quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Why could the U.S. afford -- or why was the U.S. WILLING to afford -- to fund universities much more fully in the 60s and 70s than today?"

---

USM Sympathizer, I will venture a guess. Purely a guess. During that period I saw the federal government commit funds for lots of new programs. I will cite two. (1) Funds were provided to establish Criminal Justice programs (I'm not sure of the funding agency, but I believe it was the U.S. Department of Justice). Further, funds were provided to establish community mental health facilities and training programs (I believe that USPHS was the funding source). Universities were often the beneficiaries. There were others, but those two examples will suffice for the purpose of this response. As was the case with Criminal Justice and Mental Health, most of those new programs were very important and worthy of such support.  Many of the originally committed funds are no longer available from the feds, so universities or states that want to maintain those programs must pick up the slack). Does this make any sense at all?

Don't forget the "cold war" required large sums put into science and technology.  Also in the 60's we had the race for the moon. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: New Programs Galore
"You are certainly right, Reporter. I was just citing federal programs designed to combat pressing social problems. Funds were also pumped into science and technology. I suppose it was the spirit of the times (i.e., the "Zeitgeist") in the 60's and 70's that made the difference that USM Sympathizer noted. "

---

I agree that the science & tech component was part of it. I received financial aid as an undergraduate in the late 60's which came from the National Defense Education Act, or something similarly titled. (ok, so I told my age.)

Commercialization of education.

here is part of an article i received--someone i know said that public universities used to say they were "state-supported."  then it became "state-assisted."  now it's "state-located."

----

America is rapidly privatizing its public colleges  and universities, and that process is raising questions our society desperately needs to grapple with. Who should aspire to a higher education? To what extent are education's benefits public and social in nature, and to what extent is higher  learning a private good? What are the core values of higher education and what are we willing to pay to preserve them?

The move toward privatization is the result of a "perfect  storm" of economic and political trends that are putting  insurmountable fiscal pressures on the states. When Republican  tax policy architect Grover Norquist said, "I simply  want to reduce government to the size where I can drag  it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub," he  articulated an increasingly popular view of government.  Currently, this view is driving the federal government to shift costs and risks formerly borne at the national  level to the states, and the states, in turn, to shift costs and risks to individuals. The idea of privatizing  a portion of Social Security and the continuing press for  reductions in tax bases and tax rates follow this line  of thought. And public colleges and universities are swirling  in the vortex of this ideological storm as institutions  scramble to find new ways to fund the educational enterprise  by diversifying revenue sources and addressing new constituents.

Public colleges and universities, which enroll 77 percent  of all students in higher education, drew more than half of their operating support from taxpayer sources in the  1980s; today money from state coffers provides about 30  percent of funding. At some of the nation's most prominent public universities, such as the University of Virginia  and the University of Colorado, state funding contributes less than 10 percent of university operating support. This  steady disinvestment in higher education by the states does not seem to reflect a clear public policy decision to reduce higher education opportunities. It indicates instead structural problems in state budgets and budgeting practices. Indeed, the criticism of higher education for "exorbitant" tuition increases demonstrates a continuing belief by legislators that access to higher education is more essential than  ever, both for individuals and for the state's economic future, and that somehow universities should find a way to maintain access despite the steady erosion of funding.

In response to criticism from state legislatures, and  from the U.S. Congress as well, public universities have been extraordinarily diligent and creative in diversifying  their revenue sources: today, no single revenue source dominates-as mentioned, state funds provide 30 percent, tuition supplies about 20 percent, and gifts, grants, and  contracts (mostly for research) constitute 50 percent or  more. In effect, state taxpayers have become minority shareholders in their public colleges and universities.