by Lou Glazer
Unfortunately, after decades of building a world-class higher education system, Michigan has been under-investing in our universities and community colleges for years. Both parties. In her eight years, Gov. Jennifer Granholm cut state funding for universities by 18 percent. In his first year Governor Snyder added another 15 percent reduction. We are now in the bottom five in per pupil state support for higher education.
Lou Glazer
To make matters worse, policy-makers have now combined funding cuts with price controls limiting tuition increases, thus restricting the two main sources of revenue needed to insure continued quality.
We at Michigan Future, Inc. have argued for years this is stupid. How we could have fallen to the bottom five is mind-boggling. College attainment is not only the single best predictor of an individual’s economic well-being, but also of state prosperity. It certainly is one of the keys to returning Michigan to prosperity.
What we need from policy — and are not getting — is a commitment to insure a system of higher education that is world-class in: (1) preparing students for success in a flat world; and (2) contributing to new knowledge creation.
We need a new approach to state support for higher education, one that will give us a better chance of maintaining a high-quality and agile system of higher education for decades to come. We propose a new structure for state support of higher education.
It starts with restoring the more than $600 million in cuts over the past decade. And then we build around empowered students and autonomous institutions. This will create a more market-based system that almost certainly will lead to a better balance of costs and quality than a Lansing-based command and control system.
It would have three components:
1. Institutional independence at public universities and community colleges.
Each of our public community colleges and universities has a public governing body to represent the best interests of citizens. Beyond that, in a highly competitive industry, markets and competition are the best way to set prices and to insure long-term quality.
This means giving public higher education institutions autonomy over:
• Setting tuition. The quality of the education and the strength of the institutions in the long term are more important than the price of attending.
• Recruiting students. Universities should be free (in fact, encouraged) to recruit the most talented students from anywhere on the planet.
• Programs, curriculum and pedagogy.
2. Provide state funding to students — no matter where they come from — rather than to institutions.
With autonomy, institutions will control their revenue based on their ability to compete in the marketplace. The state’s role should be to make higher education more affordable to students. We believe this is a terrific — probably the best — investment for the future economic success of the state. So, the higher proportion of tuition paid by the state, we believe the better for the state’s future.
We recommend creating a fund that would replace the current funding for institutions and instead would provide students with a voucher/foundation grant.
Our preference is to support all students: undergraduate and graduate; in-state, national or international; and all ages, right out of high school to mid-career. Public funds would be used to help students from anywhere on the planet who can meet entrance requirements to better afford Michigan’s higher education system. This might be the most powerful statement we can make that we want the most talented people in the world to come here to learn and ultimately live and work.
Funding would be available to students at all public community colleges and universities. Our preference is also to include, maybe at a lower rate, campus-based private universities and colleges with a preponderance of full-time students pursuing four-year or graduate degrees.
What matters most to Michigan’s economic future is not where you grew up or go to college, but where you choose to live and work after college. The most prosperous places across the country are those with the highest proportion of adults with a four-year degree. Of the top 15 states in college attainment, 13 are also in the top 15 in per capita income. Michigan is 36th.
So our preference is to provide college graduates with a strong incentive to live and work in Michigan by making more of the state support as loans to students, which become grants if they stay and work in Michigan for a relatively short time (3 to 5 years) after college. In-state students would receive a combination of grants and loans, out-of-state students exclusively loans.
3. Provide a substantial state match for federal research funding.
We can’t emphasize enough, in a knowledge-based economy, the strategic importance of our major research universities. We have three of the best in the country. They are an incredible asset. We need to invest in them. We would do it through a second smaller, but still substantial, pool of funds that would provide a 20 percent match for federal research funds. Universities could use funds either to provide a match to win grants or to invest in additional research or research facilities.
Lou Glazer is president of Michigan Future Inc., an Ann Arbor think tank that focuses on how the state can succeed in a knowledge-based economy.
6 Comments
I will agree that we have underfunded our college and university system in Michigan. As I send my son of to college for the first time I am acutely aware of the cost buden this has placed on families. But that is about all I will agree with Mr. Glazer. Our public colleges and universities are a public trust, not a business. Our state Constitution gives universities great autonomy. That has lead to these institutions of higher learning to graduate 4 times the amount of teachers this state needs, to build buildings because wealthy donor gave them money but without the funds to maintain them, and it seems everyone now wants a medical school. We have 15 independantly functioning institutions, what we need is a system. We need greater control centrally over decisions such as buildings, program offerings, and tuition rates. Unfortunately, this would require a Constituitional amendment, something the universities will fight tooth and nail. And my tax dollars support these institutions. Why should we offer a voucher to a non-resident to attend here? Currently, most univeristies set out-of-state tuition rates to cover the entire cost of attendance. We don’t need more autonomy, we already have that. Vouchers will not create competition because students choose where to go on several factors that simple economics do not explain. And since our job market is poor, too many of our studends leave the state. Until that changes, and yes, I do believe the universities of this state can help change that, these out-of-state students who would use these vouchers will simply leave the state when they are done. Not a wise use of our limited tax dollars.
These are great arguments, and entirely reasonable. Michigan Future has a notable history of supporting higher ed, especially our research universities. I’m not disputing the reference, but I’d like to know the source of the data behind the statement that “We are now in the bottom five in per pupil state support for higher education.”
Instead of criticizing state “cuts” to education, a better question to ask here is why are colleges and universities pricing themselves out of reach of the people they were created to serve?
Where is the attacking of exorbitant salaries?
Where is the questioning of the growth in support staff?
At the rate it is increasing, the tuition bubble will burst very shortly.
The educational establishment finds it far easier to criticize those who are paying their bills, rather than addressing its own costs like the rest of society has already done. What will they do when people figure out that any monetary advantage gained by a college education, is negated (or even lost) by the debt added to their personal financial situation.
Cut the higher Ed bureaucracy out of the picture entirely! Give aid (tax credits) to college grads who stay or locate here and become part of Michigan’s economy. What the hell good does it do Michigan tax payers to educate someone that moves to another state right after graduation? Better yet let’s make it attractive for college grads to move here from other states and stick it to their taxpayers! Why should we care where someone went to school, as long as they are here contributing to Michigan’s economy? This will make universities, colleges and tech schools truly competitive with each other and with other state’s schools for that matter.
@KG-1, good point about administrative bloat. There is a tendency in any organization for the people with decision-making power to decide they need more money and staff to keep “quality” up. Witness the CEOs of large corporations. Those with an equivalent number of employees compared to a large university are compensated much more lavishly, as are their top officers. To some extent, the top echelons of public and private institutions compete for the same talent, which explains salaries for law school lecturers hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than the salary of U-M’s president.
That much acknowledged, Lou Glazer has made a number of very interesting structural suggestions to the way we fund higher ed, which should be considered on their own merits apart from discussions of salaries at public or private institutions. His point is to encourage people to come to Michigan for an education, then stay here to use their talent, build businesses, and employ people in high-paying jobs. China is paying big money to bring its well-educated intellectuals back to China, providing them with a good living and excellent research facilities. They are our real competition, not only in Michigan but in the rest of the U.S. and Europe. The current education funding model worked well while we were flush with money here, but the balance of wealth is shifting. If we don’t want it to shift further away from Michigan, we must change our model. Lou’s answer might not be the silver bullet, but it’s well worth careful consideration. I hope Gov. Snyder is paying attention.
Lou: M ichigan Community Colleges and Universities already have protection against the state of Michigan trying to control our tuition and most other decisions. It is the 1963 Michigan Constitution. I was appalled that the Universities did not legally challege the legislature’s controlling their tuition for the upcoming school year. Every year there is an attempt by the legislature, the Governor’s office or some state agency to erode that constitutional protection. If we let them get away with it is is our own fault. Article VII, Section 7 of the Michigan Constitution says , quote, ” The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment and financial support of public community and junior college which SHALL BE SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED (my emphasis)by locally elected boards”, unquote. Nothing could be more clear and umambiguous! Nothing is more basic to that mandate than tuition control at the local level. We need to use this constituional protection and protect it, by legal means if necessary, or lose it. The Universities have even a stronger statement of autonomy in the State Constituition. This mission creep by the state can and must stop. Unfortunately many in the legislature, state agencies, Governor’s office and the general public are not aware of this. Please help us educate the state agencies , Gov., and legislature. We do not have to plead for local control. We just need to protect it.