The Free Times has written about the Harris Pastides letter that inspired me to write about further budget cuts at USC last week.
I had seen the same memo, but under circumstances that caused me to be concerned that I might be violating a confidence (and no, I didn’t get it from anyone in the Osborne building, but from someone in another corner of the university) if I quoted directly from it.
In the couple of days after I posted that, I heard about it from enough other sources to realize the thing had been distributed so widely that I shouldn’t have worried. But then I forgot to write about it further, until I saw this piece.
An excerpt from the Free Times piece:
“We face a new 21 percent cut in state funding, in addition to the 32 percent cut we have experienced since July 2008,” Pastides wrote. “Therefore, by July of 2010 our cumulative cut would be 46 percent ($103 million) for the University system, and state funding would make up approximately 12.5 percent of our total budget.”
USC Chief Financial Officer Ted Moore elaborates on Pastides’ statements.
“The [pending House] bill calls for, in round numbers, $32.7 million in cuts for the USC system,” Moore says. “This will include about $27 million for USC-Columbia and medical school combined.”
That’s where I got that horrific figure from that I cited in the previous post — 46 percent in cuts since July 2008. So now our flagship “state” university is only 12.5 percent financed by the state.
Do ya wonder why we lag so far behind North Carolina and Georgia in higher ed? Do ya?
and the big economic incentive project on the boards is retail aimed at tourists—“and would you like fries with that” can be the new state motto!
If we don’t educate our people, we cannot hope to compete economically. We are lagging behind in employment recovery from the recession. Wonder if the starving universities have anything to do with that?
Check out the rest of the agencies’ cuts. And then ask the statehouse financial gurues why.
I’m on my third child going through some combination of USC-Salkehatchie, Columbia, South University Pharmacy school, and Technical College Nursing school.
What I’ve noticed most is how expensive Salkehatchie (Allendale and Walterboro) have become. This smaller campus is supposed to be there for the economically disadvantaged, but $3000-$4000 a semester puts it out of their reach (with no Life money).
These cuts hurt all of us, but especially those we most need to educate.
fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, South Carolina.
I was under the impression that USC’s enrollment has been growing every year. Is there data to suggest otherwise?
I’m trying to grasp how the educational process in higher ed in South Carolina has been harmed by making the students pay for their education. Tuition keeps going up, applicants are still turned away.. who’s missing out?
All it looks like to me is that the schools would like a nice big pot of money for which they don’t have to be accountable.
Hey, I know, we could give every graduating high school senior a VOUCHER for the amount of tuition at USC/Clemson and let the student use it at any state school. Let every student who wants to go to school have that option without just giving the money to the schools.
Really, who’s losing out in this process?
It seems to suit our masters, David. Who are we to complain?
Students cannot afford, by and large, to pay the full cost of their education. We want to educate the brightest and best, not necessarily the richest.
Back in 1980, in Britain, only 3% of the population went to University (which is not the same as technical schools), but they were guaranteed an affordable education. When I studied there, it was not a drinking contest. People were serious about their studies and proud to have made the cut. (The system was and is less meritocratic than I would like because of the prevalence of expensive private primary and secondary education that is vastly better than the public education available. The middle class generally goes to private schools.)
Central planning for education makes soooo much sense. We need to make sure those who are best suited for a certain type of education can get it, and afford it.
Increasing enrollments only helps the bottom line if the incremental cost of each student is less than what he or she is paying in. Loss leaders aren’t a great strategy for educational funding.
Kathryn,
I’d love to see the facts on the “loss leaders”… My son is graduating from USC this May so I’ve had a very good perspective of how things work.
For example, it’s now the minority of students who graduate in 4 years. I think the number is 40%. The course requirements combined with scheduling combined with not enough open seats in classrooms means that a student either has to take several classes during the summer (at $1250 a pop) or go that extra semester.
Wouldn’t giving every high school graduate a voucher for college be the best way to make sure those who want to stay in state can?
As long as USC is turning away applicants, the issue isn’t funding. It’s that the school wants money it can use without being accountable (ref: Innovista).
If it’s about getting kids into college and keeping the best ones in state, then give the money to the kids and let them decide which school is right. First year tuition free for all in-state students and free if you remain a student in good standing with a 2.5 or better GPA. No interest loans for room % board, books, etc.
That would be my approach versus giving it to USC and Clemson.
I have been a faculty wife at USC since 1998, as well as an alumna and frequent opponent (in my role as neighborhood watchdog), and I have been taking classes there this year myself (at more per course than I paid for a whole year 30 years ago) so I do know a bit of what I’m talking about.
Students do not pay their full way. They just don’t. Even out-of-state students. Plenty of news sources back me up. So more students is hardly the way out of a financial bind.
You believe the role of the so-called state schools (@ only 12% of the budget coming from state funds, I’m not sure why we call them that) is solely to educate SC students. I believe the universities need out-of-state students for diversity and quality, plenty of faculty research–for quality–in my 20 years of experience as a faculty wife, the best researchers also know their topics and care about them and provide professional level instruction, and to provide knowledge and expertise to the community–like the Clemson Extension Service.
Giving funding to all students is plain too expensive, and many many are not college material. The Life Scholarships have proven repeatedly to get kids in who can’t handle the coursewaork or aren’t mature enough on their own. They then hassle the professors to keep their grades up/ Some–too many, imho, dilute their standards so little Johnny won’t have to drop out.
If we want to compete nationally or even regionally, instead of being a “safety” school, we need to set a quality bar reasonably high. Students, wherever they are from, will rise to meet it or fail. Otherwise, USC and Clemson become jokes. Faculty worth having will decamp for better opportunities, and the schools will become diploma mills.
The brightest and best in our state will do what my smartest friends in Aiken did–leave for a REAL university–and not come back.
The tech schools are there for those who need job-type training or cannot meet the University standards. Some kids mature into University level work–my nephew did, for one. Some get the qualifications they really need for a decent job–most jobs now and in the future require a two-year degree, not a university degree, yet we continue to revere the often vocationally useless 4-year degree.
Schools need to turn away applicants or they are not “selective” and the best students don’t want to go there.
And no-interest loans cost the taxpayers money. Free tuition for the first year means a lot of kids who don’t belong in college will take up seats. Professors will not want to teach giant classes of largely unprepared kids, so you’ll get instructors or the poorest professors, for the most part. Then you also won’t have the upper level classes you want, because all the resources go to Grade Thirteen. Yikes!
Kathryn,
Are the LIFE scholarship dollars included in the 12% you mention? Is there someplace I can go (not on a USC website) to see the actual funding?
I’m still missing the point of why USC needs more money. From the way I read your take on it, you think USC should get more money so it can become more selective and turn away more students. Or am I reading that wrong? If USC is not a “joke” now, then what’s the problem? The mission of a state school SHOULD be to provide a reasonable education at a competitive price for qualified in-state students. Everything beyond that is why we have private universities.
Here’s some facts about Innovista…
http://www.scpolicycouncil.com/research-and-publications-/budget/767-innovista-a-public-private-partnership-thats-all-public
It’s not pretty and it’s why we should be VERY careful about handing money over to the universities as a blank check.
More selective means more students, or better students, apply. Better qualified students get in, and are far more likely to finish than the current “Life Scholars.”
I have no idea where The State gets the numbers it publishes, but I imagine they are quite accurate, or we’d hear about them.
Life scholarships do not fund the University–they pay tuition that otherwise would be paid by grants from elsewhere, loans and jobs….or legislative subsidies. Tuition only pays a small part of the cost of running the University.
It seems very paranoid not to trust financial information promulgated by the University. Really.
My husband has not had a raise in half a decade. If we were not so attached to South Carolina, he’d be considering other posts, because he can. He does well-respected research and gets grant funding, as well as having great teaching reviews. Other of his colleagues have, in fact, decamped for greener pastures, and the ones who left were not the less talented ones….
Maybe you don’t see the point of a quality education–just one where boxes for credits are checked off, but I have seen the difference by simply comparing Honors College classes to regular ones—which graduates would you prefer to hire?