Future of Missouri Higher Education
Education is one of the most important issues facing our country, and the Show-Me State in particular. Missouri’s higher education system is currently ranked 47th in the country when it comes to funding. As a poor graduate student, I can not help but think about some of my peers who are swamped with loads of debt. It gives me nightmares! This November, both gubernatorial candidates of Missouri are offering slightly different solutions for funding colleges and universities in Missouri.
Jay Nixon’s Missouri Promise plan would expand the A+ Schools Program so that all Missouri high school students who meet the performance requirements are eligible to use an A+ scholarship to attend a technical school or community college. The students who participate in the A+ program would also be able to sign the “Missouri Promise,” a deal that allows them to use a new scholarship to earn a four-year degree after completion of their two-year degree. The Missouri Promise scholarship would be contingent on earning at least a 3.0 GPA, completing 50 hours of community service, and staying out of trouble.
Kenny Hulshof would increase needs-based scholarships and establish the Missouri Prosperity Initiative, a public-private partnership that would increase funding for biotechnology, math, chemistry, and engineering. According to Hulshof’s campaign information, “State contributions will be leveraged by requiring a 2-to-1 match from businesses and philanthropic interests.” The program would also fund an endowment to “help attract world-class researchers to Missouri,” and would peg Missouri’s spending on higher education to the rate of inflation plus two percent. This would all be subject to an annual “Missouri Higher Education Accountability and Performance Report.”
First and foremost, both plans tackle the issues of funding/student loan debt while allowing for a college education to be more accessible. I do like the Missouri Promise provision pushing civic engagement by making students complete 50 community service hours. While a two-year college degree is almost equivalent to a high school degree in our current fast paced society, there are a few students that might not have had the proper training to jump right in to a major four-year institution. So those two years at a community college might provide the right stepping stone to allow targeted students to get on track for a higher degree. I also enjoy the Missouri Prosperity Initiative’s plan to increasing funding for mathematics, chemistry, and engineering. All of these areas are going to play a major role in creating new businesses in a world dominated by technology. Finding ways to increase giving, and making funding recipients accountable is also a plus.
I could continue to go on about the pros, and then list the cons, but I would like see what you all have to say about it. …
Great discussion of the issue, Calvin. I like the Hulshof proposal primarily because it has strong, voluntary incentives for targeted efforts, and because the need-based aspect of it makes me feel less like I am going to subsidize parents and kids who didn’t bother to save for college but who could have.
My main comment, though, is on what I believe is going to be the increased importance of community colleges in the future. I disagree with the author in that an associates degree is definitely more valuable than a high school diploma, even allowing for hyperbole on Calvin’s part. I think the rising costs of college, both public and private (but mainly the latter), are going to force a lot of young people to move to the 2 and 2 approach to college. There is neither good nor bad – it is how it is.
And I don’t agree with Nixon’s community service requirement to get a scholarship. There is no connection between the two. If it is an academic scholarship, why are we forcing kids to take 50 hours away from studying to go pick weeds on a highway or wash a firetruck with a bunch of reprobates from Glendale who got busted on a scavenger hunt?
Comment by David Stokes — October 16, 2008 @ 9:45 a.m.
As a holder of a high school diploma from one of our fine(?) St Louis city schools, I must say that it was indeed easier for me, in terms of money and time, to get an Associates degree from Flo Valley(before going on to UMSL) than it would have been diving into a four-year school. What bothers me about the proposals of both candidates is that they both seem to agree that the state government spending more is desirable. There are inefficiencies and bureaucratic costs associated with every government program and the hard question that virtually no politician wants to ask is “Could it be done better by spending *less*?”
Perhaps a tuition tax credit for the student or their parents. This would provide the benefit of incentivizing higher education, without requiring more taxing or increased spending.
Comment by Josh Smith — October 16, 2008 @ 12:44 p.m.
did I accidently click away from the libertarian blog?
“I can not help but think about some of my peers who are swamped with loads of debt. It gives me nightmares!”
when I think about ppl who borrow more money than they are prepared to pay back and then expect govt to help, it gives me nightmares too.
“Jay Nixon’s plan includes blah, blah, blah. Kenny Hulsof’s plan includes yada, yada, yada”
who cares what arbitrary conditions they put on dishing out the money? How much budget is each candidate asking for? pick the guy w the smaller number. end of story.
“I do like the Missouri Promise provision pushing civic engagement by making students complete 50 community service hours”
since we’re handing out socialist educations, lets get used to socialist labor armies too while we’re at it!
“I also enjoy the Missouri Prosperity Initiative’s plan to increasing funding for mathematics, chemistry, and engineering”
oh do you? well the Vroman Prosperity Initiative plans to spend TEN TIMES as much on mathematics, chemistry and engineering. perhaps you could vote for me for governor, and blog favorably about how I will steal your money from you.
Comment by vroman — October 19, 2008 @ 12:29 a.m.