College Guide
Blog
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman is getting involved in President Obama’s college cost discussion, sort of. As she appears to see it, college is getting more expensive for students because it’s getting less money from other sources.
According to a piece by David Jesse in the Detroit Free Press:
In an open letter sent today to Obama, Coleman said funding for higher education is at critical levels.
“The University of Michigan and our state’s 14 other public institutions have been ground zero for funding cuts. The state’s significant disinvestment in higher education has been challenging: a 15 percent cut in the last year alone, and a reduction of more than 30 percent over the last decade.
“Mr. President, you have two wonderful daughters; I have two beautiful grandchildren. Parents and grandparents throughout the country want a secure, productive future for our young, and that future will demand a college education. As a former college professor, you know the rewards of seeing students grow intellectually, exercise critical thinking, and begin to shape their communities. This transformative experience of higher learning contributes to the overall well-being of our nation.
While she mentioned that colleges “need to do a better job of controlling cost,” the true solution she’s advocating is a little murky.
She’s probably right, at least to a point, but it’s going to be pretty difficult for the Coleman to really be convincing. If tuition hikes are caused primarily by cuts from the state legislatures, the solution is for states to appropriate more money. But how much money and how often? And how can we fix this problem so public university funding isn’t a horrible battle every time the economy slows?
Presumably President Obama agrees with Coleman that states should provide more money to colleges, but he has no control over the legislatures. What does Coleman want Obama to do about this?
Facebook
Twitter
dave mazella on December 16, 2011 6:33 PM:
Obviously this is a matter of the legislative vs. executive branch: e.g., Obama could certainly be more active in the regulation of the for-profits and their dependence on federal student loans, which he has threatened to do but not followed through on. The rest is a matter of his political priorities, which seem squarely focused on Bush-style NCLB accountability schemes (lazy teachers!) and whiz bang community colleges that will struggle with their students no matter who is president.
What I don't understand in this and other posts at the College Guide is why we would consider a college president more culpable than the state and federal legislatures for the declining amount of money she is given year after year?
Public universities, like many other institutions in the public sector, get regularly scapegoated by conservative politicians and legislators. This complicates their funding and consequently their ability to stabilize tuition. Short of alchemy, I don't see how public institutions can make up the difference when funding drops out except by tuition increases and increased reliance on monetized research and students capable of paying full freight. Remember, we are not talking about a single year, but decades' worth of continual cuts. So what is Coleman capable of doing unilaterally to address this crisis?