Post by Pioneer on Aug 2, 2015 10:57:06 GMT -5
Here is an important topic to help fill the off season void. I encourage anyone interested to listen to this interview and reference the Oakland Board of Trustees documentation (Oakland.edu/BOT). There are several other articles about this topic online. Here are some of my thoughts.
July 13 Podcast-Al Pscholka
www.wjr.com/frank-beckmann-archives/#
A few weeks ago I happened to catch the Frank Beckmann show where he had State Representative, Al Pscholka from west Michigan as a guest, discussing OU’s tuition increase. I was appalled by his tone, threats and complete lack of understanding OR transparency as to how higher education in Michigan is funded. Judging by his position, I believe it to be the latter.
First, as a parent of two prospective kids heading to college in the future, the rising costs are something that needs to be addressed. My issue with his viewpoint-and several others in Lansing-is that the funding system is illogical, unfair and has been so for a long time. In fact, Oakland is the lowest funded school in the state. They have been at or near the bottom in funding for decades. The fact that they have continued to improve academically and compete with other institutions is astonishing. I think it speaks to the fact that the school has done the belt-tightening and would be defined as a lean public institution in direct contradiction to Al Pscholka’s opinion. Just look at how much State Reps make and how many full time staff each member has if you want to look for opportunities for belt-tightening.
Some examples he used were UM and MSU being able to keep tuition increases to around 2%. What he failed to share was that the state already provides them with more than twice as much money per student than Oakland receives. Specifically addressing tuition, MSU charges $3k more per year while UM is more than $4k more per year. So, not only do they get a lot more money, they charge students a lot more money. This is the major flaw in his argument and a problem with the funding model. By the way, his alma mater, Western, is allotted almost twice as much money as Oakland and costs $1k more. I guess Representative Al has no problem looking out for his own.
I understand that there are some legitimate reasons why some schools receive more than others, but there certainly should not be a wide gap when your main argument is keeping college affordable for families. There is a reason why Oakland’s faculty, staff, and classroom space are among the least favorable in the state. Its growth, innovation, and commitment to lean principles have allowed it to continue to be a major player in higher ed. But as President Hynd states, growth is not a sustainable plan for long-term success.
Obviously, this is a complicated issue and there is plenty to discuss for anyone that is interested. The reality of it is that Oakland is underrepresented in Lansing. I saw it in the arrogance of the lawmakers 20 years ago as an undergrad during OU days at the capital. This still appears to be a problem. We need our graduates to get to Lansing to tell the story of Oakland’s growth and success. I do not believe a fair and equitable resolution to higher education funding will take place until we make ourselves a factor in Lansing. Much to the dismay of our friends at UDM, we do not receive copious amounts of dollars from the state and have much more in common with them than they want to admit.
July 13 Podcast-Al Pscholka
www.wjr.com/frank-beckmann-archives/#
A few weeks ago I happened to catch the Frank Beckmann show where he had State Representative, Al Pscholka from west Michigan as a guest, discussing OU’s tuition increase. I was appalled by his tone, threats and complete lack of understanding OR transparency as to how higher education in Michigan is funded. Judging by his position, I believe it to be the latter.
First, as a parent of two prospective kids heading to college in the future, the rising costs are something that needs to be addressed. My issue with his viewpoint-and several others in Lansing-is that the funding system is illogical, unfair and has been so for a long time. In fact, Oakland is the lowest funded school in the state. They have been at or near the bottom in funding for decades. The fact that they have continued to improve academically and compete with other institutions is astonishing. I think it speaks to the fact that the school has done the belt-tightening and would be defined as a lean public institution in direct contradiction to Al Pscholka’s opinion. Just look at how much State Reps make and how many full time staff each member has if you want to look for opportunities for belt-tightening.
Some examples he used were UM and MSU being able to keep tuition increases to around 2%. What he failed to share was that the state already provides them with more than twice as much money per student than Oakland receives. Specifically addressing tuition, MSU charges $3k more per year while UM is more than $4k more per year. So, not only do they get a lot more money, they charge students a lot more money. This is the major flaw in his argument and a problem with the funding model. By the way, his alma mater, Western, is allotted almost twice as much money as Oakland and costs $1k more. I guess Representative Al has no problem looking out for his own.
I understand that there are some legitimate reasons why some schools receive more than others, but there certainly should not be a wide gap when your main argument is keeping college affordable for families. There is a reason why Oakland’s faculty, staff, and classroom space are among the least favorable in the state. Its growth, innovation, and commitment to lean principles have allowed it to continue to be a major player in higher ed. But as President Hynd states, growth is not a sustainable plan for long-term success.
Obviously, this is a complicated issue and there is plenty to discuss for anyone that is interested. The reality of it is that Oakland is underrepresented in Lansing. I saw it in the arrogance of the lawmakers 20 years ago as an undergrad during OU days at the capital. This still appears to be a problem. We need our graduates to get to Lansing to tell the story of Oakland’s growth and success. I do not believe a fair and equitable resolution to higher education funding will take place until we make ourselves a factor in Lansing. Much to the dismay of our friends at UDM, we do not receive copious amounts of dollars from the state and have much more in common with them than they want to admit.