campus amenities as a major culprit. This week, Beth Akers provides a framework for thinking about amenities in higher...
What contributes to rising college costs? | EAB
In responding to critics, higher education leaders must not only bust myths about the high cost of campus amenities.eab.com
The amenities people like to point to as being so outrageous, and some of them are, are mostly a small fraction of a university budget and a one time cost. The real issue is employing terminal degree experts with competitive wages that keep up with a CPI index that is largely based on the ability to outsource the production of Walmart widgets to Vietnam.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
You couldn't have possibly reached that conclusion if you did. Now post something so you can have the last word.
NCpitt has said he is done at least twice in this thread yet continues posting. Does he ever post anything about football? He pays premium does he post similar content there?
I will follow up on that point. Your suggested site showed nothing to support your point, as I already stated.
Said like a true academic egghead.
"We compete with other schools to have the highest rate of crushing kids' dreams."
pittdan77
Athletic Director
LOL, ok, so Pitt should operate in a vacuum an ignore the competitive realities in its sphere of operation. Sounds like you want to lead a "occupy universities" movement and redistribute tuition money to the students.
Really just illuminates an inability to defend them with any real information or depth.
And he's never lost an argument to anyone regarding anything. It's remarkable....
No. I want Pitt to return to the core business of a university - preparing young adults for a future in the real world,
LOL. I am constantly stating that they are opinions. Too bad you can't read.
Well let me try to walk you through it.
You stated "I'm from Clarion and that school shrinks every year to the point where rumors are constantly out there that it will close."
You also stated "Sure, the basic laws of economics say that lower costs will increase demand."
So Clarion is considered a low cost option in Pennsylvania. Low cost alone doesn't seem to be working to draw enough students. Or maybe, by 'basic laws of economics,' its price isn't low enough for what it is offering to its potential customers (the students). So to increase demand for its services, it either has to cut its price more or offer, say, more benefit or more amenities to attract additional customers. Obviously the current low demand for its services means lower revenues and not as much ability to invest in additional quality or amenities, but it also means there is little margin to offer further price cuts. Either way, Clarion is a fully state owned university and responsibility for the Clarion, as an institution, is ultimately in the hands of the state. And note, they've already slashed overhead by merging it with Edinboro and Cal.
You then seemed indignant with the suggestion that you'd be okay with Clarion closing even though you appear to be okay with Pennsylvania's level of support to Higher Ed, which has been pointed in nearly any methodology to be near the bottom of the nation.
Do you think PA should increase its funding to higher education to avoid schools like Clarion closing their doors? It's a simple question. I'm not saying there is a right answer, but each answer has the potential for substantial consequences, not just for students, but for the local communities in which these schools are based.
Last edited:
Having to guess about the amount of revenue you will get from the state each year is financial Russian roulette. Sooner or later a chamber will have a bullet.
Until it does it deprives Pitt from proper planning.
BUT….unless several someone’s step up and contribute billions of dollars, Pitt needs the state.
There’s the rub. It is better to want something than to need it but be unable to get it without help. If you need another to provide for you, you are beholden to them.
Higher education in the state is a non tax payer and sucks money away from state programs. Many of the majors offered are a joke. Frankly, the money should be going to community colleges and not universities with massive endowments....unless their research directly benefits the state with jobs and research grants (which PITT does).
Your misinterpretations are insufferable.
Its core business hasn't varied. But it has added peripheral crap like DEI that detracts from its core business. I support Pitt shedding its peripheral crap and focusing on its core business.
Latest posts
-
OT: Tomlin extension not going over to well with local media:- Latest: UptownPrivileges
-
