This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, January 23, 2012

State Support of Higher Education in North Carolina

How does North Carolina's support for higher education compare to other states? Considering what you read and hear from the news media and the liberal establishment, you are probably under the impression that North Carolina, under our Republican legislature, stripped the funding for higher education in our state.

I fount this study  conducted by the Illinois State University Center for the Study of Higher Education and the State Higher Education Executive Officers, to be enlightening! All but nine states experienced one-year declines from their 2010-11 totals. The 41 states that cut their spending did so by widely varying proportions, from as little as 1 percent (in Indiana and North Carolina) to as much as 41 percent (New Hampshire), with a full third seeing double-digit drops!

Our Republican legislature balanced our budget while reducing taxes and - at the same time - minimized the effect of budget cuts on our higher education system!

What is also telling is the matrix at the end of the article showing that only New York, California and Texas spend more on higher education than North Carolina!

The education lobby - with the full support of governor Perdue - is distorting the facts! Perdue is in favor of another sales tax increase and will provide the liberal sheep with all the propaganda they can swallow in her efforts to lead them to raise taxes!


guy faulkes said...

It looks as if the amount by which states support education is becoming a moot point. The feds will govern it.

I just saw a news story about Obama attempting to purchase the college vote by limiting the amount a college can raise it tuition if it wants to get its share of the financial aid takeover that Obama is proposing.

No one considers that colleges would not have to raise tuition if their budget process combined infrastructure increases with other operating costs such as salaries for their employees. Maybe if less was paid on grandiose buildings and more on COMPETENT professors and staff, they could do a better job for less money.

A case in point was the Broyhill Inn and Conference Center. We subsidized this white elephant for years.

We need to live with the best we can afford and can do this if we eliminate waste.

NewGuy said...

Committee Leaders React to President's Remarks on Higher Education

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) today issued the following statements in response to President Obama’s remarks on college costs at the University of Michigan:

Chairman Kline: “The president’s remarks correctly describe the value of a higher education and the challenges facing many individuals who are eager to pursue the dream of a college degree. We all want to promote efforts that will reduce college costs, but the era of empty promises has to end. The interest rate hike students face is the result of a ticking time bomb set by Democrats five years ago. Simply calling for more of the same is a disservice to students and taxpayers.

"Competition and transparency are basic principles Republicans have long supported to help lower costs in higher education, and institutions have a responsibility to do everything they can to provide a good education at an affordable price. We need responsible solutions that will serve the students of today and tomorrow without increasing the federal role in our nation’s education system. The president has proposed a number of interesting ideas that deserve a careful review."

Chairwoman Foxx: “I appreciate the president’s remarks today and for helping to shine a spotlight on the challenges students face earning a college degree. However, I am disappointed the president failed to take a comprehensive view of the problem. Any discussion about the cost of higher education must include the role played by federal regulations. In November, I chaired a hearing that examined not only the solutions some institutions are adopting to bring down costs, but also discussed the consequences of unnecessary regulations. Onerous regulations come with a price and that price is often paid by students. As we take a look at the president’s proposal, we hope he will give serious consideration to Republican efforts to rein in the regulatory burden facing hig

Blogger said...

Higher education can be a lot less expensive. For example, rewards can go to those who want to do research and teach. Then, rewards can go to those who want to teach and are good at it. Right now in many of the universities, rewards go to those who publish. Thus, researchers in many of the large state universities have scandalously low teaching loads. At the same time, good teachers also must have reduced loads because they are required to publish, even if it is junk. Next, universities can stop allowing professors to teach little pet classes for their own amusement. Finally, administrators can return part time to teaching.

If these few changes were made, a lot fewer faculty would eventually be needed. Plus, students, parents and taxpayers would finally get what they thought they were paying for all along.

Blogger said...

Remember This?