Investing in people: Jon Marcus on public higher education funding

While most states continue to suffer deep cuts to funding for public higher education, North Dakota and Alaska are increasing their education budgets substantially. Journalist Dan Marcus, who specializes in issues of higher education, examines the reasons for the difference in this article published by the Hechinger Report, an education-related news organization, in November 2014.

Read it here: Marcus, "Why two states have poured money into public higher education”

 

1. Marcus reports on state funding for public higher education in two states. In what context does he place the information that he reports? In what larger conversation is Marcus participating? What is his They Say? Is the contextualizing information adequate? Why or why not?
2. Marcus makes several concessions to points or challenges that may be raised to his argument, such as noting that North Dakota and Alaska have robust economic health due to petroleum-related activity in their states. What other concessions do you find in the article? Do they strengthen Marcus’ argument? Why or why not?
3. Marcus cites an official of the Center for American Progress who asserts that increased education funding is an act of “enlightened self-interest.” Read (or re-read) economist Joseph Stiglitz’ article linked here on They Say I Blog. Is the “self-interest properly understood” that Stiglitz refers to the same concept as the “enlightened self-interest” in Marcus’ article? Explain your reasoning.
4. What is the current situation of funding for public universities in your state? Has funding increased in the last year? What plans are in place for the next several years? Do some research using diverse sources, weigh the evidence, and formulate your position. Finally, write an essay supporting your position—whatever it may be—on the adequacy of state funding for public higher education in your state.

Comments

[A. Schwarz]

In his article, Jon Marcus argues that states should spend more on higher education. He uses the states of Alaska and North Dakota as examples of "correct" spending on higher education. He argues that spending on students benefit the long term success of the states. He calls it "enlightened self investment." It is putting money into future employees so they can get the higher paying jobs and thus pay higher taxes to them.
I have to argue with Jon Marcus's argument on the spending. Everything that was cited was not making it easier to go to college, it was making colleges better places to go. The spending was going towards construction projects, not towards lowering tuition. The reason a lot of students do not go to college is because they do not feel it is affordable. Making college more visually appealing will not make more students go to college. To make more people go to colleges, colleges need to make it more affordable.

[Matthew McDowell]

I agree with Schwarz's critique of Marcus's argument. The main factor that prevents people from attending college is the price of tuition. Marcus's plan does little to lower the tuition price and actually serves to make attending college harder for people. Increasing spending on public institutions would inevitably raise taxes and therefore take money out of students' pockets. Potential students would be forced with the decision of going into debt or not going to college. Although I agree that long term success can be achieved through higher education, I do not think states need to impose higher taxes in order to make this happen. I also don't believe everyone should go to college. It is up to each person to determine for themselves whether college is the right choice for them. By lowering taxes, people would have more money left over to pay for tuition if they so desire. Also, taxpayers' money would not be spent on a university that they may quite possibly never attend. Overall, I believe that Marcus's solution ignores the needs of most citizens and does not adequately solve the problems involved with higher education.

[Amit Singh]

I'm trying to create a bit of a stretch and want the readers consider few aspects: to begin with higher education can only be a possibility for the coming generation if their is a sense of drive in their local communities towards learning; further, this kind of a cause should be supported by states, companies and combined educational outlets to create an environment of learning. With this I mean, creation of local communities and teaching of self expression through language, art and math; here, all are needed as the earlier tools are for creating documentaries and other to measure the impact.
Lastly, education should be made accessible to all, so the local and fedral government has to intervene in the loan provisioning and discounting process as well have local, private and public institutions of knowlege discount their fee structures.

[Kieara Lockhart]

I mean in my point of view if the school has the actual money for it then they should go for it ! you don't hear of those schools doing anything like this ever so maybe it will bring them a little more business and a little more students in. I also feel that since they are doing something like this they need to do something for the students since thy are taking all of this money out of their parents pockets.. what about the people that don't have that kind of money but yet want their children to succeed in life? I feel like first they should of went around campaigning and looking for donations,sponsors and stuff like that before they go taking peoples money like that but that's just from my point of view. my mom is a single mother and tuition is already a lot thank goodness for scholarships , im just saying that's something to consider .. not everyone can pay that much

[Pierre Francois]

The current funding situation in my school that I'm attending is horrible. The school will be closing this year because of the lack of investments in the school and students. In my opinion I believe more states should get involve in investing a lot of money to their schools and students. I believe the reason only Alska and North Dakota are investing so much money in their schools, is because they don't have as much people in their states as other states. For example, who lives in Alaska that's interested in waking up to 10 feet of snow and wants to go to school. they are investing money in places where not a lot of people are located. I believe if the government could help out Benedictine university and students, we would not be in the situation that we are right now. Instead of picking tuition out of our parents pocket every semester, why don't the government help us out and invest some money on us. I know the government knows about Benedictines situation because its all over the news, but therefore no one is stepping in to help the Benedictine campus.

[Antonio Marti Polo]

1) Marcus is placing the information that he reports in the context of the economic downturn where almost all states decided to reduce the inversions in public higher education. I think the contextualizing information is adequate because shows us the two different positions that different states took to deal with the economic downturn.
2) Another concessions are, in the case of North Dakota, the demand of petroleum engineers. From my point of view those concessions do not strengthen Marcus’ arguments because those states have the necessity and the capacity of investing in higher education that probably other states do not have. 3) Stiglitz’ concept is the same one than Marcus’. Both refer to the “self-interest” as the common welfare, not only as what is good for you but what is good for the rest of the society too. 4) During the last 5-6 years of economic crisis in Spain, education has been one of the more affected sectors because of the huge reductions in the funding. In 2012 public spending on education in Spain decreased 15,04%. However, this year it is going to grown again since 2010, but just a 0,1%. Although it supposes a change in the trend of the last years, this little grown is not enough to be reflected in the quality of the Spanish education. If they want to have well prepared students and workers in the future they will need
to invest more money in education.

[Esthela Ramirez]

In paragraph 4, Jon Marcus, introduces North Dakota and Alaska how they pour money into education. He is trying to say that other states should help their public higher education. I agree with this, but if it raises the price of attending school, then I don't because not everyone can afford going right now. Other concessions: petroleum engineer in the energy industry. I semi agree with his argument because because if the state has the money to invest in schools then they should go for it. If they state doesn't have enough money than no, unless they have help from companies. The current situation at my school, is that that they are closing it in may because of insufficient funding. They are only going to keep it open, so they can focus on the graduate program rather than the traditional. Maybe if the government would have stepped into help rather than increasing tuition cost, Benedictine wouldn't be in this situation, but they aren't the only ones in financial trouble.

[Lyndi Saccaro]

1. In this article, he states that schools should spend money on a higher education for their students. He uses North Dakota and Alaska as examples to show just how little amount of importance the country is putting on education. 2. North Dakota has the demand for the petroleum so they have the funding that they can apply towards this matter that many of the others do not have. So no, this does not strengthen his argument because he goes into explaining how North Dakota and Alaska are different. 3. In my opinion the idea of "enlightened self-interest" is the same in both articles. 4. The basis for funding higher education at public universities in Illinois is based one a formulas and many different factors. In the past couple years funding for higher education in Illinois has dropped due to higher education performance and a lack of highly educated workers. Any plans to change the decline in funding would have to start with identifying and gaining a new view on our personal goals and priorities statewide. So it would be on the citizens who live and attend school in Illinois to change the way we look at our educations.

[Pierre Francois]

1-Marcus is saying that the government doesn't fund enough money on schools, they only invest a little bit on students interest and not everyone's interest.I couldn't agree more with him because it shows that not a lot of states took time to invest money on education.
2-I believe funding those jobs, they don't strengthen Marcus's point, because the schools could actually invest money on something that every students could point ant take part of and not just a majority of students can do so.
3-They both are referring to "self interest" when actually the government is suppose to look at what is good for everyone in the community and not just a majority of it.
4-The current funding situation in my school that I'm attending is horrible. The school will be closing this year because of the lack of investments in the school and students. In my opinion I believe more states should get involve in investing a lot of money to their schools and students. I believe the reason only Alska and North Dakota are investing so much money in their schools, is because they don't have as much people in their states as other states. For example, who lives in Alaska that's interested in waking up to 10 feet of snow and wants to go to school. they are investing money in places where not a lot of people are located. I believe if the government could help out Benedictine university and students, we would not be in the situation that we are right now. Instead of picking tuition out of our parents pocket every semester, why don't the government help us out and invest some money on us. I know the government knows about Benedictines situation because its all over the news, but therefore no one is stepping in to help the Benedictine campus.

[Tyler Brown]

1) Marcus states that the states don't fund universities properly and that they should be better funded as schools in Alaska and Dakota are.
2) His article has me torn in two different directions, I agree that if a state has enough money to better fund their universities that they should, but not all states have access to large amounts of petroleum as Dakota and Alaska do.
3) Their concepts are the same, they both believe that you shouldn't only look out for the best for yourself, but for the best of the whole society or civilization.
4) The funding in Illinois has dropped over the past few years due to a higher education performance, sadly, they haven't been able to help out with the closure of our school after this spring semester. For the decline in public funding for schools in Illinois, the public as a whole has to understand and speak out against the decline.
Hopefully in years to come, statewide funding will be greatly increased so that no other institution will have the same fate the Benedictine is going to encounter.

[Patrick Kelly]

1. Jon Marcus reports that Alaska and South Dakota are just two states that seem to be funding schools sufficiently. He reports this information during the time in which all of the other states are reducing their funds for schooling. His main focus he seems to be touching upon is that more funds need to be spent on schools. His "they say" is when he refers to 70% of jobs requiring degrees by the year 2020. The information he gives us seems to be accurate because of the different options in jobs he lists. He says that students without college diplomas can make around $60,000 a year, whereas students that graduate with college degrees could earn a yearly income of about $160,000.
2. Another concession in the article would be Marcus stating that Alaska's funds toward education have decreased because of taxes, while California and Florida have made double-digit increases. He goes on to say that most states have been slacking recently when it comes to funding higher education. I think that this hurts his argument because he initially said that Alaska increased their funds spent on higher education, however, it appears that they haven't been spending very much because of the taxing.
3. The idea of "enlightened self-interest" appears to be about the same because both are referring to being wealthy, which in Marcus' view requires a higher education.
4. Although my current situation at Benedictine University is not ideal, U.S. News reported that Illinois, along with North Dakota and Alaska were the top states in the country in terms of five-year spending increases.

[trevor wilson]

1) In this article Marcus is talking about how in some states the cost of education has changed due to the fall of gas price. Marcus states how some of the different prices vary and is adequate because he proves what he is saying.
2) another concession is how Illinois and a couple other states are the only ones to raise their tuition. this does strengthen his argument because it shows the other side and how some states are raising cost.3) i think that both article have strong points and can be considered similar because of there "self interest" and the cost of tuition.
4) Illinois raised their tuition by like 3 percent. this is because of the retiree pensions that need to be paid.

[Meghan Mooney]

1) In the article Marcus states that most of the states do not put in enough funding to support higher education. But some states, such as North Dakota and Alaska, support higher education than most. The They Say that can be found in the article comes from how higher education effects the economy. The more people that have a diploma determines the amount of money that the state brings in. Therefore determine how much money the state can put into higher education.
2) Another concession you can find in the article is that Illinois also helps fund for higher education, mostly because of an infusion of money for retiree pensions, not new programs or buildings. Therefore I do not think that this helps Marcus argument. This is because, unlike North Dakota and Alaska, most states do not get the same kind of money to help support higher education.
3)The "self- interest" in both of the articles of the same thing. We, the people, need to help do what is best for the community and nation, and not what we want for personal gain.
4)In the past couple years funding for higher education in Illinois has dropped due to higher education performance and a lack of highly educated workers.

[Dakota Follis]

1) In the article Marcus is taking about how states are lowing the funding into the education system, unlike North Dakota and Alaska. He think most states don't worry about education and most about gas prices.
2) I the concession doesn't strengthen Marcus argument. Alaska has started to low funding's to education due to taxes.
3) They both using "Self-interest", but the government is suppose to help the citizens.
4) In the past couple year Illinois has dropped in funding to higher education. Also Illinois lacks in higher educated workers.

[Nolan Aherin]

1. Marcus is saying that more states need to supply more funding for the higher education. His larger conversation and "they say" is that as time goes on more and more jobs are going to require a college degree, therefore, the correct amount of money needs to be funded for that education. His information is adequate because it is accurate, and satisfying information.
2. He also states that states such as Florida and California have made increases in money and still do not fund their higher education more. I think this does strengthen his argument because it shows that more states actually do need to fund their higher education better.
3. Yes, the "self interest" concepts are the same because they are both referring to gaining lots of money and Marcus says you can do that if you get a degree from a higher education.
4. As said in Marcus' article "the University of Illinois spends its increase money on retiree pensions, instead of new programs or buildings." But, according to U.S. News, Illinois is in the top ten for best funding on higher education.

[Kevin Zanger]

1) Marcus reports on state funding for a public higher education in the two states of Alaska and South Dakota. He is adding to the fact of the economic path heading downward for all the other states that don’t provide for the problems in higher educations in the public. He adds that the majority are still reducing schooling funds. Marcus is participating in the larger conversation of the world, and saying that he has seen improvements in the two states that he speaks of. His “They say” has to do with all of the people in the other states, for they must think of such topics. I believe that the contextualizing info is adequate, because of all of the examples he gives that are so precise and descriptive. 2) Another concession that Marcus discusses is the concession of taxes in Alaska as compared to other states. He tells us that Alaska’s taxes have decreased, while others have made significant increases. All in all, this hurts his argument very much. He had all these positive ideas and things about Alaska until this one detail. He lied, for what he previously said has been completely thrown off by this. 3) In my opinion, the two phrases tend to be the same in meaning. Both look out for the society in terms of what it needs and what is good for it. They both refer to wealth. 4) The current situation of funding for public universities in the state of Illinois just so happens to be a good one. It seems to be one of the top states for five-year spending increases. The plans for the next several years are, at the time, uncertain.

[Miranda Lippolt]

1. In his article, Jon Marcus places the information that he reports in the context of the economic downturn where most states have viewed funding education as not a main priority. What Marcus does not go into detail about is the other 40 states in the country and where they play a part, or other countries education funding and where they rank overall. Although Marcus' information is accurate and adequate, he is missing the grander picture of the US education system as a whole. What about small town high school funding? The quality of high school teaching?

2. Another concession is the way Illinois and a few other states have raised their tuition. This does not strengthen his argument because it demonstrates the colleges need for money, along with exhibiting that most states do not get the same kind of money to help support higher education or are not lucky enough to have something that supports their state so much economically, such as petroleum.

3. Both concepts are the same. They believe the idea that you shouldn't only look out for yourself, but for the best interest of a whole society or civilization. I believe this is the true key to success within a community.

4. Due to the fact that our current situation at Benedictine is not the greatest, I would say that the state of Illinois May be headed in a bad direction. I have also heard that other small, private colleges are predicted to run into similar issues. However, according to U.S news, Illinois is in the tops states of the country in terns of 5 year spending increases.

[Cayman]

Jon Marcus argues that states should invest more money into higher education. He points out that we are the "last ones" to realize its importance to our society. Jon says in North Dakota with a simple high school diploma you can make $60,000. But with a college degree you can make $162,000 a year. Which proves that the higher education is worth while for the college graduates salaries.Jon wants more states to invest into higher education to have more people with greater intelligence.

[Caitlin]

In john Marcus''s article, he argues that states should follow North Dakota and Alaska's example of investing money into higher education. Marcus adds the statement “We’re hurting ourselves in the long term because of our lack of investment in higher education,” by Bergeron to support his argument that in order to have an economy that thrives, you need to invest in the people that live there. However most states see he value of a higher education but with all the other things the government and legislation have to pay for, they can't afford it.

[Joella Vermeire]

1) Marcus is mainly trying to point out that the United States of America doesn't put as much into their higher education as they should. We can see how he does this when he talks about how much North Dakota and Alaska puts towards their education which in turn shows how little almost every other State puts into their higher education. Marcus also tells his readers about how other countries put into their higher education, and it seems as though America is unable to see the good that comes out of higher education; which helps him to prove the entire point of his article. 2) In Illinois, some money is given to higher education due to retiree pensions, a fact like this doesn't really help with much because it is such a small percentage. 3)I find these two topics to be very similar, there are very slight differences, even though as a whole its all the same. 4) In Illinois funding for schools as a whole has decreased over the past couple of years. We are getting less and less money from the state which makes it harder for schools to function as efficiently as they need too.

[Gloria E Norris]

I agree with Marcus states should spend more on higher education.But on the other hand,I insist that state are using people that qualify for grants as a way on keeping their doors open they put more expectation on them by letting them know if your point average is not 2.00 and you miss 3 days or more you're out of here ever to come back or course if you pay out of your pocket we will be more than glad to take you back.Moreover, with tuition sky rocket high school books out of pocket crazy high, not alone everything that you buy in the school is over prices.It forces a person to get frustrated and drop out, leaving them with a school debt for the rest of their life.3. It's not the government that should be blame for self interest.But the creed of college administrators. 4. The funding of Alaska higher education is due to the fact that not enough high school graduates in Alaska goes to college.Alaska population is 710,231 people, there is about 1 million people in Alaska only 46.4% of student's in Alaska go on to attend some level of college. I'm from Anchorage,Alaska went we wake up to 10 feet of snow our world does not come to a stop it just keep on moving nothing closed down.

[angela yatooma]

Yes, I agree with this article because i think higher education wills makes a difference in our economy. Higher education is important to be successful in all jobs and the fact that learning new technology life itself pertness to higher learning because we all need to read and write and use the computer. I wish that all states really increase the budget for higher education so the new generation will be a better seaside to the older generation because there are r future and it better for the for every one yes, Muras as a very good point in higher education and that the two states or working on a higher budget for children to have better careers with better pay and be proud of their self’s that they make it to their goals and do what their heart desires and to stay organized and be existent in what they do and be smart at it. And kids, and young adults to be the best they can be in their career and life’s with higher education I think all states should think about higher education and to bring a new way of a better life for the new generation to bring into all states plicate speakers to talk about higher education for students to make it through college and make it to the career that they want to go into and make this world a better place to live in and i like this articles from Muras.

Angela Yatooma
02/15/15.

[Rachel Bishop]

The provision of funding for higher education invests in a community's future. By spending extra money on college education, a government greatly improves their society. This increase of funds allows for more people to attend college and receive a degree in a world where getting a job is near impossible without one. If someone applies for a job without a degree, the employer is more than likely going to refuse them an interview. All this education leads to rapid innovation that improves technology and living conditions. Also, investing in education benefits a whole population. As the money for college increases, the more likely a person will have a higher wage. This nurtures local economy and encourages the growth of the state. The mining community of North Dakota provides the best example of how investing into higher education promotes wealth; it harbors people with higher wages and keeps a healthy economy. By investing in the youth and their education, one can decide how their government's and society's future will play out.

[Priya Pohani]

I agree with Marcus's argument because I believe a society will improve and grow if they spend extra money on college education. If more citizens are able to attend college and obtain a degree, there will be less jobless people on the streets. Educating more people will eventually help our economy grow. Also extra money spent on college education will bring better technology and newer methods of teaching, in turn preparing intellectual students for achieving success in their lives. One of the main reasons students are not able to attend college is because of the sky-rocketing tuition fees. If more money is invested in college education, tuition fees will eventually come down and more bright students who may not have been able to afford college before, will now be able to get an education. By investing in college education, not only are we helping individuals grow as intellectuals, but we are also doing good for our local economy and society.

[Shengyi Fu]

Jon Marcus supports funding for higher public education, including public colleges and universities. I completely agree with Marcus's argument. I believe that producing higher educated individuals benefits the individual's success and the society at large. With public education systems, students in a state can afford a higher education for a much lower price than attending an out-of-state or private college.

Today, competition for jobs is no longer regional, state, or national. It is international. People from different countries with different background come to America competing for job opportunities with Americans. Statistics show that "70 percent of all jobs are going to require a college education by somewhere around the year 2020." Without an advanced degree, future Americans may not even find jobs or bear the ability to compete for them. This could lead to even more poverty and unemployment in the United States. Higher education trains students to specialize in a specific field of study and exposes students to more opportunities in the future. During job interviews, the employer will most likely select the interviewee with more advanced training at a college or university. As a result of the education budget cut, many young Americans with potential cannot put that potential to action.

Reducing the education budget can be detrimental to the country. Colleges and universities produce talented individuals that will contribute to the society. If states cut their budget for higher education, many students cannot receive the education they deserve. With less educated individuals in America, less minds can contribute to the country. A weak America cannot compete with rising powers with a big emphasis on education such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In fact, due to the nature of competition, Americans might lose their jobs to people from other countries who probably will not look after the interests of America. America needs to produce more educated workers, beginning with funding for higher education.