Search News


Browse Archives

News

Funding Publics

November 16, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- Recalibrating the puzzle pieces of support for public universities to include more financing from the federal government as state contributions wane might offer the best solutions for public universities’ economic woes, a panel of presidents concluded here Sunday.

At “Financing Tomorrow’s Public Research Universities,” the opening session of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities’ (APLU) annual conference, four public university presidents -- and one ex-president -- came together to consider how to fund their institutions once the federal stimulus money runs out, the recession runs its course and the Obama administration’s efforts to expand access to higher education kick into high gear.

The presidents, all coming from situations of financial duress and speaking to a gathering of administrators from other struggling institutions, couldn't be expected to argue for less federal funding or to get too bogged down in discussion of the strings of accountability that would almost certainly be attached to any new appropriations. In their remarks, panelists Elson S. Floyd, president of Washington State University; Sally Mason, president of the University of Iowa; Lee T. Todd Jr., president of the University of Kentucky; and Mark G. Yudof, president of the University of California System, all looked to federal support for their state-based universities, as did Peter McPherson, the association’s president and former president of Michigan State University.

“The competitive future of our country in part depends upon the academic community as a whole certainly including public and land grant universities,” McPherson said, after listing the challenges facing APLU members. “These are the most daunting we’ve experienced since the modern public university system was built … [and we] can surmount these challenges.”

In an October paper, Yudof called for the creation of a national strategy for higher education. “There never has been an integrated national strategy in this country for higher education,” he wrote. “There needs to be one now. The mission is simply too important to leave to state governments that seem disinclined or unable to pursue it.”

He carried the same line of argument throughout his talk, rallying for the expansion of federal support of higher education to include more than just financial aid and research funding. “The policy of thinking you can just in a laser-like way say we want the poor kids to get a break and we want to do lots of research, but, you know, the rest of it is up to the states, is simply not working.”

Though “some people say it’s not the time to act” while the country lurches through a recession, Yudof said he thinks the time is right for major change. The Morrill Act funding the creation of land-grant institutions, he noted, was signed into law in 1862 in the midst the economic and social unrest of Civil War. “What worse moment in American history?"

The challenge, he conceded, “is a delicate problem of federalism.” Congress doesn’t trust state governments to spend federal dollars as instructed so instead holds back to avoid seeing money marked for higher education ultimately fund highways construction or the state department of corrections. But, he said, “we’ve got to deal with this federalism problem” because it's one that Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and many other emerging higher education powers don’t have.

But he offered no support for a federal solution proposed earlier this fall by the University of California at Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau and Frank D. Yeary, a vice chancellor, to provide special support for a few of the country’s most elite public research universities. “My feeling is if we say let’s designate the top 20 research universities that should get special treatment from Congress, it’ll die,” he said.

Mason, of the University of Iowa, said she “would use Iowa as a perfect example of why federalism [works].” The university sustained $740 million in flood damage in June 2008 and “FEMA is solving all my problems” in reconstructing the Iowa City campus.

“I would tell you that you need partners if you’re going to get through these difficult times, if you’re going to sustain and grow, if you’re going to continue to be a world-class research institution,” she said. “It absolutely behooves us now to take it a step further and build our partnerships out as far as we can, whether it’s with the federal government, whether it’s with other entities that we can come up with.”

Kentucky’s Todd and Washington State’s Floyd also spoke in favor of better cultivation of partnerships, with the federal government, the states and private donors. “The idea about trying to leverage federal money to push the state or state money to push industry … is something that really works,” Todd said.

“We must work with our respective state legislatures to identify stable and predictable revenue sources that will continue to fuel and fund our colleges and universities across the country,” Floyd said. “If we fail to do that we have only ourselves to blame because the reality is we must be unrelenting relative to our stewardship of these institutions.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Funding Publics

  • Oh, stop whining!
  • Posted by Sue Donna Moss on November 16, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • How unfortunate for Yudof that the people who pay his bills don't see his work in the same light that he does. Perhaps instead of petulantly describing state level decision makers as indifferent or powerless, he should spend his time explaining to them why public universities are a good value proposition, or coming up with strategies to economize.

    As for a "national strategy for higher education", by which Yudof really means a federal bailout, that would be yet another straw on the back of our overburdened economy. The last two years have seen a vast infusion of cash into the money supply to the point where gold is over $1100 per ounce. That doesn't just mean that jewelry is expensive, people, that's an important economic indicator that is telling us something that would be disastrous to keep ignoring. When will people realize that this continued failure to tighten the federal belt is a recipe for serious, permanent disaster? There are too many industries in line, hat in hand, looking for a federal bailout, and the sum of all this borrowing will be our ruin.

  • Posted by JJLowe , Admissions at BC on November 16, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • I agree with Sue. The fiscal urgency that most industries are expressing is only going to catch up with us down the road. It is not the Fed's responsibility to bail out big business when the balance sheet goes blank, higher ed included.

    Like the housing market, maybe the higher ed market is over-saturated and needs to be thinned out a little bit. If some institutions have to close doors or merge, than so be it. The higher ed landscape is drastically different and constantly changing. With the increase in on-line, for profit programs that are springing up like kudzu the other, "tangible" institutions needs to adapt to that at a faster pace. Common sense right? Survival of the fittest, or Survival of the smartest?

  • Should we let the US decline on its own petard
  • Posted by Conor King , HE consultant, Australia on November 16, 2009 at 6:15pm EST
  • A mixed metaphor no doubt. If we let the pseudo Darwinian logic apply then for the rest of the world to watch the US decline should be good for us, since we would be the competing winners. However out here we live in more collective societies which recognise that we each depend on others to create more wealth and opportunity, using competitive frameworks but restraining them in places. Hence no we do not need the US to decline but rather accept it is part of the world and internally sort out how best to support its people prosper together. Whether that means a national funding for higher education is a question of what will work best.

  • Conor King has it right.
  • Posted by DFS on November 22, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • The USA is but one country. But this country has enabled the internal and mutual progress of nations around the world through its monetary assumptions of huge portions of defense budgets, while consistently spurring on research which the world has capitalized upon.

    In this sense, the USA needs some payback. It's about time that we got some of that bang for the buck, as well.

  • Higher Education is not Big Business
  • Posted by AG at Boston College on November 30, 2009 at 4:45am EST
  • No matter how corporate higher education institutions may get, there is a big difference between universities and big business. First and foremost is the disconnect between cost and price of higher ed, even taking into account rising tuition levels. The bottom line is: we cannot expect higher education to show bottom line profits the way businesses must.

    There are several reasons for this, but the 2 key issues are: the public good and private good that are both always inherent to higher education. And: higher education is not actually a commodifiable service, even if it is included in GATS.

    Of course the US should have a national agenda or strategy for higher education. Higher education is essential to the whole, not just the state parts of our union. We need the national agenda to continue to protect the broader needs and values of academia - as it has in the past by instituting the GI Bills and Land-Grant institutions, by improving access for minorities and disenfranchised students. Meanwhile, the state-specific needs and democratic diversity of higher ed in the US are part of what make our system unique in the world. Since any federal policy will necessarily come with standardizing strings attached, we stand to lose a lot of the value we currently gain from our broad diversity of institutions.

    Ideally, federal financial support should continue to bolster state systems, especially when state budgets are tight. The message from the federal level should remain: higher education is a national priority for the US in terms of social stability, global status, and future development. We invest in higher education, not because we should see immediate returns, but because universities are one of the major tools we have to bring us into the future as we want it to be.

    (As for on-line, for-profit higher education programs: Although some are effective and there may be room for quality programs within the diverse higher education landscape, they are in sum akin to fad diets while universities in the traditional sense are the equivalent of healthy living and regular exercise: neither one is a sure bet (a healthy person can still fall ill or have an accident), but overall, the latter remains the better choice.)