Ramaswamy narrative on Ohio Higher Ed

[ZipsBBjunkie]

 

[ZipsBBjunkie]

 

[Reslife4Life]

Went to private high school in Cincinnati and has 2 ivy league degrees. He also seems to be a fan of ohio state football. Don't think people connected to UA will like this stance very much

[ZippyRulz]

34 minutes ago, ZipsBBjunkie said:

 

 

I will paste the full text here since it is a public post on X. I would note that this mentions fiscal cutbacks at Akron, Kent, and Central but not any proposal to shut any of them down. 

 

 

Ohio’s state-funded universities face an enrollment cliff, tuition is going up, and the value of a college degree is going down. We can’t ignore the problem & I’ve offered an actual solution to fix it, while my opponent @amyactonoh offers what she always does: absolutely nothing. My piece in the Columbus Dispatch this week: The race for governor of Ohio can be a positive opportunity to give voters a choice between competing policy visions for our state – and to have a healthy debate about the right way to improve Ohio. But we risk missing that opportunity in 2026: While I aim to offer clear policies to improve the lives of Ohioans, my opponent offers little more than cheap criticisms of my ideas while offering no solutions of her own. The recent debate about Ohio’s publicly funded universities continues that growing pattern. Ohio’s higher education system faces a severe enrollment cliff that threatens the future of our state-funded universities, and rising tuition costs are becoming unsustainable for Ohio families. The next governor of Ohio needs a real plan to address this growing problem, and ignoring it isn’t a solution. The facts are stark. America is aging fast, and Ohio is aging faster. The number of high school graduates in Ohio has peaked, hitting our highwater mark in 2024 with roughly 149,000 graduates. But by 2041, that number falls to about 124,000 – a 17% decline in as many years. Meanwhile, fewer Ohio students are choosing four-year universities – and understandably so. Graduate salaries aren’t keeping pace with climbing tuition and student debt. Just 47.6% of Ohio graduates in the class of 2021 enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation, down from 59% in 2015, while the total cost of attending Ohio's public universities has increased by nearly 50% over the past 15 years. Families across the state are feeling the strain. Despite these headwinds, Ohio still operates one of the most fragmented public university systems in the country, enrolling roughly 313,000 students across 14 public universities, 24 regional branch campuses and 22 community colleges. Florida, with about twice our population, only operates 12 public universities. That means Ohio is spreading its limited state dollars across too many bloated bureaucracies, and alarms are already blaring. Just last week, Lourdes University became the fifth private college to close since 2020. Meanwhile, public universities that receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding are feeling the impact of fewer students. In recent years, Cleveland State has cut staff and eliminated NCAA sports programs. The student count at the University of Akron inched up this past year but is at half of its 2010 enrollment level. Kent State launched a "Transformation 2028" restructuring plan last year in search of administrative efficiencies. Central State University remains on “fiscal watch.” While universities struggle to get by, other states have benefited from commonsense reforms. Consider Georgia, which adopted a sensible plan that reduced the number of state universities from 35 in 2011 to 26 by 2018. Notably, their process didn’t start with an agenda of consolidation for its own sake, or with targets set on certain universities. Instead, it began with a set of principles. Their leadership decided they wanted to expand access, reduce duplication, improve attainment and strengthen regional economic development. The results were better retention and more on-time graduation, without increasing tuition. That is what real reform looks like. Ohio should go further. As governor, I intend to lead a pragmatic reform that guides certain state-funded universities that suffer from under-enrollment to instead become “centers of excellence” – national leaders in a specific field – with the goal of offering a higher-quality education to students at a lower cost. Specialization creates distinction, and distinction attracts students. This will push our state-funded universities to work together, instead of in separate siloes. My first budget will propose to empower the Chancellor of Higher Education to conduct a statewide review, guided by clear statutory criteria, not backroom favoritism. It will identify where missions overlap, where enrollment collapse has made independence untenable, and where administrative functions can be unified without harming students. The chancellor will then return to the General Assembly with a concrete plan on a fixed timeline. Critics will say this threatens campus identity. This is an understandable concern, but it does not justify inaction. Georgia’s experience shows that campuses and local identities need not vanish, even if excess overhead costs do. A campus can keep its traditions and its local role without carrying the full cost of an outdated administrative hierarchy. The purpose of a university isn’t to sustain a legacy bureaucracy; it’s to educate students. When the structure stops serving that mission, the structure should change in a positive way. My plan will ensure that the dollars saved from administrative duplication go back to benefit students. Options abound for how to achieve this goal: Ohio could reinvest these dollars through the State Share of Instruction formula and tie that formula more directly to affordability, or improve the quality of instruction, academic experience and tuition relief in other ways. Skyrocketing tuition, cratering enrollment and declining quality of education are real problems that demand thoughtful solutions. While my opponent sneered on social media at my ideas, she offers absolutely no alternative solutions to help Ohioans. By contrast, I’m willing to start the challenging conversations we need to lead Ohio to new heights, in higher education and beyond. My plan will create a more competitive, increasingly affordable and rightsized higher education system for taxpayers and students. As other states have demonstrated, thoughtful reform can attract and retain more students, keep tuition affordable and better prepare graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs. There’s no reason Ohio can’t do even better. Either we reform our higher education system with purpose, or we watch it decline by default.

12:17 PM · Mar 28, 2026

·

84.1K

Views

[GP1]

1 hour ago, ZippyRulz said:

 

I will paste the full text here since it is a public post on X. I would note that this mentions fiscal cutbacks at Akron, Kent, and Central but not any proposal to shut any of them down. 

 

 

Ohio’s state-funded universities face an enrollment cliff, tuition is going up, and the value of a college degree is going down. We can’t ignore the problem & I’ve offered an actual solution to fix it, while my opponent @amyactonoh offers what she always does: absolutely nothing. My piece in the Columbus Dispatch this week: The race for governor of Ohio can be a positive opportunity to give voters a choice between competing policy visions for our state – and to have a healthy debate about the right way to improve Ohio. But we risk missing that opportunity in 2026: While I aim to offer clear policies to improve the lives of Ohioans, my opponent offers little more than cheap criticisms of my ideas while offering no solutions of her own. The recent debate about Ohio’s publicly funded universities continues that growing pattern. Ohio’s higher education system faces a severe enrollment cliff that threatens the future of our state-funded universities, and rising tuition costs are becoming unsustainable for Ohio families. The next governor of Ohio needs a real plan to address this growing problem, and ignoring it isn’t a solution. The facts are stark. America is aging fast, and Ohio is aging faster. The number of high school graduates in Ohio has peaked, hitting our highwater mark in 2024 with roughly 149,000 graduates. But by 2041, that number falls to about 124,000 – a 17% decline in as many years. Meanwhile, fewer Ohio students are choosing four-year universities – and understandably so. Graduate salaries aren’t keeping pace with climbing tuition and student debt. Just 47.6% of Ohio graduates in the class of 2021 enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation, down from 59% in 2015, while the total cost of attending Ohio's public universities has increased by nearly 50% over the past 15 years. Families across the state are feeling the strain. Despite these headwinds, Ohio still operates one of the most fragmented public university systems in the country, enrolling roughly 313,000 students across 14 public universities, 24 regional branch campuses and 22 community colleges. Florida, with about twice our population, only operates 12 public universities. That means Ohio is spreading its limited state dollars across too many bloated bureaucracies, and alarms are already blaring. Just last week, Lourdes University became the fifth private college to close since 2020. Meanwhile, public universities that receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding are feeling the impact of fewer students. In recent years, Cleveland State has cut staff and eliminated NCAA sports programs. The student count at the University of Akron inched up this past year but is at half of its 2010 enrollment level. Kent State launched a "Transformation 2028" restructuring plan last year in search of administrative efficiencies. Central State University remains on “fiscal watch.” While universities struggle to get by, other states have benefited from commonsense reforms. Consider Georgia, which adopted a sensible plan that reduced the number of state universities from 35 in 2011 to 26 by 2018. Notably, their process didn’t start with an agenda of consolidation for its own sake, or with targets set on certain universities. Instead, it began with a set of principles. Their leadership decided they wanted to expand access, reduce duplication, improve attainment and strengthen regional economic development. The results were better retention and more on-time graduation, without increasing tuition. That is what real reform looks like. Ohio should go further. As governor, I intend to lead a pragmatic reform that guides certain state-funded universities that suffer from under-enrollment to instead become “centers of excellence” – national leaders in a specific field – with the goal of offering a higher-quality education to students at a lower cost. Specialization creates distinction, and distinction attracts students. This will push our state-funded universities to work together, instead of in separate siloes. My first budget will propose to empower the Chancellor of Higher Education to conduct a statewide review, guided by clear statutory criteria, not backroom favoritism. It will identify where missions overlap, where enrollment collapse has made independence untenable, and where administrative functions can be unified without harming students. The chancellor will then return to the General Assembly with a concrete plan on a fixed timeline. Critics will say this threatens campus identity. This is an understandable concern, but it does not justify inaction. Georgia’s experience shows that campuses and local identities need not vanish, even if excess overhead costs do. A campus can keep its traditions and its local role without carrying the full cost of an outdated administrative hierarchy. The purpose of a university isn’t to sustain a legacy bureaucracy; it’s to educate students. When the structure stops serving that mission, the structure should change in a positive way. My plan will ensure that the dollars saved from administrative duplication go back to benefit students. Options abound for how to achieve this goal: Ohio could reinvest these dollars through the State Share of Instruction formula and tie that formula more directly to affordability, or improve the quality of instruction, academic experience and tuition relief in other ways. Skyrocketing tuition, cratering enrollment and declining quality of education are real problems that demand thoughtful solutions. While my opponent sneered on social media at my ideas, she offers absolutely no alternative solutions to help Ohioans. By contrast, I’m willing to start the challenging conversations we need to lead Ohio to new heights, in higher education and beyond. My plan will create a more competitive, increasingly affordable and rightsized higher education system for taxpayers and students. As other states have demonstrated, thoughtful reform can attract and retain more students, keep tuition affordable and better prepare graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs. There’s no reason Ohio can’t do even better. Either we reform our higher education system with purpose, or we watch it decline by default.

12:17 PM · Mar 28, 2026

·

84.1K

Views

I took the time to read it. He basically lumps in Akron with Kent and Central State. Then he talks about getting programs to make schools central to one field of study. Think we aren't at or near the top of his list?  This guy will gut Akron down to a shell of itself and what will follow will be the elimination of sports at Akron and Kent. 

 

If you care about UofA, you will vote for his opponent and let things play out for four years. 

[UAZipster0305]

2 hours ago, ZippyRulz said:

 

I will paste the full text here since it is a public post on X. I would note that this mentions fiscal cutbacks at Akron, Kent, and Central but not any proposal to shut any of them down. 

 

 

Ohio’s state-funded universities face an enrollment cliff, tuition is going up, and the value of a college degree is going down. We can’t ignore the problem & I’ve offered an actual solution to fix it, while my opponent @amyactonoh offers what she always does: absolutely nothing. My piece in the Columbus Dispatch this week: The race for governor of Ohio can be a positive opportunity to give voters a choice between competing policy visions for our state – and to have a healthy debate about the right way to improve Ohio. But we risk missing that opportunity in 2026: While I aim to offer clear policies to improve the lives of Ohioans, my opponent offers little more than cheap criticisms of my ideas while offering no solutions of her own. The recent debate about Ohio’s publicly funded universities continues that growing pattern. Ohio’s higher education system faces a severe enrollment cliff that threatens the future of our state-funded universities, and rising tuition costs are becoming unsustainable for Ohio families. The next governor of Ohio needs a real plan to address this growing problem, and ignoring it isn’t a solution. The facts are stark. America is aging fast, and Ohio is aging faster. The number of high school graduates in Ohio has peaked, hitting our highwater mark in 2024 with roughly 149,000 graduates. But by 2041, that number falls to about 124,000 – a 17% decline in as many years. Meanwhile, fewer Ohio students are choosing four-year universities – and understandably so. Graduate salaries aren’t keeping pace with climbing tuition and student debt. Just 47.6% of Ohio graduates in the class of 2021 enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation, down from 59% in 2015, while the total cost of attending Ohio's public universities has increased by nearly 50% over the past 15 years. Families across the state are feeling the strain. Despite these headwinds, Ohio still operates one of the most fragmented public university systems in the country, enrolling roughly 313,000 students across 14 public universities, 24 regional branch campuses and 22 community colleges. Florida, with about twice our population, only operates 12 public universities. That means Ohio is spreading its limited state dollars across too many bloated bureaucracies, and alarms are already blaring. Just last week, Lourdes University became the fifth private college to close since 2020. Meanwhile, public universities that receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding are feeling the impact of fewer students. In recent years, Cleveland State has cut staff and eliminated NCAA sports programs. The student count at the University of Akron inched up this past year but is at half of its 2010 enrollment level. Kent State launched a "Transformation 2028" restructuring plan last year in search of administrative efficiencies. Central State University remains on “fiscal watch.” While universities struggle to get by, other states have benefited from commonsense reforms. Consider Georgia, which adopted a sensible plan that reduced the number of state universities from 35 in 2011 to 26 by 2018. Notably, their process didn’t start with an agenda of consolidation for its own sake, or with targets set on certain universities. Instead, it began with a set of principles. Their leadership decided they wanted to expand access, reduce duplication, improve attainment and strengthen regional economic development. The results were better retention and more on-time graduation, without increasing tuition. That is what real reform looks like. Ohio should go further. As governor, I intend to lead a pragmatic reform that guides certain state-funded universities that suffer from under-enrollment to instead become “centers of excellence” – national leaders in a specific field – with the goal of offering a higher-quality education to students at a lower cost. Specialization creates distinction, and distinction attracts students. This will push our state-funded universities to work together, instead of in separate siloes. My first budget will propose to empower the Chancellor of Higher Education to conduct a statewide review, guided by clear statutory criteria, not backroom favoritism. It will identify where missions overlap, where enrollment collapse has made independence untenable, and where administrative functions can be unified without harming students. The chancellor will then return to the General Assembly with a concrete plan on a fixed timeline. Critics will say this threatens campus identity. This is an understandable concern, but it does not justify inaction. Georgia’s experience shows that campuses and local identities need not vanish, even if excess overhead costs do. A campus can keep its traditions and its local role without carrying the full cost of an outdated administrative hierarchy. The purpose of a university isn’t to sustain a legacy bureaucracy; it’s to educate students. When the structure stops serving that mission, the structure should change in a positive way. My plan will ensure that the dollars saved from administrative duplication go back to benefit students. Options abound for how to achieve this goal: Ohio could reinvest these dollars through the State Share of Instruction formula and tie that formula more directly to affordability, or improve the quality of instruction, academic experience and tuition relief in other ways. Skyrocketing tuition, cratering enrollment and declining quality of education are real problems that demand thoughtful solutions. While my opponent sneered on social media at my ideas, she offers absolutely no alternative solutions to help Ohioans. By contrast, I’m willing to start the challenging conversations we need to lead Ohio to new heights, in higher education and beyond. My plan will create a more competitive, increasingly affordable and rightsized higher education system for taxpayers and students. As other states have demonstrated, thoughtful reform can attract and retain more students, keep tuition affordable and better prepare graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs. There’s no reason Ohio can’t do even better. Either we reform our higher education system with purpose, or we watch it decline by default.

12:17 PM · Mar 28, 2026

·

84.1K

Views

This is an absolutely stupid political position solely because of the fact that the UA, Kent, and CSU alumni bases are large enough to swing the election on the basis of this issue alone. It proves that VR is not a savy or suitable political candidate.