Where's the beef?

In a bold new proposal, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has proposed giving the top 25% of Minnesota high school students two free years at the state's public universities (University of Minnesota or MNSCU systems).  This proposal clearly borrows from the Citizens League innovative study on higher education that asserts that all of the state's students should be receiving K-14 education. 

This proposal has several significant merits:

• It offers academic-based scholarships
• It reduces the financial burden of higher education
• It provides a (slightly) means-tested benefit
• It helps retain top talent in-state

However, the proposal lacks a key detail - who will pay?  Given the governor's historical commitment to "no new taxes," some other government service will likely pay the price if the state picks up the tab.  Will it be transportation, already significantly underfunded? Health care for the poor, which has already endured several budget cutbacks?  Alternatively, this proposal also could be the ultimate unfunded mandate, requiring the U of M and MNSCU to cover the cost of thousands of top students in an era of rapid tuition increases.

The governor should be lauded for a bold education proposal, but citizens should keep a careful eye on who will be asked to pick up the tab.

JFF

Comments

[tom abeles]

The idea is bold and asks the question as to what does attending college really mean. If going to college implies the equivalent of K-16 and the shrinkage, after eliminating the redundancy between grades 10-12 and 13-16, then we probably can fund the equivalent of the first two years out of existing budgets. One notes that high school programs such as CIS, AP and IBP can almost give bright students, such as those defined by the Pawlenty proposal, the equivalent of a CC diploma, recreating the old division between Jr and Senior colleges.

Given the move, nationally, to allow CC's to award bachelor degrees, it may be possible to fund all the way to the BA for bright students.

Given the post secondary move to hire adjuncts and new jr, non-tenure track faculty, even the currently over-rated, 4-year, hand crafted, on-campus experience, might even survive.

The mandate will be un, or under funded if we try to maintain a failing "business as usual" model

What is interesting is that the private, for-profits institutions are highly "proifitable" because they can shdow price their courses against the conventional institutions while offering a value proposition which is increasingly compelling, even to recent high school graduates.

Undergraduate education is not graduate/research education and the differnce needs to be understood.

[jeremywieland]

I love this idea and will happily get on board. What I want to know is where are either the DFL or the Indy Party on this? If the DFL is the party of education, and I believe that to be true, why isn't someone grabbing this bull by the horns and making some hey? Want young voters? Take up the bill for their education.