Be sure to check out our latest OPB Brief, Looking Ahead: Washington State Public Pension Costs. This brief is the first in a series intended to provide summary information about major categories of state spending that could impact budgetary outcomes for higher education in future biennia.
Blog
Emphasis on STEM Degree Production
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?
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.
APLU Releases Regional Meetings Report
In advance of the 123rd annual meeting in Dallas on November 14, The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) has released the final report resulting from five regional meetings to discuss key concerns about the future of public research universities, one of which took place at UW Seattle on April 26, 2010.
The report, Ensuring Public Research Universities Remain Vital, outlines the important contributions that public research institutions like the UW make to knowledge, society and the economy. The report also reaffirms the need for institutions to remain committed to their public mission of providing world class education that is affordable and accessible, and for the states to remain committed to facilitating that mission by restoring and protecting the public investment in higher education.
Additionally, the report addresses ways that the federal government can help keep US public research institutions vital. First, by reforming indirect cost reimbursement rate setting policies and regulations associated with federal research grants. Second, by exploring ways that the federal government can partner with institutions to provide operating support, including endowed faculty chairs, funding for doctoral trainees, and new targeted research funding.
Financial Aid Rises Alongside College Prices
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 Federal Higher Ed Regulations Published Today
Having weighed tens of thousands of public comments, the US Department of Education released today a final set of regulations governing various aspects of higher education. While primarily aimed at what are widely seen as abuses within the for-profit higher education system, the regulations apply to all institutions and are driven by the federal government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the federal government’s $170+ billion annual investment in higher education via student aid programs (governed by Title IV of the US Higher Education Act).
Notably, final regulations regarding the controversial gainful employment rule were not published today. Having received over 90,000 public comments and facing an intense for-profit sector lobbying effort, the Department has indicated a need for more time before it is able to finalize gainful employment regulations. The Department will host public meetings on the rule on November 4th and 5th.
Inside Higher Ed has a good overview of the regulations released today, which will take effect in July 2011, as well as links to the rules and a list of the revisions made since the initial rules were proposed. Major changes include:
- Eliminates loopholes allowing institutions to provide incentive pay for admissions and financial aid employees. The rules now explicitly state that incentive payments for employees can not “in any part” be based on enrollment or financial aid metrics.
- Revises the definition of a credit hour for the purpose of awarding federal student aid.
- Clarifies the timeline for returning federal student aid when a student is no longer enrolled.
- Requires for-profit institutions to provide easily accessed graduation and job placement statistics, as well has college cost calculators.
- Requires institutions to notify DOE of new non-degree certificate programs, some of which DOE may determine require a formal application for federal approval (note that this is an area where feedback/lobbying had a significant impact as the original rule required DOE approval for all such programs).
These rules represent a large step for the federal government in regulating higher education in the US.
For more information on the federal government’s intensifying scrutiny of the for-profit higher education sector and why it matters to traditional institutions, see our previous posts: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics.
Berkeley Report Provides Roadmap for ‘Smart Growth’ in Higher Ed
John Aubrey Douglass of UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education has issued a new report on the current status of higher education, and potential paths for growth and change into the future.
In Re-Imagining California Higher Education, Douglass argues that the existing model for higher education in California (here representative of higher education in states across the US) has changed only incrementally over recent decades and is ill suited, due primarily to the combination of declining per student funding and increased enrollment, to meet the near-term demands of the economy, much less US stated goals of dramatically increased participation and attainment for the future.
Douglass proposes that California boldy reimagine its higher education system by building on the existing strengths of its current tripartite system (two year community colleges, the four-year California State system, and the four-year UC research institutions). Among his proposals:
- An expanded community college sector that includes a set of institutions offering four year degrees and a set of institutions with a more explicit ‘transfer focus’.
- A new poli-technic institution sector that focuses on applied degrees in science, engineering and technology.
- A new online ‘open university’ that focuses on adult and/or placebound learners in California.
- Increased focus on international recruitment to attract funding dollars and top talent to the state.
- Increased focus on partnering with the federal government in funding institutions beyond basic research and financial aid to students.
With arguably the best– and certainly the largest– public higher education system in the country, if not world, the old saying ‘So goes California, so goes the nation’ comes to mind while reading Douglass’ report.
UW Enrollment at All-Time High
At this month’s meeting, the Board of Regents was given a presentation detailing student enrollment to provide a sense of the size and scope of the UW’s instructional enterprise. Highlights from this presentation are below.
All enrollments
- In Fall 2010, 49,940 students were enrolled; this represents a 21 percent increase over the Fall 2000 enrollment of 41,200.
- Of the 49,940 students, 42,935 (86%) are considered “state-reported students.”
- Of the 7,005 non-state-reported enrollments, 1,020 represent students allowed to take up to six credits on a space available basis (senior citizens and state and university employees). Those remaining are students in fee-based programs.
State-reported undergraduate enrollments
- In Fall 2010, 32,500 state-reported undergraduates are enrolled, up 16 percent from the Fall 2000 level of 28,000.
- Of these 32,500 undergraduates, 16 percent are nonresidents.
Looking forward, a new report from the National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2010: State of College Admission, puts college enrollment figures in a national context by discussing trends in the college-age population and projections for post-secondary participation in the coming years. They find that while the number of high school graduates has peaked after a decade of growth (expected to rebound by 2018-19), college enrollment continues at an all-time high even though minorities and low-income students remain underrepresented.
New Book Places College Cost Debate in Larger Context
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.
Fall 2010 Submissions to the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
UW administration recently submitted four budget exercises to not only close out the current biennium (2009-11), but also to plan for the coming biennium (2011-13). Each submission was required by OFM.
Information to make final adjustments to the current, 2009-11 biennium:
- Before the Legislature starts the process of creating an operating budget for the next biennium (2011-13) they must agree on a final (second year) budget to close the current, 2009-11 biennium. OFM required each agency to submit plans for an immediate 6.3 percent reduction of state general funds (for the UW, this was $17.1 million) as well as information that might help the Legislature fine-tune the 6.3 percent reductions of October 2010. Both submissions were sent to OFM on October 15, 2010.
Information to help the Governor and the Legislature write initial budgets for the 2011-13 biennium:
- The state’s budget forecast for the coming biennium (2011-13) calls for a shortfall in state funds that could be between $4.5 and $6 billion. In an effort to understand how agencies would be affected by further state funding reductions in 2011-13, OFM ordered all agencies to submit information about the possible effects of a 10 percent reduction in funds, $58 million for the UW (please note this was an illustrative exercise and does not represent existing UW plans for implementing future budget cuts). The UW’s plan was submitted on September 30, 2010.
- On September 13, 2010, the UW submitted its 2011-13 operating and capital budget requests, including all required university data plus any requests for funds for the coming biennium. As we’ve noted in the past, we do not anticipate any new operating resources from the state for new endeavors on campus. The UW’s operating budget and capital budget were submitted to OFM on September 13, 2010.
The University anticipated and responded to any requests for information about prior and future budget cuts by working with appropriate units that have experienced the most significant reductions in the past, and which will likely be affected by further reductions in the future. The reductions we’ve made in the past two fiscal years were strategic in nature; academic units were largely shielded from reductions and various administrative units were targeted for larger reductions.
While each unit had to take an immediate cut in funds to reconcile the $17.1 million October reduction, any future cuts will once again be strategic, differential, and the result of collaboration between units, the Provost, and Planning & Budgeting.