Another Bid to Expand Higher Ed Entitlements

Virginia must be running a budget surplus — lawmakers are pushing for new entitlements. The latest bid to expand the size and scope of government comes from two Republican lawmakers. Never let it be said that Democrats are the only ones who support bigger government.

Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico and House Appropriations Chairman Del. Vincent Callahan Jr., R-Fairfax have teamed up to push a bill that would create a giveaway program called Virginia Community College Transfer Grants. These grants, explains Matthew Bowers with the Virginian-Pilot, “would pay the difference in tuition costs between students’ two-year community colleges and any Virginia four-year public colleges or universities to which they are admitted.”

Scott Leake, an assistant to Stosch, said the first-year cost to taxpayers was projected at $8 million, with the annual cost increasing to $10 million to $12 million within a few years.

As far as giveaway programs go, this one is modest. For me, it’s the principle of the thing: Legislators approach education much the same way they approach transportation. Roads too congested? Build more roads. College too expensive? Subsidize tuitions. The “solution” is always the same: shovel more money into propping up a dysfunctional system.

In the case of roads, it never occurs to most legislators that instead of endlessly increasing supply to match every increase in demand for roads, they might examine alternatives that would dampen the demand. Likewise, when it comes to education, lawmakers seek to redress the higher cost of higher ed with more tuition subsidies. No one talks about restructuring higher ed to meet its mission at less cost and lower tuitions.

Back in the days of the Allen administration, people did talk about curtailing the growth in the university spending that undergirded the ever-escalating tuition increases. Costs were spiraling out of control back then, too. Gov. George Allen required each university to submit a “restructuring” plan. The idea was that universities, like private-sector organizations, had to make choices. If an institution wanted to invest more resources in one area — life sciences, say, or nanotech — it had to retrench somewhere else.

Private companies continually re-evaluate their product portfolios and lines of business. To finance expansion in growth sectors, they consolidate operations in slow-growth sectors. They shutter outmoded factories. They spin off businesses they’re no longer competitive in. Universities don’t do that. They just grow, grow, grow. When’s the last time you read about a state university shutting down,consolidating or shrinking a department? When’s the last time you read about a state university spinning off an under-performing unit? It hardly ever happens.

Why? Because university administrators can get away with it. Higher education is such a sacred cow that Americans are willing to pay whatever the universities will charge. If tuitions get unaffordable, then colleges jack up tuitions even higher to squeeze students of more affluent families to subsidize students of needier families. Meanwhile, the federal government dishes out more student loans, many of which are never repaid, and state government hands out more subsidies to universities and students alike.

I’m all in favor of making college more affordable to everyone. But what does it have to come at the expense of taxpayers and relatively well-off households? Why can’t higher ed function more efficiently?

Let’s look at some numbers:

1995-2005 Cost of Living Index: 25 %
1995-2005 Enrollment increase in public Virginia colleges and universities: 19 %
Total inflation plus enrollment increase: 44%

FY1999-2008 Increase in General Fund allocation to public colleges and universities: 50%
FY1999-2008 Increase in Non-General Fund budgets for public colleges and universities: 67%

Bottom line: Virginia has increased its financial support for public institutions of higher ed 6% more than the rate of inflation plus enrollment increases combined over the past 10 years for which CPI figures are available. Drawing upon other sources of revenues, primarily tuitions, endowments, dormitory rents, etc., Virginia colleges increased other revenues, adjusted for inflation and enrollment increases, by 23%. In just 10 years!

Affordability of higher ed in Virginia is not a matter of insufficient state support. It is a matter of out-of-control spending — higher faculty salaries, a greater emphasis on expensive technology-intensive disciplines, and god knows what else. If we want our universities to all become polytechnic institutions, that’s fine — but let’s shrink those programs deemed less critical to the future.

Update: Neither the newspaper articles filed by the Virginian-Pilot and the Times-Dispatch — nor my post, which was based upon them — does justice to this issue. Stosch and Callahan lay out their thinking in considerable detail in a press release that I’ve posted online here. I also would recommend consulting a comment to this post written by Scott Leake, an aide to Stosch. New bottom line: This legislation must be viewed in the context of an anticipated expansion of higher ed enrollment in Virginia by 20-25 percent by FY 2012. Question to Leake: Is this bill actually designed to save the Commonwealth money?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

14 responses to “Another Bid to Expand Higher Ed Entitlements”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    If the alternative is an under-educated workforce, capable only of doing the lowest-paid jobs, I’d say subsidizing higher education is a tremendously wise investment. Higher education needs a dose of economic reality and accountability, but we absolutely need an educated workforce to keep Virginia’s #1 business environment.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    And what do you propose for the tenured faculty in less essential programs?

    Those costs don’t dissappear.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 10:44, I suggest reforming the tenure system. A labor practice reminiscent of Medieval guilds doesn’t function well in a modern market economy.

  4. “Financial exigency” has always been an acceptable way to get rid of tenured faculty under AAUP guidelines.

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Ben, Everybody acknowledges the need for an educated workforce. Almost everyone acknowledges the need to provide some financial assistance to make higher ed affordable to a broad cross-section of the population. But taxpayers and affluent tuition-payers aren’t the only ones with social obligations. The universities themselves have a social obligation to operate more efficiently and to keep expenses down.

    As we’ve discussed on this blog before, there are numerous reasons for inflation in higher ed that have nothing to do with educating people. There’s the “country club-ification” of universities. There’s the archaic tenure system. There’s mission creep — universities transforming into regional economic development engines. There’s the redistribute-of-wealth from the families of affluent students to poor students. Instead of blindly forking over mo’ money, mo’ money, We need to be scrutizing these phenomenon as well.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Re “Virginia’s #1 business environment” may well turn out to be only federal appropriations for defense and homeland security. We shall see as the new priorities arise in Congress next year.

    I agree that we need an educated workforce, which can involve both academic and technical/vocational education. But we also need to separate the wheat from the chaff in college budgets. Not all higher education spending relates to education or research.

    Also, if we need an educated workforce, why are we importing so much poverty and poorly educated people (no slam intended) with illegal immigrants? Do we talk one thing, but walk another?

  7. Scott Leake Avatar
    Scott Leake

    One part of the equation that isn’t being considered is the savings to the state of students attending community college the first two years instead of the four-year. Every in-state student is already a recipient of a “giveaway” if that is what you call direct state support of the institutions.

    There will be a separate line item for this grant program so it shows up as a “cost.” What will not show up as a line item is the lower amount or difference the state will subsidize that student in the two-year rather than the four-year setting.

    SCHEV estimates 50,000 more Virginia students seeking admission to Virginia colleges by 2012 (the baby boom echo). Either we squeeze them out or expand capacity. It is far more cost efficient to enhance the community college experience and buy space at existing privates than build the equivalent of two new major universities in six years.

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Scott, If I understand you correctly, then, the idea is to cope with the necessary expansion of the higher education system by encouraging students to study in the less expensive environment of community college for two years, and then transition to a four-year environment. Is that correct?

    Let me ask you this: How much money do you anticipate saving this way compared to the alternative of simply expanding the four-year institutions? Have you made that calculation?

  9. Scott Leake Avatar
    Scott Leake

    Jim – The reasons behind the proposal are manifold. The study commission the two legislators chaired sought to address affordability and accessibility. Supply and demand are related, after all.

    Neither they nor I can say this will “save” the state money except in the sense that we will get more for the buck. How much? I can’t say with any precision. But it simply stands to reason that if community college tuition and fees currently run about a third of the four-years’ then the cost per “seat” is also about a third.

    The four-years rely on full-time, tenured, benefit receiving faculty more so than the cc’s. Consider all the other “amenities” in the four-year’s: dorms, dining halls, gymns, etc. At a very minimum, the upfront costs of expanding the four-years have to be more costly, do you not think?

    Again, we just have two choice: expand capacity or deny space to some.

    At the news conference yesterday, Dr. DuBois called this an “on ramp” to the four-year degree. I like that expression. Not every 18-year old is ready, willing or able to go off to Blacksburg or Charlottesville. If they are willing to stay home for the first two years and do well, I think this grant program represents an even deal between them and the state.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The Community College system fulfills an important niche in my opinion. It not only can be thought of as an “on ramp” or “training wheels” for those who decide to go on for years 3 and 4.

    But the Community Colleges also are Technical Schools that can educate and equip those who are bounded for jobs that require more than High School and different from College degreed.

    And these schools are very important for the suburban and non-urbanized areas of Virginia where the student might well still be living with parents and/or have a local job in the interim.

    I would actually say that for our young folks that will have to compete in a global economy, Community College is better and more cost-effective than 4 year degrees – and the option to take the 2 and then go for 2 more still exists though … a 4yr College “Track” is a different curriculum path… it’s still available – an opportunity.

    You know .. one of the prime collaborators to the Community College system .. is the … military –
    which.. trains… then offers money for college… and a way for say a veteran to become a highly qualified teacher and/or law enforcement officer, etc.

    I still have the same qualms as JB with regard to cost-effectiveness and would like to see these not be grants – but forgivable loans – based on achievement and success.

    At the very least – I think the program should be a pilot with a sunset clause and good metrics required so that the program can be held accountable for it’s effectiveness.

    I – like JB – do not think every good idea – even REALLY GOOD ideas are deserving of taxpayer funds.

    In fact, the BEST ideas is where taxpayer funds are used as true investments that result in ultimately recovering those funds – a revolving funding account.

    The worst ideas are where money goes for an apparent good cause and instead turns into a failed program that cannot easily be undone and it took years to determine it was not a good idea because accountabilities were not put in place at the time the program was approved.

  11. Eileen Levandoski Avatar
    Eileen Levandoski

    Couldn’t there be other ways to encourage students to first go the community college route and then transfer to 4-year schools without throwing money into equation? How about credits and/or more advanced classes being offer at the 2-year school or maybe even some exemptions from certain classes? And certainly I would be assuming there are no loss of credits transferring. It would be an incentive to make the switch to a 4-yr. school if instead of facing 2 more years you maybe had 1.5.

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Eileen, You’re quite right. Indeed, there already IS an incentive to attend community college — it’s called cheaper community college tuitions. It is a relatively easy thing for community college students to transfer into public, four-year institutions. I’m not clear why they would need an additional financial incentive.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    My husband taught at VT for years and he has said on many occasions that he would much prefer to see many of the students take the community college route first. Often 17 and 18 year olds are not mature enough to thrive in an atmosphere where they are largely on their own as to studying etc. Of course, many are and they do just great.

    Another plus on community college other than giving students an extra couple of years to grow up and the obvious lower cost is this: If Professor XXX is slated to teach Biology 101, at a community college you get Professor XXX. At most 4-year colleges these days, you may get Professor XXX or you may get a teaching assistant who may know biology from A to Z himself but who can’t teach it or who speaks with such broken English or such a thick accent that it is difficult for the students to understand him. A friend of mine who went the community college then 4 year college route said that she had much better professors in the former than the latter.

    Deena Flinchum

  14. Stosch also has introduced a bill fopr the 2007 session that would ensure that we use less than 50% of the surplus on transportation. He clearly isn’t getting it.

    SB760:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+SB760

Leave a Reply