Public flagships battle for funds - and prestige

In: International Herald Tribune, Special Report p 19

By Edward B. Fiske (IHT)
Tuesday, February 18, 2003

DURHAM, North Carolina: We're number 1!" This chant is regularly recited by athletes and their fans after notable victories in football or other sports. Now it's becoming the mantra of public universities themselves in the United States as they jostle for prestige and resources on an increasingly competitive academic playing field.

With virtually all state legislatures facing big financial problems, public institutions of higher education find themselves in increasingly vigorous competition for resources not only against other public purposes, such as health care, but against each other. To strengthen their positions, prestigious public universities, such as the University of Texas at Austin, are raising their tuition levels and becoming increasingly reliant on private revenues, while lesser known universities are aggressively attempting to join the ranks of "flagship" institutions.

The potential long-term results of this redrawing of the public higher education landscape in the United States are profound, with some leaders worrying that, in their search for institutional prestige, many universities will lose sight of their public missions. According to Mark Yudof, chancellor of the University of Texas system, over a century ago state governments and public research universities entered into "an extraordinary compact" under which, in return for state support, universities would serve public purposes such as keeping tuitions low in order to provide access for students from a broad range of backgrounds. In the face of a "long-term and structural trend toward relatively less state support," however, he said, "that agreement has withered."

Public higher education in the United States varies in important respects from that in Europe and most other countries. Virtually all of the great European universities were established by governments in major urban areas; and although some universities became known for excellence in particular fields such as medicine, students typically attended the institution most convenient to their home.

By contrast, the earliest colleges and universities in the United States, such as Harvard and Yale, were started by religious denominations to train clergymen. They tended to be located in nonurban areas and to differentiate themselves from competing institutions. In the eastern states, private universities continue to be the most prestigious institutions of higher education.

Although there were some exceptions - the University of North Carolina was founded in 1789 - public higher education in the United States did not take off until the time of the Civil War, when Congress established land grant colleges as a means of extending agricultural research and knowledge to the westward-moving frontier. Thus in midwestern and western states - those that came into their own following the Civil War - the most prestigious universities tend to be the major publics ones, such as the University of Wisconsin at Madison or the University of Iowa.

These flagship publics now find themselves under pressure from two directions. First, they are trying to compete with the major private research universities for research dollars, top students and academic prestige. But with state legislatures strapped for cash, they are finding this increasingly difficult. Some of the top public universities anticipated this problem long ago. Two decades ago, the University of Michigan, calculating that the legislature would never give it the funds it needed to become a world-class university, began acting more like a private university. It raised substantial amounts of private funds and instituted significant tuition surcharges for out-of-state students - currently $21,645 versus $6,935 for an in-state student. Michigan's tuition revenue this year of $541 million far exceeds the $364 million that it receives from the state.

Other major public universities have done likewise, often with their state's blessing. Kentucky, for example, has a "Bucks for Brains" program that matches private fund-raising with public funds. But that raises a philosophical question. At what point does a university such as this move beyond its "public" mission?

"If the state only puts up 10 percent of a university's funds, how accountable is that university going to be to public purposes?" asked Travis Reindl, director of state-policy analysis for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. The question is especially relevant given current demographic trends. The number of high school graduates will hit an all-time high in 2009. This means that the most selective institutions will easily be able to fill their classes with academically talented students, including many from middle and upper middle class families able to pay high tuitions. But by far the greatest increase in the number of high school graduates will come from those groups that public institutions currently do not serve well, including low-income minority groups. In Texas the majority of the population is projected to be Hispanic by 2026.

One strategy that some schools are thinking of following is to charge high tuitions from students who can pay but then offer generous scholarships to those who cannot afford to pay. Three major public institutions in Arizona are devising a plan that would give them more freedom to set their own tuition and admissions policies as well as to define their particular academic missions. Pressure to let public universities set their own tuitions is also mounting in Colorado, Florida and Texas. But many observers fear that, while such an approach sounds good, it is not likely to protect the interests of poor students. "Historically, financial aid has not kept pace with the cost of attendance," said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education in San Jose, California. "It's easy for universities to let need-based aid for poor students become merit-based aid for middle-income students."

As they seek to become more like prestigious privates, the major public universities are being challenged by other public universities in their states. In addition to their flagships, most states operate regional universities that serve students who do not qualify for admission to the flagships and whose mission is teaching rather than research.

These regional institutions now show signs of what is known as "mission creep." Instead of being satisfied with their role as teaching institutions, many have embarked on campaigns to attract a more selective group of students and to take on many of the functions of a research university.

A good example is Texas Tech University. Texas has traditionally had two premier institutions - the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M - that have been richly supported by a $7.7 billion pool of money from an oil well. Now Texas Tech has launched an aggressive campaign to increase its visibility, obtain a share of oil revenues and become a third flagship institution. Presumably as part of its strategy to obtain national visibility, the university hired Bobby Knight, a proven winner but one who was fired by Indiana University because of his controversial behavior as its basketball coach.

Financially strapped legislatures now face agonizing decisions over how to allocate resources among such competing universities. Should they pour resources into the most prestigious flagship institutions, or should they invest in the newly ambitious regional universities? As with decisions about whether the flagship publics should be allowed to behave more like private institutions, state policies will have important consequences for low-income students.

"Every year the number of high school graduates goes up, and 2009 will be the biggest graduating class ever," commented Callan. "Public institutions have traditionally been seen as the enablers of opportunity for the poorest students, but this mission is inconsistent with accepting only the top students. We're seeing a real mismatch between institutional aspirations and the need for enrollment growth."

Edward B. Fiske is a former education editor of The New York Times.