Category Archives: Blog Post

First, to the comments from the previous posts….

From Kevin Guidry….

First and foremost, much of your argument seems to be completely rooted in capitalistic terms where the only things that are valuable are those that have been monetized. For example, you write about “ROI” and value in purely economic terms. That bothers me not because they are unimportant but because there are other things that are also important. The strongest counter argument I can muster is the classic idea of the value of a well-educated and literate electorate, value that doesn’t necessarily map to economic value but is inherently critical for a democratic society. Another strong counter argument focuses on the other resources and experiences that are undervalued in economic terms but important to us all i.e. the arts, education.

I’m confused as to how this counters my argument that we’d like graduates to stay in the state they were graduated in.

Second, it seems unrealistic and unfair to expect people – especially young people if we’re talking about traditional students – to *know* that they want to live in a particular state many years in advance. Jeff brought up the practical point of “can they stay e.g. will there be a job available?” which is a very similar counter argument.

Who said anything about planning it out?  We’re talking about staying in the state you were educated in for a few years after graduation.  Some will choose to leave, and they’re more than welcome to, as long as they are good with paying the out of state rate.

Your final point about decreasing state funding levels making this a moot discussion is a good albeit depressing point. It seems like we’re not really willing to have this discussion and are instead backing into it. The discussions about the DREAM Act and its state-level equivalents seem to be the main arena for this discussion and they’re charged with so much nationalism and racism that I don’t know if it’s a fair gauge of public opinion on this different issue.

agreed.

Isn’t one of the primary foundations of in-state tuition the idea that you (or your parents if you’re a dependent) have already paid a significant amount in state taxes and have already earned or paid for this benefit?

So you’re going to argue that they’re expecting a direct benefit to them of their investment in the university system?  I’m almost certain that is a private good.  Public good would indicate that the system is supported by the state because it supports the state as a whole.  It’s like a highway.  You pay to pave roads all over your state, even if you don’t drive.  The benefit is still available to them, but the state needs to protect it’s investment for the benefit of all, no?

From Liz Gross…

At what point does the federal interest in education play into this? Most students are only able to attend school because of federal aid/loan programs.

Now, THERE is an interesting question and the reason I had planned on writing a part 3 to this anyway.  I’m going to avoid the obvious discussion about whether the federal aid/loan system recoups any money for the feds, especially now that they’ve taken over the loan system completely.  It’s too complex for a blog post, and frankly, I don’t want to dig up the data.  For the purposes of this post, let’s just assume that if you take out a loan, you eventually pay it back to the government loan system with interest.

I absolutely think the federal interest plays a part, and should probably pay a bigger part here.

First, my idea is loosely patterned off of the system I mentioned in my previous post about my home state as well as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program offered by the Feds.  In order to qualify for the PSLF, you must:

• be employed full-time in a public service job for each of the 120 monthly payments. Public service jobs include, among other positions, emergency management, government (excluding time served as a member of Congress), military service, public safety and law enforcement (police and fire), public health (including nurses, nurse practitioners, nurses in a clinical setting, and full-time professionals engaged in health care practitioner occupations and health care support occupations), public education, early childhood education (including licensed or regulated childcare, Head Start, and State-funded prekindergarten), social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities or the elderly, public interest legal services (including prosecutors, public defenders and legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization), public librarians, school librarians and other school-based services, and employees of tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Full-time faculty at tribal colleges and universities, as well as faculty teaching in high-need subject areas and shortage areas (including nurse faculty, foreign language faculty, and part-time faculty at community colleges), also qualify

Unfortunately, way too many folks taking out loans don’t know about this program.  The system in my home state definitely has a lot of similarities.

Second, I wondered when I was initially conceiving this why North Carolina should have any problem with that young lady pursuing employment in Wisconsin.  Why should we be in competition with other states (or institutions within our own state…a question for another time)?    Wouldn’t the more obvious support for education come from the federal government instead of the states if we live in a society which encourages mobility post-graduation?

Third, and coming back to Jeff’s question from yesterday…if each state has a specialty, a generalization but roll with me, wouldn’t it be better for the federal government to be a primary supporter of education generally through loans and grants, and then allow the individual states to offer incentive programs to either retain top students or encourage top students to attend their schools and stay in their states?   For instance, we know North Carolina has a strong banking industry…what if they offered to retire loans on any aspiring business students that attended a UNC school and worked for 5 years in the banking industry in NC?

Unfortunately, no one on Twitter or in the comments decided to ask the question that I was hoping to drag out of someone, so it looks like I’m going to have to go there myself.

Let’s continue using my home state as an example.  Instead of using where I work, I’ll go a few miles down the road and look at UNC Chapel Hill and consider their fees, etc.

Base Tuition for In-State is $7008, but the full cost of attendance (shoutout to #EDUsports) falls at a gag inducing $20,660.  Yikes.

For out-of-state, the tuition is $26,834, and the full cost of attendance is $41,140.  Oh boy.

Over the course of 4 years, you’re looking at  a cost of attendance of $82,640 for in state students and $164,560 for out of state students.  And, just because of the tuition gap (the rest is estimated travel), the difference is $19,826 per year and $79,304 for 4 years.

So, basically, I was making the claim yesterday that students who choose to leave the state after their graduation should have to pick up the full out of state cost, since they’ve chosen to use the benefits of their education to not benefit the state.  And with that suggestion, I’m implicitly saying that because you choose to leave the state, you should owe an additional $79, 304 dollars to the state of North Carolina.  Yes, that is what I am saying.

I want to address some things in the comment that I got yesterday from JJ:

When I worked at UT-Austin’s Business School companies came from all around the US to recruit our students. That was one of the reason it was ranked so high (5th at the time, not sure now). When companies came to visit they brought their checkbook creating scholarships, funding leadership programs, and endowing professorships. If students were discourages to leave the state that would all go away. It would be interesting to see the flow of out of state money/donations versus the number of students leaving the state for employment.

Interesting point and one I hadn’t considered.  I’m curious how the difference between the in-state funding and the moneys coming from these companies matched up.  But here’s the critical point – you’re actually making an argument that it’s a private good here, since students are leaving the state to find the best situation, not staying in the state to benefit the state.

Back to the example of your friend. I do not know how the NC tax system is, but I’m sure he and his family have paid a fair amount of taxes into the system. That should count for something.

Frankly, I disagree.  People without kids pay for the school system through tax dollars.  People pay it forward to social security that may never receive it.  People fund social welfare programs that may never use it.  You fund the university system because it’s supposed to benefit the state.  It’s absurd that people who get the funding from the system (the students) should then be allowed to go elsewhere without actually benefitting the state.

Lastly there is always a question of major employers. Does NC have enough major employer to pay a competitive wage for all the graduates of NC? When I worked at The U of A it was assumed many of the student would leave AZ due to lack of employment opportunities. CA, NY, TX would not have this problem, but how would other states deal with this?

I’d use this as a private good argument as well.  Are the students doing what best benefits them or what best serves the state?  You can do investment banking in North Carolina.  If you go to New York, frankly, I don’t blame you, but I resent that you took the money and ran, and I think you should have received the out of state rate.

There’s still an obvious argument hanging out there, but I’m going to let it alone for now.

Common knowledge says that higher ed is primarily a public good instead of a private good, and I can mostly ride with that.  Higher education employs people, generates research, employs extension agents that aid areas all over the states (land grants like whoa) and educates many professions that do stay within the state primarily like nurses and teachers.  Awesome.

But I revisited this idea over the weekend as we were discussing a mutual friend who was educated in our state university system and now works in Wisconsin.  How is North Carolina reaping benefits from this individual?  Or any other individuals who are educated on the state’s dime and then bolt for greener pastures?

I’d argue that they don’t.

So why are their educations supported in a similar manner to those of people who do stay in the state?

Now you could definitely make the argument that they’re ambassadors for the state and for the institution, but frankly, I’d say the cost of supporting them educationally is very high compared to the value that the state receives from educating them.  Astronomically high, even.

Our state in particular has done something to try to get people to stay so they can glean some benefit from education, offering tremendous assistance to those in what you might call “public service” professions (ie medical, education) to get their education paid for if they agree to serve in an under served area for a few years.

But for those who major in non-service professions, shouldn’t there be some incentive to stay home if we’re going to educate you?

My opinion is that state aid should, specifically the enormous money that the state spends on higher ed, should produce more skilled work force for the state, that stays here, and that produces a highly qualified and skilled workforce for the state.  If that’s not happening, we shouldn’t be supporting their education.

So what if, instead of flat support for student’s education, we offer the out of state tuition rate for all students, and then students can only owe the in-state tuition (or less) if they spend 10 years living in the state they went to school AFTER school?

You’d guarantee a more direct ROI, you’d keep the people you educated at home, and you’d guarantee that the great schools that are in your state, that produce great product, would actually be benefitting the state itself, instead of the best and brightest going elsewhere.  Also, you’d encourage people to actually attend school where they might want to be AFTER school.

What do you think?