Tuition Freeze
September 28th, 2006 | by Craig |Governor Schweitzer has unveiled a plan to freeze tuition at Montana colleges for the next two years.
That’s all well and good, but my question is this: as other costs go up, and tuition stays the same, who will be left holding the bag for the difference?
I wonder, indeed.
15 Responses to “Tuition Freeze”
By SallyT on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
How about cutting administrative and professor salaries?
Just a thought.
By Sarpy Sam on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
You are thinking way to far ahead. People aren’t supposed to consider such things, just the wonderful things the guv does for us.
By Shane C Mason on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
The problem here isn’t one of ‘who’ but ‘why’. If we return to the days of an educated upperclass and an ignorant lower class. That is why they are called ‘public colleges’. Think like a business here, if you will. An investment in education now pays off in the long run. If you looks at education as though you are ‘holding the bag’, then we are all lost. I mean, some would say the same thig about public primary eductation. Hold in the bag, or investing?
If our young are not educated then how are we to progress? If only the rich are educated, how is that any different from the dark ages?
In a sense, Sally T was right. Montana needs medium paying jobs (which are what universities in Montana pay), so don’t cut pay. Cut jobs at the top and make the system more efficient.
By Matt Singer on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Tuition went up incredibly during the 90s. Schweitzer isn’t considering a permanent tuition freeze, just a temporary one to offset the hyperinflation felt by students over the last 12 or 15 years.
A fairer point would be that ultimately, Schweitzer doesn’t set tuition, the Regents do. So both he and the Republicans are making promises about expenditures that they can’t make. They just write the check. The Regents decide how to spend it.
By Gman on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Make the system more efficient? Shane, you’re talking about an impossibility! Seriously, anything run by the gov’t will not be efficient as a matter of course. Of course you know what I’m going to say — privatize it! If you want efficiency and affordability, that’s your only choice! When you reply that all privatization will do is further the divide between the haves and the have-nots, consider the fact that almost every person in a America owns an automobile. Sure, some are rather pedestrian and some are rather lavish, but at least almost everyone has one. If the market can provide an affordable car to consumers, it can provide an education to. Maybe we’re Backing the Wrong Horse. If a slum in Africa can support a private school, which by far surpasses the public school in quality, then the richest country in the world can do it, too. Will we ever really know? Maybe if laws regarding labor unions change so that the people are as powerful as the education establishment.
By Matt Singer on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Gman, independent research shows privatizing rarely increases efficiency, it just increases motivation for corruption.
And public systems operate very efficiently. Medicare and the VA are both very efficient.
As for your car analogy, not everyone does own a car and many car owners don’t super reliable or new ones.
Markets do some things very well. Virtually no one disputes that. But to take markets are often good and reinterpret it as the government is always bad is as illogical of a leap as is possible.
By Craig on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
O RLY?
Link?
By SallyT on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Or two or three links?
Matt, just breathtaking!
And public systems operate very efficiently. Medicare and the VA are both very efficient.
Now where’d you get a silly notion like that?
My mom is on medicare, and I’ve friends who deal often with the VA. When, pray tell, was the last time either entity requested a budget cut, because they were so efficient they just didn’t need more money? When was the last time premiums decreased or service increased without an act of Congress?
…to take markets are often good and reinterpret it as the government is always bad is as illogical of a leap as is possible.
Noooo…but markets are dynamic, self-correcting–allowing energy flow (time, money, resources) based on individual choice & priorities (bought gas lately?), while government is static, inflexible–controlling energy (time, money, resources) based on third party choices and priorities (paid any property taxes lately?).
To assume that bureaucracy (whose entire purpose is perpetuation of bureaucracy) would be more efficient than market choices, is ‘as illogical of a leap as is possible.’
You don’t get out much, do you?
By Matt Singer on Sep 30, 2006 | Reply
Sally, when’s the last time your insurance company cut your premiums? Honestly, that’s just a lousy argument.
Craig, SallyT, Gman, any of you actually got evidence that government privatization works better or am I to believe it based on reason and not empiricism?
Regardless, here’s the write-up on the dangers of privatization we did at Progressive States recently, citing multiple studies on the risk of corruption and inefficiency in privatizing. Most privatization efforts don’t save money and most suffer from quality deterioration.
Now, y’all got links?
Free market absolutism is every bit as insane as communism.
By Craig on Sep 30, 2006 | Reply
I thought you had “independent” studies.
When you make an assertion, it’s up to us to refute it?
Alrighty, then.
By Shane Mason on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Read the sources at the writup he cited. I will make the claim that the owness is really on GMan to prove the following:
1.Seriously, anything run by the gov’t will not be efficient as a matter of course…privatize it! If you want efficiency and affordability, that’s your only choice!
As for your other statements, GMan, looks like you already had my argument all by your self, insert some comment from me below:
_______________________________
By Shane Mason on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
Why is the VA so efficient?
By Craig on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
Shane, those sources, to a one, advocate “liberal” causes.
AFSCME? Come on.
As to the VA being efficient, compared to what passes for health care today, Soviet-era grocery stores are downright efficient.
By Matt Singer on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
Craig, is BusinessWeek a liberal source now? Cause they applaud the VA. Progressive States’ sourcing is Stateline.org, independent researchers, and other neutral sources.
You all claim that privatization and private markets always beat government programs. Honestly, prove it. The data’s not there, Craig.
You (or possibly Gman) recently said that to liberals, government programs are a hammer and everything looks like a nail. I think you’re projecting. I’m a big fan of markets. I just don’t think they’re a panacea like you do. So instead of grappling with the arguments for a mixed system (markets and governments), you accuse me of having a one-size-fits-all solution, which is actually what you advocate.
By Craig on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
No Matt, I don’t believe I said that Business Week is a liberal publication, just that comparing the VA to a health-care organization like Kaiser Permanent sets the bar pretty low for efficiency.
I’ve never suggested that markets are a panacea. There are things that they do well and things they don’t. Markets don’t build roads, for example.
Here’s my biggest problem with government programs. Once one gets started, it never goes away if it doesn’t work. If it doesn’t work, the first thing they want for it is more money. If a private initiative doesn’t work, or is inefficient, it goes away.
You and I probably agree that competition is good, so why is “the left” afraid to let private education compete with public?
My evidence is admittedly anecdotal, but our experience with a private school system vs. public is like night and day in terms of efficiency from a parental perspective.
I also spent time working in one of the nation’s largest school districts, and the graf, corruption and inefficiency was beyond belief. I watched one “programmer” surf porn all day long in front of God and everyone, and no one did anything, including the supervisor who saw what was going on. I watched people literally sit in front of their computer for 8 hours doing nothing. Ostensibly, they were there for data entry, but there was no data getting entered. Did they get fired? Nope. Did management know what was going on? Yup. Every other Friday, one of the divisions planned on half their workforce calling in sick, because payday was on a Thursday. Again, did anyone get fired? Nope.
So, no, I don’t advocate a one-size fits all solution, but without a market and allowing people to vote with their dollars, a one-size fits all solution is what we get.