NO PROBLEM as long as lawmakers also stop getting so many free perks on insurance, gasoline, mailings, travel, etc. And then other government employees at other government services and businesses like liquor stores, bureaus, and enforcement divisions also get no discounts. Nor should police and government officials get by without a ticket when stopped. And farmers should get no discounts or be paid to not plant a crop or reimbursed for buying seed from Governemnt run Co-ops. The list just goes on and on as to discounts where taxpayers foot the bill.

Well said Rich! Agree completely.

Why do you call this a "free ride" for professors and their families? The tuition waver enables the state to pay their faculty a lower salary, in exchange for a benefit that many never take. Let's say a hundred faculty members at Penn State, in any given year, have children attending Penn State. The added cost to Penn State is zilch. The University can easily absorb the students into existing classes. The total state-wide benefit may be"worth" $10.1 million but the cost to taxpayers is closer to that of a Peachy Paterno ice cream cone.
The lawmaker connects the benefit to faculty making over $100,000. That's a convenient deception. It also (and mainly) goes to faculty members making $60,000 and less. Moreover, and significantly, the benefit is NOT just for faculty members but to all full-time employees. Thus kitchen staff and custodians and groundskeepers also have the opportunity to send their kids to state schools they could not otherwise afford--again, at little cost to anyone.
Republicans continue to try to save taxpayer dollars by taking from the poor and middle class in order to to reduce, even further, taxes from the wealthiest among us.
Why does Brad Roae distort the prevalence of faculty making $100,000 and make no mention of those making millions and billions and paying lower taxes to IRS than a Penn State tuition? The superrich don't work. They watch their portfolios grow. And they fly around in their tax-deductable planes to tax deductible resort vacations.

It is not a free ride any more than paid vacation to any and all. It is a benefit. Some profs make $100,000/year, which may sound like too much to high school dropouts and community college graduates, but one must stay aware that senior level profs have high education such as PhDs (this involves high intellect and effort and expertise, in case you dropouts in government don't know) and long research track records (research drives the economy, in case you dropouts in government don't know). How about saving taxpayer money by cutting salaries and benefits of certain individuals who do not appreciate the contribution of achievement?
Mr. Gerard, the rich don't work? Do you mean they do not dig ditches all day? Keep in mind that the rich got rich taking advantage of opportunities that were also available to you in this great country.It seems you are not one of these rich so how do you know what they do - just sit back and watch their money grow? Did you try squirelling away some money and then watching it grow? Sounds like sour grapes of a loser to me.

Yes---I agree---it should stop. It seems like it would have to save a lot more than $83 per student. What if kitchen staff and custodians are contracted by outside companies and are not employed by the college? I doubt they are getting free tuition for themselves or their kids. I guess I should see if I can get free health care since I work at a hospital. HAHAHA what a dream that would be!

I can't think of a greater outrage than to give these wavers out to elite select few. USING the excuse of them being a 'bargaining' is abominable, it is nothing more than cheating the system for privilege characters while many other hard-working students are denied a higher education. An absolute outrage! These professors should hang their heads in shame for even accepting it. The same people who usually shoot down every other issue, what a disgusting farce!

Check the competition. It's a universal benefit offered by public and private institutions. What pays for a lot of graduate degrees? This benefit as college graduates accept low wage jobs at universities to pay for graduate school. That's how the system has worked for the past 150 years. The example of the high paid professor is generally the exception and only supports an argument of Reductio ad absurdum. The individual taking advantage of this benefit tends to be the dishwasher. Go ahead and end the benefit and you only put Pennsylvania public institutions at a disadvantage. The good will leave to work for the thousands of other institutions that offer the benefit. And, scores of graduate students will seek to study elsewhere. I agree with the prior poster. The legislature, the most corrupt in the United States with more legislators behind bars, needs to examine itself, its compensation, its pensions and its benefits. I have a nephew who is seeking employment at a major university to continue his graduate education. He needs this benefit. I will email him and tell him to avoid Pennsylvania and its soon to become second-rate public universities.

I agree with another pov's post. Why is it all the sudden so popular to attack educators as tho they're pariah sucking off the taxpayer's teet? Guess there's nothing underhanded about corporations and individuals working the tax system to their benefit tho. Hypocrites. These are hard working people enjoying the benefit of their employment. If you're really against "free rides", question why it's ok for people to pay less taxes on capital gains than on actual labor. There's a candidate running right now who basically inherited his wealth than used his influence to protect his assets. Where's your outrage over that?

People have a basic misunderstanding of pay scales in education. I knew a woman who was on the board of trustees of a very exclusive all girls prep school. She was head of the search committee for a new school chancellor. I got a chance to read several of the resumes and was very surprised at the quality of the candidates. People with Harvard PhDs applying for a job that only pays $85,000.00 a year. These people could easily land a much higher paying position, but they would rather work in education. To get them to do it, there has to be other things in the package. Free tuition for their child is not that big of a deal. And APOV is right that if schools like Penn State drop these benefits, the best professors and staff, will look else where. Some of the best engineering professors in the country are at Penn State. Loose them to a private college and replace them with educators that are willing to work for low wages and no benefits the quality of the education will go down.

Bottome line... it's a taxpayer funded give-away. If you are a Democrat... you live for this stuff... a great way to provide a union payoff and create another dependent state union worker wonk voter.

African and African American Studies
Anthropology
Applied Mathematics
Astrophysics
Biomedical Engineering
Chemical and Physical Biology
Chemistry
Chemistry and Physics
Classics
Computer Science
Earth and Planetary Sciences
East Asian Studies
Economics
Engineering Sciences
English
Environmental Science and Public Policy
Folklore and Mythology
Germanic Languages and Literatures
Government
History
History and Literature
History and Science
History of Art and Architecture
Human Developmental and Regenerative Biology
Human Evolutionary Biology
Linguistics
Literature
Mathematics
Molecular and Cellular Biology
Music
Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
Neurobiology
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
Philosophy
Physics
Psychology
Comparative Study of Religion
Romance Languages and Literatures
Slavic Languages and Literatures
Social Studies
Sociology
South Asian Studies
Special Concentrations
Statistics
Visual and Environmental Studies
Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality
Yep....all they offer at Harvard is History.....you should try the google sometime.....

@Crestor- I may have been incorrect about his inheritance, but let's not act az tho his father's years as an automotive exec and governor didn't aid him in where he is total or that that history is anything like the average Americans. That's not jealousy, that's just what it is. I don't fault him for being wealthy. I fault him for trying to relate to the everyday man while he defends trickle down economics and he stores untold sums on off shore accounts to avoid paying domestic taxes. as for capital gains, investing returns on investment isn't the same as earning income and then investing that. Seriously, you think it's ok for your president to work the system like that while you bash educators?

Now that I have heard all the arguments, it's only fair to point out the obvious fallacy of this example of how to save taxpayer money. The conclusion that 10.1 million will be saved by eliminating tuition waivers is based on two faulty premises. The first is that all students taking advantage of the tuition waiver will immediately pay the tuition bill if the waiver is eliminated. The legislator offers no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion. A student could choose to pay the tuition or attend another institution and pay the tuition for that institution. I would tend to believe that the second option is more plausible because once the incentive of free tuition is removed, students are more likely to use other variables besides cost savings to make college choices. But, I have no more empirical evidence than the legislator, so my conclusion is just as weak as his. You cannot believe that raising a price will sell the same number of units. The second premise is based on the fallacy that a savings will exist by not having the free student in the class. There is no marginal saving by reducing a class by one student. Fixed costs remain. You still must have a teacher and a classroom, etc. The earlier poster is correct that such tuition waiver programs do not really burden a school because the added free student does not increase costs. Our legislature has again failed us.

Well benefit or not a benefit...the problem is simple let's just pay all of the professors equal to those on welfare and then give them the same benefits as those on welfare...sound simple and easy.

Open season on smart people? I like the first comment best.

The comments here smack of communism. Bring down the intellectual and make him common with the common man and don't attack the wealthiest of the wealthy because poor them, they can't afford more taxes. A comedian once said, "Shaquile O'Neal is rich". "The guy who signs his check is wealthy". "I want to be wealthy". LOL! This all sounds like most here that complain are jealous that they have failed to secure the material benefits of hard work and education, but would ask it be denied to those who have, janitor or educator. Trillions and Trillions lie in offshore accounts and people attack any working man. Yet again I know of no one that died and takes their earthly goods with them and I've never seen a U-Haul behind a funeral.

I apologize if this is a duplicate of others. I had to stop reading the comments, since some were so very absurd. The bottom line is that once the benefit is gone that now only a percentage take advantage of, now all of the salaries will increase to compensate for the lost advantage, and therefore passing on the bill to the new students. Education is an investment in oneself. It is not a guarantee of employment. You should never minimize the hard work that goes into studying. We as a country seem to only gush over athletics. We need to start admiring and encouraging academics as important to our future as a country. More and more I see smart students with so much promise deciding they want to go into music, drama and sports. Ok..for a hobby, but can we please admire those who invent things and find cures to diseases. That is what will keep America going. America should not "run on Duncan", it needs to run on itelligence and hard work. We need to shift our focus and also stop condemning those who are successful as though they did something wrong. There is a lot of prejudice against the "rich" yet I am seeing that all the life long welfare people are really the problem. Welfare reform is where we should be focused, not worrying about an extra person in a class that will not cost us anything on paper.

"The added cost is zilch" - this is a false arguement. There always is a tipping point. Colleges often limit enrollment in classes. Who that has ever attended college hasn't run into the situation (or the threat of a situation) where at semester registration, they might not get into the course they needed for their program, or have to wait until next year, delaying their progress? At many colleges, it takes five years to complete a four year program for this exact reason. More students require more teachers. You might not always be able to identify an individual student who is the tipping point for adding a class section as easily as you might in an elementary school, but it does happen in colleges, too.

A similar false arguement is made by opponents of charter schools when they claim that the public schools that charter students leave from don't save any money. This is false since there always is a tipping point. You might certainly don't hit it with any individual student, but sometimes you will. Right now, our district, East Penn, is faced with the possibility of needing to add sections at several grade levels in several schools. If the last students showing up chose charters, instead, the savings would be huge. Most new students don't cause a new section, and most students leaving won't allow a section to be eliminated, but they are equally probable. So a school district like EPSD will, on average, reduce costs when charter students leave.

Space did not permit to fully explain why costs are "O" for added employees. Tuition waivers for employees carry one restriction. Registration is permitted after all full pay students have selected their classes. If a class is limited to 25 students and only 22 have registered, the employee is permitted to take the class with a tuition waiver. If the class is full, the employee must select another course or not register at all. There is no added cost. That is why colleges offer the program. As far as fifth year students are concerned, college registrars monitor student progress and at all schools bump underclassmen to place upperclassmen in classes required for graduation. College is a business and a fifth year student denies space to an incoming freshman and the promise of four years of cash flow. I speak to fifth year students all the time and find that the reasons for the fifth year are usually athletics, semester abroad, changed majors and academic performance. A fifth year student who was shut out of a class because of capacity failed to raise his or her hand. And, I would never use comparisons with public education to support an argument concerning higher education. Public education is bankrupt. Adding a student to any class would necessitate the construction of a Taj Mahal, the hiring of thirty administrators and hundreds of teachers. Public education is part of our government and we all understand the oxymoron, "government efficiency".

ted. Your question: "I really doubt that the colleges would restrict these kids from taking the classes that they want to or need simply because of their parent status or their tuition waiver status. Do you?" Just one example, West Chester University, a state institution:policy states: "WCU Courses: Total waiver of tuition fee for a child under age 25 for any West Chester University undergraduate credit-bearing course until first undergraduate degree is earned. The benefit is provided on a “space available” basis only" It is fact that institutions do limit enrollment for dependents receiving this benefit. Some state institutions such as Rutgers do not. On the other hand, Rutgers' benefit decreases when salary exceeds 90,000. It's difficult to find one size that fits all because each campus has its unique combination of professional and support staff and bargaining associations and unions. The point is that the state legislator misleads and the intention is to rob a benefit that is not as costly as suggested. As far as lower level college employees, compensation is poor and the tuition benefit is the attraction to keep and seek employees. In a sense, tuition waiver performs a type of barter payment. It keeps actual dollar costs down while spending unused classroom capacity. Much like a restaurant that feeds the employee dishwasher three meals a day. The dishwasher only receives what customers did not want. Last dibs, I am afraid is what it is all about.

Representative Roae is assuming elimination of free tuition benefit for dependents of faculty is going to result in those given faculty members paying tuition for their dependents to attend that same school. If the tuition benefit is discontinued, many faculty would pursue other institutions of higher education for their children. Also keep in mind that while there is a tuition waiver, these faculty still pay various fees that amount to a few thousand dollars per year and another $5-7K in room and board costs.

Well I guess now you see why residents of Pennsylvania voted for Republicans in 2010. Its time we put us the taxpayers ahead of the state workers. Wheres the bailout for us the taxpayers????? Republicans will make Pennslyvania better and cheaper to live. Thanks republicans you have my vote again in 2012. Democrats look out your welfare spending has got to stop!!!!

The majority of colleges and universities in the US offer tuition waiver or discount to family members of the faculty. When I applied for my position, I was told after being hired that well over 50 qualified applicants applied. I was attracted to my university for a variety of reasons, including the tuition waiver fringe benefit. Two decades later, and well over $10 million of service & research grants/contracts revenue brought into PA by my efforts. Head hunters contact me about my willingness to work at other universities. My child attends one of the state schools. I pay about $9,000 per year for her to attend. The true revenue loss to the Commonwealth by this fringe benefit needs to be examined beyond the simple price of tuition. Talented faculty have options, and will seek positions elsewhere that provide tuition waiver/support. If they leave, they also leave bringing their revenue generating skills elsewhere.

Wow....the spite. The faculty really need to do a better job explaining what it is that we do. The revenue generated goes to pay for students' tuition and stipends, as well as creating jobs for those who live in the Commonwealth. Beyond that, I do teach a full load of courses. I launch careers...that's my primary responsibility.