Will cutting campuses cut costs?

William C. Friday, the highly respected former University of North Carolina president, must be spinning in his grave. Few subjects were closer to Friday’s heart than keeping the 17-campus UNC system affordable to the residents of North Carolina. He knew that North Carolina was not a rich state – and that the university system represented

NCSUGRAD3NE051212CEL

William C. Friday, the highly respected former University of North Carolina president, must be spinning in his grave.

Few subjects were closer to Friday’s heart than keeping the 17-campus UNC system affordable to the residents of North Carolina. He knew that North Carolina was not a rich state – and that the university system represented an escalator of upward mobility for thousands of hard-working families who wanted to see their children earn an education and live a better life.

But in-state tuition and fees at UNC campuses – which is really a tax on brains, grit and personal initiative – has been skyrocketing. At N.C. State University, tuition and fees rose from $5,002 in 2007-08 to $8,133 this year. At UNC-Chapel Hill, it rose from $5,176 to $8,107.

Last month, the UNC Board of Governors raised N.C. State University’s tuition and fees again to $8,407 for next year, and UNC-Chapel Hill’s to $8,334 – a significant increase from what it was several years ago.

Filling the gap

The tuition increases are a means of compensating for declining state funding and rising costs. State appropriations to the UNC system have declined since 2008-2009 – first under Democratic legislatures as they sought to deal with the recession and then under Republicans who emphasized passing the largest tax cuts in North Carolina history.

North Carolina is hardly alone in this trend. As of last year, 48 states were spending less per student than they did before the recession, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based think tank.

The budget proposed last week by GOP Gov. Pat McCrory promises more of the same. He recommended a $2.6 billion budget for higher education, or a 1.2 percent cut.

To illustrate the stunning loss of momentum in the UNC system, we’ve gone from an eight-year period (2000-01 to 2008-09) where state funding of higher education rose from $1.7 billion to $2.7 billion to an eight year period (2008-09 to 2015-16) where it has dropped from $2.7 billion to $2.6 billion.

McCrory is one of only eight governors pushing to cut higher education spending, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The McCrory budget will put pressure on the UNC Board of Governors to raise tuition again and again. The budget squeeze has other effects as well – positions eliminated, increased class sizes, and more reliance on poorly paid, non-tenured teaching positions.

McCrory, in his budget, argues that North Carolina has the third-lowest state tuition in the country after Louisiana and Arkansas. That may be true by some measuring stick. While UNC is still a good value, other measuring sticks – such as U.S. News and World Report’s listing – find a couple of dozen cheaper campuses. And those do not include Hope Scholarship programs offered in neighboring states such as Georgia and Tennessee, which use state lottery money to knock $5,000 off the tuition of state students with good grades.

Who will pay?

There is now increasing talk on the UNC board about shutting down campuses as a way to cut costs. It would likely focus on the schools with the least amount of political clout in the legislature – the five historically black campuses.

That too could have a major impact on upward mobility in the state, because a large number of their students are the first in their families to attend college.

North Carolina is struggling as a result of the collapse of the textile, furniture and tobacco industries. It ranked 38th among states in per capita income in 2012, compared with 34th in 2002, and 31st in 1991.

That is the rationale put forth by Republicans on why North Carolina needs to try a new approach – lower taxes, fewer regulations and smaller government.

But those same figures also suggest that it will be more difficult for young people from financially struggling families to better themselves through a college education.

4 comments
admin
ADMINISTRATOR
PROFILE

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

4 Comments

  • sasediu
    December 23, 2018, 10:51 am

    in scholarship we go with many posters since consider prof dr mircea orasanu and prof drd horia orasanu that permitted to studies that It is widely assumed that Descartes’ philosophy of mind is organized around three major commitments. The first is to substance dualism. The second is to individualism about mental content. The third is to a particularly strong form of the doctrine of privileged first-person access. Each of these commitments has been questioned by contemporary philosophers of mind. Substance dualism is generally regarded as a non-starter, individualism has come under attack from a number of different quarters, and the doctrine of privileged access has been watered down or rejected. Yet, at least as far as questions about mental content and privileged access are concerned, contemporary discussions still address what they represent as Descartes’ views. More often than not crude parodies of these views end up as the focus of discussion but more careful critics are usually prepared to recognize that Descartes’ philosophy of mind is more subtle and nuanced than the parodies might lead one to suppose.
    Responses to substance dualism, the view that mind and body are distinct substances one of which (body) is material and the other (mind) immaterial, fall into two main categories. There are those which question its coherence and those which reject it on empirical grounds. It remains to be seen which form of objection is more appropriate but it is worth noting that some critics of substance dualism have been prepared to endorse another kind of dualism, a dualism of properties. According to this ‘dual aspect’ version of dualism mental properties are neither identical with nor reducible to physical properties, even though both mental and physical properties are properties or aspects of a single substance. This wouldn’t have satisfied Descartes but it may well be the best that can be done for dualism in the philosophy of mind.
    and as DESCARTES and LAGRANGIAN OF OPTIMIZATION CONSTRAINTS Individualism is roughly the view that which thoughts a person can have does not depend on his or her relations to the physical or social environment. A person’s thoughts are, in this sense, ‘world-independent’. Individualism about the mental, also known as ‘internalism’, is often attributed to Descartes on the basis of a reading of his thought experiments in the First Meditation. On this reading, Descartes is committed to individualism because he envisages the possibility of our being radically mistaken about the nature and existence of the world and of our thoughts remaining just as they are in these circumstances. In response, it has been claimed that it is a mistake to move from the premise that our thoughts about the world could be radically mistaken to the conclusion that they are individuated individualistically and that there are in any case good independent arguments against individualism. From an anti-individualist perspective, therefore, Descartes’ conception of mental content is of interest because it brings the defects of individualism into the sharpest possible focus.
    The doctrine of privileged first-person access says that one’s introspectively based judgements about one’s own mental states enjoy a range of epistemic privileges that judgements about non-mental reality or the mental states of others do not enjoy. One of these privileges is infallibility or immunity to error. Immunity to error does not entail immunity to ignorance but the strongest versions of the doctrine of privileged access insist on both forms of immunity. They claim that introspectively based judgements about one’s own mental states can’t be mistaken and that one can’t fail to know what is in one’s own mind. On the face of it both of these theses are too strong. Yet despite the fact that neither ignorance nor error can be ruled out with respect to many states of mind there does nevertheless appear to be something right about the doctrine of privileged access. For example, one might think that the basis on which one ascribes thinking to oneself is different from the basis on which one ascribes it to others and that at least some of one’s judgements about one’s own mind can’t be mistaken. On this account the challenge is to explain the authority of self-knowledge without exaggerating its strength or scope.
    As well as raising questions about the mind-body relation, mental content and privileged access Descartes’ philosophy of mind raises questions about the relationship between these issues. Some materialist critics of dualism have argued that the doctrine of privileged access implies the falsity of materialism, and that arguments for materialism and against dualism are therefore also implicitly arguments against privileged access. Other commentators have represented Descartes as arguing for individualism on the basis that one’s judgements about own thoughts are infallible. This has in turn sparked a debate between those who have been prepared to concede that one’s epistemic access to one’s own thoughts can’t be privileged in this way unless individualism is true and others who have argued that There is much more to be said about each of these epistemic privileges but the important point for present purposes is that they are all privileges that can be enjoyed by judgements that are not strictly infallible. So even if one is sceptical about the idea that self-knowledge is infallible one can think that it is epistemically privileged. How does this bear on Descartes’ own position? Although Descartes is often represented as having insisted that self-knowledge is both infallible and exhaustive there is some evidence which points in a different direction. It has been pointed out, for example, that Descartes’ thesis that the mind is better known than the body is what Newman calls a ‘comparative’ rather than a ‘superlative’ thesis and that Descartes regards introspective judgements about one’s own sensations as subject to error. There is also evidence in Descartes’ writings of a degree of scepticism about the idea that the mental is necessarily self-intimating. So if a ‘Cartesian’ conception of self-knowledge is committed to infallibility and self-intimation then it is at least open to question whether Descartes himself was a Cartesian. But we have seen that one can fail to be a ‘Cartesian’ without going to the opposite extreme of holding that self-knowledge is fundamentally no different from knowledge of the external world. Self-knowledge can be authoritative without being infallible.
    If we can know what we are thinking without any empirical investigation how can it nevertheless be true that our thoughts depend for their identities on our relations to the environment? This is a question about the relationship between anti-individualism and the directness or authority of self-knowledge. So-called ‘incompatibilists’ (Ludlow and Martin 1998) hold that it draws attention to a genuine problem. If I can’t know what the environment is like without any empirical investigation, and my thoughts are individuated non-individualistically, then I can’t know what I am thinking without any empirical investigation. Since I do know what I am thinking without any empirical investigation it follows that anti-individualism is false. In contrast, compatibilists hold that it can be true both that knowledge of one’s own thoughts is direct and authoritative and that some of one’s thoughts depend on relations that one bears to one’s physical and social environment. Even if knowledge of one’s environment must be empirical, it doesn’t follow that knowledge of oBurge, T. (1994). ‘Individualism and self-knowledge’. In Q. Cassam (ed.). Self-Knowledge (pp. 65-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Burge, T. (1998). ‘Individualism and the mental’. In P. Ludlow & N. Martin (Eds). Externalism and Self-Knowledge (pp. 21-83). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    Burge, T. (2003). ‘Descartes and anti-individualism: reply to Normore’. In M. Hahn & B. Ramberg (Eds.). Reflections and Replies: Essays on the Philosophy of Tyler Burge (pp. 291- 334). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    Cassam, Q. (Ed.) (1994). Self-Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Davidson, D. (1980). ‘Mental events’. In D. Davidson. Mental Events (pp. 207-225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Davidson. D. (1994). ‘Knowing One’s Own Mind’. In Q. Cassam (ed.). Self-Knowledge (pp. 43-64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Fodor, J. (1981). ‘Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology’. In J. Fodor. Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 225-53). Brighton: Harvester Press.
    Hornsby, J. (1986). ‘Physicalist thinking and conceptions of behaviour’. In P.Pettit & J. McDowell (Eds.). Subject, Thought, and Context (pp. 95-115). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Ludlow, P & Martin, N. (1998). Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    Moran, R. (2001). Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton: Princeto

    REPLY
  • dusanu
    December 28, 2018, 2:20 pm

    in important cases must mentioned that for article published appear more indications as This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles follow certain guidelines: the topic should be notable and be covered in detail in good references from independent sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – it is not a personal home page or a business list. Do not copy-paste content from other websites even if you, your school, or your boss owns them. If you choose to create the article with only a limited knowledge of the standards here, you should be aware that other editors may delete it if it’s not considered appropriate. To create full articles (as opposed to draft pages), your account must be at least 4 days (96 hours) old, and you must have made more than ten edits. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Wikipedia:Requested articles. To create an article, you can try the Article Wizard.

    WP:FIRSTARTICLE
    Welcome to Wikipedia! You have probably already edited blogs or social media sites. You have made edits that improved existing articles and now you want to start a new article from scratch. Now, if you have not done any Wikipedia editing, you cannot directly make a new article in mainspace. This permission is only for autoconfirmed users, which means those whose accounts are more than four days old and who have done at least ten edits. Non-confirmed users and non-registered users can submit a proposed article through the Articles for Creation process, where it will eventually be reviewed and considered for publication.
    First, please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our mission is to share accepted knowledge to benefit people who want to learn. We are not social media or a place to promote a company or product or person, or a place to advocate for or against anyone or anything. Please keep this in mind, always. (This is described in our "mission statement", "What Wikipedia is not".)
    We find "accepted knowledge" in high quality, published sources. By "high quality" we mean books by reputable publishers, high-quality newspapers like The New York Times, or literature reviews in the scientific literature. We summarize such sources here. That is all we do! Please make sure that anything you write in Wikipedia is based on such sources – not what is in your head.
    We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject (so, a company’s website or press releases are not OK) that appeared on wikipedia, and is observed how for non holonomic problem prof dr constantin Udriste has bring many contributions specially ub case of complex potential ,that is utilized in many other problems ,and also ,can be used for other situations as Riemann Hilbert problem and where there is a contribution of prof drd horia orasanu

    REPLY
  • casadu
    December 28, 2018, 11:26 pm

    in many situations are consideration important as observed prof dr horia orasanu and prof drd horia orasanu concerning posters as A poster is any piece of printed paper designed to be attached to a wall or vertical surface.[1] Typically posters include both textual and graphic elements, although a poster may be either wholly graphical or wholly text. Posters are designed to be both eye-catching and informative. Posters may be used for many purposes. They are a frequent tool of advertisers (particularly of events, musicians, and films), propagandists, protestors, and other groups trying to communicate a message. Posters are also used for reproductions of artwork, particularly famous works, and are generally low-cost compared to the original artwork. The modern poster, as we know it, however, dates back to the 1840s and 1850s when the printing industry perfected colour 1st
    The continuum hypothesis (that is, there is no set whose size is strictly between that of the integers and that of the real numbers)
    Proven to be impossible to prove or disprove within the Zermelo–Frankel set theory with or without the Axiom of Choice. There is no consensus on whether this is a solution to the problem.
    2nd
    Prove that the axioms of arithmetic are consistent.
    There is no consensus on whether results of Gödel and Gentzen give a solution to the problem as stated by Hilbert. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, proved in 1931, shows that no proof of its consistency can be carried out within arithmetic itself. Gentzen proved in 1936 that the consistency of arithmetic follows from the well-foundedness of the ordinal ε0.
    1st
    Proven to be impossible to prove or disprove within the Zermelo–Frankel set theory with or without the Axiom of Choice. There is no consensus on whether this is a solution to the problem.
    2nd
    There is no consensus on whether results of Gödel and Gentzen give a solution to the problem as stated by Hilbert. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, proved in 1931, shows that no proof of its consistency can be carried out within arithmetic itself. Gentzen proved in 1936 that the consistency of arithmetic follows from the well-foundedness of the ordinal ε0.

    3rd
    Given any two polyhedra of equal volume, is it always possible to cut the first into finitely many polyhedral pieces which can be reassembled to yield the second? Resolved. Result: no, proved using Dehn invariants.

    4th
    Construct all metrics where lines are geodesics.
    Too vague[12] to be stated resolved or not.

    5th
    Are continuous groups automatically differential groups?
    Resolved by Andrew Gleason, depending on how the original statement is interpreted. If, however, it is understood as an equivalent of the Hilbert–Smith conjecture, it is still unsolved.
    6th
    Axiomatize all of physics
    Unresolved.
    7th
    Is a b transcendental, for algebraic a ≠ 0,1 and irrational algebraic b ? Resolved. Result: yes, illustrated by Gelfond’s theorem or the Gelfond–Schneider theorem.

    8th
    The Riemann hypothesis (the real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is ½) and Goldbach’s conjecture (every even number greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two prime numbers).
    Unresolved.
    9th
    Find most general law of the reciprocity theorem in any algebraic number field
    Partially resolved.[13]

    REPLY
  • ciudugu
    December 30, 2018, 2:18 pm

    in thus of cases must mentioned for special cases in forms as observed prof dr mircea orasanu as followed for COLLEGE LYCEUM MAGNA or Louis university ,where are mentioned aspects as organization seeks to create leaders within Texas by addressing issues such as transportation, education and other community-based issues. The TL organizes public forums, publishes a journal and conducts polls. The Lyceum is overseen by a board of directors comprised of 96 members from across the state According to their website, the journal seeks to publish differing opinions on the issues it addresses Each has a unique and precious character. and these can be contribution to education and development of other aspects of person as possible names for the community

    REPLY

Latest Posts

Top Authors

Most Commented

Featured Videos