Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Local voices: Regents should seek efficiency

June 25, 2008

Advertisement

The reaction to my last column on the problem of increasing tuition at the regents universities was interesting. Many people read my comments to indicate that I favor raising taxes in order to keep tuition low and higher education affordable. That, however, was not my point at all.

I believe that the financing of public education in the United States is one of the most difficult, but also the most critical, issues faced by state governments. In effect, there are only a few sources for such financing: state taxpayer funds, gifts and grants, and tuition. In Kansas over the last decade, the burden of financing increased university costs has come from increased tuition and increases in gifts and grants.

Now, however, as the state and nation move into a period of economic hardship, if not recession, it seems likely that the flow of gifts and grants will slow down, leaving tuition increases as the primary means to finance higher education costs unless more state revenues are allocated to universities. Such an increase in state revenues for universities, however, is problematic because it requires either tax increases or allocations away from other public agencies, agencies which themselves need increased funds.

There is another way, however, to keep tuition low without increasing taxes or reallocating scarce funding away from other state agencies: reducing expenditures. As I said in my last column, my experience of KU over 14 years is that there is very little "fat" at the university. I suspect that the same is true at other regents institutions. Thus, budget reductions at the institutional level will, I believe, adversely affect the quality of education and research the universities can do.

But there is another way. While institutional level reductions would harm both educational and research missions of the regents universities, I believe that a greater coordination of education and research activities among all the universities, including the reduction of program duplication in the system, if reasonable, might well generate significant savings over time.

For instance, do we need as many multiple graduate and professional programs as we currently have in the state of Kansas? Given the relatively small population of the state, would it not make sense to have only one or two graduate programs in each discipline? Do we need four Ph.D. programs in the same specialties in our small state? Do we need multiple professional school programs? Should we have multiple faculty at different institutions doing the same or related research on the same or similar equipment?

Further, I would suggest that the current model under which the regents universities operate often leads to inter-university, intra-system competition. Is such competition a good thing for the state? Does it foster or impede fiscal efficiency? Does it improve the education we provide our students? Also, would closer coordination of the universities and junior colleges make sense now that so many students begin their higher education at junior colleges, precisely because they are so much less expensive? Shouldn't such coordination take place on a system-wide level?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that the regents universities act on a semi-autonomous basis for most things and that the Board of Regents, while providing oversight, does not often provide the level of detailed, efficiency-based coordination that might be necessary to bring about the kind of changes I'm suggesting could be worthwhile.

If Kansas universities are to maintain high-level research and teaching, then I believe that the Legislature and the Regents need to ask some basic questions about the structure of higher education in the state. They need to put aside local political allegiances and consider what would be best for the state as a whole. This will not be easy. It will require strong leadership both in the Legislature and by the Regents.

A number of years ago I served as a "co-reporter" for the Kansas Citizens Justice Initiative, a law reform effort initiated by the governor, the Legislature, and the judiciary. It rapidly became clear to the members of that commission that one easy way to save substantial amounts of taxpayer revenues would be to eliminate the requirement that every county in Kansas - all 105 - have a courthouse and a sitting judge, regardless of county population or caseload. But it was also very clear that such a sensible fiscal reform would never take place because no legislator was willing to lose his or her courthouse.

I think that much the same happens in the higher education debates. Sometimes, hard times require hard decisions. If we cannot make those decisions, then the people of Kansas will suffer.

Mike Hoeflich, a distinguished professor in the Kansas University School of Law, writes a regular column for the Journal-World.

Comments

Hope56 5 years, 9 months ago

Thank you for expressing some type of solution, and thank you for addressing overlooked issues of grave importance. Stnford and the University of Penn had found money to address this for some students by providing them tuition/room/board, etc. rather than students having to take out loans for students/families earning less than $45,000 or less than $50,000. Google it. Not enough is being done elsewhere, yet Mike is addressing the grave problems. Mike, I hope you write more articles addressing solutions. What is often the case is that that there isn't media coverage that indicates that the higher administration officials, the Board of Regents, the recruiters and financial aid officers, the other employees at higher education including faculty and staff are informing students that the realities of "Borrow now, pay later" can and are haunting borrowers and their parents. Is this he choice that he/she wants to make, for sure? It isn't just the low-income borrowers who may have difficulties paying for the higher education costs, and it is an emergency. The costs of living in addition to the cost of the education indicates that salaries may go up twice what they are now--gradually over thirty years, yet the costs of living and tuition might raise eight to ten times the costs now. Such is the case of my salary now when costs were cheap, and an education was paid for within a reasonable time frame at low costs. The salaries of employees do not pay the expenses: not enough coming in for the amount needed to live. We need a wake-up call in this matter, and it is a crisis/emergency. A debt for a student ranging from $16,000 total to $45,000 total, not to mention higher loan amounts for others, is an alarming amount when it comes to payments, including housing/food/utilities/transportation/insurance and other necessities, not just for one, yet for a spouse and/or children. One can get on the internet and find a loan calculator to see what the payments will be; also, ask the people around you what they make for a living. Are they making it? It is alarming; true stories in the media and from personal acquaintances indicate that adults are paying for higher education well into their years of social security, working low-paying jobs presently sometimes, working menial jobs after retirement, working two jobs throughout life, and with what effects on the persons and families at stake? Another east coast idea came forth from Massachusetts Institute of Technology where MIT matches the Pell Grant amount. This isn't going to solve it, yet it is helpful. Mike, we need this addressed. Keep going!

0

KU_cynic 5 years, 9 months ago

Some good ideas to end costly redundancy, Hoef, but likely to be as politically infeasible as county or school district consolidation.In particular, notice how Hoeflich avoided naming any particular programs. Here's a couple, but as soon as I've uttered them readers will see how quickly the silos will be defended:-- Aerospace engineering: Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate aerospace engineering expertise to Wichita State so as to complement that area's industry?-- Graduate business education (MBA): There isn't a single good MBA program in the state. Wouldn't it be a good idea to build a much-needed new business building at KU, grant KU a monopoly on the MBA degree, and shut down bottom-feeder programs at K-State, WSU, and any other state-sponsored schools that curently act as diploma mills for the MBA degree? -- Computer science / computer engineering / information systems / information technology : Why must KU and other universities employ scholars who study software development, adoption, and use in separate schools as varied as engineering, business, journalism, education, library science, and so on? Except for the true software developers all they're doing is sloppy sociology anyway.

0

hoeflich 5 years, 9 months ago

notholroyd: you can do that simply by going to the Spencer library and looking at the budgets. They're available to anyone who asks. By the way, faculty, including me since June 2000, don't have any budgetary authority nor input.

0

not_holroyd 5 years, 9 months ago

I would love to go over the law school's growth of expenditures in the last decade and compare them to virtually anything. How about it Mike?

0

Godot 5 years, 9 months ago

That is the kind of thinking and speaking we seek from our university professors: creative solutions for the fiscal problems that face Kansans.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.