News Story

Commentary: States and Federal Government Should Stop Funding Higher Education

How one college rejects public funding and keeps tuition down

Most people believe having a college degree contributes to an individual’s career, increases potential earnings and even makes the overall economy more productive. Not surprisingly, the rapidly rising cost of higher education is a perennial hot-button issue.

In recent months, the concerns have generated state and federal legislative proposals including a so-called “Michigan2020” plan that would fully subsidize college for all high school graduates, a bipartisan federal bill to arbitrarily cap college loan interest rates and a proposed bailout of existing college debt.

These and similar proposals generally assume that injecting more taxpayer dollars into the system will lower the cost for individual students. A case study shows why this may not be the case.

A recent article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review called Grove City College in Pennsylvania (my alma mater) “an exception to the rules of higher education.” The school is ranked 87 out of 87 of the Keystone State's institutions of higher education in its tuition, room and board. Yet Grove City College, like Hillsdale College in Michigan, accepts no direct or indirect government funding, and its students get no federal grants or loans.*

Given a constant stream of state university rhetoric threatening higher tuition if even a dollar of taxpayer funding is cut, one might expect that Grove City tuition costs would be stratospheric. In fact, annual tuition is $13,598 — not cheap, but less than half the national average of private schools. Hillsdale's tuition for 2011-2012 is $20,760.

According to Grove City College president Richard Jewell, there is no "secret formula” to the college’s success.

"We live within our budget. ... We run as much as possible on a cash basis. Room and board and tuition pay for 94 to 95 percent of our operating costs," Jewell said.

Apparently students aren’t being shortchanged in quality, either. Grove City freshmen have average SAT score nearly 240 points higher than the national average, demonstrating its appeal to a group of students who have many alternative opportunities, and the school is consistently ranked as one of the top colleges and universities in the nation.

According to school administrators, it’s no coincidence that costs are low and quality high despite the lack of government subsidies. Freedom from myriad government rules and regulations helps keep administration costs down, and the absence of government money keeps faculty compensation demands within reason (there is no academic “tenure” for Grove City professors, for example). The school lives within its means because there’s no taxpayer-funded safety net if it does not.

In higher education as in all human endeavors, incentives matter. Government grants and subsidized loans don’t just cause more students to enroll, they also cause colleges and universities to raise prices and provide less for more. One example of the latter is an increased number of degrees granted in marginal subjectsTuition spikes, skyrocketing administration costs and tenured professors who teach fewer classes each year are all examples of universities following the incentives that politicians have created.

If we want lower costs and greater value in higher education, make the schools respond to consumers instead of politicians.

*The lack of federal funding is due to a 1984 Supreme Court case, Grove City v. Bell. Because it refused to submit to certain federal regulations and mandates, the court ruled the feds could cut off all funding.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Commentary

May 18, 2012, MichiganVotes.org Weekly Roll Call

Y = Yes, N = No, X = Not Voting

 

Senate Bill 1040, Adopt school employee pension reforms: Passed 20 to 18 in the Senate
To close the current "defined benefit" public school pension system to new employees hired starting in 2013, and instead give them 401(k) accounts with employer contributions equal to 4 percent of salary. New hires also would no longer be eligible for retirement health insurance benefits, but instead would get extra contributions into their 401(k) accounts. Current retirees would have to pay 20 percent of the cost for their health benefits, up from 10 percent now. Current school employees would have to contribute more toward their pensions, or else receive benefits calculated under a less generous formula.

 Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"


Senate Bill 1040, "Prefund" school retiree health benefits: Failed 18 to 20 in the Senate
Amendment offered by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer to strip out a provision of the school pension reform bill that would end post-retirement health insurance benefits for new employees hired starting in 2013, and instead make annual contributions sufficient to prefund these benefits (which under current law are optional). Reportedly the annual prefunding amount would be around $500 million. Last year, providing these optional benefits to current retirees cost $795 million.

  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"


Senate Bill 939, Give special treatment to firms submitting to “environmental leader” process: Passed 26 to 12 in the Senate
To give certain businesses special treatment in awarding state contracts, eligibility for government subsidies, environmental permit and inspection mandates, and more, if the firm submits itself to a government “environmental leader” designation process. This would require a company to demonstrate that it has no outstanding permit violations or serious past ones, adopt certain practices not required by law, submit to certain additional reporting mandates, participate in “workshops,” etc.

  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"


Senate Bill 127, Vehicle trade-in “sales tax on the difference” only: Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate
To exempt from sales tax the value of a trade-in on the purchase of a new motor vehicle or titled watercraft. The buyer would only pay tax on the difference between the value of the trade-in and the purchase price of the new item. The tax cut would be phased in biannual installments through the end of 2017.

  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"


House Bill 5477, Revise corporate subsidy program details: Passed 97 to 12 in the House
To increase from 15 percent to 25 percent a cap on the overhead expenses allowed for recipients under certain "Michigan Strategic Fund" corporate subsidy programs. Also, to require subsidy deals to contain more specific "claw-back" provisions requiring repayment of subsidies if specified job creation, commercialization, or other metrics are not met, details of which would be on the public record and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Finally, the bill would authorize investments or loans of taxpayer dollars to "micro-enterprise lenders."

  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"


SOURCE: MichiganVotes.org, a free, non-partisan website created by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, providing concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill and vote in the Michigan House and Senate. Please visit https://www.michiganvotes.org.



Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.