Skip to content
Blog

Category: Higher Ed Research

Report Confirms Deep Cuts to Higher Ed Across US

Posted on

The SHEEO State Higher Education Finance report for FY 2010 was released last week. Unsurprisingly, it confirms that the same general pattern in Washington of deep state cuts to higher education funding coupled with steep tuition increases is being replicated in states across the US.

Report Highlights: National Trends

Nationally, on average, state support for public high education per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student declined by about 7 percent between 2009 and 2010, and, at $6,454 per student, is at its lowest level in 25 years. The reports notes that average increases in net tuition revenue of 3.4 percent per student partially offset these budget cuts.

These cuts comes at a time when enrollment continues to grow partly due to more citizens seeking out higher education during the economic crisis. Nationally, enrollment grew by 15 percent between 2005 and 2010. Even when state and federal and increased tuition support manage to stay whole or increase, the report notes that increasing enrollments continue to erode per student funding levels over time.

The report highlights the importance that state support continues to play in education related spending by public institutions even as tuition revenue rises. They acknowledge that this importance is sometimes obscured by the complex finances of large institutions that have many other (non-fungible) funding sources.

Ultimately, SHEEO purports that public and policymaker values are consistent with continued public support for higher education, and they are hopeful that investment will rise again once state budgets stabilize and improve.

Report Highlights: Washington State

SHEEO presents the following averages for Washington State higher education for the 2005-2010 period:

  • 12th in increased enrollment in public higher education (19.2%).
  • 30th in appropriations per FTE.
  • 40th in percent of net tuition revenue as percent of total education revenue.
  • 40th in total educational revenue per FTE.

These numbers are a testament to the comparatively low tuition rates enjoyed by WA residents combined with lower than average state appropriations.

Read the full report for more data, analysis, and methodological details.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Research Patent Case

Posted on

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems et al.. At issue is whether the Supreme Court will agree with the argument made by research institutions to expand the current interpretation of what is known as the Bayh-Dole Act (1980’s University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act), which requires that royalties received from patents awarded based on federally funded research are retained by universities and used to fund research, education, and payments to inventors.

The case originated as a dispute between Stanford University and Roche, a company that required a Stanford researcher to sign a consultant agreement  containing language regarding patent rights (“do hereby assign”) that was stronger than the language contained in the Stanford contract he had signed a year earlier  (“I agree to assign”). Stanford sued Roche in 2005 after they refused requests to acquire a license to Stanford’s patents relating to the researcher’s work.  A federal district court initially ruled in Stanford’s favor, but that ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court, which determined that the Roche contract language  superseded the Stanford contract language, giving Roche a rightful patent claim.

While universities can be more careful with contract language going forward, a Supreme Court decision in favor of Roche could call  into question decades of patents that have provided billions of dollars in royalties to institutions. At the urging of the President and Justice Department, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In addition to the support of the Obama administration, many institutions and organizations have filed amicus briefs. Notably, former Senator Birch Bayh, co-sponsor of the Bayh-Dole Act in question, filed his own amicus brief emphasizing that the federal legislation was never meant to allow ambiguity about whether universities had exclusive rights to patents generated by federal funded research.

Monday’s oral arguments provided no clear indication of how they might rule in the case. A decision is expected by July.

Recent Grads Affirm Value of College Education

Posted on

Mirroring previous findings, the American Council on Education (ACE) released results from a survey of recent college graduates that confirms a high level of satisfaction with the quality and utility of American higher education, but also reflects a growing sense that students and families should take more responsibility for paying for higher education.

Among the findings:

  • 89 percent believed their education was worth it—even after considering the time and money required to attend.
  • 28 percent said that preparing a student for a career was the primary goal of a higher education, while 31 percent said that learning to think critically was the most important role.
  • 40 percent stated that the student and family should be primarily responsible for funding a higher education, followed by the federal and state governments.

Why Does College Cost So Much?

Posted on

We’ve previously mentioned the new book Why Does College Cost So Much? by two economists from the College of William and Mary, Robert Archibald and David Feldman. The authors have made a compelling argument that increasing higher education costs are not the result of institutional dysfunction, but of broader economic forces.

Read our summary of this book, and let us know what you think about their evidence, their conclusions, and their policy recommendations.

Elevating the College Cost Debate

Posted on

As we reported last month, two economists at the College of William and Mary have published a new book called Why Does College Cost So Much?. We are almost finished reading this very well written and researched book and will provide our own assessment soon.

In the meantime, the book continues to generate passionate discussion–see Stanley Fish’s column at the New York Times. If you are as intrigued by this topic as we are, and have a lot of time to spare over Thanksgiving break, I might suggest reading some of the 400+ comments left on Fish’s column. To keep the discussion going, Fish handed his column over to the book’s authors, Robert Archibald and David Feldman, to address some of the most common objections to their arguments. If you really want to punish yourself, readers have thus far left another 240+ comments to sift through!

And for a break from all of this talk about budget cuts and cost crises, here are some links to a couple of feel-good, holiday themed pieces published today:

Inside Higher Ed: In Praise of the Americans

The Chronicle of Higher Education: On Gratitude in Academe

We wish the entire UW community a very happy Thanksgiving holiday. Stay warm and travel safely!

Latest NCES Report Provides Data on Higher Ed Employees

Posted on

The National Center For Education Statistics (NCES) is a part of the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Every US University governed by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (federal student aid programs) is required to submit annual data to NCES via nine surveys that cover topics such as pricing, admissions, enrollment, employment, financial aid, graduation/completion, institutional finance and more.

NCES releases regular reports synthesizing the massive amount of data that institutions submit. The latest, Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional Staff, 2009-10, summarizes national trends in higher education employment. Some of the findings include:

  • Institutions reported employing (not including medical schools or hospitals) 3.8 million employees– 2.4 million full-time and 1.4 million part-time.
  • Of the 2.4 million full-time employees,  1.4 million were classified as professional (see report for definition), 46% of whom had faculty status: 21% with tenure, 9% on the tenure-track, and 17% not on the tenure-track or at an institution without tenure.
  • Of full-time faculty with tenure, 65% were men while 35% were women.
  • Of full-time faculty with tenure, 81% were White, 8% were Asian, 5% were African American, and 4% were Hispanic.

You can explore more NCES reports, facts, and figures online. Additionally, you can build your own queries and pull up institutional data based on any set of universities you identify.

Emphasis on STEM Degree Production

Posted on

Hi, my name is Anja Speckhardt, and I am a student assistant here at the Office of Planning and Budgeting, as well as a freshman at the UW. As a part of my job at OPB, I have been given the privilege to occasionally post to the blog about interesting topics I’m researching. Today, I chose to write about the current emphasis many policymakers, employers and institutions place on STEM education. This is especially exciting and relevant to me as an incoming freshman, as I explore the plethora of major options here at the UW. Thanks for reading!

For some time now, legislators at the state and national levels have been emphasizing degree production in “high demand” fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Spurred on by President Obama’s call to increase the number and quality of math and science teachers, and aware of the large engineering, software, and technology corporations integral to Washington State’s success and job market, Washington State’s Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) proposed a Fund for Innovation to increase the number of high demand degrees awarded (among other objectives).  Among their reasons are that, in comparison to other fields, job prospects in STEM are still promising, student demand for these majors is high, and technology and science are important for innovation.

The University of Washington is well-known for its outstanding medical, nursing and engineering schools, as well as its strong math and science programs. Additionally, from its earliest days, the UW has had an important relationship with the firms in the area:  the wind tunnel, partly sponsored by Bill Boeing in 1939, is a perfect example of this. Support for STEM programs is integral to the UW’s success, because students have come to expect access to and excellence from these departments.

However, it is important to remember that not all of the students attending the UW are technologically or scientifically inclined and seek to impact the world in other ways. Some highly intelligent and motivated students choose to major in history, music theory, or political science, or one of the many other fantastic programs in humanities, social sciences, and fine arts. The UW is home to a highly ranked International Studies school, as well as a leading Business school. We don’t only have a wind tunnel, we also display the largest book in the world—a book of photography.

The UW’s extensive General Education requirements allow students to explore many disciplines and choose to pursue those that interest them the most. The University is a venue for exploring interests and giving students the opportunity to find their passion—be it biochemistry or French.

This brings up the interesting question of the purpose of a university: Is it primarily to further education in all its multifaceted forms, or should its focus lie solely in career preparation? Presently, career preparation has taken hold as an important, if not primary, goal of a university as well as a measure of its success. However, it is critical that such focus and investment not be at the expense of the multiplicity of disciplines and inclinations that are an important part of the UW’s success and each student’s experience. In fact, new research shows that a high GPA and a good work ethic can be a better recommendation to future employers than a degree in a certain field.

US Higher Ed More Accessible Than Affordable?

Posted on

Higher Education Strategy Associates, a Toronto based research firm, released a report last week that measures 17 nations on the affordability and accessibility of their higher education systems.

The report, Global Higher Education Rankings 2010: Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective, finds that while the United States ranks on the low end of affordability, it ranks 4th overall in accessibility. This counterintuitive finding is repeated across other nations in the study and suggests that these two goals are not as closely linked as some might assume. Overall, Finland scored highest on both measures.

If you don’t want to read the entire report, or scrutinize the research methodology, you can find a summary of the report and a table of the main results at the Chronicle.

Financial Aid Rises Alongside College Prices

Posted on

The College Board released its 2010 Trends in College Pricing report this week. The report made a large public splash amidst heightened concern about college prices during the economic crisis. The report’s data and conclusions were presented and dissected from many different perspectives, including: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, Inside Higher Ed, and The Chronicle.

The full report is worth reading, but some of the highlights include the following:

  • Over the past decade, tuition sticker prices increased, on average, 5.6% per year at public four year institutions. Note that in the 1990’s when state funding levels were high, tuition increased more slowly, while cuts to state funding in the last decade have led to rapid increases.
  • On average, state appropriations per FTE declined by 9% in 2008-09, and by another 5% in 2009-10.
  • In 2009-10, state appropriations per student were 19% lower than they were a decade earlier.
  • Over 47% of all students enrolled in a four year institution (public or private) face published prices of less than $8,999 per year. Only 13% are enrolled in an institution with a published price of over $30,000 per year.
  • In 2010-11, the average student at a public four year institution received $6,100 in grant aid and tax benefits, and Only 1/3rd of college students pay the published tuition and fee rates.
  • Due to historic increases in Federal Pell Grants and increased institutional aid, the average net price paid by students was actually less than the net price paid in 2005-06. Note that students and families who receive little or  grant or tax aid are paying significantly more than they were in 2005-06.

While college costs continue to rise faster than the rate of inflation, which is especially concerning when family incomes are losing ground, the data show that federal, state and institutional grant and tax aid have had a powerful effect on the net cost of college. In fact, many students with financial need are paying less today than they were 5 years ago.

In addition to illustrating the striking role that financial aid is playing in college affordability, the report also highlights the dramatic decline in state support for public institutions, which are operating with almost 20% less state funding per student than they were a decade ago, despite state approval of larger than normal tuition increases.

Ultimately, the costs of public higher education are being shifted from the states to the students and families who are paying higher tuition, and to the federal government, which is providing increasing levels of financial aid.

Expect further detailed analysis of this report and how the College Board’s findings apply to the UW soon.

New Book Places College Cost Debate in Larger Context

Posted on

Two economists at the College of William and Mary have published a new book called ‘Why Does College Cost So Much?‘ In a co-authored op-ed published by Inside Higher Ed, Archibald and Feldman explain that their book is an attempt to largely dispel commonly asserted narratives that blame rising college costs on a particular set of actors (the government, the administration, the faculty, or even students and families) who have created institutional dysfunction that must be targeted for reform.

Instead of these often politicized arguments, they attempt to examine the higher education industry in the context of the American economy with the basic assumption that economic forces acting on and reshaping other industries might also be applicable to higher education. The authors focus particularly on the role of technology in reducing the costs of manufactured goods and agricultural products, but not services.

We look forward to reading this new addition to the literature.