Sadly, from what I've heard the report is mostly nonsense.
Mostly dead too
Regarding higher education and referencing the Brookings report Ralston writes,
With $558.9 million of state funding for higher education in fiscal year 2010-2011, Nevada provided the lowest amount of public support for higher education among states of a similar size (2-3 million people), and it ranked 35th among all 50 states for its level of state higher education funding on a per-capita basis ($211.44). ”
How low can it go? Nevada spends 0.44 percent of its gross state product on higher education compared with 0.88 percent in Arkansas and 0.96 percent in Mississippi, the study found. Oh to be the Mississippi of the West in this metric.
Unfortunately, there are major problems with these statistics that ultimately mislead the reader. First, every state has varying levels of support but state support because every university has multiple sources of revenue. In Nevada, state support makes up about 1/3rd of all revenues for our university system. Some states give very little and charge students a lot (in fact - there is a statically significant correlation between high student fees and college graduation rates...hmmm). It is entirely possible that state support is low but the combination of tuition, fees and other revenue sources is quite high.
Nevada's higher education spending per pupil is actually ABOVE AVERAGE
As it turns out, Nevada's per pupil spending on higher education is quite high. In fact, the recent report "Trends in College Spending" ranks Nevada 19th in the nation. Total spending on "higher education and research" in Nevada amounted to $17,171 per pupil! That is more than Utah - a state Nevada's higher education leadership consistently desires to emulate.
This fact makes those last statistics Ralston cite even more bogus in appearance. Claiming our higher education system is underfunded by using spending as a percent of GSP is intellectual dishonesty at best and intellectual incompetence at worst. If you want to learn why, I eviscerate Dr. Parker, an economist at UNR for using those statistics in this blog post here.
Next, Cooligan makes the argument (based on the Brookings report) that we need a Medical school in southern Nevada. Coolican writes,
Experts told my former colleague Marshall Allen that academic medicine — med schools — promote a culture of quality across a community’s health care sector.
This statement is laughable. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services one of the worst hospitals in Nevada is routinely our government run University Medical Center. If med schools promote a culture of quality, where is it?
Tell me you're joking Coolican!
Marshall Allen, referenced by Coolican above, wrote a series of articles attempting to prove "profits [were] being put before patients" despite finding more evidence of harm done by the government run hospital than the private sector hospitals. I tear apart Marshall Allen for his highly biased report in my blog post "The Marshall Plan."
So why won't building a medical school in southern Nevada help rebuild our economy? Other than already having University Medical Center in Las Vegas (where is our economic growth guys?), it is simply cheaper to hire doctors from other states than spend taxpayer dollars educating them here.
Think about this...
According to U.S. News and World Report, UNR Medical School has 246 students. According to the Nevada System of Higher Education UNR Medical School collected and likely spent $74,757,215 in FY2011. Total revenues came to $303,891 per pupil. Granted, some of that revenue comes from student tuition and fees (about $15,000 for in-state students and $37,000 for out-of-state students) as well as research grants, and surgical procedures. Just looking at the state support, the amount comes to $122,025 per pupil. So how is spending that much money going to help? Let suckers from other states spend that money and let us buy the graduates once they've been educated and become useful.
And don't get me started on spending that much money to subsidize the education of individuals who will be making enough money to be in the top 5 percent of income earners.
The only people benefiting from building a medical school in southern Nevada will be members of the medical cartel who get to teach at the university and the students who have their future wealth subsidized by the rest of us poorer saps.
Coolican and Ralston want what is best for Nevada - but too bad they keep promoting failed ideas and bogus thinking.