"A bit of research shows that in-state resident, undergraduate tuition and fees for full time students in 1980-81 was $969. In 2009-10 it was $7,430."
Wow, a 667% increase without factoring in room, board, fees, and books. Back to one of your original points. There is a potential fallacy in what I believe you are trying to present. I may be wrong and don't care enough to research it. Here is what you presented: "30 years ago, for instance, the University of Oregon had roughly 50% of their budget funded by the state. Today, that number is 8%." It's seems that you are trying to say that the state has cut systematically cut funding. That is, you seem to making the State the one in control. Hard to believe for a left leaning state like Oregon. If you are not arguing this, that's okay because I believe the perspective is till important. What if the state has continued to give the same amount or even more of it's budget while the universities budgets have risen so sharply that what was once 50% is now 8%? I saw a great example of this argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904 J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:352067 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
