The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

Public four-year colleges would lose millions of dollars, while community and for-profit colleges would gain millions, if Congress changes the formula used to allocate federal money to campus-based student-aid programs. Would the proposed change make the system fairer than it is now? Are the proposal's critics driven only by a desire to hang onto money they would lose under the plan? Read more ...

I noticed Kelly Field made a big point (in a separate paragraph, no less) that historically black colleges would also be hit hard by the proposed change. So what?

The operational word here is "also". I see no reason why HBCU should be spared from budget cuts if all other colleges and universities are being cut. No school should receive special treatment when it comes to taxpayer's dollars.

At my university college presidents are expected to go out and hustle money. I see no reason why HBCU presidents should be let off of the hook. If they are worth the enormous salaries they command, they should be able to make up any lost taxpayer dollars with private donations. If they can't, fire them.

Besides, HBCU already receive far, far too many taxpayer dollars. They can easily take a cut without having any real impact...

It is curious that the "race card" should be played on this issue. However, the universal truth is that separate and equal is neither. We all know that. The question is, are the cuts being administered proportionately? Is the financial impact on all colleges comparable with the impact on traditional black colleges? Also, aren't most traditional black colleges privately funded to a greater degree than others? It seems like I heard that once, is it still true?

Perhaps the role of the 4-year college is the issue here, with 2-year colleges that operate on a "bare bones" budget doing the preponderance of work force preparation. This is especially true in specialized areas such as nursing and other medical areas that require workforce credentialling or certification.

The debatable question lies in how open your admission policies are and in how rigorous your courses are. Are we putting enough value on the significance of Higher Education? Or, are we simply investing money in "workforce development"?

If the latter is true then why have a college in the first place? Why not just push the training aspect of education out into industry? After all, they are the ones who need the trained workers, and they seem not to be concered with education unless it can help them to make a profit.

But are the intentions of this action malevolent? If we can use the excuse that we are re-allocating the money, then we can cut the two-year colleges and the for profit colleges when nobody is looking, after the protest subsides. That way, traditional education is less likely to be able to protest when the real cuts come because they have already dealt with it and their arguments have been deflected by accountability issues. Is this the philosophy? Why cut the funding of any college? What is the excuse? I await the reply from those responsible with great anticipation.

Winners and losers in campus-based aid