I don't think there is a lack of accountability here. This thread is raising awareness and holding her accountable. Her vote is public knowledge, and she will face another election. I would like to hear her reasoning for the vote.
) raising and debating an issue that affects our beloved university. I think that is a good thing, so I hope we can manage to not get the thread deleted.
I completely disagree. If that vote forces the university to cut fat to keep tuition flat and then the funding happens (it will), the university and the state will both be better off. I believe she is acting in the best interests of both parties.
PA is far from last in total funding for higher education. I don't care how many times you say it.
Thank you. I think some people view any means to an end that serves their particular view as acceptable and that's where the problem lies. It's not just one politician with mixed interests who, upon initial impressions, is voting against those interests. It's the loud cheering in the background that doesn't care because of an agenda. Accountability is actually supposed to start with your own character. It's an ongoing problem and their are plenty of guilty parties on all sides.I don't think there is a lack of accountability here. This thread is raising awareness and holding her accountable. Her vote is public knowledge, and she will face another election. I would like to hear her reasoning for the vote.
This person holds a singular vote. Systems are built so that a singular dissenting vote can't stop a bill. There are many other Trustees. There are many other PA state legislators. As pointed out previously, the conflict of interest in this case is by design. We may not agree with her vote, but she was appointed to the board and elected to her position in the state house to make such decisions. Is she in favour of a higher rate of funding, so voted this bill down? Or is she voting party line on this issue. I don't know, and a statement form her to clarify that would be helpful. Some say they have contacted her and not heard back. I do think she needs to go on record as to why she voted that way (so yeah I agree with you on that). Until she does, anyone's theory as to why she voted in that manner could be correct.
This board is serving a civic function here. Smart people (mostly
She, and they, are lying. There have been a rotating carousel of reasons that republicans in the legislature have trotted out as to why they’re holding up funding. This is one of them.
Haha. I'm not expressing any beliefs. A number of us are pointing out facts you find inconvenient. Doesn't matter so long as the means justify the ends, right? Well, until you don't like the ends that are achieved.
OK. So you know the real reasons. Hah. Me, I prefer to base thoughts on things actually publicly said and done rather than some political axe to grind.
Only in a world where you don't accept reality.
Please point to the facts presented that show I'm wrong.
Per capita? As in residents?
For the Pitt side of things, I could send you links to the specific sections of PA Title 15, the SoS website that has a primer on board governance, and the numerous articles found all over the internet dealing with the topic. I would have hoped you understood civics but I could send you the link for how a representative is supposed to handle disclosure.
That's why I'm not going to bother. You've made it clear that you'd rather be obtuse about it. Again, you like what she did for whatever reasons you have and that's it.
So point me the relevant section, because I find nothing that supports your point.
ncses.nsf.gov
You couldn't have possibly reached that conclusion if you looked it up. What is "inherently obvious" disclosure?
He seemed to try to meet my conditions to continue. He failed, though.
Not last and the measure is irrelevant as I explained above.State Support for Higher Education per Full-Time Equivalent Student | State Indicators | National Science Foundation - State Indicators
National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators. A broad base of quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise.
I went to your link and was unable to find anything that supports your point. Again, I would be happy to read any facts you can provide. So far ... nada.
LOL. My point has already been made. I don't need the last word. Let me repeat, I am done here until you provide something factual rather than opinion.
Didn't send you a link. You made it clear you weren't interested.
You haven't made a point. It's weird that you think you did.
This seems to the problem. My points:
"Funding per PA resident as full-time student equivalents?" You are proposing to normalize the state funding with numbers that include PA residents choosing to attend out-of-state and/or private in-state institutions?
I am not proposing anything. I'm saying that would be an appropriate measure on which to compare state funding.
I don't agree that would be an appropriate measure.
Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion. A state's higher education funding should be focused on that state's residents. Out-of-state residents should not be the beneficiaries of state funds paid by taxpayers of that state. If there is a value to having out-of-state students, then the schools can drop that tuition on their own.
I got that idea because that is exactly what you posted, and you did not define it to restirct it to only PA resident as FTE that are only attending PA public schools. And the numbers you now state that you actually intended simply don't exist. So the absolute best numbers that are available to perform any sort of reasonable comparison of uniformly collected data across states are the dollar per public FTE. And by those numbers, or by any other available metric, PA is near the bottom, as many have already pointed out. And frankly, if you think if the number of $ per in-state resident FTE attending only the same state's publics, if available, would result a change of more than a few spots based simply on the variation of the % of out-of-state students attending each particular state's publics, you'd end up very disappointed because there isn't that much variation. PA is going to near the bottom in higher education funding no matter what. What's more, as I pointed out earlier, it is dead last in support to its publicly supported research universities which are three: Pitt, PSU, and Temple.
