ShareThis Page
State lawmakers weigh ranking university performance | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

State lawmakers weigh ranking university performance

Deb Erdley
869140_web1_Ptr-MedicaidFunding-030719
The Pennsylvania State Capitol on Nov. 19, 2015 seen from State St. in Harrisburg. The Capitol’s centerpiece is a 272-foot tall dome.

Pennsylvania’s public universities would have to compete for state subsidies should a proposal circulating in the state Senate gain traction.

PennLIVE reported that state Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh County, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and state Rep. Ryan Aument, R-Lancaster Coounty, chairman of the House Education Committee, are working on a proposal calling for the formation of an 11-member commission. That group would design a funding formula for higher education that would weigh university performance on measures including graduation and retention rates, affordability, financial aid, student debt and job placement.

The Legislature doles out cash annually to four state-related universities — Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln — as well as the 14 state-owned universities under the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

For years, the institutions have had to appear before the Legislature every winter and plead their case for funding in the upcoming budget year.

PennLive reported that officials from Pitt and Penn State applauded the proposal that could dramatically change that process.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.