Advertisement
| federal funding for higher education history: Between Citizens and the State Christopher P. Loss, 2014-04-07 This book tracks the dramatic outcomes of the federal government's growing involvement in higher education between World War I and the 1970s, and the conservative backlash against that involvement from the 1980s onward. Using cutting-edge analysis, Christopher Loss recovers higher education's central importance to the larger social and political history of the United States in the twentieth century, and chronicles its transformation into a key mediating institution between citizens and the state. Framed around the three major federal higher education policies of the twentieth century--the 1944 GI Bill, the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and the 1965 Higher Education Act--the book charts the federal government's various efforts to deploy education to ready citizens for the national, bureaucratized, and increasingly global world in which they lived. Loss details the myriad ways in which academic leaders and students shaped, and were shaped by, the state's shifting political agenda as it moved from a preoccupation with economic security during the Great Depression, to national security during World War II and the Cold War, to securing the rights of African Americans, women, and other previously marginalized groups during the 1960s and '70s. Along the way, Loss reappraises the origins of higher education's current-day diversity regime, the growth of identity group politics, and the privatization of citizenship at the close of the twentieth century. At a time when people's faith in government and higher education is being sorely tested, this book sheds new light on the close relations between American higher education and politics. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Reexamining the Federal Role in Higher Education Rebecca S. Natow, 2022 This book provides a comprehensive description of the federal government's relationship with higher education and how that relationship became so expansive and indispensable over time. Drawing from constitutional law, social science research, federal policy documents, and original interviews with key policy insiders, the author explores the U.S. government's role in regulating, financing, and otherwise influencing higher education. Natow analyzes how the government's role has evolved over time, the activities of specific governmental branches and agencies that affect higher education, the nature of the government's influence today, and prospects for the future of federal involvement in higher education. Chapters examine the politics and practices that shape policies affecting nondiscrimination and civil rights, student financial aid, educational quality and student success, campus crime, research and development, intellectual property, student privacy, and more. Book Features: Provides a contemporary and thorough understanding of how federal higher education policies are created, implemented, and influenced by federal and nonfederal policy actors. Situates higher education policy within the constitutional, political, and historical contexts of the federal government. Offers nuanced perspectives informed by insider information about what occurs behind the scenes in the federal higher education policy arena. Includes case studies illustrating the profound effects federal policy processes have on the everyday lives of college students, their families, institutions, and other higher education stakeholders. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Federal Support for Education , 1980 |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Higher Education Act Congressional Research Service, 2015-01-16 The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329) authorizes numerous federal aid programs that provide support to both individuals pursuing a postsecondary education and institutions of higher education (IHEs). Title IV of the HEA authorizes the federal government's major student aid programs, which are the primary source of direct federal support to students pursuing postsecondary education. Titles II, III, and V of the HEA provide institutional aid and support. Additionally, the HEA authorizes services and support for less-advantaged students (select Title IV programs), students pursing international education (Title VI), and students pursuing and institutions offering certain graduate and professional degrees (Title VII). Finally, the most recently added title (Title VIII) authorizes several other programs that support higher education. The HEA was last comprehensively reauthorized in 2008 by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA; P.L. 110-315), which authorized most HEA programs through FY2014. Following the enactment of the HEAO, the HEA has been amended by numerous other laws, most notably the SAFRA Act, part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152), which terminated the authority to make federal student loans through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. Authorization of appropriations for many HEA programs expired at the end of FY2014 but has been extended through FY2015 under the General Education Provisions Act. This report provides a brief overview of the major provisions of the HEA. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Higher Education Opportunity Act United States, 2008 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant System, 1995-10-27 Although few Americans work as farmers these days, agriculture on the whole remains economically importantâ€playing a key role in such contemporary issues as consumer health and nutrition, worker safety and animal welfare, and environmental protection. This publication provides a comprehensive picture of the primary education system for the nation's agriculture industry: the land grant colleges of agriculture. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities informs the public debate about the challenges that will shape the future of these colleges and serves as a foundation for a second volume, which will present recommendations for policy and institutional changes in the land grant system. This book reviews the legislative history of the land grant system from its establishment in 1862 to the 1994 act conferring land grant status on Native American colleges. It describes trends that have shaped agriculture and agricultural education over the decadesâ€the shift of labor from farm to factory, reasons for and effects of increased productivity and specialization, the rise of the corporate farm, and more. The committee reviews the system's three-part missionâ€education, research, and extension serviceâ€and through this perspective documents the changing nature of funding and examines the unique structure of the U.S. agricultural research and education system. Demographic data on faculties, students, extension staff, commodity and funding clusters, and geographic specializations profile the system and identify similarities and differences among the colleges of agriculture, trends in funding, and a host of other issues. The tables in the appendix provide further itemization about general population distribution, student and educator demographics, types of degree programs, and funding allocations. Concise commentary and informative graphics augment the detailed statistical presentations. This book will be important to policymakers, administrators, educators, researchers, and students of agriculture. |
| federal funding for higher education history: A History of American Higher Education John R. Thelin, 2019-04-02 The definitive history of American higher education—now up to date. Colleges and universities are among the most cherished—and controversial—institutions in the United States. In this updated edition of A History of American Higher Education, John R. Thelin offers welcome perspective on the triumphs and crises of this highly influential sector in American life. Exploring American higher education from its founding in the seventeenth century to its struggle to innovate and adapt in the first decades of the twenty-first century, Thelin demonstrates that the experience of going to college has been central to American life for generations of students and their families. Drawing from archival research, along with the pioneering scholarship of leading historians, Thelin raises profound questions about what colleges are—and what they should be. Covering issues of social class, race, gender, and ethnicity in each era and chapter, this new edition showcases a fresh concluding chapter that focuses on both the opportunities and problems American higher education has faced since 2010. The essay on sources has been revised to incorporate books and articles published over the past decade. The book also updates the discussion of perennial hot-button issues such as big-time sports programs, online learning, the debt crisis, the adjunct crisis, and the return of the culture wars and addresses current areas of contention, including the changing role of governing boards and the financial challenges posed by the economic downturn. Anyone studying the history of this institution in America must read Thelin's classic text, which has distinguished itself as the most wide-ranging and engaging account of the origins and evolution of America's institutions of higher learning. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Funding a Revolution National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Committee on Innovations in Computing and Communications: Lessons from History, 1999-02-11 The past 50 years have witnessed a revolution in computing and related communications technologies. The contributions of industry and university researchers to this revolution are manifest; less widely recognized is the major role the federal government played in launching the computing revolution and sustaining its momentum. Funding a Revolution examines the history of computing since World War II to elucidate the federal government's role in funding computing research, supporting the education of computer scientists and engineers, and equipping university research labs. It reviews the economic rationale for government support of research, characterizes federal support for computing research, and summarizes key historical advances in which government-sponsored research played an important role. Funding a Revolution contains a series of case studies in relational databases, the Internet, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality that demonstrate the complex interactions among government, universities, and industry that have driven the field. It offers a series of lessons that identify factors contributing to the success of the nation's computing enterprise and the government's role within it. |
| federal funding for higher education history: 120 Years of American Education , 1993 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Who Should Pay? Natasha Quadlin, Brian Powell, 2022-01-14 Americans now obtain college degrees at a higher rate than at any time in recent decades in the hopes of improving their career prospects. At the same time, the rising costs of an undergraduate education have increased dramatically, forcing students and families to take out often unmanageable levels of student debt. The cumulative amount of student debt reached nearly $1.5 trillion in 2017, and calls for student loan forgiveness have gained momentum. Yet public policy to address college affordability has been mixed. While some policymakers support more public funding to broaden educational access, others oppose this expansion. Noting that public opinion often shapes public policy, sociologists Natasha Quadlin and Brian Powell examine public opinion on who should shoulder the increasing costs of higher education and why. Who Should Pay? draws on a decade’s worth of public opinion surveys analyzing public attitudes about whether parents, students, or the government should be primarily responsible for funding higher education. Quadlin and Powell find that between 2010 and 2019, public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of more government funding. In 2010, Americans overwhelming believed that parents and students were responsible for the costs of higher education. Less than a decade later, the percentage of Americans who believed that federal or state/local government should be the primary financial contributor has more than doubled. The authors contend that the rapidity of this change may be due to the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the growing awareness of the social and economic costs of high levels of student debt. Quadlin and Powell also find increased public endorsement of shared responsibility between individuals and the government in paying for higher education. The authors additionally examine attitudes on the accessibility of college for all, whether higher education at public universities should be free, and whether college is worth the costs. Quadlin and Powell also explore why Americans hold these beliefs. They identify individualistic and collectivist world views that shape public perspectives on the questions of funding, accessibility, and worthiness of college. Those with more individualistic orientations believed parents and students should pay for college, and that if students want to attend college, then they should work hard and find ways to achieve their goals. Those with collectivist orientations believed in a model of shared responsibility – one in which the government takes a greater level of responsibility for funding education while acknowledging the social and economic barriers to obtaining a college degree for many students. The authors find that these belief systems differ among socio-demographic groups and that bias – sometimes unconscious and sometimes deliberate – regarding race and class affects responses from both individualistic and collectivist-oriented participants. Public opinion is typically very slow to change. Yet Who Should Pay? provides an illuminating account of just how quickly public opinion has shifted regarding the responsibility of paying for a college education and its implications for future generations of students. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Get Funded: An Insider's Guide to Building An Academic Research Program Robert J. Trew, 2017-04-13 Gain a head start in your academic career with this step-by-step guide to building an externally funded research program. |
| federal funding for higher education history: American Higher Education Since World War II Roger L. Geiger, 2021-05-25 A masterful history of the postwar transformation of American higher education In the decades after World War II, as government and social support surged and enrollments exploded, the role of colleges and universities in American society changed dramatically. Roger Geiger provides an in-depth history of this remarkable transformation, taking readers from the GI Bill and the postwar expansion of higher education to the social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, desegregation and coeducation, and the ascendancy of the modern research university. He demonstrates how growth has been the defining feature of modern higher education, but how each generation since the war has pursued it for different reasons. Sweeping in scope and richly insightful, this groundbreaking book provides the context we need to understand the complex issues facing our colleges and universities today, from rising inequality and skyrocketing costs to deficiencies in student preparedness and lax educational standards. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Land-Grant Universities for the Future Stephen M. Gavazzi, E. Gordon Gee, 2018-11-15 Land-grant colleges and universities have a storied past. This book looks at their future. Land-grant colleges and universities occupy a special place in the landscape of American higher education. Publicly funded agricultural and technical educational institutions were first founded in the mid-nineteenth century with the Morrill Act, which established land grants to support these schools. They include such prominent names as Cornell, Maryland, Michigan State, MIT, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Texas A&M, West Virginia University, Wisconsin, and the University of California—in other words, four dozen of the largest and best public universities in America. Add to this a number of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges—in all, almost 300 institutions. Their mission is a democratic and pragmatic one: to bring science, technology, agriculture, and the arts to the American people. In this book, Stephen M. Gavazzi and E. Gordon Gee discuss present challenges to and future opportunities for these institutions. Drawing on interviews with 27 college presidents and chancellors, Gavazzi and Gee explore the strengths and weaknesses of land-grant universities while examining the changing threats they face. Arguing that the land-grant university of the twenty-first century is responsible to a wide range of constituencies, the authors also pay specific attention to the ways these universities meet the needs of the communities they serve. Ultimately, the book suggests that leaders and supporters should become more fiercely land-grant in their orientation; that is, they should work to more vigorously uphold their community-focused missions through teaching, research, and service-oriented activities. Combining extensive research with Gee’s own decades of leadership experience, Land-Grant Universities for the Future argues that these schools are the engine of higher education in America—and perhaps democracy’s best hope. This book should be of great interest to faculty members and students, as well as those parents, legislators, policymakers, and other area stakeholders who have a vested interest in the well-being of America’s original public universities. |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education Roger L. Williams, 1991-04-08 The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education revises the traditional interpretation of the land-grant college movement, whose institutions were brought into being by the 1862 Morrill Act to provide for the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes. Rather than being the inevitable consequence of the unfolding dynamic of institutional and socioeconomic forces, Williams argues, it was the active intervention and initiative of a handful of educational leaders that secured the colleges' future—above all, the activities of George W. Atherton. For nearly three decades, Atherton, who was the seventh president of the Pennsylvania State University, worked to secure consistent federal financial support for the colleges, which in their early years received little assistance from the states they were designed to benefit. He also helped to develop the institutions as comprehensive national universities grounded in the liberal arts and sciences—a conception that countered the prevailing view of the colleges as mainly agricultural schools. Atherton became the prime mover in the campaign to enact the 1887 Hatch Act, which encouraged the establishment of agricultural experiment stations at land-grant colleges. The act marked the federal government's first effort to provide continuous funding to research units associated with higher education institutions. At the same time, Atherton played a key role in the formation of the first association of such institutions: The Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. It was the Association that provided the critical mass needed to lobby Congress successively and to approach the many opportunities and threats the land-grant colleges faced during the 1885–1906 period. Atherton was also deeply involved in the campaign for the Morrill Act of 1890, which provided long-sought annual appropriations to land-grant colleges for a broad range of academic programs and encouraged steady growth in state support during the 1890s. Roger Williams traces the motives and tactics behind a series of laws that made the federal government irreversibly committed to funding higher education and scientific research and provides rich new insights into the complexities, polarities, and inherent contradictions of the history of the American land-grant movement. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Committee on Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century, 2003-04-29 Bioterrorism, drug-resistant disease, transmission of disease by global travel . . . there's no shortage of challenges facing America's public health officials. Men and women preparing to enter the field require state-of-the-art training to meet these increasing threats to the public health. But are the programs they rely on provide the high caliber professional training they require? Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? provides an overview of the past, present, and future of public health education, assessing its readiness to provide the training and education needed to prepare men and women to face 21st century challenges. Advocating an ecological approach to public health, the Institute of Medicine examines the role of public health schools and degree-granting programs, medical schools, nursing schools, and government agencies, as well as other institutions that foster public health education and leadership. Specific recommendations address the content of public health education, qualifications for faculty, availability of supervised practice, opportunities for cross-disciplinary research and education, cooperation with government agencies, and government funding for education. Eight areas of critical importance to public health education in the 21st century are examined in depth: informatics, genomics, communication, cultural competence, community-based participatory research, global health, policy and law, and public health ethics. The book also includes a discussion of the policy implications of its ecological framework. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Removing College Price Barriers Michael Mumper, 1996-01-01 Presents the political, economic, and demographic factors that interact to produce and perpetuate increasing college price barriers. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Higher Education for the Public Good Adrianna Kezar, Anthony C. Chambers, John C. Burkhardt, 2015-06-22 This important book explores the various ways that higher education contributes to the realization of significant public ends and examines how leaders can promote and enhance their contribution to the social charter through new policies and best practices. It also shows how other sectors of society, government agencies, foundations, and individuals can partner with institutions of higher education to promote the public good. Higher Education for the Public Good includes contributions from leaders in the field—many of whom participated in dialogues hosted by the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good. These leaders are responsible for creating successful strategies, programs, and efforts that foster the public’s role in higher education. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Higher Education in Texas Charles R. Matthews, 2018 Higher Education in Texas is the first book to tell the history, defining events, and critical participants in the development of higher education in Texas from approximately 1838 to 1970. Charles Matthews, Chancellor Emeritus of the Texas State University System, begins the story with the land grant policies of the Spanish, Mexicans, Republic of Texas, and the State of Texas that led to the growth of Texas. Religious organizations supplied the first of many colleges, years before the Texas Legislature began to fund and support public colleges and universities. Matthews devotes a chapter to the junior/community colleges and their impact on providing a low-cost education alternative for local students. These community colleges also played a major role in economic development in their communities. Further chapters explore the access and equity in educating women, African Americans, and Hispanics. This is a strong contribution to the scholarship on Texas higher education.--Matthew Fuller, College of Education, Sam Houston State University |
| federal funding for higher education history: Oregon Blue Book Oregon. Office of the Secretary of State, 1895 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Digest of Education Statistics , 1973 Contains information on a variety of subjects within the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, enrollments, teachers, graduates, educational attainment, finances, Federal funds for education, libraries, international education, and research and development. |
| federal funding for higher education history: The State Must Provide Adam Harris, 2021-08-10 “A book that both taught me so much and also kept me on the edge of my seat. It is an invaluable text from a supremely talented writer.” —Clint Smith, author of How the Word is Passed The definitive history of the pervasiveness of racial inequality in American higher education America’s colleges and universities have a shameful secret: they have never given Black people a fair chance to succeed. From its inception, our higher education system was not built on equality or accessibility, but on educating—and prioritizing—white students. Black students have always been an afterthought. While governments and private donors funnel money into majority white schools, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and other institutions that have high enrollments of Black students, are struggling to survive, with state legislatures siphoning away federal funds that are legally owed to these schools. In The State Must Provide, Adam Harris reckons with the history of a higher education system that has systematically excluded Black people from its benefits. Harris weaves through the legal, social, and political obstacles erected to block equitable education in the United States, studying the Black Americans who fought their way to an education, pivotal Supreme Court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, and the government’s role in creating and upholding a segregated education system. He explores the role that Civil War–era legislation intended to bring agricultural education to the masses had in creating the HBCUs that have played such a major part in educating Black students when other state and private institutions refused to accept them. The State Must Provide is the definitive chronicle of higher education’s failed attempts at equality and the long road still in front of us to remedy centuries of racial discrimination—and poses a daring solution to help solve the underfunding of HBCUs. Told through a vivid cast of characters, The State Must Provide examines what happened before and after schools were supposedly integrated in the twentieth century, and why higher education remains broken to this day. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Unprofitable Schooling Todd J. Zywicki, Neal P. McCluskey, 2019-02-12 Most economies advance by simultaneously decreasing costs and increasing quality. Unfortunately, when it comes to higher education, this has been turned on its head. Costs keep rising while quality declines. How has this happened? What can be done? This exceptional volume looks at the issues facing higher education from the perspective of both economics and history. Each chapter explores how the lessons learned from market competition in other sectors of the economy can be applied to higher education in order to bring about innovation, improved quality, and lower costs. The opening section offers a history of for-profit education before the Morrill Act—the federal legislation that funded land-grant universities; reviews the Act’s impact; and concludes with an exploration of federal student aid and how it prevents new funding options from entering the market. Section two examines higher education as it stands today—what is driving up college prices; tenure; administrative bloat; and university governance. And, the concluding third section shows how robust competition in higher education can be energized, and takes a deep look at for-profit vs. non-profit institutions. Unprofitable Schooling provides a sober and informative assessment of the state of higher education, critically covering historical assumptions, increasing government involvement, reflexive aversion to profit, and other, maybe unexpected, conclusions. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Higher Education Accountability Robert Kelchen, 2018-02-27 Beginning with the earliest efforts to regulate schools, the author reveals the rationale behind accountability and outlines the historical development of how US federal and state policies, accreditation practices, private-sector interests, and internal requirements have become so important to institutional success and survival |
| federal funding for higher education history: Education Statistics Quarterly , 1999 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Education Code Texas, 1972 |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education Kevin J. Dougherty, Rebecca S. Natow, 2015-05-15 One of the striking ways in which state governments have pursued better performance in public higher education is through the use of performance funding. Performance funding involves tying state support directly to institutional performance on specific outcomes such as rates of graduation and job placement. The principal rationale for performance funding has been that the introduction of market-like forces will prod institutions to become more efficient, delivering more bang for the buck. Kevin Dougherty, an expert on state performance funding, finds its development puzzling. First, despite the great interest in it, only half the states have ever adopted performance funding for higher education. Moreover, of the states that did adopt performance funding, over half later dropped it. Finally, in the states that have retained performance funding over a long period of time, their programs have undergone considerable changes in the amount of state funding they devote to performance funding and in the content of the indicators they use to allocate that funding. In spite of this, performance funding continues to attract interest as a way of improving educational outcomes. This book, based on an extensive ten-state study, aims to shed light on the social and political factors affecting the origins, evolution, and demise of these programs-- |
| federal funding for higher education history: Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline, 2011-07-29 In order for the United States to maintain the global leadership and competitiveness in science and technology that are critical to achieving national goals, we must invest in research, encourage innovation, and grow a strong and talented science and technology workforce. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation explores the role of diversity in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce and its value in keeping America innovative and competitive. According to the book, the U.S. labor market is projected to grow faster in science and engineering than in any other sector in the coming years, making minority participation in STEM education at all levels a national priority. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation analyzes the rate of change and the challenges the nation currently faces in developing a strong and diverse workforce. Although minorities are the fastest growing segment of the population, they are underrepresented in the fields of science and engineering. Historically, there has been a strong connection between increasing educational attainment in the United States and the growth in and global leadership of the economy. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation suggests that the federal government, industry, and post-secondary institutions work collaboratively with K-12 schools and school systems to increase minority access to and demand for post-secondary STEM education and technical training. The book also identifies best practices and offers a comprehensive road map for increasing involvement of underrepresented minorities and improving the quality of their education. It offers recommendations that focus on academic and social support, institutional roles, teacher preparation, affordability and program development. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Financing Public Universities Marcel Herbst, 2007-05-16 This crucial book addresses newer practices of resource allocation which tie university funding to indicators of performance. It covers the evolvement of mass higher education and the associated curtailment of funding, the public management reform debate within which performance-based budgeting or funding evolved, and sketches alternative governance and management modes which can be used instead. Four appendices cover more technical matters. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Unmaking the Public University Christopher Newfield, 2011-04-30 An essential American dream—equal access to higher education—was becoming a reality with the GI Bill and civil rights movements after World War II. But this vital American promise has been broken. Christopher Newfield argues that the financial and political crises of public universities are not the result of economic downturns or of ultimately valuable restructuring, but of a conservative campaign to end public education’s democratizing influence on American society. Unmaking the Public University is the story of how conservatives have maligned and restructured public universities, deceiving the public to serve their own ends. It is a deep and revealing analysis that is long overdue. Newfield carefully describes how this campaign operated, using extensive research into public university archives. He launches the story with the expansive vision of an equitable and creative America that emerged from the post-war boom in college access, and traces the gradual emergence of the anti-egalitarian “corporate university,” practices that ranged from racial policies to research budgeting. Newfield shows that the culture wars have actually been an economic war that a conservative coalition in business, government, and academia have waged on that economically necessary but often independent group, the college-educated middle class. Newfield’s research exposes the crucial fact that the culture wars have functioned as a kind of neutron bomb, one that pulverizes the social and culture claims of college grads while leaving their technical expertise untouched. Unmaking the Public University incisively sets the record straight, describing a forty-year economic war waged on the college-educated public, and awakening us to a vision of social development shared by scientists and humanists alike. |
| federal funding for higher education history: College Access and Affordability Susan P. Choy, 1999 |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education Richard G. Axt, Commission on Financing Higher Education, 1952 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Higher Education Amendments of 1992 United States, 1992 |
| federal funding for higher education history: Mismatch Richard Sander, Stuart Taylor Jr, 2012-10-09 The debate over affirmative action has raged for over four decades, with little give on either side. Most agree that it began as noble effort to jump-start racial integration; many believe it devolved into a patently unfair system of quotas and concealment. Now, with the Supreme Court set to rule on a case that could sharply curtail the use of racial preferences in American universities, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor offer a definitive account of what affirmative action has become, showing that while the objective is laudable, the effects have been anything but. Sander and Taylor have long admired affirmative action's original goals, but after many years of studying racial preferences, they have reached a controversial but undeniable conclusion: that preferences hurt underrepresented minorities far more than they help them. At the heart of affirmative action's failure is a simple phenomenon called mismatch. Using dramatic new data and numerous interviews with affected former students and university officials of color, the authors show how racial preferences often put students in competition with far better-prepared classmates, dooming many to fall so far behind that they can never catch up. Mismatch largely explains why, even though black applicants are more likely to enter college than whites with similar backgrounds, they are far less likely to finish; why there are so few black and Hispanic professionals with science and engineering degrees and doctorates; why black law graduates fail bar exams at four times the rate of whites; and why universities accept relatively affluent minorities over working class and poor people of all races. Sander and Taylor believe it is possible to achieve the goal of racial equality in higher education, but they argue that alternative policies -- such as full public disclosure of all preferential admission policies, a focused commitment to improving socioeconomic diversity on campuses, outreach to minority communities, and a renewed focus on K-12 schooling -- will go farther in achieving that goal than preferences, while also allowing applicants to make informed decisions. Bold, controversial, and deeply researched, Mismatch calls for a renewed examination of this most divisive of social programs -- and for reforms that will help realize the ultimate goal of racial equality. |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Pig Book Citizens Against Government Waste, 2013-09-17 The federal government wastes your tax dollars worse than a drunken sailor on shore leave. The 1984 Grace Commission uncovered that the Department of Defense spent $640 for a toilet seat and $436 for a hammer. Twenty years later things weren't much better. In 2004, Congress spent a record-breaking $22.9 billion dollars of your money on 10,656 of their pork-barrel projects. The war on terror has a lot to do with the record $413 billion in deficit spending, but it's also the result of pork over the last 18 years the likes of: - $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa - $102 million to study screwworms which were long ago eradicated from American soil - $273,000 to combat goth culture in Missouri - $2.2 million to renovate the North Pole (Lucky for Santa!) - $50,000 for a tattoo removal program in California - $1 million for ornamental fish research Funny in some instances and jaw-droppingly stupid and wasteful in others, The Pig Book proves one thing about Capitol Hill: pork is king! |
| federal funding for higher education history: Big Data on Campus Karen L. Webber, Henry Y. Zheng, 2020-11-03 Webber, Henry Y. Zheng, Ying Zhou |
| federal funding for higher education history: Trends in Postsecondary Education , 1971 |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Policy and Global Affairs, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Committee on Integrating Higher Education in the Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018-06-21 In the United States, broad study in an array of different disciplines â€arts, humanities, science, mathematics, engineering†as well as an in-depth study within a special area of interest, have been defining characteristics of a higher education. But over time, in-depth study in a major discipline has come to dominate the curricula at many institutions. This evolution of the curriculum has been driven, in part, by increasing specialization in the academic disciplines. There is little doubt that disciplinary specialization has helped produce many of the achievement of the past century. Researchers in all academic disciplines have been able to delve more deeply into their areas of expertise, grappling with ever more specialized and fundamental problems. Yet today, many leaders, scholars, parents, and students are asking whether higher education has moved too far from its integrative tradition towards an approach heavily rooted in disciplinary silos. These silos represent what many see as an artificial separation of academic disciplines. This study reflects a growing concern that the approach to higher education that favors disciplinary specialization is poorly calibrated to the challenges and opportunities of our time. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education examines the evidence behind the assertion that educational programs that mutually integrate learning experiences in the humanities and arts with science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) lead to improved educational and career outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students. It explores evidence regarding the value of integrating more STEMM curricula and labs into the academic programs of students majoring in the humanities and arts and evidence regarding the value of integrating curricula and experiences in the arts and humanities into college and university STEMM education programs. |
| federal funding for higher education history: Preservation Assistance Grants , |
| federal funding for higher education history: Budget of the United States Government Executive Office of the President of the, 2008-02 Contains the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Message of the President and information on the President's budget and management priorities, and budget overviews organized by agency. |
| federal funding for higher education history: The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) Cassandria Dortch, 2015-06-26 The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill)-enacted as Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008-is the newest GI Bill and went into effect on August 1, 2009. There were four main drivers for the Post-9/11 GI Bill: (1) providing parity of benefits for reservists and members of the regular Armed Forces, (2) ensuring comprehensive educational benefits, (3) meeting military recruiting goals, and (4) improving military retention through transferability of benefits. By FY2010, the program had the largest numbers of participants and the highest total obligations compared to the other GI Bills. |
City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union for banking, lending, ATM and credit cards. Mobile app, auto loans, home equity, checking. Membership available to all. Banking in Amarillo.
Online Privacy Policy - City Federal Credit Union
To learn what City Federal Credit Union does with your personal information please view our Privacy Notice and Privacy Policy or contact us by mail, phone, or email.
Products/Services - City Federal Credit Union
Products & Services. ACH & Direct Deposit Certificates of Deposit (CD) Checking Accounts Direct Deposit Drive Through Lanes With Extended Hours E Statements
Home Banking Questions - City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union Home Banking Questions and Answers Q: What is Home Banking? A: Home Banking allows you to view your account from the comfort of your home. You can make …
Contact Us - City Federal Credit Union
Main Office Number: (806)373-4313. 24/7 Debit Card Line: (888)263-3370. Lincoln Lobby Hours. M-F 9:00 a.m.— 5:30 p.m. Lincoln Drive-Thru Hours M-Th 9:00 a.m.— 5:30 p.m.
Who We Are - City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union is privileged to have the leadership of its Board of Directors. The Board is composed of volunteers who have oversight of the credit union. The Credit Union's Board of …
Online Privacy Policy
City Federal Credit Union is owned by its members and run by a board of directors you elect. You can be confident that your financial privacy is a top priority of this credit union. We give you …
About Us - City Federal Credit Union
“City Federal Credit Union is committed to exceed our members expectations to meet their financial happiness, while providing a heartfelt and long-lasting relationship.” Community …
City FCU Mobile App - City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union does not endorse or guarantee 3rd party links. The products and services offered on 3rd party sites are not products of City FCU. City FCU cannot attest to the …
Welcome [www.cityfederalcu.com]
People's Federal Credit Union Potter-Randall Appraisal District Amarillo Chamber Of Commerce (Employees) North Heights Linen Service. Street Volkswagen. Eastern Point Trust Company. …
City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union for banking, lending, ATM and credit cards. Mobile app, auto loans, home equity, checking. Membership available to all. Banking in Amarillo.
Online Privacy Policy - City Federal Credit Union
To learn what City Federal Credit Union does with your personal information please view our Privacy Notice and Privacy Policy or contact us by mail, phone, or email.
Products/Services - City Federal Credit Union
Products & Services. ACH & Direct Deposit Certificates of Deposit (CD) Checking Accounts Direct Deposit Drive Through Lanes With Extended Hours E Statements
Home Banking Questions - City Federal Credit Union
City Federal Credit Union Home Banking Questions and Answers Q: What is Home Banking? A: Home Banking allows you to view your account from the comfort of your home. You can make transfers, check balances, …
Contact Us - City Federal Credit Union
Main Office Number: (806)373-4313. 24/7 Debit Card Line: (888)263-3370. Lincoln Lobby Hours. M-F 9:00 a.m.— 5:30 p.m. Lincoln Drive-Thru Hours M-Th 9:00 a.m.— 5:30 p.m.
