I take it that they’d follow the same rules as public schools do today. For example they’d have to accept any student who applies within their district who has a high school diploma or a GED. Is that how it would work?
Marc
I couldn’t let the Rice University reference go by without chiming in.
Yes indeed, Rice used to be free, thanks to a huge endowment. The benefactor, one William Marsh Rice, intended for the school to be free for qualified applicants. Operating expenses were to be paid from investment income on the endowment.
The endowment was $4.6 million in 1904 when Mr. Rice’s estate was settled.[sup]1[/sup] It was over $10 million when the university was founded in 1912. When I graduated in 1991, it was over $1.1 billion.
My father, who graduated in 1968, was in one of the last classes who paid no tuition. The trustees had to actually break the founder’s will in 1966 to start charging tuition to classes matriculating that year.[sup]2[/sup]
Nevertheless, tuition at Rice has always been lower than at comparable universities. When I graduated in 1991, tuition was $7900. (It was $4200 when I matriculated!) Tuition at Northwestern U. was about $13K. Today, in 2001, Rice tuition is $16.8K (which blows my mind, BTW), while Northwestern is $25.8K. (U.S. News & World Report has Rice and Northwestern tied on their list of colleges this year; hence the comparison. Also, I almost went to Northwestern instead of Rice. :))
[sup]1[/sup]Rice actually died in 1900, when he was murdered–the butler did it. His New York lawyer, one Albert Patrick, then tried to pass off a forged will. His Houston lawyer, James A. Baker, exposed the crime. Mr. Baker’s grandson, the U.S. Sec’y of State, spoke at my graduation in 1991.
[sup]2[/sup] Actually, the trustees also broke the will to be allowed to admit minority students. Mr. Rice, a product of his time, wanted the university to provide a free education to qualified white students. To his credit, though, both men and women were admitted from the start.
Slight fork:
Isn’t it interesting, which topic can cause a lurker to come out of the shadows?
This is one topic that strikes close to home for several reasons for me, for two major reasons, they are closely related.
College for “free”. (Yes, I’m entirely in the camp that nothing is free, tanstaafl.) Should underprivileged people (and NOT just kids, what about single moms, single dads, or MickyD workers that are approaching 30 and decide to actually try for better?) receive a full ride? IMO, no.
Why? I don’t think giving peeps stuff actually works all that well, working for something provides a much higher appreciation of what you have, and gives a greater sense of accomplishment. Give them help, but make them pay, somehow, not necessarily money, I see highways that need cleaning…
What really bugs me though, is that our society has decided that college is required to get ahead, and corporations are on the same boat. It has been posted that there are some people that have advanced degrees are doing, shall we say, less than optimal labor, but yet, the companies require that they have a degree to do it. This is not efficient (I do so love that word).
And, if I may point out, it is not the only way to get into a great paying/challenging/stable/whatever career. I do not have a degree, I barely have two years of college (all jr. college level general requirements) that have very little to do with my job. I spent 5 years going from unloading trucks in a warehouse for a company to traveling the country installing new networks and systems, no formal classes to get there. I studied, I read magazines, participated with local user groups, and hung out at PC shops. I learned a great deal, and it gave me the foundation to make that jump into what I wanted to do. My point is that it was done on my own, I have no piece of paper to tell an employer that I know what I’m doing, I have experience instead. A catch-22, I know, how to get experience if you can’t get the job, etc. I won’t go into my details other than to say if you apply yourself, and do some basic research (libraries are the greatest gov’t institution IMHO), and WORK, you can get to where you want without a degree. That is really my point, applying oneself to the fullest extent possible is how to get ahead. Most employers aren’t dumb, if you bust yer butt, they notice, if not, find one that does. College can be a springboard, but not the only one.
OK, done with my rant…
(Please don’t flame the newbie… 
)
>This is one topic that strikes close to home for several reasons for me, for two major reasons,…
Several reasons or two reasons, whatever works.
Man, screwing up your very first post, is there an award for that?
MGibson asked:
I don’t know what others on this board would advocate, but in Australia, where a considerable proportion of university education is subsidised by the public (see my post, above), admission still requires a minimum level of educational achievement.
This level is set by the universities themselves. At times it can seem pretty low, but i don’t think that this is necessarily a product of the way the system is funded. I am a grad student and Teaching Assistant at a prestigious and fucking expensive American university (ca. $26,000 annual tuition; luckily i’m on a fellowship), and what i have seen so far does not indicate that the undergrads in attendance there are, on average, any smarter or any dumber than students that i studied with and taught in Australia.
The last time i was home, admission to a degree in medicine or law required a Higher School Certificate grade (in the state of New South Wales) of about 98.5 or greater. This is a percentile system, so a grade of 98.5 means that the student is in the top 1.5% of all high school graduates in the state. A science degree required a score of about 72 (i.e. top 28%), and an arts/humanities degree required a score of about 58 (top 42%). These figures may not be exact, and they change each year with demand, but they give an idea of cut-offs. As you can see, even in a partially publicly-funded system, there is still a minimum academic standard for admission, and this is as it should be.
Of course, another problem that this brings up is the educational opportunities available to different people at the elementary and high school levels. Inequity is still built into the system, and i’m afraid it does not look like being fixed anytime soon.
[unrelated rant]At the risk of offending all the fans of college basketball and football out there (i enjoy watching these sports too), i’m amazed at the obsession with sport shown by so many institutions of higher education in the US. I wonder how many smart kids miss out on their first choice of college because their place is taken by a D-average jock who can throw a ball.
Of course, people are going to write and say that these universities only allow people who pass their courses to play, but i’ve only been in the US for a year and i’ve already heard quite a few stories from academics who have been pressured by sporting coaches to pass a marginal student because he’s a valuable member of the football team. Having the rule is one thing; enforcing it is another.[/unrelated rant]
Of course, your conceptions of american athletics are right on the money.
I personally find it absurd that colleges give scholarships to atheletes. After all, college should be about actually learning stuff. Instead, a ridiculous amount of energy and money is put into the football, basketball, etc. teams. Just think what would happen if the same resources were put into education!
I am not saying I don’t like sports. And I don’t mind at all if students want to play sports. Intra-murals are just fine. But having these silly teams that are transported all over the country, and given scholarships because they can throw footballs is ridiculous.
I am currently studying at the “#1 jock school in the nation” according to Sports Illustrated. The energy put into these football games is simply amazing. Basically, the entire town in a six-block radius of the stadium shuts down. All so people can go watch other people play a game.
LOL
THAT was funny.