This Week in The Chronicle

This week's piece on higher education and time for a reset from the Chronicle for Higher Education is timely. So much of what Finney advocates, the UNC system does already. Our tuition policy is but one example. But we are revisiting it now and thinking about how to meet the budgetary challenges ahead.

The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.




A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney

Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.

To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.

IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles

Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.

The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.

The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.

So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.

Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.

States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.

An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.

Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.