Higher Education
The Tribune editorialized on higher education – correctly identifying a few of the problems but missing the necessary fix.
Things it got right: (1) tuition increases thwart access to higher education and (2) “political urgency” exacerbates Utah’s problem.
What it got wrong: the editorial concludes that the funding problem is caused by smaller institutions offering more degrees.
The State does not waste money on degrees at its smaller colleges. Instead, the State wastes money – and lots of it – by spending two- or three-times as much awarding those very same degrees to many students at the University of Utah without any justification why the taxpayers should pay the extra freight. The only justification for this wasteful practice is that the U is the U. In other words, political urgency: “Yes, we waste a lot of money, but just try and change it.”
The Tribune’s editorial ignores the fact that taxpayers fund students differently at the various institutions. At the top end of the scale, taxpayers pay 2- or 3-times as much to educate a student at the University of Utah than they do to educate a student at other institutions in the system, such as UVSC or Dixie State. In other words, the taxpayer subsidy for each student at the U could fully fund scholarships for two students at Snow College or Salt Lake Community College. Or, that same money could significantly reduce the tuition for 4 students at other colleges. Etc. In other words, students at the U disproportionately claim financial resources that could be spread out among other institutions.
The obvious question, then, should be whether that is the best use of scarce financial resources. Does it make sense to spend $X on one UofU student, when $X could reduce the tuition for 4 students elsewhere in the system? The answer, of course, is that it depends. Many students prove that they deserve the extra investment. Others, not so much.
If I were a parent or student facing a tuition increase at some other institution, I would want to know why a D-student has carte blanche to determine whether the taxpayers should pay extra money for him to attend the U, when that same money could go toward educating him and two or three others elsewhere in the system? Unfortunately, political urgency does not allow meaningful discussion of this topic.
I raised the question 5 years ago, in an appropriations committee, by asked President Machen (U of U) and President Hall (USU) what the acceptance rates were at their institutions. President Machen said that he did not know. President Hall admitted that Utah State’s acceptance rate was 98%. I thanked him, and informed President Machen that the U’s acceptance rate was 97%. Rather than focus on the “academic creep” of smaller colleges progressing, I suggested that we focus on the academic creep of our research institutions acting like community colleges by accepting any applicant with a pulse.
President Machen was fit to be tied. President Hall, however, told me afterwards that our research institutions will never be first-tier, until they start worrying more about attracting the top 5% of students in the nation than they do about attracting the bottom 5% in Utah.
Though it is a topic for another day, it would seem to be important to Utah’s economic development to have a research university that is regarded as a top-100 institution overall. From issues like the tremendous drop-out rates to the broad mix of student abilities hobbling instruction, it would seem that moving our research institutions away from a typically community college open-enrollment approach, would not only better distribute resources within the higher education system but also would improve the quality of our flagship institutions – and with that change, the economic prospects of Utah.
Things it got right: (1) tuition increases thwart access to higher education and (2) “political urgency” exacerbates Utah’s problem.
What it got wrong: the editorial concludes that the funding problem is caused by smaller institutions offering more degrees.
The State does not waste money on degrees at its smaller colleges. Instead, the State wastes money – and lots of it – by spending two- or three-times as much awarding those very same degrees to many students at the University of Utah without any justification why the taxpayers should pay the extra freight. The only justification for this wasteful practice is that the U is the U. In other words, political urgency: “Yes, we waste a lot of money, but just try and change it.”
The Tribune’s editorial ignores the fact that taxpayers fund students differently at the various institutions. At the top end of the scale, taxpayers pay 2- or 3-times as much to educate a student at the University of Utah than they do to educate a student at other institutions in the system, such as UVSC or Dixie State. In other words, the taxpayer subsidy for each student at the U could fully fund scholarships for two students at Snow College or Salt Lake Community College. Or, that same money could significantly reduce the tuition for 4 students at other colleges. Etc. In other words, students at the U disproportionately claim financial resources that could be spread out among other institutions.
The obvious question, then, should be whether that is the best use of scarce financial resources. Does it make sense to spend $X on one UofU student, when $X could reduce the tuition for 4 students elsewhere in the system? The answer, of course, is that it depends. Many students prove that they deserve the extra investment. Others, not so much.
If I were a parent or student facing a tuition increase at some other institution, I would want to know why a D-student has carte blanche to determine whether the taxpayers should pay extra money for him to attend the U, when that same money could go toward educating him and two or three others elsewhere in the system? Unfortunately, political urgency does not allow meaningful discussion of this topic.
I raised the question 5 years ago, in an appropriations committee, by asked President Machen (U of U) and President Hall (USU) what the acceptance rates were at their institutions. President Machen said that he did not know. President Hall admitted that Utah State’s acceptance rate was 98%. I thanked him, and informed President Machen that the U’s acceptance rate was 97%. Rather than focus on the “academic creep” of smaller colleges progressing, I suggested that we focus on the academic creep of our research institutions acting like community colleges by accepting any applicant with a pulse.
President Machen was fit to be tied. President Hall, however, told me afterwards that our research institutions will never be first-tier, until they start worrying more about attracting the top 5% of students in the nation than they do about attracting the bottom 5% in Utah.
Though it is a topic for another day, it would seem to be important to Utah’s economic development to have a research university that is regarded as a top-100 institution overall. From issues like the tremendous drop-out rates to the broad mix of student abilities hobbling instruction, it would seem that moving our research institutions away from a typically community college open-enrollment approach, would not only better distribute resources within the higher education system but also would improve the quality of our flagship institutions – and with that change, the economic prospects of Utah.
posted by steve u. at 3/15/2006
Subscribe
6 Comments:
Right on Steve. I have received credits at 5 different universities before I finished my graduate school - including the U of U and USU. Having seen many different universities I can tell you that there is a major difference between the research institutions funded by the state of Utah and research institutions in other states. If the U and USU will be more selective in admissions they can focus their money on the students more likely to perform. Those students who feel that they should be able to go to one of these schools but don't have the grades to prove it can attend other schools in the system (Weber, UVSC, SLCC, Snow, SUU) to demonstrate that they have the drive and ability to attend the more selective universities. Our research institutions do not have the feel of academic rigor and demand that the best schools in the nation have.
There is one catch here - students in Cache Valley may choose USU because of its proximity to home. Unlike students in Salt Lake Valley they do not have another option that is close to home. If that is their major consideration they have no access to lower tiered institutions.
Concurrent enrollment in high school is one program that can reduce tuition costs for some students. That is one thing I have always considered a strength about Utah--allowing some students to earn up to an assoiate's degree while in high school. That is one thing I'd like to see more of.
Back home the school district pays for AP tests, something that may be too expensive here.
Jim, I agree. Concurrent enrollment can help a lot. This session, we improved things a bit; we'll see if we did okay or if we have more work to do.
David, your comments about USU precisely mirror the conversation I had today with my neighbor (a snowbird from Mantua). Because USU is a land-grant university and is THE higher education institution for that part of the state, it is in a somewhat different position than the U.
Having graduated from the U myself, I whole-heartedly agree. I was astonished with the low quality of many of the students. It really is wasteful to spend the extra amount on students who would be better served at a cheaper institution.
I agree with all the points you and the others have raised on your blog with this subject. Why is this so hard for people to see? We've got to stop doing things the way they've always been done whether out of urgency, politics, or whatever. We need to do the right things, not the easy things! It certainly makes sense to this Ute that the U of U raise it's entrance standards. I think USU could as well, perhaps not quite as high due to the availability of other options.
What can we do to help make this change Steve so we can have more degrees in DSU, SUU, Snow, etc.?
Steve, I agree that we need to do more to improve the quality of education at the U and at USU. We need to recruit the best possible students, non-Utahns included, to raise the quality of research that takes place here.
The problem arises when the "nos" come. A few years ago, state legislators pondered a bill that would punish the U med school because of its acceptance policy. Apparently, a member of the Utah House had a grandson who was denied admission to the U's medical school. As I recall, he was accepted to several other schools but the U was his first choice. While I am sympathetic to the plight of this young man and his family, the fact that punitive legislation was even drafted must send shockwaves through higher ed.
I'm not here to defend those administrators and their admissions criteria, but if we want to have world-class research universities in this state, we have to be prepared for the backlash that will come when the children of taxpaying Utahns are denied entrance to a school they subsidize with their taxes.
<< Home