Pity the Poor Students

By R. E. Smith Jr.

“You’ve got to wonder at what point it’s going to stop,” said the student body president at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, referring to tuition increases. Stop? When do cost increases of any service stop? Oh, sorry, that talk is about a government funded university. Of course, those taking advantage of public supported higher education expect it to be free—actually, they expect other people to pay for their education. The somebody-owes-us attitude is well stamped on immature minds by their elders.

The editorial editor of the Wilmington Star News, frequently calling to dump more money in the university, wrote “The Honorables keep dumping more of the cost onto students and their families….”—as opposed to dumping the cost on state taxpayers. This editor often reminds us that here in North Carolina the state constitution grants free education “as far as practicable….” He does not question cries from university beneficiaries for more money. But “free” is no longer feasible. Taxpayers have given more than their fair share to the bloated bureaucracies.

The prolific university system sprawled across the state uses up a large chunk of the state government budget. For many years new funding has poured into these campuses. In 2000, after intense lobbying by university officials (state employees) and supporters; and promises that bond legislation would not result in raising taxes, a $3.1 billion debt was voted by North Carolinians on themselves.

Jon Sanders, writing in the Carolina Journal in July 2004, described the university spending campaign: “all those chancellors, administrators, legislators, state dignitaries, self-promotional ‘investigative reports’ by WUNC-TV, crying students, UNC officials shamelessly applauding crying students, and student government flunkies speaking at football games….”

And, guess what? Within a year taxes began to increase every year thereafter and the UNC budget continued to increase with no apologies from those who lied to the citizens.

Sanders wrote that the “UNC system played a game of whine and dine.” Officials complained their funds were being “cut to the bone”—but there were no cuts. In 2004, another bond of $340,000 was passed by feckless legislators fearful of being labeled unfriendly to education, without voter or UNC Board of Governors approval. By 2005, the state General Assembly had increased the UNC budget to $1.87 billion.

Meanwhile the university went on a spending spree. New programs; additional buildings; an institute for higher education; operating an airport; buying houses for chancellors; tuition grants; and, of course, salary increases. In 2004, former Chancellor Marye Anne Fox received a $248,225 salary. In addition she was provided a house and car. A university Board member dubbed this generosity as “totally underpaid.”

What are we getting for the huge amounts of money flooding into higher education? Who knows? Academia is unaccountable for its spending habit. Money is dumped into the system with presumed “benefits,” but educational value is questionable. Tax money distributed to counties and cities with university facilities helps local businesses, but economic development is not the purpose of education.

Richard Vetter, an economics professor at Ohio University, in a “National Review” article October 11, 2004, says that there is no value added evaluation of university output. The only accounting is from private rankings which show: “The more the school spends, the higher the ranking.”

But spending does not equate with quantity or quality of education. A recent study by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy revealed that schools with higher rankings—such as those published by U. S. News and World Report—may not offer instruction as good as that given at lower ranked institutions. Study authors wrote that subjective factors such as “academic reputation” and faculty compensation provide no direct correlation with student learning. Few people realize this, or seem to care.

The “watchdog” press has failed to investigate and report this information. Instead, the editorial attitude, expressed by the Star News, represents advocacy for unaccountability: “Of course, there’s no question that UNCW needs more money….” they say. No question? Based on what?

University chancellors and presidents serve as government lobbyists. Administrative officers (handsomely paid by the state) regularly and successfully plead with legislators and deep-pockets donors to give more money. But what do they do with it? Much of it goes to elaborate facilities, athletic subsidies, higher salaries and other things unrelated to the teaching/learning mission.

The name of the game is to admit more students, few of whom pay their fair share. Grants, deductions, discounts and tax credits subsidize most of the public university cost of tuition to students. Despite increases in the published price of tuition, tuition paid has gone down in recent years—about one-third less from 1998 to 2003, for example.

Instead of whining about perceived increases in tuition, students should be demonstrating against the inefficiencies of the university and demanding better education.

Poor teaching protected by tenure, low faculty teaching loads, top-loaded administrations, emphasis on sports and food services, fluff courses and politically motivated programs divert funds from the essentials of teaching and learning. Students could better spend protest time to correct these problems, and the press would better serve the public by reporting them








The Sad State of American Education

By Nathan Tabor

Each election year, you’ll find a candidate who says we desperately need to pour more money into our public schools. Ignoring the property tax burdens on senior citizens, the candidate will say that taxpayers need to be prepared to spend more on education—even if it entails incredible sacrifice.

There is little doubt that education can be a sound investment. But I have to wonder what schools are using all that tax money for, given the results of a new study by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum.

The survey showed many things, but here is the most startling fact of them all: Americans know more about the TV cartoon known as “The Simpsons” than they do about the First Amendment. I suppose that, in an age where trivia is king, this should not be all that surprising. However, it should provoke some serious soul-searching among public officials, teachers, and parents.

According to the study, only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. For those of you hazy on this point, the five freedoms are freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. Yet, more than half of those surveyed could name at least two members of the Simpson family.

And it gets worse. About one in five Americans can name all five members of the cartoon family, but only one in a thousand can name all the First Amendment freedoms. But this isn’t only about the Simpsons. There’s also the situation involving “American Idol.” More people know the three idol judges—Randy, Paula, and Simon—than know at least three First Amendment rights. In addition, Americans are more likely to remember popular advertising slogans than anything about the First Amendment.

Oh, but there is this gem: one in five people surveyed thought the right to own a pet was protected under the First Amendment. But the question we need to ask ourselves as Americans is not who’s minding the dog—but who’s looking out for our own basic rights as citizens.

But, let’s be clear here. There’s plenty of blame to go around. While it’s true that maybe we should have all paid more attention at school, how much of the school calendar was devoted to the First Amendment—one of the most precious rights the founding fathers could have given us?

Here’s why this is so important: there are numerous instances today of individuals trying to take away our freedoms. For instance, our freedom of speech is threatened by those who say that the only allowable speech on our college campuses should be politically correct speech. Our freedom of religion is routinely targeted by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, who want to ban God from our schools, courthouses, and civic buildings. Freedom of assembly is challenged by those who believe the only legitimate protests are the left-wing kind.

Of course, the news media routinely trumpet freedom of the press—but it is only one segment of the press many of them are interested in. For instance, conservative columnist Ann Coulter is vilified for expressing her anti-left, anti-establishment views. Fox News is accused of pandering to the right—even though its mission is to provide fair and balanced coverage.

In an Associated Press article, Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, said he was actually surprised by the results of his survey.

Madeira told the AP, “Part of the survey really shows there are misconceptions, and part of our mission is to clear up these misconceptions. It means we have our job cut out for us.”

It obvious money isn’t the solution to our education woes. We must return to teaching the basics.

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************