FC: Shapiro's plan to unite PASSHE schools and 15 PA Community Colleges (with mention of a funding increase to the state-related universities)

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

Pennsylvania colleges would be ‘equal partners’ under new system, governor’s office says

An 11-page report offers new details about Gov. Josh Shapiro’s plan to unite the state’s university system and community colleges.

www.highereddive.com

At the end of the article -

The governor’s budget proposal also seeks increased funding for Pennsylvania’s state-related universities — Pennsylvania State, Temple and Lincoln, as well as the University of Pittsburgh.

These institutions, which receive some public money but largely operate independently, are not included in Shapiro’s merger plan. But he’s seeking to increase their state support by 5%.

Shapiro has also pitched funding Pennsylvania’s publicly supported colleges through a performance-based model, a potential change that Penn State’s leadership has supported.

 

[BobPSU92]

Is an increase of 5% enough to waste demonstrably? I’m afraid that will get lost in the weeds.

 

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

Is an increase of 5% enough to waste demonstrably? I’m afraid that will get lost in the weeds.

As the saying goes, "Waste more. Want more."

 

[Midnighter]

Pennsylvania colleges would be ‘equal partners’ under new system, governor’s office says

An 11-page report offers new details about Gov. Josh Shapiro’s plan to unite the state’s university system and community colleges.

www.highereddive.com

At the end of the article -

The governor’s budget proposal also seeks increased funding for Pennsylvania’s state-related universities — Pennsylvania State, Temple and Lincoln, as well as the University of Pittsburgh.

These institutions, which receive some public money but largely operate independently, are not included in Shapiro’s merger plan. But he’s seeking to increase their state support by 5%.

Shapiro has also pitched funding Pennsylvania’s publicly supported colleges through a performance-based model, a potential change that Penn State’s leadership has supported.

'State-related' is the dumbest thing in Pennsylvania. Does any other state do this for their flagship state university? I did a quick search and noticed the flagship STATE university for most states is better regarded and cheaper than Penn State. And do not have a dumb identifier like 'state related.'

 

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

'State-related' is the dumbest thing in Pennsylvania.

And that's saying something for PA, a state chock full of dumb.

 

[NittPicker]

'State-related' is the dumbest thing in Pennsylvania. Does any other state do this for their flagship state university? I did a quick search and noticed the flagship STATE university for most states is better regarded and cheaper than Penn State. And do not have a dumb identifier like 'state related.'

I think "state related" was created as a lifeline for our friends at Pitt and Temple. Until 1966 they were private universities and Penn State was simply a state university without the "state related" garbage. Pitt had much more political influence back then and being private was getting to be a rocky road for them. A total state bailout would likely have made too many people mad so in 1966 the state came up with the "state related" concept. The state could claim to have universities in the middle of the two largest cities. I think Penn State was thrown in so nobody would claim it was simply a plan to rescue private universities which needed more money. Proponents say it makes fund raising easier. I don't know if that's true.

Imagine hypothetically if the state of Florida wanted to bail out the University of Miami (not claiming it needs to be). It would be a hard sell to the citizens to spend public money to bail out a private university. So the politicians would come up with mumbo jumbo that Miami, FSU, and UF would all be lumped into the same class of university. It will be beneficial to all, they would say. It'll cost the state less since there would be a fair amount of autonomy, they would say. What they wouldn't say is it would drive up tuition costs for FSU and UF since the state would only kick in 10% of their respective budgets.

 

[Midnighter]

I think "state related" was created as a lifeline for our friends at Pitt and Temple. Until 1966 they were private universities and Penn State was simply a state university without the "state related" garbage. Pitt had much more political influence back then and being private was getting to be a rocky road for them. A total state bailout would likely have made too many people mad so in 1966 the state came up with the "state related" concept. The state could claim to have universities in the middle of the two largest cities. I think Penn State was thrown in so nobody would claim it was simply a plan to rescue private universities which needed more money. Proponents say it makes fund raising easier. I don't know if that's true.

Imagine hypothetically if the state of Florida wanted to bail out the University of Miami (not claiming it needs to be). It would be a hard sell to the citizens to spend public money to bail out a private university. So the politicians would come up with mumbo jumbo that Miami, FSU, and UF would all be lumped into the same class of university. It will be beneficial to all, they would say. It'll cost the state less since there would be a fair amount of autonomy, they would say. What they wouldn't say is it would drive up tuition costs for FSU and UF since the state would only kick in 10% of their respective budgets.

Insightful, but still dumb. All the top public universities are state universities. PSU wallows in mediocrity and hides behind its nebulous state related status to avoid transparency and oversight.

 

[BobPSU92]

Insightful, but still dumb. All the top public universities are state universities. PSU wallows in mediocrity and hides behind its nebulous state related status to avoid transparency and oversight.

Mediocrity? Maybe on a good day. Maybe.

 

[NittPicker]

Insightful, but still dumb. All the top public universities are state universities. PSU wallows in mediocrity and hides behind its nebulous state related status to avoid transparency and oversight.

All that is true. People on the outside looking in want transparency which I agree with. But it's weird how when some of those people get to the inside (BOT members), all of the sudden transparency and oversight cease to become a priority. I guess once you make it through the door of the clubhouse, it's important to be sure you stay there and nobody gets to see how the sausage is made.

The only other similar "state related" situation I can think of is Cornell and the State of New York. IIRC, the state may help fund a specific portion of Cornell's academics (agriculture maybe?). It's a land grant university but is still fully private even with the state assist. Maybe that could be a model PSU could shoot for but the endowment would need to be much, much higher to help offset tuition increases. Decades down the road it seems more likely PSU will become private as opposed to becoming a full state university again.

 

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

All that is true. People on the outside looking in want transparency which I agree with. But it's weird how when some of those people get to the inside (BOT members), all of the sudden transparency and oversight cease to become a priority. I guess once you make it through the door of the clubhouse, it's important to be sure you stay there and nobody gets to see how the sausage is made.

The only other similar "state related" situation I can think of is Cornell and the State of New York. IIRC, the state may help fund a specific portion of Cornell's academics (agriculture maybe?). It's a land grant university but is still fully private even with the state assist. Maybe that could be a model PSU could shoot for but the endowment would need to be much, much higher to help offset tuition increases. Decades down the road it seems more likely PSU will become private as opposed to becoming a full state university again.

The Cornell model proposal has been bandied about from time to time.

 

[Midnighter]

The Cornell model proposal has been bandied about from time to time.

Cornell enrollment is like 21,000. Seems to have a different ‘mission’ than Penn State (which should be more easily accessible to Pennsylvania students). It’s also the worst of the Ivies….(TIC).

 

[BobPSU92]

Penn State laughs at cornell.

 

[Midnighter]

Penn State laughs at cornell.

Like this:

 

[GrimReaper]

'State-related' is the dumbest thing in Pennsylvania. Does any other state do this for their flagship state university? I did a quick search and noticed the flagship STATE university for most states is better regarded and cheaper than Penn State. And do not have a dumb identifier like 'state related.'

Delaware.

The Cornell model proposal has been bandied about from time to time.

Cornell enrollment is like 21,000. Seems to have a different ‘mission’ than Penn State (which should be more easily accessible to Pennsylvania students). It’s also the worst of the Ivies….(TIC).

Cornell is a hybrid. Most of its undergraduate units are entirely private and receive little or no state funding. Four schools are designated as "contract" schools where NY State residents receive reduced tuition. Yet, at nearly $44k, a discount of about $22k, it is still considerably more than tuition at a SUNY school.

 

[Midnighter]

Delaware.




Cornell is a hybrid. Most of its undergraduate units are entirely private and receive little or no state funding. Four schools are designated as "contract" schools where NY State residents receive reduced tuition. Yet, at nearly $44k, a discount of about $22k, it is still considerably more than tuition at a SUNY school.

How does this format still qualify as an Ivy? I guess I ask that not knowing the qualifications to be an Ivy, but this seems like a massive outlier compared to Ivy peers.

Also: Delaware? Good company I guess....

 

[ApexLion]

I think "state related" was created as a lifeline for our friends at Pitt and Temple. Until 1966 they were private universities and Penn State was simply a state university without the "state related" garbage. Pitt had much more political influence back then and being private was getting to be a rocky road for them. A total state bailout would likely have made too many people mad so in 1966 the state came up with the "state related" concept. The state could claim to have universities in the middle of the two largest cities. I think Penn State was thrown in so nobody would claim it was simply a plan to rescue private universities which needed more money. Proponents say it makes fund raising easier. I don't know if that's true.

Imagine hypothetically if the state of Florida wanted to bail out the University of Miami (not claiming it needs to be). It would be a hard sell to the citizens to spend public money to bail out a private university. So the politicians would come up with mumbo jumbo that Miami, FSU, and UF would all be lumped into the same class of university. It will be beneficial to all, they would say. It'll cost the state less since there would be a fair amount of autonomy, they would say. What they wouldn't say is it would drive up tuition costs for FSU and UF since the state would only kick in 10% of their respective budgets.

Thank you. This is exactly what happened. At the same time, the state opened up governance of PSU to any 'captain of industry' that could get on the BOT and feather their nest. PSU has naturally had leadership issues since the opening of this box. The last president to actually rule the university was Joab Thomas and even he had to deal with an increase in BOT members (political flunkies then and it continues today) in order to make real investments in the university while watching costs.

Who the hell runs a state university with 38 BOT members, half of whom could care less what the university president thinks as long as they are benefitting? Definition of bloat. Built-in opportunity for trough feeding.

 

[BobPSU92]

Like this:

 

[Midnighter]

Thank you. This is exactly what happened. At the same time, the state opened up governance of PSU to any 'captain of industry' that could get on the BOT and feather their nest. PSU has naturally had leadership issues since the opening of this box. The last president to actually rule the university was Joab Thomas and even he had to deal with an increase in BOT members (political flunkies then and it continues today) in order to make real investments in the university while watching costs.

Who the hell runs a state university with 38 BOT members, half of whom could care less what the university president thinks as long as they are benefitting? Definition of bloat. Built-in opportunity for trough feeding.

Found an article from 2020 that said the average board size for public universities was 12; 28 for private.

 

[GrimReaper]

How does this format still qualify as an Ivy? I guess I ask that not knowing the qualifications to be an Ivy, but this seems like a massive outlier compared to Ivy peers.

Also: Delaware? Good company I guess....

The only qualifications to be an Ivy is that all of the other members agree that you can be in the club. There are no academic requirements per se. The athletic league does have rules that members have to follow.

 

[PSUFTG2]

Found an article from 2020 that said the average board size for public universities was 12; 28 for private.

Most "governance experts" would take the position that a 36 member Board is not optimal. That its sheer size creates a petri dish that tends to catalyze and foster poor governance function.

That said, there are very high functioning governance Boards with large membership numbers - and very poor functioning governance Boards with small membership numbers (ENRON's Board - when it collapsed - had 15 members - a number most governance "experts" would say is more or less ideal).

The point being, "picking some ideal number" is in no way, shape or form some panacea (else governance would be very easy - just pick the "right" number of members and sit back and watch greatness happen).
Smaller boards may be more likely to catalyze the types of behaviors that are congruent with good governance (A premise that I would agree with). But good governance comes from good governors - no matter how many there are.

As it relates to PSU: PSU's history of "suboptimal governance performance" has far more to do with other factors - other than size alone.

 

[ApexLion]

Most "governance experts" would take the position that a 36 member Board is not optimal. That its sheer size creates a petri dish that tends to catalyze and foster poor governance function.

That said, there are very high functioning governance Boards with large membership numbers - and very poor functioning governance Boards with small membership numbers (ENRON's Board - when it collapsed - had 15 members - a number most governance "experts" would say is more or less ideal).

The point being, "picking some ideal number" is in no way, shape or form some panacea (else governance would be very easy - just pick the "right" number of members and sit back and watch greatness happen).
Smaller boards may be more likely to catalyze the types of behaviors that are congruent with good governance (A premise that I would agree with). But good governance comes from good governors - no matter how many there are.

As it relates to PSU: PSU's history of "suboptimal governance performance" has far more to do with other factors - other than size alone.

Agreed. The catalyst was the state affiliated deal. It's not about numbers. It's about structure and motivations by those involved.

 

[leinbacker]

Penn State laughs at cornell.

Penn State is too big to fail!

 

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

Penn State is too big to fail!

Too big to completely fail, but it is now and has been failing in many ways since 2011. Those who were lying in wait to fill the power vacuum they created by Joe's firing and Spanier's dismissal were tactical in order to get their way but lacked a strategy to ensure future success, and PSU has been a rudderless ship ever since.

 

[GrimReaper]

Is an increase of 5% enough to waste demonstrably? I’m afraid that will get lost in the weeds.

Neels will not be happy.

 

[TiogaLion]

Is an increase of 5% enough to waste demonstrably? I’m afraid that will get lost in the weeds.

Did @LionJim help you with the maths?

 

[retsio]

In 1964, Penn State Vice Pres. Richard Althouse presented Penn States plan for cost savings and expansion to the PA Legislature. At that time, the subjective PA donation to Penn State was in the neighborhood of 8% - as best as I can remember. Enrollment was 22,000 in the fall and 17,000 in the summer. -- I was there. Dick Althouse, the son of the VP was a fraternity brother.

Penn State was willing to accept the responsibilities of all of the local State sponsored schools - e.g. Kutztown, East Stroudsburg, Lincoln (formerly State Teachers Colleges) and rename them as part of Penn State. This would offer additional Penn State caliber academics all over the state. The proposed program would be a duplicate of the California system.

This would allow Penn State to have local college campuses and buildings already in place - rather than have to build new facilities costing greater expenses far into the future.

The PA Legislature said 'NO' - this would make Penn State too powerful, and PA needed to keep the original names, buildings and campus alignment in place. Penn State was told to concentrate on what it had at that time, the Legislature felt a local connection to a college was absolutely necessary. Penn State having just been a University for 10 years needed to stay by itself.

 

[PSUFTG2]

In 1964, Penn State Vice Pres. Richard Althouse presented Penn States plan for cost savings and expansion to the PA Legislature. At that time, the subjective PA donation to Penn State was in the neighborhood of 8% - as best as I can remember. Enrollment was 22,000 in the fall and 17,000 in the summer. -- I was there. Dick Althouse, the son of the VP was a fraternity brother.

Penn State was willing to accept the responsibilities of all of the local State sponsored schools - e.g. Kutztown, East Stroudsburg, Lincoln (formerly State Teachers Colleges) and rename them as part of Penn State. This would offer additional Penn State caliber academics all over the state. The proposed program would be a duplicate of the California system.

This would allow Penn State to have local college campuses and buildings already in place - rather than have to build new facilities costing greater expenses far into the future.

The PA Legislature said 'NO' - this would make Penn State too powerful, and PA needed to keep the original names, buildings and campus alignment in place. Penn State was told to concentrate on what it had at that time, the Legislature felt a local connection to a college was absolutely necessary. Penn State having just been a University for 10 years needed to stay by itself.

FWIW: And to clarify:

All 19 of PSU's Commonwealth Campuses - aside from a few (Harrisburg, Brandywine, Beaver and Shenango) - were already in place prior to 1964.

 

[GrimReaper]

FWIW: And to clarify:

All 19 of PSU's Commonwealth Campuses - aside from a few (Harrisburg, Brandywine, Beaver and Shenango) - were already in place prior to 1964.

And in the late 70s or early 80s PSU was approached by a group of legislators to gauge how it would react to becoming a state university, with increased funding and considerably greater oversight by Harrisburg. After two or three meetings., the group was told to pound sand.

 

[psuro]

Can't believe we have a University that our wrestling team cannot be proud of. Perhaps if Cael went and spoke to the Board about this......

 

[kgilbert78]

Penn State used to be called a "Public Ivy". These days, the only Ivy thing about PSU is the cost.