Raising tuition, closing campuses, and the Oregon Brain Drain
Russell Sadler
When a business starts to sell off capital assets to raise money for operating expenses, we assume the business is in trouble.
So when State Board of Higher Education Vice President Kirby Dyess, a retired Intel executive, suggested the state sell off or close one of its seven institutions to ensure the long-term financial health of the remaining six, it got the attention of not-a-few people.
Closing a campus suggests Oregon has an oversupply of university classrooms. But the demographic cohort of college-aged students in Oregon is not getting smaller. There is not an oversupply of classrooms, so there must be another reason the Oregon University system is stuck around 81,000 students. Tuition is rising so fast that a growing number of college-age students are priced out of the market.
Undergraduate tuition today now pays three-quarters of the cost of undergraduate instruction. Taxpayers just put up a quarter of the costs and that share continues to diminish. Today, more than half of all undergraduates borrow their tuition and the average undergraduate at an Oregon public university graduates with between $18-$23,000 in debt.
More than two-thirds of Oregon’s high school graduates with a B+ average or better now leave the state to go to college. The policy of raising tuition and shifting the cost of higher education onto students is creating a brain drain. There is no incentive to stay. Oregon public university tuition remains among the highest in the country. Students tell me if they are going to pay that much and go into debt at the beginning of their adult life to do it, they may as well see what the world is like out there.
Oregon has been eating its young since the Legislature began raising university tuition in the 1980s. Students are fully aware of the cost-shifting. They realize they are not being treated as well as the previous generation. They watch Oregon’s political paralysis.
Many students no longer see Oregon has as the Eden our forebears considered it to be. Oregon is no longer the Promised Land of Opportunity. Those who have the chance are simply leaving.
Talk of closing one or more of Oregon’s colleges is not unprecedented. “Normal schools” -- teacher training institutions -- in LaGrande, Monmouth and Ashland had outlived their mission by the end of World War II. Southern Oregon University President Elmo Stevenson was dispatched to Ashland in the late 1950s to close Southern Oregon Normal School. He became enchanted with Ashland, impressed by the faculty and argued the college would have a place in the huge postwar wave of veterans attending college if the normal school was just turned into a small liberal arts college. Similar decisions save Eastern and Western Oregon Universities -- until now.
The present financial problem began during the 1980’s recession. The Legislature cut higher education appropriations and forced the Board of Higher Education to raise tuition to make up the difference with the understanding money would be restored when the economy got better.
By the time Oregon’s economy had recovered, however, the Republicans had taken control of both houses of the Legislature. They refused to restore the money per student that had been reduced during the recession.
The Republican mantra of “No New Taxes” only applies to income taxes. Oregon Republicans never saw a fee they didn’t like. Rising tuition dramatically shifted the burden of paying for college onto students.
When I completed my journalism degree at the University of Oregon in 1967, my tuition paid about one-fourth the cost of an undergraduate education. The taxpayers who put up the other three-quarters got it all back on higher income taxes I’ve paid during the last 40 years.
Lawmakers who were the beneficiaries of Oregon’s wise low-tuition policy 35-40 years ago are unwilling to do the same thing for this generation. The students know this and respond -- by leaving the state.
There is very little time to solve these problems before the smaller state universities are engulfed in red ink.
There are only two real choices and they do not include selling a campus and spending capital assets on operating expenses. That is the beginning of a death spiral.
The first choice is a phased return to the policy of low tuition that built Oregon’s post-World War II work force, one of the crucial underpinnings of Oregon’s prosperity in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s. I doubt there is the political will or leadership to do that.
The other alternative is to admit each campus is now on its own, end the stultifying centralized control of the University System and the Chancellor’s Office, give each institution its own governing board and let them create whatever programs they must to attract the students they need to survive.
Not all seven institutions will make it, but a fighting chance is preferable to the cannibalism that Kirby Dyess is suggesting.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 19, '06
The proposal to close some of the smaller schools makes perfect sense. Why not focus the limited resources on providing better programs, facilities and professors at the larger institutions? We're not California. We can't afford a vast and widely dispersed higher education system, at least not with the current funding structure.
Mar 19, '06
Magoo:
Maybe because schools like Southern, Western, and Eastern Oregon University serve a largely non-traditional student market. There are many traditional (direct from high-school) students, but a large portion of the students those universities serve are non-tradition students who could not attend any other university due to economic and geographic reasons.
To close those Universities just to save a few bucks which will be spent on special interests is not doing right by the people of our state, the people of those regions, or the long term economic and social well being of Oregon. Our state is larger than Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis -- and our University System has those "smaller" regional Universities to serve the folks outside of the larger cities who cannot attend the other Universities for one reason or another.
Public Universities are meant to serve the public, and a major problem in Oregon right now that there seem to be two competing visions for our public University sysetem. One is to manage them as if they were businesses, and the other is to tax and fund education without question as bloated administration and special interests gobble up the increased funding. I find each of those two path to "reform" lacking, but I think we all can agree as Oregonians that our system needs reform. It needs reform because our education system is a public trust, and to not do right by it, is to wrong the people.
-Guy
Mar 19, '06
Good for you Guy G.
Does Magoo really think that people in counties like Coos, Baker or Joesphine should have to travel to the Willamette Valley to attend college?
As long as teachers (and others?) are required to complete college coursework to renew licenses, should they all be told they have no choice but PSU, OSU, U of O because those are the population centers and tough luck if anyone lives in a different part of the state?
WOU has a recognized program for sign languate interpreters for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Magoo, what would you do with that program? "Sorry, in order to save a few bucks we have to close WOU and if that means disbanding a well known program, tough luck"? Or how would you decide whether to move that program to OSU or U of O or PSU? Would you expect the legislature to decide that, or someone else?
Can all who aspire to college afford to live in either Eugene, Portland or Corvallis because the rest of the state does not deserve to have institutions of higher learning? Why, because the almighty tax cut is more important than educating citizens who would be productive members of society?
Mar 19, '06
"More than two-thirds of Oregon’s high school graduates with a B+ average or better now leave the state to go to college."
Why wouldn't Oregon's top high school graduates avail themselves of scholarships and educational opportunities in a multitude of colleges and universities beyond Oregon's borders?
Mar 19, '06
The Mr. Magoo I have seen often mistakes his hat for a dog, so it is with the one here.
I live in the largest area in the lower 48 United States that does not have a 4 year University. Central Oregon, specifically Crook Co. where I am is 150 miles from Eugene, 150 miles from Portland, 170 miles from Klamath Falls, and over 200 miles from LaGrande. -- Not easy commuting distances.
They have patched together some 4-year programs at the Central Oregon Community College in Bend (a mere 38 miles away). Linfield College has been doing a partnership there in nursing. Oregon State University has a branch operation with a handfull of four year degrees. None of this comes close to what one would expect in a real 4-year college.
And by the way, this is the fastest growing region in Oregon. Crook Co. is # 1 in the State with a 9.3% population increase per year, Deschutes Co. # 2 at 5.6% per year and Jefferson Co. # 5 at 1.7% per year - out of 36 Counties. - We expect an additional 10,500 people to move here this year. We will have an additional 100,000 people here in a ten-year period. That's like putting an entirely new city of Eugene over here. Cut programs?
As Russell points out, we don't have a surplus of classrooms. In fact, we have a shortage.
As always, these sorts of things play out with cutting the small places first. I was around when they cut back the Colleges and Universities in the 1981 timber recession. They picked off those small schools within the Universities that had low numbers of students. They did it in the name of consolidation and savings then. So, the undergraduate school of social work at UO was closed - where I got my BA in the 1970's. Assuming that this consolidation has already taken place, where do you think they will close a campus??
I guarantee you it won't be an urban area.
We need more college/university classrooms in Oregon not less. We need more educated and trained people for our local businesses in Central Oregon.
I am aware of a young woman that moved to Prineville in December having just finished a degree in Fine Arts/graphic design. She got a good full time job in 12 days - because there is a shortage of people with her education and training here.
Our economy falters and ultimately dies if we don't train people to take their places working in it.
Mr. Magoo - your dog is a hat. You don't see clearly.
Mar 19, '06
I have heard a lot of complaints about brain-drain in Oregon. Of course, we should do much more to improve our state's public universities. But many of Oregon's brightest students aren't interested in attending a large public university -- no matter how well they are funded. I suggest that we shift the policy discussion to address how we can draw these people BACK to Oregon after graduation. (And keep the ones who stayed in state.)
What about something like a tax-free student loan payback program? In other words, the money that graduates spend to pay off their student loans should be subtracted from their total income when calculating their state income taxes. Maybe even permit graduates to deduct the difference they've paid in federal taxes from their state tax bill as well.
This is exactly the type of "targeted" tax cut that Democrats are always talking about: it helps working middle-class young people (those who needed loans to pay for college); it stimulates the economy by reducing the tax burden on some of the most productive contributors to our economy; and it helps alleviate the problem of brain-drain in Oregon.
Just a thought...
Mar 19, '06
Misha, that is a great idea if you have a funding mechanism. For instance, "In order to pay for tax breaks for 'the money that graduates spend to pay off their student loans should be subtracted from their total income when calculating their state income taxes', Oregon will (cut spending elsewhere--amount and source specified) or raise revenue (specific--cigarette tax? corporate income tax because corporations benefit from educated employees? eliminate specific tax breaks?).
I for one am tired of "this is a great idea, just don't ask about the details" proposals. Which is why I loved Sarasohn's column today, about Wash. and Oregon being on "different planets, or in a time warp" when it comes to this sort of investment.
Mar 19, '06
LT--
Although I certainly have not done a fiscal impact study, I think this type of tax cut would come at minimal cost to the state. (Big tax cuts for the rich are very expensive and have a small economic impact; small tax cuts for the middle class are inexpensive and have a bigger bite.)
Also, it's likely that the economic growth created by this incentive would pay for the cost in additional tax revenue. (If more graduates are coming back to Oregon after college for work, that means more people paying taxes in the state.) Having said that, your claim that the state can't afford it is just as unverifiable as my claim that the state can.
5:08 p.m.
Mar 19, '06
i want my kids to go out of state. they've lived their whole lives in Oregon, and college is a great time to start seeing the world. my older son may end up on the east coast, and my younger son wants to go where he can ski (the academic side of things are a bit unclear for him, but he's only a junior). the problem, of course, is cost: it's a lot cheaper to go to school in-state.
one of the reasons the UO has become more successful in recruiting top-quality athletes is their families like the idea of Eugene as a safe environment; for kids from urban settings, it's another world, and frequently a good one. we have a lot we can sell to students from outside -- we have a lot of wonderful schools and programs here -- and we ought to be bringing these kids in. the extra income will help a little, but it won't change the basic funding problems. however, it will strengthen the stature of the system. and it would be a good thing, in and of itself, to diversify our system even more.
Mar 19, '06
Oregon public university tuition remains among the highest in the country.
Enrollment average Oregon public college tuition ranks 22nd nationwide.
Source: College Board
8:34 p.m.
Mar 19, '06
Pern...
First, next time you post a link to a 28-page massive PDF, please say so.
Second, if you're going to post a 28-page PDF, at least do us the favor of telling us what page to look on.
Third, while it appears that you're right (well, 21st) on the tuition ranking, I'm not sure it has much validity if you don't include the average student aid numbers.
It's a dirty little secret of the higher ed world (I know, I worked in college marketing for five years) that the published tuition number is basically fiction. The full price at a private school is paid only by the wealthiest of students - and at public schools, only by the upper middle class and above.
The number to pay attention to is the net cost to the student and his/her family -- tuition, room, board, fees MINUS state grant aid, federal grant aid, and institutional grants (need and merit scholarships). That gap is covered by family contributions, student loans, and student employment -- that's the true cost.
You and I might start a private college with a price tag of $35,000/yr, but if 95% of the students average $30,000/yr in grant aid, then the published number hardly means anything. (Of course, that's an extreme example that doesn't exist.)
If Russell is correct (and I don't have time to research it, but I believe he is) that Oregon schools have been cutting aid while simultaneously raising tuition - well, that net cost will have been skyrocketing for most students.
10:01 p.m.
Mar 19, '06
i finished up at UO in 1995, right when the skyrocket was really getting going. in 2 years, what had been the cost of a full year of grad school (in-state) became a single term. at the same time, aid got whacked big-time: when i was accepted into my program in mid-1993, i was assured of aid for my 2 years. by fall, a few months later, there was nothing for me until my final term. i left UO with over $30,000 in debt (i had 2 kids to support, but, thanks to some crafty timing on our part, no wife; she did get her masters first, clever girl. worked out well for her. o well. i did get to keep the cuisinart).
it appears, from doing some research at Corvallis High's counselling center, that my son will do better to apply for an expensive private college. if he gets accepted, they'll pony up the aid. that's how they do it. screwy. Thomas Jefferson would be sick at what this country has done to public education. (and he would not blame the teachers.)
10:26 p.m.
Mar 19, '06
TA -- Yes, absolutely, yes. For many lower- and middle-income families, going to a private school can mean less out-of-pocket costs. I've known many families for whom that has been true.
Pay close attention, however, to the details of those aid packages. The bottom line number does matter (since you should make sure you aren't being "gapped", getting less aid than the total pricetag) but the details matter too. Loans need to be paid off, while grants don't. That's obvious, but too many families treat them the same -- since the loans are "good loans" (and they are) and repayment is in a distant future when your kid is a brilliant doctor, lawyer, or tycoon. As you know, though, loan debt can be oppressive - and can limit future career choices to the money track.
I highly recommend reading the entirety of the Atlantic Monthly's regular series on higher education admissions and financial aid.
Mar 20, '06
There is no way Oregon can provide an on-campus college eduation to all the rural parts of the state. And Oregon is not suffering from a brain-drain. Quite the contrary, Portland is a mecca for 20 and 30 year olds educated elsewhere. The difficulty is providing them with meaningful employment - well-educated barista's are nice to have but most of them don't want to make it a career.
If Oregon were entirely practical, it would combine OSU and UO into a single university with two campuses and grow PSU into the state's second major university. Portland is now almost entirely dependent on Intel to anchor it as a high-tech center. OHSU has pretentions to being a bio-medical center, but so does every other medical facility in the country. Those pretentions would become a lot more real if they were backed up by a major academic university in the community. And the long term health of the Portland high tech economy would be a lot more certain.
But or course what would we do for entertainment we didn't have the Ducks and Beavers football teams to engage in a civil war. Not to mention convincing all those alumns that their alma mater's are no longer rivals. Phil Knight would go crazy.
There also ought to be a major investment in online instruction to extend the reach of campuses into rural areas. Even businesses in small towns are going to need to ongoing educations if they are going to be competitive. Bend may warrant a campus, Coos Bay clearly doesn't. Klamath Falls is closer to Ashland than almost anywhere on the east side of the mountains. LaGrande serves a huge geographic area or, more accurately, doesn't serve most of it. Not many people are going to commute to classes in LaGrande from Burns. They would be better served by improved online education offerings and LaGrande doesn't really have the capacity to provide that. A combined OSU/UO or an enhanced PSU would.
9:15 a.m.
Mar 20, '06
The Feds are a big part of the problem, too. Not only are colleges more expense, as Russell argues, but federal aid is far less available. One example: in the last budget cycle, Bush apparently cut all aid for graduate students. I have a friend in the school of social work who went to pick up his aid this fall and learned it had been axed.
This is perhaps the most idiotic cut the GOP have made. Cutting aid to grad students guarantees we fall further behind the world and have to import educated professionals. But maybe that's how it will all work out: Oregonians won't be able to afford to go to college here, but wealthy students from around the globe will, thus saving Oregon colleges ... for Germans and Indians.
Mar 20, '06
Jeff,
Calling cuts to student aid "idiotic" suggests that those in power operate, to benefit the American people. It should be obvious by now that the ruling class has given up on Americans, as citizens, producers, and consumers.
There is no need to educate children to become good democratic citizens, just eliminate the democracy. There is no need for American workers to be able to afford a new Ford; rising markets in the developing world will pick up the slack [well, for European Fords and Mazdas, anyway]. There is no need to educate Americans for high-level employment. What little remains of US industry will get by on low-paid guest workers.
The owners of this country are thinking globally. Americans will need to fend for themselves. Those with luck or wealthy parents will do alright. As for the rest, there's always television and the lottery.
Mar 20, '06
howard writes in response to Russell:
""More than two-thirds of Oregon’s high school graduates with a B+ average or better now leave the state to go to college."
Why wouldn't Oregon's top high school graduates avail themselves of scholarships and educational opportunities in a multitude of colleges and universities beyond Oregon's borders?"
In principle, there is nothing wrong with either of your observations. Russell makes the correct observation, while Howard asks a pertinent question.
The "correct" answer would be to look at the statistics for other states. California's "top graduates" don't leave California in proportions anywhere near Oregon's. Nor do Washington's "top graduates" leave Washington in proportions anywhere near Oregon's. The more compelling question, that Howard ignores, is why do Oregon's best students leave at such a high rate and return in such low proportions. The answer is more complex than simply the high tuition and low financial aid. The answer lies principally in the fact that Oregon has NOTHING comparable to, for example, University of Washington, or just about any school in the UC system. I'm a product of UCLA as an undergraduate, and my graduate degrees (MA and PhD) from UO. Nothing shocked me more than how pitiful UO's library was when I arrived back in the late 1960's. Nothing continues to shock me more than how pitiful UO, OSU, and PSU are in comparison to University of Washington, Washington State, any of the UC system, and nearly half of the California State Universities. How many "top 10 programs" exist at UO, OSU, or PSU. Few, I can assure you (I taught at PSU for 34 years). How many exist at UW, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Davis, etc?
Except for the occasionally winning athletic teams, the programs in Oregon are mediocre at their very best. This, combined with high tuition and limited financial aid, makes Oregon's higher education an extremely poor value for many of Oregon's top "high school graduates". For many parents (and I've put two children through college already - one at UO and one at the University of Minnesota), the question isn't always tuition cost or the amount of financial aid. For many of us, the question was perceived value for the dollars spent. And it is there, in my opinion, where the rubber meets the road and offers yet another significant reason why Oregon students are leaving in droves and returning in dribbles.
Unlike Russell, I'm not opposed to closing a school or two. To me, Oregon has always had too many schools, too weirdly distributed, chasing too few students. But, instead of closing schools to save money, the schools should be closed (and the property sold) to invest in improving the remaining institutions - to increase the quality of their programs, to attract AND KEEP high quality faculty, and to recruit and retain Oregon's own students. Selling off a campus or two won't solve Oregon's brain drain. It is a temporary fix. The permanent fix won't come until there is a brain transplant in Salem, in the Chancellor's Office in Eugene (not the Chancellor but the entrenched staff which has no imagination or capacity to think outside the bun). A change in tuition policy would also be significant, but frankly unless Oregon decides that it will no longer accept mediocrity in higher education, the high school brain drain will continue even if tuition were free.
Mar 20, '06
The permanent fixes won't come until there are a whole lotta "brain transplants" throughout Oregon's private and public sectors and an infusion of folks with "capacity to think outside the bun".
10:51 a.m.
Mar 20, '06
Tom,
I disagree with your assessment. The "ruling class", such as it is, tends to be strongly pro-education. This is true whether they lean Democratic or Republican in other policy areas.
The true enemies of education make no secret of it: the so-called "religious" right. They don't accept basic biological facts on everything from brain death (Terri Schiavo) to evolution, want to substitute their doctrinal interpretations of the Bible for science in the classroom, and express outright animus towards all forms of public instruction. They make up the bulk of homeschoolers in the country.
Also, largely due to their outright embrace of ignorance, they're often poor - or at best, lower-middle class. In fact, they tend to be subsidized by the government - with cities like Portland picking up the tab. This is true across the entire U.S.
I'm not exactly sure what to do about people determined to live in poverty, who believe God will eternally reward them - if they can only keep their hearts constantly filled with hate for "evolutionists", gays, and the "Democrat" Party.
I don't share Thomas Frank's ("What's the matter with Kansas") optimism that progressive economics are going to bring these people back. They are ALREADY subsidized, and it hasn't done much except convince them that "the government" can provide services without them paying taxes at all. I've almost come to the conclusion of the opposite. Only when they start having to directly pay for the consequences of their behaviors, will they be forced to reconsider.
So I'm really torn about closing rural schools. Obviously it's the wrong thing to do. But consequences have to start somewhere.
Mar 20, '06
Howard writes:
"The permanent fixes won't come until there are a whole lotta "brain transplants" throughout Oregon's private and public sectors and an infusion of folks with "capacity to think outside the bun"."
I absolutely agree! I was trying to focalize the source of the problem, but you're absolutely correct that this crying need for people to "get some intelligence" isn't limited to the elected hacks in Salem, or the entrenched bureaucracy in the Chancellor's office. It is epidemic in all walks of Oregon life. Perhaps a massive purging of all Oregon citizens who still labor under the delusion that Oregon is progressive any longer, along with all the cons and neo-cons who adopt the "Gimme my money & to hell with everyone else". Maybe we send all these people to Utah.
Mar 20, '06
On what basis does Steve Maurer claim that the so-called religious right is "subsidized by the government - with cities like Portland picking up the tab. This is true across the entire U.S." If "they make up the bulk of homeschoolers in the country," it seems like if anything, they are subsidizing public education. Please explain.
Mar 20, '06
pern - would that be George Pernsteiner - Chancellor?
Some options that I don't like but I suspect something has to happen to keep costs from skyrocketing:
I can't see how one could expand PSU - I mean, isn't its location sort of in the middle of downtown Portland - how about building new buildings, parking, etc.
Mar 20, '06
Kari,
Aid may make up the difference, but maybe Russell was just shooting from the hip when he wrote that Oregon university tuition is among the highest in the nation.
It would take an awful lot to jump us from 21st to among the highest.
It doesn't undercut the point that Oregon universities are very badly underfunded. But figures like "highest in the nation" and "taxpayers cover only 25% of the cost" (actually it's more like 18% at U of O) need to be accurate if we're going to have an informed debate.
So for instance: the average state covers 34% of the cost (source: ACE http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2004_college_costs.pdf WARNING 18 page PDF).
Furthermore, the other 75% in Oregon's case is NOT paid for completely from tuition. Federal grants, foundation money, and other sources can cover a significant percentage of costs.
Oregon's problems are these: - We underpay faculty and thereby lose them thus - We cannot compete for federal and foundation dollars - We do not allow the University to recapture patent dollars - We have too many schools in too many locations (let's take on the biggest sacred cow--why do we have two flagship institutions within 50 miles of one another and an underfunded commuter school in our largest metropolitan area?)
1:41 p.m.
Mar 20, '06
Bill,
There is a common calculation of tax dollars out vs total aid and grants coming back. You can find it just about everywhere using google. They all say the same thing: liberal cities send much more to both their States and the Federal government than they ever get back. And the welfare queens who can't stand on their own two feet? Republican rural areas. This is why "red" states are largely government beneficiaries, while "blue" states are mostly tax donors.
I could go off and give you a dozen references if I had time, but the fact is that I'm just taking a break right now. I have a real job, and have to get back to work. So I'll leave the exercise to the reader.
Mar 20, '06
pern again writes:
"Oregon's problems are these: - We underpay faculty and thereby lose them thus - We cannot compete for federal and foundation dollars - We do not allow the University to recapture patent dollars - We have too many schools in too many locations (let's take on the biggest sacred cow--why do we have two flagship institutions within 50 miles of one another and an underfunded commuter school in our largest metropolitan area?)"
George:
I couldn't agree with you more. To your list, I'd add that there is a bloated bureaucracy that doesn't let any of the schools truly act autonomously and offer programs that are relevant and necessary to the area. Otherwise, why would PSU have to struggle so much to offer full-blown engineering programs that serve the high tech industry located almost exclusively in PSU's backyard? I'd also add that with the drain of faculty, the system loses some of its best and most innovative researchers and teachers. This not only costs the system and the state grants and contracts, but also the allure needed to attract some of Oregon's best and brightest high school graduates. The geographic distribution of the schools is ludicrous, as you indicate. Why there is no flagship institution at this time in Central Oregon eludes me. Why we need 4 institutions and satellite campuses within a 100 mile radius in the northern Willamette Valley escapes me equally. Why we need OIT and SOSC so close together? Why do we need EOSC(U) at all?. Why not work out some sort of reciprocity arrangement with Boise State? Why do the legislatures of Washington and Oregon have to be so stubborn that Vancouver has to have a branch campus of WSU instead of working out an arrangement that lets any Clark County resident attend PSU at Oregon tuition rates. It seems to me that Oregon reams Washington residents who work in Oregon (ask my daughter about this) but provides them with no benefits for the taxes they pay. Etc.
There are lots of ways that higher education could be improved. But it will take ingenuity, a willingness for the legislature to look outside the bun, a willingness for the Chancellor's office to rule with a velvet glove instead of an iron fist, a willingness to appoint a State Board of Higher Education that represents more than just the business interests in the state and who can think beyond the "bottom line". It will take a state brave enough to admit that it has too many campuses in too small a geographic area and, perhaps, a willingness to close down or consolidate those two large campuses that are, what, 35 miles apart into a single campus. It may take some tuition flexibility at the borders (in all directions). It will take a committment to raise faculty salaries to closer to the median than in the bottom quartile or quintile. In short, the disinvestment in higher education has been so criminal that it may take a billion dollars of reinvestment just so higher education can see outside the hole dug for it by a short-sighted legislature and by selfish voters.
Marc
Mar 21, '06
I am not so sure that the assertion that we have too many campuses in a small geographic area really holds water. In the Bay Area, there are 3 major universities, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UCSF. They are top-notch institutions with multiple Nobel Prize winners and other famous alumni, ie. Google guys, Yahoo guys, etc.
I just think that people in Oregon have different priorities than the people up in Washington or in California. They support education. Despite the Proposition 13 madness in California, California is building a 10th UC campus. And we're talking about closing the ones in Oregon down. California voters approved $3 billion for stem-cell research, betting that biotech will be the next industry to drive the state's economy. What did Oregon voters vote for the last election? Measure 37, Measure 36. Really important issues for the future. The voters are the same people who passed Measure 5 and guaranteed state politicalization of the educational budget and tanked Portland Public School's budget.
Washington has 9 Fortune 500 companies (Fortune 2005), Oregon only has one. Even Alabama has more than Oregon (2). Although these companies may not pay their fair share of taxes, they do supply good jobs that attract the best and the brightest and bring a stable tax base.
Mar 21, '06
"I am not so sure that the assertion that we have too many campuses in a small geographic area really holds water. In the Bay Area, there are 3 major universities, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UCSF."
I think this is part of Oregon's problem, comparing itself to California. There are twice as many people living in the Bay Area as there are in the entire state of Oregon. And those people are also far wealthier. Of course the University system is statewide and supports more campuses than just those in the Bay Area. But Oregon has a series of mediocre universities and would be better off with one or two really good ones that attract the best students /faculty from around the country. The same things that make Portland a very desireable location for companies like Intel would allow it compete with major universities elsewhere if it had the education quality to go with the rest of its environment. Same with Corvallis/Eugene.
I just think that people in Oregon have different priorities than the people up in Washington or in California.
Yeh, football and basketball rivalries.
Mar 21, '06
It may be somewhat off-topic, but I can't let Steve Maurer's ramblings go unchallenged. According to Steve, "the true enemies of education" are the religious right, rural Republican welfare queens who home school their kids. Gee, and all this time, I thought the Republicans were the party of the rich and powerful. Thanks for enlightening me.
Recommendation: Don't quit your day job.
Mar 21, '06
Ross Williams writes:
"I am not so sure that the assertion that we have too many campuses in a small geographic area really holds water. In the Bay Area, there are 3 major universities, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UCSF. They are top-notch institutions with multiple Nobel Prize winners and other famous alumni, ie. Google guys, Yahoo guys, etc."
But you're comparing apples and oranges. Of the three you list, one is private (Stanford), one is a health sciences complex (UCSF), and the other is a comprehensive university (UC Berkeley). When I talked about having too many state supported schools in a small geographic area, I didn't even include OHSU/OGI. I'm talking UO, OSU, WOU, and PSU - three of which are doctoral granting institutions. Add OHSU/OGI and you've got four doctoral granting institutions within 100 miles of each other. In California, you only have two public doctoral granting institutions within 100 miles of each other and they serve totally different people. You could probably push the envelope by adding UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz, but at that point, you're talking about a population of about 10 million people. So to get to 4 public doctoral granting institutions in California, we have to spread our wings to get UCD and UCSC and add about 4 million people to the population mix. (Of course, there are all the CSU campuses in the same area, but that's yet another matter).
Oregon's 4 doctoral granting institutions are located in a geographic area that serves less than half that population.
I still think we have too many schools in too small an area chasing too small a population.
10:35 a.m.
Mar 21, '06
Bill Holmer: It may be somewhat off-topic, but I can't let Steve Maurer's ramblings go unchallenged.
And what will you challenge it with? Facts? Figures? Surveys? Insightful analysis of macro-economics and political science?
No, of course not. All you can come up with is an ad hominem attack along with a reiteration of your unsupported opinions, as if you can make something true by repeating it often enough. Really, you should apply to the Bush administration; you'd fit right in. (See - I can do ad hominem too!)
While it is true that the poor vote Democratic, and the middle to upper classes tend to vote Republican (at least those of poor states, and not counting the intelligensia), the effect drops off quite rapidly among those you despise the most. As Slate reported in an article about a survey of millionaires on Bush vs Kerry, "The petit bourgeoisie millionaires were passionately for Bush: Those worth between $1 million and $10 million favored Bush by a 63-37 margin. But the haute millionaires, those worth more than $10 million, favored Kerry 59-41."
Billionaires weren't for Bush. They were for America remaining a strong nation - and therefore Kerry. ( The same thing happened in Alabama. Republican Governor Bob Riley tried to fix that state's horribly regressive tax system - it was favored by a majority of people earning $100,000 a year or more, but was crushed by those earning less.)
I'm sorry if this stomps all over your cherished illusions about rich people always being Republican. No wait! Sorry. I'm not.
Mar 21, '06
"And what will you challenge it with? Facts? Figures? Surveys? Insightful analysis of macro-economics and political science?"
How about logic? Or a cohesive train of thought? In your original post you stated that the religious right "make up the bulk of homeschoolers in the country" and that "they tend to be subsidized by the government - with cities like Portland picking up the tab."
Parents who homeschool aren't being subsidized by the government. Logic says that they are subsidizing everyone else who sends their kids to public school. Unless you believe your hooey that they're also rural welfare queens. What a crock.
Mar 27, '06
Mrfearless writes:
Ross Williams writes:
"I am not so sure that the assertion that we have too many campuses in a small geographic area really holds water. In the Bay Area, there are 3 major universities, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UCSF. They are top-notch institutions with multiple Nobel Prize winners and other famous alumni, ie. Google guys, Yahoo guys, etc."
I didn't write that, Pdxguy did. I quoted it and then commented on it. And you even included more of the quote than I used.
Mar 27, '06
You say that most good Oregon high school students go out of state for college. Unless we pay to make state colleges the equivalent of extremely expensive private universities elsewhere, will that not always be the case? Face it, Oregon state colleges will never be the equivalent of Harvard or Stanford or even UC-Berkeley. Also, Oregon colleges will never be able to offer the full array of specialized studies that elite high school graduates are looking for. I would assume that lots of high-grade high school students in most states move out-of-state for college, except maybe in California or Massachusetts, where the in-state offerings are both excellent and diverse.
And, what would happen if those students did stick around to attend Oregon colleges? Would they not then move to other states after graduating from college, anyway? Would we not then simply be paying more (both the cost of high school and the cost of college) and getting the same brain drain anyway?
The problem with "investing in education" is that the capital ends up in the brains of people who are mobile and can easily move to where the high-paying opportunities exist (California, New York, Singapore, etc.). How about we instead invest in mass transit or fiber-optic internet to every Oregon address? How about we instead "invest" in lower taxes on individuals? Then college graduates and other smart people from California and elsewhere would move here, and we will have paid nothing for their educations. Let's cause a brain drain into Oregon. You can't do that by spending money on education here.