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”
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
They Say I Blog 
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Higher education has come a long way from its traditional forms. It is not as limited to the privileged upper classes as it once was. Yet, when we compare the United States to countries such as Denmark, Finland or Norway and a few others, it seems that our progress is not as much as it should be. Even countries that do not offer free tuition cost much less than American colleges. Rapidly developing countries, like India and China, are investing in education. It should not matter whether a state is democratic or republican. Countries all over the world have realized that investing in education is not only a progress in society, but an investment in the economy. By increasing the numbers of qualified people in the workforce, not only are individuals earning more from their jobs, but companies have a larger and better qualified pool of candidates to choose from, increasing their capabilities and profits. And the message these investments send is clear and well-received—the government does care about its civilians and their educations. These are the kind of positive relations the government—which, if I recall correctly, is of, for, and by the people—should foster with its citizens. So while higher education has made progress there is still more to be done.
LikeLike
I support the idea of extra funding for education. College educated people earn more yearly income than those without degrees. The money they earn gets put back into the economy; therefore creating more job opportunities for others. If colleges granted more scholarships, more people would be educated, causing an increased stabillity in the economy. Also, better educated parents produce more thoughtful children. This leads to less prejudice and a bettered future. Although the funding of colleges would allow better job opportunities, I believe that funding public schools would better benifit our society. By starting a child off with a strong foundation, they would be more prepared for college. And if they decided not to go to college they would be more qualified for other occupations.
LikeLike
Many sates in the US have cut their higher education funds by an average of 23%, with the exception of North Dakota and Alaska. These are the only sates that have risen their funding for higher education. They have realized that education is essential to the continued success of their economies. I agree with the theory that sates should begin to invest in their people.
Although it might be hard for states to get the capital to grant funds for education, because of all the other things that they have to spend money on, education continues to prove itself as an essential element in our society. The benefits of having more graduates in the society are endless. “Research at UCLA finds that a single percentage point rise in the number of graduates in a state raises everyone else’s wages.” World wide we can see the positive consequences of having educated people in a society as well. The UK did a study of 15 countries (including the US) and gathered that “at least one third of their collective increase in labor productivity since the mid 1990s to the number of people who got graduate degrees during that time.” As time goes on the demand for graduates’ will continue to increase, around the year 2020 70% of all jobs are going to require a college education. Putting in money into higher education also shows the students that their education matters.
The state suffers in the long term when they stop investing in higher education. Without this essential funding you are removing the foundation upon which the society is built.
LikeLike
According to Jon Marcus in “Why Two States Have Poured Money into Higher Education”, on average, universities’ financial budgets have been cut by 23 percent. Only Alaska and North Dakota have increased investment in their school systems, the rest of the country continues to limit the amount of money going to their universities and local schools. The nation has looked at the short-term consequences and decided the money for schools would be better spent elsewhere. However, looking at the long-term effects, increasing money invested in schools is incredibly important to the future of our country. Investing in our children means educating people that will go on to become the future leaders and workers in our economy and government, and will be responsible for the success or failure of our nation. Also, investing money in education encourages both students and teachers to do better in their schools, raising the graduation rates and producing students not just with diplomas, but with useful knowledge and thinking skills. Marcus writes of new research showing “that a single percentage point rise in the number of graduates in a state raises everyone’s wages”. Not only does better education benefit students, it benefits everyone else in the state, and ultimately, the nation. Increasing investment in education would help the country’s economy, boost technology and knowledge, and advance the nation.
LikeLike
In his article, Jon Marcus argues that states should spend more on higher education. I agree with his view point because it will help our economy grow and it will create a brighter future for our country. With more and more people receiving higher education, the possibilities are endless. More and more people will obtain higher paying jobs and add value to the economy. This is a benefit for the country as a whole. It will be recognized as an economic super power among other nations and the population will have better opportunities to make a better living. Opponents of this viewpoint may argue that the U.S. is already an economic super power and that not all people receiving a higher education will earn a better living. But, they are wrong. Most people are where they are today because they couldn’t afford tuition to go to college and the U.S. is not the only super power.
When states spend a little more on education its essentially an investment. If done right there will be unbelievable out comes. The more that the state invests, the more people will be able to afford fees. This would lead to a higher education allowing for more and more people to make their way up. This could even end the difference between the wealthy and the poor. No one group will dominate the country allowing for a truly equal country. This will allow it to steer our country towards an even brighter direction. The opposition may suggest that the government already puts in a lot of money into education yet there are no beneficial results. However, the truth is that the U.S has moved up in its ranks in education over the past few decades mostly because of increased spending. If just a little more investment were made we could essentially out compete other countries in education.
LikeLike
In his article, “Why two states have poured money into public higher education,” author Jon Marcus argues for an increase in spending on higher education in America. Marcus believes in the necessity of higher education spending in order to improve the economy and grow the workforce and I agree with his view.
In the article, Marcus references the significant lack of investment by US states in education. In this day and age with a globally competitive knowledge economy, the only two states who have increased higher education spending since the economic downturn have been North Dakota and Alaska. As Marcus states in the article, “They’ve decided that producing educated workers and supporting university research are essential to the continued success of their economies.” As these states reap the rewards of investment in the next generation, other states are experiencing quite the opposite; some states like Arizona and Louisiana have cut their education spending by nearly 40%. David Bergeron, a former assistant US secretary of education argues that we’re hurting ourselves in the long run by our lack of investment in education, stating “if you want to have a vibrant economy in your state, you have to invest in your people. That’s what North Dakota and Alaska have recognized that other states are slow in recognizing.”
Furthermore, investment in education leads to a more intelligent workforce. As more and more people can afford to go to college, jobs in higher-paying industries like engineering become within reach. Long-term, investment in higher education is necessary, as Hesham El-Rewini states, because “you need the engineers and the scientists to contribute to the economic development of the state, not just now but for years to come.” As countries around the world like China and India (WOOOHOOO) are developing their higher education infrastructures to compete in a global economy, the United States is starting to bite the dust.
LikeLike
Jon Marcus centers his argument in “Investing in people: Jon Marcus on public higher education funding” on the fact that states like North Dakota and Alaska are increasing funding for their universities and even their community and state colleges. He explains that, thanks to the production of oil in these states that they have the extra budget and resources to accomplish these tasks. Now of course increasing funding for schools is a fantastic thing, and I agree in whole to his claims and statements. But what of the other states, yes he explains and even shows us the percentages that states are spending (or rather not spending) on their schools. But some possible ways to show how that could be done may be just what the doctor ordered in terms of his persuasion. He gives very valid points on the matter of importance to fund schools, in not only the two states he focuses on, but to others who are trying to increase their funding. However his persuasion could have been made stronger if he also focused on how the other states wish to accomplish a better school system for other states.
LikeLike
In this article, John Marcus are use that the states should spend more on higher education. Which I believe with Marcus in this situation, because I believe a society will improve and grow if they spend extra money on college education. And he gives many supporting details for funding a higher education, including public colleges and uneversities. By spending extra money on college education, a government greatly improves their society. Also investing in education benefits the entire population. As the more money for college increases! The more likely the person will have a higher wage. So all in all everyone is benefitting from this in the community. America needs to be helping with this possible change so we can produce more educated workers.
LikeLike
I agree with this article, i think higher education will make more people want to learn more. With extra money they can get new things for the students making them want to go learn more. I feel as if they did this more people will be interested in going to college and getting a career for something they’re interested in. With more educated people in the world it will make more people with less jobs creating a better economy.
LikeLike
Any investment in education institutes should not affect student’s pocket. The government should help in public higher education but keeping in mind that the cost should not be taken from students. Education should be accessible to all.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this educational tool kit. You guys are providing loans for students for higher studies. These grants and scholarship may lead to students to fulfil their dreams by getting higher education.
LikeLike