Pity the Poor Students

R. E. Smith Jr.

“You’ve got to wonder at what point it’s going to stop,” said the student body president at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, referring to tuition increases. Stop? When do cost increases of any service stop? Oh, sorry, that talk is about a government funded university. Of course, those taking advantage of public supported higher education expect it to be free—acturally, they expect other people to pay for their education. The somebody-owes-us attitude is well stamped on immature minds by their elders.

The editorial editor of the Wilmington Star News, frequently calling to dump more money in the university, wrote “The Honorables keep dumping more of the cost onto students and their families….”—as opposed to dumping the cost on state taxpayers. This editor often reminds us that here in North Carolina the state constitution grants free education “as far as practicable….” He does not question cries from university beneficiaries for more money. But “free” is no longer feasible. Taxpayers have given more than their fair share to the bloated bureaucracies.

The prolific university system sprawled across the state uses up a large chunk of the state government budget. For many years new funding has poured into these campuses. In 2000, after intense lobbying by university officials (state employees) and supporters; and promises that bond legislation would not result in raising taxes, a $3.1 billion debt was voted by North Carolinians on themselves.

Jon Sanders, writing in the Carolina Journal in July 2004, described the university spending campaign: “all those chancellors, administrators, legislators, state dignitaries, self-promotional ‘investigative reports’ by WUNC-TV, crying students, UNC officials shamelessly applauding crying students, and student government flunkies speaking at football games….”

And, guess what? Within a year taxes began to increase every year thereafter and the UNC budget continued to increase with no apologies from those who lied to the citizens.

Sanders wrote that the “UNC system played a game of whine and dine.” Officials complained their funds were being “cut to the bone”—but there were no cuts. In 2004, another bond of $340,000 was passed by feckless legislators fearful of being labeled unfriendly to education, without voter or UNC Board of Governors approval. By 2005, the state General Assembly had increased the UNC budget to $1.87 billion.

Meanwhile the university went on a spending spree. New programs; additional buildings; an institute for higher education; operating an airport; buying houses for chancellors; tuition grants; and, of course, salary increases. In 2004, former Chancellor Marye Anne Fox received a $248,225 salary. In addition she was provided a house and car. A university Board member dubbed this generosity as “totally underpaid.”
What are we getting for the huge amounts of money flooding into higher education? Who knows? Academia is unaccountable for its spending habit. Money is dumped into the system with presumed “benefits,” but educational value is questionable. Tax money distributed to counties and cities with university facilities helps local businesses, but economic development is not the purpose of education.

Richard Vetter, an economics professor at Ohio University, in a “National Review” article October 11, 2004, says that there is no value added evaluation of university output. The only accounting is from private rankings which show: “The more the school spends, the higher the ranking.”

But spending does not equate with quantity or quality of education. A recent study by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy revealed that schools with higher rankings—such as those published by U. S. News and World Report—may not offer instruction as good as that given at lower ranked institutions. Study authors wrote that subjective factors such as “academic reputation” and faculty compensation provide no direct correlation with student learning. Few people realize this, or seem to care.

The “watchdog” press has failed to investigate and report this information. Instead, the editorial attitude, expressed by the Star News, represents advocacy for unaccountability: “Of course, there’s no question that UNCW needs more money….” they say. No question? Based on what?

University chancellors and presidents serve as government lobbyists. Administrative officers (handsomely paid by the state) regularly and successfully plead with legislators and deep-pockets donors to give more money. But what do they do with it? Much of it goes to elaborate facilities, athletic subsidies, higher salaries and other things unrelated to the teaching/learning mission.

The name of the game is to admit more students, few of whom pay their fair share. Grants, deductions, discounts and tax credits subsidize most of the public university cost of tuition to students. Despite increases in the published price of tuition, tuition paid has gone down in recent years—about one-third less from 1998 to 2003, for example.

Instead of whining about perceived increases in tuition, students should be demonstrating against the inefficiencies of the university and demanding better education.

Poor teaching protected by tenure, low faculty teaching loads, top-loaded administrations, emphasis on sports and food services, fluff courses and politically motivated programs divert funds from the essentials of teaching and learning. Students could better spend protest time to correct these problems, and the press would better serve the public by reporting them.