… Cutting strings |

… Cutting strings

Angelo Armenti’s call for less state control of Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education institutions’ finances in line with less state funding is a worthy idea — especially if it would make using state funding as cover for tuition hikes more difficult.

Mr. Armenti says California University of Pennsylvania, where he’s president, and the system’s other 13 public universities can’t meet their mandate — the highest-quality education at the lowest possible cost — under the status quo. He’d like each institution to be able to determine its tuition and use of public money for itself — and be free of cost-boosting construction and procurement regulations.

Public funding, two-thirds of these schools’ budgets in 1984, is one-third this year, forcing state-system schools to rely increasingly on private funding. Still, Pennsylvania spends about $2 billion a year on higher education — and tuition hikes consistently outpace both inflation and state funding.

In keeping with their mission, greater control by state-system universities over their public funding must put affordability for students first. That means using less public money for bloated bureaucracies and palatial facilities on campus and more for delivering mandated high-quality, low-cost education.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.