|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are
solely
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
|
Pinterist
Chronicle of Higher Education
Regional Public Universities Don’t Need Rescuing
They’ve been treated shamefully, but they’re more resilient than people give them credit for.
By Kevin R. McClure, Cecilia M. Orphan, Alisa Hicklin Fryar, and Andrew Koricich
February 21, 2021
The headline of a recent essay in The Hill asked if there was an
economic case for saving regional public universities. It reminded us
of a similar headline in The Chronicle a few years ago (“Public
Regional Colleges Never Die. Can They Be Saved?”) and one in The
Washington Post a few years before that (“Regional Public Colleges —
the ‘Middle Children’ of Higher Ed — Struggle to Survive”). Other
recent articles and books on public regionals have questioned the
likelihood of their survival and described them as “fragile” and
“endangered.” These days, it’s hard to find a discussion of these
institutions that doesn’t portray them as on the brink of a
mass-extinction event.
But do they need saving in the first place? The answer, it turns out,
is no — at least in terms of institutional leadership and financial
management. As scholars of higher education, we’ve been studying and
advocating for regionals for the better part of a decade. And in
contrast to the popular gloom-and-doom evaluation, we see a resilient,
agile, and organizationally diverse sector — one that’s well positioned
to help fight the pandemic, confront racial injustice, and drive
economic mobility. If regionals need saving from anything, it’s bad
public policy.
Our optimism begins with a rejection of the critics’ and observers’
most damning claim, which is that the entire sector is in financial
peril. In research we conducted before the pandemic, we found little
evidence of an existential threat. Looking at metrics including
enrollment, revenues, costs, assets, debt, and credit ratings, we
discovered only a few institutions facing severe financial problems;
most were stable. To be clear, this stability is hard-earned, and the
pandemic has undoubtedly made things harder. For instance, regionals
are forced to be extremely lean in their operations, sometimes relying
on one person to tackle critical tasks that other colleges assign to
entire teams. As such sacrifices reveal, being stable and thriving are
two different things.
We also reject the widespread view that regional public universities
don’t have the brands or reputations needed to elicit strong demand.
Regularly described as undistinguished, amorphous, and, as a prominent
scholar once put it, having “a muddled institutional character,”
regionals are frequently accused of failing to build strong brands. But
these institutions are only identity-less to those dedicated to
overlooking them. They have rich histories, cultures, and traditions.
Their reputations, as regional institutions, are just that — regional.
Students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members have no trouble
recognizing these institutions, and they depend on them for access to
affordable, high-quality degrees and good-paying jobs — the kind of
opportunity that increases community and individual well-being.
Sure, some regionals lack national reputations — but that is generally
because they have adhered to their place-based missions instead of
chasing rankings. This nonlucrative mission-centeredness also means
they are accustomed to innovating in the face of adversity. Freed from
the constrictions of prestige-seeking, regionals focus on good
teaching, local partnerships, and, as research indicates, making it
easier for low-income and minority students to make it to and through
college. In other words, the colleges’ laser focus on the local is a
strength, not a liability.
What the data mostly show the four of us is that regional publics are
fighting to overcome exterior factors like failed public policy and
crushing inequality. Most states have persistently underfunded
regionals compared with public research universities, especially the
state flagships. Regional publics received, on average, $5,169 per
student in state funding in 2018, compared with $6,747 per student at
public research universities. Many of the struggling institutions in
our research were in states that have made higher-education spending a
low priority, such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, or where state
funding has been volatile, as in Illinois. Underfunding has been
particularly severe for regional historically Black colleges.
In general, budget cuts across public higher education have
disproportionately hurt regionals, which tend to rely more heavily on
state funding and aren’t able to generate as much revenue from other
sources. For example, research shows that regionals struggle to compete
for private donations and are at a disadvantage in philanthropic
networks compared with research universities. The average doctoral or
flagship public research university raised $74 million in private
donations in 2018, compared with $7.1 million, on average, at
regionals. Over time, this leads to extreme endowment disparities. In
North Carolina the endowment of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill is bigger than the endowments of the other 15 public
universities in the state combined.
On that already-uneven playing field, many regionals are forced to
compete with one another for students because of bad public policy. In
some cases, states have authorized new institutions or out-of-state
providers to operate in the same area as regional public universities,
while others have created performance-funding models that penalize the
institutions serving students who face the greatest barriers to
graduation. Public research universities are able to perpetuate their
advantages by funneling their substantial resources into financial aid
and into marketing, recruitment, and lobbying. They also often benefit
from having alumni — keenly focused on their alma maters’ needs and
desires — elected to serve in state houses. It is too easy to say that
regionals are failing to compete. The reality is that they are doing
all they can within systems that continually siphon resources elsewhere.
So, here’s a radical proposition: Stop asking if regional public
universities can survive; stop treating them like the higher-education
equivalent of a wayward puppy in an ASPCA commercial. This narrative
makes it all too easy to justify closing, merging, or narrowing the
purpose of regional public universities because they “can’t be all
things to all people.” Instead, lift up the strengths of these
institutions and reiterate the many reasons policy makers and donors
should follow MacKenzie Scott’s example and flood regional public
universities with unrestricted resources.
Most immediately, regional public universities can play a bigger role
in improving public health and helping to fight the pandemic, which has
ravaged rural communities. Health professions are the
second-most-common field of study at public regionals, and they train a
significant number of nurses. Many have developed programs specifically
designed to improve health care and tackle health disparities in rural
areas through degree programs, research centers, and free or low-cost
clinics. As we battle a deadly virus, regional public universities can
be activated to help save lives.
We also should emphasize the role regional public universities play in
serving underrepresented students. Unlike many nationally known
colleges, where society’s elite cement their privilege, these are
anchor institutions where many first-generation, low-income, and
transfer students pursue higher education. By one estimate, nearly a
third of HBCUs are regionals, and and another study showed 85 percent
of Black students enrolled in public four-year institutions attend
regional public universities. The same is true of 74 percent of Latinx
students and 70 percent of Native American students. When states fail
to support regional colleges, they also fail to serve these
populations. Alternatively, investing in these institutions can make a
significant difference in tackling longstanding racial and income-based
inequities in access and degree attainment. Dismantling systemic racism
in higher education should include equitably funding the institutions
that serve students of color.
With commitments to accessibility, affordability, and supporting
students who are less academically prepared, regionals play a critical
role in promoting economic mobility. There are now several studies
showing regional institutions transform the lives of low-income
students, helping them graduate with a college degree and enter higher
income brackets. Better support for regionals is an investment in
building America’s middle class after the Great Recession and the
economic devastation of Covid-19.
In many ways, regional public universities are irreplaceable
infrastructure. Rather than ask if they can be saved, it would be more
appropriate to reflect on the many ways in which they save the broader
higher-education system from its own worst scourges. We have no doubt
public regionals will endure our present crisis. But we’d much rather
see them appropriately valued, both in terms of public discourse and —
more important — in terms of resources.
Read this and other stories at The Chronicles of Higher Education
|
|
|
|
