. . . according to Kiplinger thanks to Gov. O'Malley's tuition freeze and the university's high-quality:Virtually all of the schools we list raised their price in 2010-11, but the University of Maryland, which maintained a tuition freeze for four straight years, kept this year's total cost increase to less than $600. The first-class flagship continues its march up our rankings, moving from number eight last year to number five in 2010-11.
Showing posts with label university of maryland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label university of maryland. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
UMCP is a Top 10 Best College Value. . .
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Senator Ben Cardin to Speak on Federal Climate Issues at the University of Maryland
By Rachel Hare, UMD for Clean Energy.
It’s easy for America to be green on Earth Day. It’s easy for us to support energy efficiency, encourage sustainability and demand emissions reductions on Earth Day. The entire world is watching, and it is exactly what is expected.
But what about the other 364 days of the year?
Can America truly commit to strict environmental standards that will reduce emissions, create green jobs and promote renewable energy?
This Friday, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), will take up this question during a town hall meeting at the University of Maryland, College Park. During the discussion, hosted by student group UMD for Clean Energy, Cardin is expected to address recent progress of federal climate change legislation that is making its way to the Senate.
The current climate bill is an important piece of environmental legislation that could solidify America’s commitment to a sustainable future and set a precedent for other countries to take further action. It must put in place strong, binding standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy and create green jobs.
The current emissions reductions standards enumerated in the bill – 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 – are far too soft. America also has the capability to develop many potential renewable energy resources, and this should be reflected in a strong Renewable Electricity Standard.
Ambitious standards for emissions reductions and efficiency would make America a leader in emissions reductions and give our country the necessary leverage to pressure other nations to further their own commitments.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Cardin has demonstrated his support for a strong bill and will have an important role in drafting the Senate bill. This town hall meeting is an opportunity for us, as constituents, to show our support for a strong climate bill with strict sustainability standards; a climate bill that could work to solidify America’s commitment to innovative energy solutions.
It’s easy to be green on Earth Day, but Earth Day will come and go. Will America commit to a strong bill that will reduce emissions, create green jobs and promote renewable energy for the other 364 days of the year?
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Stand Up for Academic Freedom - An Update
By Marc Korman.
Previously, I wrote about an effort in the General Assembly to restrict University of Maryland funds due to the law school's clinics. After negotiations among many legislators, a compromise amendment was adopted to the budget by voice vote. The amendment removes funding restrictions for the University but still has reporting requirements for the law school. Not everyone I spoke with around the law school was happy with the compromise, though it was certainly better than the funding restriction version. The issue will be settled when the House and Senate convene a conference to iron out differences in their versions of the budget. However, there are indications the Senate was comfortable with the House compromise.
Disclosure: Until May 21st, I am student at the University of Maryland School of Law.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Stand Up for Academic Freedom
By Marc Korman.
The Maryland General Assembly has a bad habit of stepping all over academic freedom and interfering in the University of Maryland’s mission to educate its students during budget season. Last year’s controversy involved what films could be screened on College Park’s campus. This year’s controversy involves the clinics at the University’s law school.
The General Assembly is up in arms because of the law school’s Environmental Law Clinic. Clinics allow law students, under close supervision, to do actual legal work for clients. In many cases those being represented cannot get legal counsel elsewhere. In this case, the Environmental Law Clinic has brought suit against Perdue and one of its suppliers, an Eastern Shore chicken farmer, for illegal discharge of pollutants into waterways that feed the Chesapeake Bay. The farmer’s legislators have rallied to his defense, but instead of proving his innocence they have tried to bully his accusers with budget amendments.
The State Senate version of the budget includes a provision withholding $500,000 from the University until the law school provides:
1. A report describing each legal case the Environmental Law Clinic participated in during the past two years including the client represented, expenditures for the case, and the source of the funds used.
2. A report on law school clinics operated at public higher education institutions in other states including the criteria they use in selecting cases.
This is actually considered a compromise, authored by Senator Brian Frosh, when it became apparent a majority of Senators could not be found to stand up for academic freedom and strike the provision entirely.
The House version of the budget, not yet voted on by the full chamber, apparently restricts $750,000 in funds pending a report on all of the information the Senate requires plus each case the other clinics at the law school are working on.
It is hard to know where to begin with why the proposed funding restriction is troubling. Here are a few reasons:
1. It harms the law school’s clinic program. Named after alumni and U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, the program is unusual among law schools in that every student must take a clinic. At most schools, clinics are difficult to get into and highly competitive. The University of Maryland guarantees that every student will have clinical experience.
2. The clinics all operate differently, so a report on how law school clinics operate is not particularly useful. For example, in the Criminal Defense Clinic I participated in, I was paired with a federal public defender who assigned me cases. Is the General Assembly intending to vet those cases? I am confident the cases I worked on would not win any political popularity contests, but those defendants needed a lawyer (or law student in my case) regardless.
3. What message does this send to law students? It is already a challenge to get debt saddled students to choose careers in public service or public interest law over corporate firms. Now, their elected politicians are cracking down on those kinds of efforts?
4. Am I crazy or does the General Assembly not spend a lot of time lamenting the state of the Chesapeake Bay? We all know that discharge into the bay, whether from run-off or dumping, is a big problem for the Bay’s health. Why does the General Assembly want to stop efforts to use the legal system to heal the bay?
5. But the biggest issue is the academic freedom issues raised by this requirement. What happens when a University of Maryland Professor writes a book the General Assembly does not approve of? Will they withhold funds until the school issues reports to the legislature’s satisfaction? What if next time they decide to withhold funds until the professor is dismissed? Where exactly does the General Assembly draw the line?
The issue is fast moving, but I believe there will be a vote to strike the amendment from the budget in the House of Delegates as soon as tomorrow (Thursday, April 1st). Please encourage your legislators to stand up and do the right thing to support academic freedom, the University of Maryland School of Law, its clinic program, and its students.
Disclaimer: I am a student at the University of Maryland School of Law and participated in the Criminal Defense clinic in 2009. I know some students in the Environmental Law Clinic at the heart of the current debate.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Energy Efficiency Loans Help Save Both the Economy and the Environment
By Lisa Piccinini.
In just a few weeks Maryland legislators will hold hearings for House Bill 1014 and Senate Bill 720 – the Clean Energy Loan Programs. Introduced by Delegate Sue Hecht and Senator Thomas Middleton, the bills hold tremendous potential for Maryland’s business owners, residents, and for our environment. If passed, the bill will go into effect June 1 of this year.
The bill calls for a program providing loans to residential property owners for the financing of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Basically, its aim is to help residents save money by providing means to obtain a loan for the upfront costs of increasing home energy efficiency. The bill also applies to commercial property owners.
The cost-effective upgrades or retrofits that these loans would provide for include things such as insulation, water heating, and appliance efficiency. Potential upgrades would be identified by an energy audit performed for every property prior to loan approval. The audit identifies energy-efficient and cost-effective projects for the property that would generate yearly energy cost savings. Through this program the loans will be repaid by the property owner via a surcharge on the owner’s property tax bill, over a period not to exceed 15 years. The loans could be provided by banks, non-profits, or through the Maryland Clean Energy Center. This innovative way to finance loans encourages home owners to consider becoming more energy efficient.
The bill is a perfect opportunity for the state to encourage jobs, economic spending, and show national leadership. Because each potential loan begins with an energy audit, the bill encourages energy auditing companies operating within the state. Once a loan has been approved and retrofitting begins, the installation requires manpower; again, a source for jobs. The state would show strong support of auditing and retrofitting companies, as well as of renewable energy businesses, by allowing loans for residents to obtain their services.
Jobs, of course, spur spending in the economy. But so do increased savings. A resident who saves money on heating and cooling in their home, for example, can spend that money elsewhere in the economy. In fact, the average U.S. resident spends $1900 per year on utility bills, with 43% of that money going to heating and cooling systems. Just having ducts thoroughly sealed can save a home as much as 20% in heating and cooling costs. Leaking ducts are just one example of what an energy audit would locate as a source for an increase in energy-efficiency. Residents can easily calculate estimated energy savings through the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy savings calculator.
It is important to note this bill is a call for leadership on the state’s behalf. Maryland has already proved a commitment to the environment through passing the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Act, but that is only a step in the right direction. Passing this bill would continue Maryland’s positive trend of leadership and avoid falling to the wayside as other states move forward. Gunnison, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties – all in western Colorado - have shown such leadership, introducing clean energy and energy efficiency investments through loans covering the upfront costs of the investments. In Boulder County almost 400 energy projects began the first summer the program was implemented, allowing small businesses to add critical new jobs. Maryland’s loan program could show similar results.
Finally, this is a chance to foster environmental stewardship of this great state. Although our focus is often on the bay, we need to care for all elements of Maryland; this means decreasing the emissions we release to the air. One substantial way of doing so is by becoming energy efficient in our homes and exploring renewable energy options. Proper home maintenance and upgrades can reduce environmental emissions by up to 50%. These loans would allow Maryland residents to do just this.
So check out your energy bill. This program could be your next step to you saving – both money and the environment. Call your state representatives and express your support for this bill.
Lisa Piccinini
UMD for Clean Energy Media Director
University of Maryland
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
University of Maryland Environmental Student Group to Launch Fall Campaign
By Kenny Frankel and Matt Dernoga.
We're part of a student environmental group on the University of Maryland campus called "UMD for Clean Energy." In the past we've successfully petitioned our university to draft and implement a climate action plan to reduce greenhouse emissions 50% by 2020, and the University System of Maryland to commit to carbon neutrality by 2050. This past spring, we were successful in collaborating with statewide environmental groups to pass the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, which sets the strongest short-term emissions reduction target in the nation- 25 percent below 2006 levels by 2020. We also recently have been engaged at the federal level, lobbying for climate legislation called the American Clean Energy and Security Act which passed the House of Representatives this past June and will be considered by the Senate this fall.
This upcoming fall, we've decided to get involved in the College Park City Council elections, which take place November 3rd. Why now? At the state level, policies and programs such as the Maryland global warming bill, Empower Maryland, the Renewable Electricity Standard, and renewable energy tax credits are underway or will be soon. At the same time, the federal government is spending record amounts of money on clean energy and energy efficiency, and could soon pass a global warming bill that will drive hundreds of billions of dollars worth of public and private investment into clean energy and energy efficiency over the next decade. In the next 10 years, expect to see money, business investment, and the jobs that come with it raining down on Maryland. Where is it all going to land? We think the areas that benefit the most will be the ones out in front and in the lead on clean energy and low carbon technology policy. Unfortunately, neither Prince George's County nor College Park is leading. We think we're way behind, especially compared to Montgomery County. We want College Park to step up and be the gold standard in the county on this front. We're aiming to not only improve our town, but set an example for other municipalities, and ultimately the county. We want to push low-carbon investment in College Park, and create green jobs in Prince George's County.
This is why we're pushing a platform of various recommendations that range from more sustainable transportation to more efficient buildings to better environmental practices. While some parts of our platform are doable in the short-term, we recognize that with the current economic situation many governments face, other parts are more aspirational, and some involve city collaboration with the Prince George's County Council.
We also know that platforms which are too broad and vague might make for good talking points, but aren't very good at holding elected officials accountable. That's why we've elevated what we consider to be our priority policy to the top of our platform. This is the establishment of a low interest energy efficiency loan fund. Montgomery County recently passed a bill which establishes a green loan fund, although we're uncertain if they've actually gotten it set up yet. The concept is pretty simple, where residents in College Park can borrow from this pool of money like they would a bank in order to pay for energy efficiency improvements in their home. Then, the loan can be repaid in payments roughly equal to the energy savings being realized by the improvements. We've been told in meetings with elected officials the best way to do this is through a modest property-tax surcharge. After the loan is paid back, residents will reap the benefits of substantially lower electricity bills.
Beyond Montgomery County, we know that the city of Annapolis has also recently created a loan fund, although theirs is for renewable energy projects as well. If the city council was open to including renewable energy projects in the fund, we would support it. However, we thought it was best to have a more narrow focus on energy efficiency since there's so much potential to save energy in this country, and efficiency improvements can be deployed faster and cheaper with a quicker payback rate than any other energy source. McKinsney & Company has released a recent report showing that "the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste – well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment (not including program costs) that would be required. The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually – the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.”
Maryland Politics Watch Blog has written frequently over the debate on re-regulation and what the best way is to bring long-term rate relief to energy consumers in Maryland, and to their credit mentioned efficiency as a core solution. We think establishing financing mechanisms for energy efficiency such as these loan funds is the best and most reliable form a rate relief we're going to see. Fossil fuel based electricity isn't going to get cheaper. If you've ever seen houses in College Park, a lot of them are pretty old and could definitely use some love. The energy efficiency loan fund is our bottom line.
This leads into the campaign we're running. Although our proposals are sound policy and reasonable for a small town, making them a priority for the City Council and the candidates running in this November’s election is another story. Fortunately, there is a unique dynamic to these elections that has never been successfully taken advantage of. College Park is broken up into 4 districts, with two city council members representing each district. Then there's the city-wide Mayoral race. Looking at past elections, less than 1,000 people vote in the city council elections. Candidates for a city council seat typically need a few hundred votes to win, and the margin of victory is less than a hundred votes. Although this was an unusually low turnout, in 2007 a vote count of 95-95-94 in District 2 forced counting of absentee ballots. At the University of Maryland we've got over 30,000 undergrad and graduate students, many that have residency in College Park. Also, many students are registered to vote in College Park anyway thanks to the a massive voter registration drive last fall for the general election, among other efforts.
If someone could figure out how to mobilize students to turn out to this election, we could be a big factor. Unfortunately, attempts by our SGA in the past have been good at registering students to vote, but bad at getting them to follow through. Real bad. We intend to do things a bit different than they've been done in the past, focusing less on registering the apathetic masses, and more on reaching out and collaborating with the tens of active student groups and organizations on campus, many of whom we have worked with in the past. We want to spend our time going after the "cream of the crop" first, both since they're active and much more likely to vote, and second that we actually want the majority of the students we mobilize to understand our campaign and our platform. Plus, we think we only need a couple hundred educated students to make up an influential voting block.
Another difference is we don't want to just tell people to vote whenever and hope they do it. We want to make the vote an event for those who don't have class (or can skip). We plan on organizing a rally at the center of our campus in the late afternoon, and then marching the half mile to city hall to vote. Since only districts 2 and 3 vote at city hall, we'll have transportation at city hall to transport voters who live in districts 1 and 4 and need to vote at Davis Hall, which is a 5 minute drive away. A march can provide a great visual, although we also realize if we are unsuccessful in our campaign, it will be a lonely and lowly populated march. We're not taking the challenge of getting students to vote for granted.
The last main difference is we don't want to make this "students versus the residents", which has been done in the past by running student candidates against the city council. If there are student candidates, we'll make them earn our vote the same we will with any other candidate. We also plan on reaching out to the civic associations in College Park and telling them about our ideas and platform, and listening to theirs. Although a good deal of our organizing is student-based, we want to reach out and collaborate with the entire community as best we can. We also intend to reach out to the City Council and all candidates by meeting as many as possible, preferably all of them. We want to work with the City Council wherever we can, especially on the loan fund. We've already held multiple meetings where we shared ideas with two members of the city council, the current mayor, and the candidate for mayor. We've been taken seriously in all of them, and many ideas have been well-received. Andy Fellows, the candidate for mayor, is planning to come to our group's semester kickoff meeting on September 14 to speak to us and address the platform.
We expect new developments in the coming months as this effort moves forward and evolves past November 3rd. We welcome support and ideas from readers of this blog. Just because a policy idea isn't on our platform doesn't mean we'll exclude it from the conversation. If you would like to find out more about us or contact us, check out our website.
Thanks!
Matt Dernoga, Campaign Director
Kenny Frankel, Media Director
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Porn vs. Policy
By Marc Korman.
It is a fact of legislative bodies that they spend too much time naming post offices, honoring sports teams, and naming state desserts. But for the past week, the Maryland General Assembly has found a whole new way to waste time, spending an unusual amount of time on porn.
By now the basic controversy is well known. The University of Maryland had a scheduled screening of an adult film, Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge. The screening was going to be coupled with a discussion of sexuality and pornography. State Senator Andy Harris, who did not have time to vote on the death penalty, found time to introduce an amendment to withhold operating funds from any Maryland public university showing an adult film outside of a classroom.
Of course, Republican senators in Annapolis say a lot and usually do not have much impact. But in this case Senate President Mike Miller announced his support for the Harris amendment and it snowballed into a major issue. The whole story has been well chronicled in the newspapers, but in the end part of the film was screened in a University lecture hall and Annapolis is moving forward with a requirement that Maryland public universities detail their policies on screening pornographic films.
I see two reasons to oppose the Harris effort. First, the amendment implicates First Amendment and education issues that need to be carefully considered. Public universities rely on the state for support and legislators should be paying attention to them. But they should not be micromanaging campus activities. Second, the amendment is the wrong debate at the wrong time.
State Senator Jamie Raskin led the effort against the legislature meddling in the screening, although even he could not resist claiming he had never seen a porno film. Right, just like every slots opponent has never gambled. But at least Senator Raskin stepped up and fought the legislature’s efforts to involve itself in determining acceptable and unacceptable educational content.
Some surprising individuals joined him as well. For example, Aaron Titus of the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography was quoted by the Post as saying the University’s reasons for cancelling the film screening were wrong and the debate should be about ideas, not dollars. Republican Senator EJ Pipkin, no friend of Andy Harris due to their Congressional primary campaign against each other, has asked if the legislature has anything better to do.
Let me offer an idea to Senator Pipkin, as well as Senators Harris and Miller. I am happy they are spending some time discussing the University of Maryland, but they should dedicate that time to matters more appropriate to the legislature, like funding. Last year, the Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education issued a report. As with most commission reports, it was promptly forgotten about. I read the report when it was issued and recall that it set specific targeting goals for tuition and financial aid to keep the Maryland system well funded, but also affordable so the state could be competitive not just with schools nationwide, but globally. One shortcoming of the report was that it did not offer much of a roadmap to reach those goals.
The General Assembly’s response to the report was a tuition freeze for the fourth year at public universities. The policy actually dates back to the Ehrlich Administration and makes a nice headline for elected officials. Unfortunately, it does not make good policy, especially when the state budget is in such disarray. Next year or the year after, a tuition increase will be necessary and when it comes we will see a major increase, possibly in the double digits percentagewise. The situation is analogous to the short sighted energy deregulation policy, where the state froze rates for approximately eight years and when the freeze ended, prices skyrocketed because they were being artificially held down. At the least, tuition needs to adjust for inflation.
If it were me, I would work towards a policy where tuition increases at a small percentage annually but financial aide programs are improved for those who cannot afford to pay. But there may be other answers out there the legislature can come to. But whatever the answer, that is the debate the General Assembly should be having regarding the University of Maryland, not what movies they screen on campus.
Disclosure: I am a student at the University of Maryland School of Law, which has not shown an adult film during my time there and is not covered by the tuition freeze.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Tuition Battle Looms
The Baltimore Sun reports:Gov. Martin O'Malley vowed Monday to freeze tuition at most of Maryland's public colleges for a third consecutive year, but he acknowledged a likely fight over the issue with legislative leaders who have said tuition should be increased.
After the tuition hikes of the Ehrlich era, keeping tuition down is a worthy goal. Of course, I imagine finding the $55 million needed to freeze tuition isn't easy in the current budget climate.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller has said tuition should be increased to offset necessary budget cuts, and House Speaker Michael E. Busch Monday said he supports a tuition increase of no more than 3 percent.
"Senate President Miller and I have a disagreement," O'Malley, a Democrat, said Monday at a news conference at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
He said Busch's 3 percent limit "articulates a pretty good goal for the future, but for the present, I'm going to do everything I can to fight for at least another year of zero percent increases in college tuitions." The governor proposes to pay for the in-state tuition freeze with about $16 million in revenue expected to be generated by the in crease from 7 percent to 8 percent in the corporate income tax passed during November's special legislative session.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Will the Terrapin Kill the Purple Line?
The Washington Post reports that eight students wrote the University of Maryland administration to support the Purple Line:
In an April 25 letter, eight students urged university President C.D. Mote Jr. to "become an outright champion" of the proposed Purple Line, saying the school's "relative silence on the project is casting an unneeded shadow of uncertainty on the planning process." Tunneling a train beneath the College Park campus, as administration officials have urged, could make it prohibitively expensive, the students said.However, much like opponents of the above-ground light rail elsewhere, administration officials would much prefer an underground version of the Purple Line:
They asked university officials to avoid "mistakes" made with Metro's Green Line. The College Park station was built almost a mile from the campus of 35,000 students, requiring an inconvenient walk or shuttle bus ride. The letter was copied to 30 federal, state and local political leaders.
Henry Kay, the MTA's deputy administrator for planning and engineering, said state officials agree that an aboveground line would be more viable. A one-mile tunnel beneath the campus would cost roughly $200 million to $300 million, about 10 times the cost of a one-mile aboveground line, he said.
Kay said university officials have long favored an underground system out of concern for pedestrian safety along busy Campus Drive, the school's main road, where a transit line probably would run. Although the exact location of a campus station hasn't been determined, Kay said, it probably would be near the campus center.
"We're working to convince them it can be built and operated safely," Kay said. "We've seen a lot of examples elsewhere where light rail or buses operate through campuses in a very safe way."
The university "is a major constituency along the line," he said. "We're not going to implement this project over their objections."
Daddio said the students were responding to a letter that J. Frank Brewer, interim vice president for administrative affairs, sent to state officials in late March, stating that "the university does not see 'at grade' [light-rail transit] as an option in the center of our campus."
The Diamondback reports that the University's lack of support for the light rail could be the final blow to the project:
But with a price tag that could exceed $1 billion, questions remain about whether it will receive the necessary federal funding.Remember that there isn't even a ridership study that validates the idea of building the light rail above ground. The politics of this proposal increasingly look bad. Its political support is wide but not very deep. Councilman Steve Silverman made the Purple Line the centerpiece of his unsuccessful well-funded county executive bid last year. Gov. Martin O'Malley supports funding the Purple Line but he has made the ICC his first priority and also supports the Baltimore Red Line as well as the Upcounty Corridor Cities light rail which have far less opposition. Our green governor may also be reluctant to tear down thousands of trees along the existing trail--a necessary part of the project. Did I forget to mention that the state faces a $1.5 billion deficit?Del. Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George's and Anne Arundel) said the university's uncertain stance could quash the Purple Line's growing support.
While the university has no official veto on the transit-way, Peña-Melnyk said its clout has made its blessing essential to push similar projects through local bureaucracies. In the past, the university's political pull has won millions of state dollars for conducting traffic studies and building new academic buildings.
"Perhaps we could go forward without them, but it's better to act with honey than vinegar," she said. "The university doesn't have a vote, but any project needs consensus."
If the school opposed the plan, "that will kill the project," Peña-Melnyk said. "Dr. Mote needs to retract that letter."
Associate Vice President for Facilities Management Frank Brewer said the university did not oppose the Purple Line, but rather any alignment that might run it at ground level through Campus Drive.
"It's a safety concern," he said. "If you've been at Campus Drive in the middle of the day, it's just the most congested place in the world as it is. The Purple Line would just add conflict."
Instead, Brewer proposed an underground track or routes that would skirt the campus periphery.
But Madden said cost constraints forced the MTA to rule out both options long ago. MTA traffic monitors have already scouted the road, and will release a traffic study to clarify the Purple Line's potential impact this summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
