Study abroad may be a tertiary factor in my state-- but I have NEVER seen it raised in any public (or media) debate about funding for our public institutions. Never. I don’t think it’s on anyone’s radar.
What is on the radar? Endless improvements to already state of the art athletic facilities. All night dining options (and not from pizza delivery of a commercial establishment at midnight, the way it was when we were students) which seems excessive and unnecessary. People still remember when you got to the dining hall by 7 or you ate a bag of pretzels from a vending machine. And the luxury dorms- both those owned by the university system, and the ones by private developers.
These stick in the taxpayers craw for several reasons- 1- they are nicer than the places where many voters/taxpayers live. 2- they are never finished-- a dorm built only a few years ago is now getting upgraded (how is that possible?). 3- The traffic every time a dorm is expanded is INSANE for working people in the neighborhood who have to actually get to work. Why? Because it seems that every single kid MUST own a car and MUST park it in a lot close to the dorms (the faculty walks… employee parking is on the outer reaches but college students need a car close at hand).
I’d leave the study abroad argument behind (I really don’t think voters care if a couple of kids who are studying the Geopolitics of Asia get a subsidized semester in Beijing or Seoul). But the big, highly visible, somewhat over the top campus master plan projects get people really riled up.
No, college students don’t have to live in a dump. But their dorm “suites” (no new construction has doubles anymore? It’s all suites?) don’t have to rival the Westin or Hyatt hotel-- a place which- and not irrelevant to this discussion-- most voters could not afford to stay in when they travel. Red Roof Inn-- kids can’t live in a Red Roof Inn?
So is the claim that poor or middle class WVU students don’t deserve to have a study abroad experience, even if they’re in a major like international studies where that would clearly be beneficial for academic purposes?
Or is the claim simply that students at public flagships shouldn’t have the option to major in subjects like Chinese, even though not only is Mandarin spoken natively by nearly as many speakers as the next three largest native languages combined (Spanish, English, and Hindi, for those keeping score), but it is a language of deep strategic importance for the entire country?
I’m with Blossom-you asked why public funding of higher ed is less popular; she provided excellent examples. You may disagree on the merits but the fact remains those perceptions lead to less support for public funding
The article I posted above (around post 233) states:
“University of Arkansas has expanded offerings and aggressively recruited students from other states. Lisa Corrigan, a communications professor there, has examined the doings at West Virginia University. ‘The demographic cliff is a product of the consultant-industrial complex,’ she told me. ‘This is a manufactured crisis. At Arkansas, we’re drowning in students.’ Despite all the talk of streamlining, demand appears strong for a wide diversity of classes at many flagship public universities.”
If that is true, then what is the real difference between a WVU and an Arkansas OTHER than mismanagement?
That’s not my claim. And I don’t think voters object to subsidized study abroad. I cannot speak to the taxpayers of WV, but in my state, support for foreign language study seems pretty solid. People seem to understand that we don’t have a shot at diplomatic relations around the world if we have nobody who can pass a security clearance AND is fluent in a particular language.
Really? The only students I know who went abroad, were those studying modern languages (for whom a year abroad is a required part of the course, although it is not necessary to study, many teach in high school etc so they can earn some money to live on) or the very limited numbers who won a competitive exchange scholarship.
Here’s an example of those competitive options at LSE, which offers more spots than many other institutions, but still only provides 39 places annually compared to the 1800 undergrads in each class year:
My college had 1 exchange scholarship every alternate year when I was there, now I believe they have 2 spots per year. Other than that the only option was small grants towards summer courses (or academic activities like archaeological digs if that was your major).
As with almost everything else remotely controversial these days, the split on funding supposedly lavish college experiences seems to fall on political divides. People who want kids to experience – and pay for! – college the way it was in their day are usually the same ones talking about making America great again.
Also, I don’t see a ton of folks on the “colleges crossed off the list” remarking in horror at spacious dorm suites or climbing walls or even study abroad offerings.
(I will point out, not to belabor this side issue, that if college is “funding” study abroad, in almost all cases it is doing so in the form of allowing an existing scholarship or need-based award to go toward that cost instead of the home campus. It is not funding anything extra. It is money the college would’ve spent anyway if the kid stayed at the school that semester.)
Look, my kid actually went to WVU and I spent a LOT of time there, unlike almost everyone else on this thread. This is not an elite university. There are no manicured lawns or ivy-covered quads, no Adirondack chairs or society clubs. The PRT - the monorail - is falling apart. Several of the individual college buildings are in the same condition they were in 40 or 50 years ago.
It’s a working-class uni in a gritty town in a red state. Nobody is going to WVU for a High Point experience.
It was fleeced by its administration, but there were solid reasons behind a lot of what the school did. It cannot stay competitive by just recruiting in-state. (Same problem Bama has.) And so it tries to attract good students from elsewhere. The scholarship my kid was on no longer exists. That’s really sad, and I mourn for the kids who don’t have that chance anymore.
I don’t think the issue is causality per se. But it’s a perfect storm. Voters become sensitive to tax increases because the “social contract” of whichever halcyon days you refer to is broken. (poor kids have lead in the water? Let them drink Poland Spring. etc.) Once the bonds start to erode, everything is on the table. We see this every day (and much gratitude to Robert Putnam).
I watch the ferocity in my own small city re: construction of pickle ball courts and feel this phenomenon up close. Who has time to go to public hearings? Retired people. Who can spend hours getting petitions signed without worrying about picking up kids from school? Retired people. Who plays pickle ball? Retired people. Voila- city “finds” enough money to build new pickle ball facilities. Mold in the elementary school? No money. Broken or unsafe playground equipment? No money. Improved lighting on the basketball courts so kids can continue playing past 4:30 pm in the winter? No money.
I wish the pickleball lobby would feel some sense of camaraderie with the recreation-seeking citizens of different ages and demographics but the genie is out of that bottle for now and is not going back.
I don’t believe there was a coordinated and evil compact in every state to defund higher ed. But I think the overall trend, loosening of the social compact/responsibility, decrease in overall civic pride, AND a consumerist approach to paying taxes (taxes are good when they buy me what I like; taxes are bad when they pay for somebody else’s stuff) have all intersected.
Cheap money (for a long time, historically speaking) didn’t help. Low interest rates undoubtedly fueled a lot of dumb construction… jury is still out on that since nobody knows how long rates will stay high.
Wow, not at all my experience. I am aware that there are study abroad providers who set students up for academically weak experiences, but the study abroad experiences of members of my family and peer children have been academically engaging and rigorous. The universities I know best (including public and private, flagship and regional comprehensive) actively advise students on the academic quality of the different experiences.
It is money the college would have “spent anyway” on paying its own staff and maintaining its own facilities, and covering the fixed costs of catering etc. The college is obviously worse off when the student takes institutional money and spends it elsewhere (such as on going abroad), however much the student themselves might benefit. There is certainly an equity issue if a college decides that study abroad won’t be subsidized by aid, but if it’s a question of priorities, this seems like a relatively easy cut to make.
A comparable example is that many colleges (especially public ones) charge different amounts for rooms, depending on the size, facilities, and number of people in the room. Is it reasonable to say that aid won’t cover the full cost of the more expensive dorms, or won’t pay for a single room, or won’t pay for an unlimited meal plan?
But what is the rationale for those scholarships for OOS students? You have to use them to raise the perceived prestige of the university so that full pay (or at least profitable based on the marginal cost) students follow. I’ve also seen my D18’s OOS full ride scholarship cut, as her college redirected the funding to instate students. They now focus instead on WUE scholarship offers where the amount paid appears to exceed their marginal costs for each additional student, while those OOS students are paying less than they would for full pay instate at a UC (that they may not be able to get admitted to, especially the ones with big sports programs).
Arizona is now wrestling with this question. They made liberal use of scholarships to attract high performing OOS students, who didn’t pay enough to cover the cost of educating them. But their cash cows are really from being a near open access institution for wealthy, underperforming OOS students who want PAC-12 sports (or need expensive LD support programs that they pay for on top). Securing students in that latter category seems a lot more achievable at Arizona or Alabama (Warm weather! Sororities! Top ranked sports teams!) than at WVU.
I’d be shocked if WVU knows the marginal cost of educating an incremental student.
The cash cows have always been wealthy international students. Other than maintaining an office to help with visas/LPT and other immigration issues, they are a great source of revenue (most full pay since most colleges don’t admit the ones who need aid) and usually finish up in four years so they don’t drag down your graduation rates.
I really don’t care where WVU makes its cuts, but it would seem the most democratic ( little d) way to do so is by the duly elected representatives of its citizens, or through their designees, the board of trustees.
So … the very people who know nothing about running and working at a university? In my decades in various levels of education, that’s never worked. Expertise has a place in this process.
The Board of WVU exists under state law. Trustees are appointed by teh Governor and approved by the State Senate. (as in many other states). As a great man once said, ‘elections have consequences.’ If the Trustees have no experience in education, that’s on the person who appoints them.
btw: most states’ non-profit laws requires an independent Board to run the show.