New York Wyoming District of Columbia Alaska North Dakota Louisiana Delaware North Carolina New Mexico Utah Wisconsin Nebraska New Hampshire Pennsylvania Alabama Texas Missouri Arkansas Oklahoma Connecticut Kentucky Tennessee Indiana Mississippi Florida Ohio Montana South Dakota United States Maine Hawaii Arizona Kansas Idaho Minnesota Iowa Vermont Massachusetts Washington Maryland Nevada New Jersey California West Virginia Michigan Oregon Virginia Georgia Illinois South Carolina Rhode Island Colorado
I dunno, being the best at not spending money we don't have during a period when government in general is really poor at that should be seen as a good thing.
I am curious to see what an absolute value chart, rather than a relative one would look like,though.
In order to have an informed opinion I would need to see the spending per capita, not just per student, and spending per 'resident student' and also look at what the state requires for residency.
I would also have to look at spending per 'resident student'.
A look at census data shows that Colorado has more freshman students then Washington state, but Colorado has a smaller population.
Population by state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Then there is the confounding problem of some states are dominated by Private Universities.
I know in Washington State there are rules that substantially discourage 'professional students'. I.E. Taking 5 or 6 or 7 years to get a Bachelors degree.
Then there is the additional problem of seperating 'state spending' per student and 'total spending' per student.
Some Universities have very profitable and substantial federal research programs that contribute substantially to 'total spending'.
It would appear that the University of Colorado at Boulder does reasonably well in the federal research dollars area. http://mup.asu.edu/Rankings-I/2010_Top25_Natl.xls
11 comments:
Who is number 1? The fact its such an outlier suggests a low population and high revenue. Alaska?
-1-Les Johnson
In order top to bottom:
New York
Wyoming
District of Columbia
Alaska
North Dakota
Louisiana
Delaware
North Carolina
New Mexico
Utah
Wisconsin
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Kentucky
Tennessee
Indiana
Mississippi
Florida
Ohio
Montana
South Dakota
United States
Maine
Hawaii
Arizona
Kansas
Idaho
Minnesota
Iowa
Vermont
Massachusetts
Washington
Maryland
Nevada
New Jersey
California
West Virginia
Michigan
Oregon
Virginia
Georgia
Illinois
South Carolina
Rhode Island
Colorado
Roger:
I do not understand the list. NH should be at the bottom based upon the data table just above Colorado.
Why bother using a metric showing rate of change since 2002? Why not just show a ranking of spending per student?
Does this mean New York should cut their spending dramatically? They'd be interested to hear that on New York campuses.
Ignoring United States as #29, that table would seem to make you #51.
I dunno, being the best at not spending money we don't have during a period when government in general is really poor at that should be seen as a good thing.
I am curious to see what an absolute value chart, rather than a relative one would look like,though.
-4-Stan and -7-Skip
2010 spending per student as requested:
Wyoming 18,901
Alaska 18,049
North Carolina 16,746
Tennessee 15,314
New York 15,017
District of Columbia 12,514
California 12,495
New Jersey 12,389
Minnesota 12,030
Kentucky 11,829
New Mexico 11,672
Louisiana 11,183
Arkansas 10,825
Hawaii 10,773
Alabama 10,771
Nebraska 10,394
Wisconsin 10,374
Maryland 10,136
Idaho 9,908
Missouri 9,805
Connecticut 9,555
Iowa 9,515
Georgia 9,400
United States 9,082
Utah 8,826
Washington 8,815
Nevada 8,800
Maine 8,657
Pennsylvania 8,602
Illinois 8,420
Massachusetts 8,101
Texas 8,051
West Virginia 8,047
Oklahoma 7,893
Michigan 7,666
Florida 7,625
North Dakota 7,467
Mississippi 7,457
South Carolina 7,306
Arizona 7,126
Ohio 7,106
Delaware 7,016
Indiana 6,755
Kansas 6,015
Virginia 5,550
South Dakota 5,440
Montana 5,170
Oregon 4,820
New Hampshire 4,795
Rhode Island 4,110
Vermont 3,875
Colorado 3,803
-6-Jonathan
Thanks, due to the low budget here in Colorado, some professors are apparently a bit slow in math (or geography) ;-)
I should have guessed Wyoming too. But Alaska was close. Both are low poulation and high resource revenue.
In order to have an informed opinion I would need to see the spending per capita, not just per student, and spending per 'resident student' and also look at what the state requires for residency.
I would also have to look at spending per 'resident student'.
A look at census data shows that Colorado has more freshman students then Washington state, but Colorado has a smaller population.
Freshman statistics -
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0287.pdf
Population by state -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Then there is the confounding problem of some states are dominated by Private Universities.
I know in Washington State there are rules that substantially discourage 'professional students'. I.E. Taking 5 or 6 or 7 years to get a Bachelors degree.
Then there is the additional problem of seperating 'state spending' per student and 'total spending' per student.
Some Universities have very profitable and substantial federal research programs that contribute substantially to 'total spending'.
It would appear that the University of Colorado at Boulder does reasonably well in the federal research dollars area.
http://mup.asu.edu/Rankings-I/2010_Top25_Natl.xls
Post a Comment