SB 2017-088: College for All Act (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Sjoyce

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Donerail]

I feel as though we all have a sense of the main ideas and arguments behind this legislation. Helping hundreds of thousands of young people afford to go to college (and millions more graduate debt-free) is key to our future in an increasingly competitive and increasingly globalized economy. Dozens of other countries offer free college to their citizens in order to produce a more educated workforce. Atlasia should do the same.

I'm happy to answer any questions any of y'all may have about this legislation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).

     When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.

[Donerail]

     I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).

     When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.

That's generally what Section 3 attempts to accomplish. As I understand it, most of the increases in tuition costs are driven by administrative growth, new building, and spending on athletics. By excluding those from eligibility for funding under the bill, you exclude some of the primary sources of tuition growth.

The funding formula in 2.a. also works to prevent cost inflation—the sum given to the regions would be equivalent to whatever is necessary to eliminate tuition this year, adjusted annually to wage inflation and not to the cost of tuition as an incentive to keep costs low. I'm open to suggestions on the funding formula, but by making the calculation independent of anything under the control of college administrators I hoped to prevent any hazard that arises giving the universities a blank check.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).

     When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.

That's generally what Section 3 attempts to accomplish. As I understand it, most of the increases in tuition costs are driven by administrative growth, new building, and spending on athletics. By excluding those from eligibility for funding under the bill, you exclude some of the primary sources of tuition growth.

The funding formula in 2.a. also works to prevent cost inflation—the sum given to the regions would be equivalent to whatever is necessary to eliminate tuition this year, adjusted annually to wage inflation and not to the cost of tuition as an incentive to keep costs low. I'm open to suggestions on the funding formula, but by making the calculation independent of anything under the control of college administrators I hoped to prevent any hazard that arises giving the universities a blank check.

     Those are good ideas to control some of the causal factors, but I would also posit that the fundamental issue is that the universities are the ones who determine what the cost to eliminate tuition is. The UC system charged about $13,000 a year when I went, but this was already doubled from a decade before. If they could get $15,000/pupil, or $20,000/pupil, why wouldn't they ask for it? Much of non-profit higher ed is already seized by rent-seeking, which makes me doubt that they can be trusted to make this determination fairly.

     Along those lines, I question how much we can actually control administrative salaries. Sure, we might stop the university from hiring more secretaries and clerks at $50k, but you have presidents, chancellors, and deans making as much as $500k who, as faculty, are free to vote increases to themselves and their buddies.

     My preference to implement a plan of this sort would be to simply cap the amount tightly (though it would probably need to be regions to do that, since they control the universities) with the opportunity to show good cause to have it raised and deny them the ability to charge tuition, at least beyond a nominal fee. The problem is that this would suppose that universities would cut the fat in a rational fashion, a supposition that my experience does not give me confidence in.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).

     When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.

That's generally what Section 3 attempts to accomplish. As I understand it, most of the increases in tuition costs are driven by administrative growth, new building, and spending on athletics. By excluding those from eligibility for funding under the bill, you exclude some of the primary sources of tuition growth.

The funding formula in 2.a. also works to prevent cost inflation—the sum given to the regions would be equivalent to whatever is necessary to eliminate tuition this year, adjusted annually to wage inflation and not to the cost of tuition as an incentive to keep costs low. I'm open to suggestions on the funding formula, but by making the calculation independent of anything under the control of college administrators I hoped to prevent any hazard that arises giving the universities a blank check.

     Those are good ideas to control some of the causal factors, but I would also posit that the fundamental issue is that the universities are the ones who determine what the cost to eliminate tuition is. The UC system charged about $13,000 a year when I went, but this was already doubled from a decade before. If they could get $15,000/pupil, or $20,000/pupil, why wouldn't they ask for it? Much of non-profit higher ed is already seized by rent-seeking, which makes me doubt that they can be trusted to make this determination fairly.

     Along those lines, I question how much we can actually control administrative salaries. Sure, we might stop the university from hiring more secretaries and clerks at $50k, but you have presidents, chancellors, and deans making as much as $500k who, as faculty, are free to vote increases to themselves and their buddies.

     My preference to implement a plan of this sort would be to simply cap the amount tightly (though it would probably need to be regions to do that, since they control the universities) with the opportunity to show good cause to have it raised and deny them the ability to charge tuition, at least beyond a nominal fee. The problem is that this would suppose that universities would cut the fat in a rational fashion, a supposition that my experience does not give me confidence in.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, administrators would not be free to raise their own pay at taxpayers' expense because administrative salaries are not covered by these grants.  Are you suggesting that administrators could increase their pay through tuition hikes so that it would be hidden from the government?  If administrators can't be trusted to make honest assessments about how much tuition costs, then perhaps the states or regions that run these schools should have the option to veto proposed increases if they are not in the interests of the university.

[Donerail]

     Those are good ideas to control some of the causal factors, but I would also posit that the fundamental issue is that the universities are the ones who determine what the cost to eliminate tuition is. The UC system charged about $13,000 a year when I went, but this was already doubled from a decade before. If they could get $15,000/pupil, or $20,000/pupil, why wouldn't they ask for it? Much of non-profit higher ed is already seized by rent-seeking, which makes me doubt that they can be trusted to make this determination fairly.

Theoretically that shouldn't be possible, but I'll amend it to make it clearer:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My idea for the funding model is one that uses spending for this year (unaffected by any incentives this legislation may create) and adjust that sum based on independent factors afterwards, rather than one that matches growth of tuition year after year. If regions want to increase tuition beyond that amount to fund any program, they are free to do so, but they have to provide the funding for it. I'm not wedded to this particular formula (perhaps there's a better metric of education costs that's not affected by the decisions of university administrators), but I think this creates a tight enough cap that most of the issues you mentioned are controlled.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senator Scott, my thought is that these people are strictly speaking faculty and not staff. This is an important distinction in terms of the university, and setting limitations on faculty salary puts us on tricky ground since in a sense it is an attack on the independence of the university itself.

     Senator SJoyce, the issue of determining a better metric is something that I struggle with. That is part of why I settled for a hard cap when I was in the Southern government. We might encourage the regions to pursue this in some fashion, as this is probably beyond the purview of the federal government.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The amendment is adopted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This bill has say untouched for a while now. If there are no more comments then we can take this to a final vote tomorrow.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A final vote is now open on this bill. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Donerail]

Aye

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Abstain. This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Mike Thick]

Abstain, I guess

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian Regional Senate

Passed 4-0-2 in the Atlasian Senate assembled
Be it resolved, X Senator PiT, PPT[/quote]