America's Fastest-Dying Cities: Implications for Higher Education

College Search & Selection
1

<p>It has been clear for some time that the economic fortunes of various states and some of their prominent cities are under pressure. Forbes magazine has just published some new information on the degree of these declines with a particular focus on the states with the greatest declines (Ohio and Michigan). </p>

<p>With a declining tax base and a faltering economy, this bodes ill for state support to a variety of areas, potentially including higher education. This has implications for resources dedicated to public higher education and how this gets applied on a college campus in terms of faculty hiring, financial aid, student support/counseling services, etc. </p>

<p>Here is the full article:</p>

<p>America's</a> Fastest-Dying Cities - Yahoo! Real Estate</p>

2

<p>The entire state of California is stuck with multi-billion $$ budget gaps and already high taxes. It cannot fund all the benefits it has promised going forward either. NY and Florida are right behind. U Michigan has the benefit of a very large endowment and control over tuition which make state money a relatively minor part of their total income similar to UVA. Both of those schools are already post the old model of state higher ed. They are public-private hybrids.</p>

3

<p>Colorado keeps growing yet it's 49th out of 50th for per-student spending on the college level. Universities and colleges here are grossly underfunded. Growth and relative economic health don't automatically equal well-supported schools.</p>

4

<p>One of the clearest reflections of resource allocation decisions by public universities are in data related to student/faculty ratios and class sizes. Trends for major states as noted above make it unlikely that any of the publics will have the financial flexibiility to markedly improve the classroom size and S/F ratios. Here are the numbers from last year's USNWR survey for many of the nation's public universities.</p>

<p>Student/Faculty Ratio School</p>

<p>23/1 , Arizona State
21/1 , U Florida
21/1 , Florida State
21/1 , Kansas State
20/1 , Texas A&M
20/1 , SUNY-Bing</p>

<p>19/1 , UCSD
19/1 , UC Davis
19/1 , UC Irvine
19/1 , UC Santa Cruz
19/1 , U Kansas
19/1 , U Alabama
19/1 , U Nebraska
19/1 , U Oklahoma</p>

<p>18/1 , U Texas
18/1 , U Maryland
18/1 , U Georgia
18/1 , Indiana U
18/1 , U Missouri
18/1 , Auburn
18/1 , SUNY-Stony Brook
18/1 , U Arizona
18/1 , UC Riverside
18/1 , U Oregon
18/1 , U Kentucky</p>

<p>17/1 , U Illinois
17/1 , UC Santa Barbara
17/1 , Penn State
17/1 , U Pittsburgh
17/1 , U Connecticut
17/1 , Michigan State
17/1 , U Mass
17/1 , U New Hampshire
17/1 , U South Carolina
17/1 , U Arkansas
17/1 , Colorado State</p>

<p>16/1 , UCLA
16/1 , Miami U (OH)
16/1 , Virginia Tech
16/1 , U Colorado
16/1 , NC State</p>

<p>15/1 , UC Berkeley
15/1 , U Virginia
15/1 , U Michigan
15/1 , U Iowa
15/1 , U Minnesota
15/1 , Iowa State
15/1 , U Tennessee
15/1 , U Vermont
15/1 , U San Diego</p>

<p>14/1 , U North Carolina
14/1 , Georgia Tech
14/1 , Rutgers
14/1 , Purdue
14/1 , Clemson
14/1 , U Missouri (Rolla)
14/1 , Washington State</p>

<p>13/1 , U Wisconsin
13/1 , Ohio State
13/1 , U of the Pacific
12/1 , U Delaware
11/1 , W&M
11/1 , U Washington</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Trends for major states as noted above make it unlikely that any of the publics will have the financial flexibiility to markedly improve the classroom size and S/F ratios.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't agree. Institutions have room to set priorities even in tight budget years. For example, U of Michigan is going to be hiring 100 new junior faculty in the next few years. Despite the fact that U-M's appropriation is below what it was in 2002. </p>

<p>Overall, I think MSU, U-M, OSU, and Miami of Ohio (public institutions that are most likely to be considered by the crowd here at CC) have resources that are not as dependent on what's happening in Flint or Akron as what you seem to be suggesting. </p>

<p>Yes, a poor state economy is not a good thing, and state budget cuts hurt. I'm sure all of these publics would prefer a state economic climate that was vibrant. But difficult state economic issues don't necessarily forecast a decline in the quality of the top public schools within their borders. And as Colorado and other states may illustrate, a healthy economy doesn't guarantee great state support for top publics, either. But then, the plain math of it means that top public have stopped relying on appropriations as a dominant funding source.</p>

6

<p>While you are in a much better place to judge the local impact at U Michigan, it is undeniable that public colleges with declining state appropriations will be forced to make allocation decisions of limited resources. While some may opt to hire more faculty, this possibly (likely) has trade-off impact for other areas. Furthermore, hiring 100 junior faculty may only keep the school at level employment levels as one clear trend of recent times is for public university professors to move to better funded (usually private) institutions.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
15/1 , U San Diego

[/quote]

U San Diego is private.</p>

8

<p>I agree with barrons and hoedown. UVA and Michigan are leading the way to a new model of semi-privatized public universities that are not nearly as dependent on the vagaries of legislative appropriations and state tax revenues (and therefore the ups and downs of the state economy) as the traditional model. It's a development that comes at some costs: higher tuition for one, greater selectivity (meaning fewer opportunities for state residents to gain access) for another, arguably some weakening of their traditional public service mission. I doubt they'll ever go fully private; the state money is just too attractive even if represents a relatively small and declining share of their budget, and for their part the legislatures like the idea of being able to retain a stake (and naming rights) in world-class universities on the cheap. But a lot of people see this partially privatized model as the future of public higher education. It's the institutions that are most wedded to the old legislative appropriation-driven model that are suffering the greatest budgetary strains and are most at risk going forward---regardless of whether they're in high-growth states or low-growth or declining ones.</p>

<p>Take a look at the s/f ratio chart that hawkette posted above. It's not the rust-belt Michigans and Ohios that are severely under-resourced. It's high-growth Arizona and Florida; chronically underfunded SUNY; the UCs except for "favored children" Berkeley and UCLA; and the flagships in tax-allergic, skinflint "red states" like Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama. </p>

<p>The University of Virginia and the University of Michigan are in the enviable position of gaining more control over their own financial destinies as their soaring endowments replace legislative appropriations. U VA and U Michigan will be just fine, thank you. Others will be envious and scrambling to catch up.</p>

9

<p>^^ hawkette,
I believe the faculty hiring initiative at Michigan is to add a net 100 new junior faculty, over and above replacements for faculty lost to retirement or lateral movement to other faculties. And believe me, Michigan wins at least as many faculty recruiting battles as it loses. Most of its faculties are extremely highly regarded in their respective fields, and its salaries are generally competitive with its private peers. Except for a handful of schools at the CHYMPS level, it's almost always a promotion for an academic to go to Michigan from another school, public or private, due to the prestige "bonus" and the opportunity to work with some of the best and brightest in your field as your colleagues.</p>

10

<p>Governor Strickland of Ohio, along with his advisors, have decided that one way to battle this "brain drain" and also encourage people to come to school in Ohio, and hopefully remain in the area upon graduation is to offer lucrative merit scholarships that offer generous aid to both in-state and out-of-state students. Just last week, he passed legislation that would not only give all veterans in-state status as far as tuition goes regardless of where they live, but also give in-state tuition to their spouses and children. Ohio is the only state to do this, but more are expected to do likewise. Requirements for admission are going up each year, so apparently the policy of trying to attract high-achieving students is working. He also put a freeze on tuition costs last year, so there was no increase. So far, these steps have not led to a deterioration of services, and the students still seem to get a "bang for their buck(eye)."</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, hiring 100 junior faculty may only keep the school at level employment levels as one clear trend of recent times is for public university professors to move to better funded (usually private) institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, this is a new investment in faculty. Michigan is not leaving faculty openings unfilled. Faculty positions at the University have gone up in the past five years, whether you measure them as General Funds FTE (a modest increase) or All Funds FTE (much bigger increase). </p>

<p>It's a good example of why you cannot cite one overall higher education trend (if faculty leaving public institutions without being replaced is, in fact, a documented a trend) and assume it applies to a particular institution. The top publics are odd ducks, each in their own way, and the ways in which they are working around the changes in state funding are interesting. Makes it hard to generalize, except to say that they're largely doing better than one might expect. You can't assume there is a simple relationship between state economic health and flagship quality.</p>

<p>Thanks for the Ohio info, rcefn.</p>

12

<p>With their outstanding success in capturing research money many of the top publics can fund a good portion of their top profs salaries out of the research grants freeing money for other uses and support of junior faculty and those not in high research funded areas. This how they have been able to keep operating at fairly high levels despite flat support from the states.In reality there are only a few schools rich enough to make very high offers to large numbers of outside faculty. Just like the NY Yankees, even Harvard can't hire everyone they might like. Plus there still is a steady pipeline of young PhD's looking for a chance at a top research U job. Even the mid level U's in the US pay more than many of the top foreign schools.</p>

13

<p>I agree that U Virginia and U Michigan are much better placed than nearly all other public universities due to their long and successful history of fundraising and capital management. They aren't exempt from the financial pressures in the statehouses, but their reliance is likely a lot less than others and they are taking responsibility for their future funding needs. </p>

<p>Part of the problem is that the funding issues are going to require a change in the self-reliance of the great majority of public universities or else see a continuing decline in the financial flexibility and with that a large increase in constituent anger and frustration. </p>

<p>It is a bit of a surprise seeing Sunbelt states like Florida being so differently staffed vs other publics, but that reflects their poor historical financial prioritization. I understand that things are moving now in the right direction, but the housing/real estate problems of that state have the potential to slow or halt some of that.</p>

14

<p>There are going to be many private colleges that find themselves in trouble.
The better known public universities will be fine.</p>

<p>The private colleges with low endowments and/or need high tuition dollars....Ouch.</p>

<p>Better get some rich foreign students.</p>

15

<p>^ I agree with dstark. Privates with big endowments and fancy names will do just fine, but with costs spiraling and even comparatively affluent families reeling from tuition sticker-shock, I think we could see a big shake-out in the less prestigious, less well-endowed private institutions in the next few years. A lot of these schools have operated on a threadbare budget model, heavily dependent on tuition revenue. That just won't cut it anymore. The middle class can't afford to pay, the tuition gap v. publics in many cases is widening, and the schools don't have a ready source of funds to provide even need-based institutional financial aid, much less the merit aid that many families are now looking for. I agree with hawkette that the unendowed publics are in trouble, but the unendowed privates are probably in bigger trouble.</p>

16

<p>If I worked at a Florida public, I'm not sure I'd agree that things are moving in the right direction. To what are you referring?</p>

17

<p>Just as an example of the troubles a small under-funded LAC can get into, take a look at Antioch. </p>

<p>Schools in general understand that large endowments and reseach dollars are what will keep them in existence for the future. A minimum of a billion dollar endowment is now pretty much de rigueur to be considered a major institution. State funding as a percentage of overall income is dwindling in most states.</p>

18

<p>dstark and bcintonk ... I completely agree and we are considering this fact with my DDs choices ... hate to spend all that money and have the school shrivel up ... yes a self fulfilling prophecy but paying tuition is an investment in our children's future ... make sure there is a decent return likely.</p>

19

<p>As regards the original post, virtually no prominent public schools are funded by cities. I think the target of your inquiry is malaprop, though you did mention that states are under pressure as well so clearly you meant to talk about those as well.</p>

<p>I think there is no question that across the board public universities are feeling the heat in terms of funding, at least compared to some of the top privates. I am sure this will affect their ability to keep things like student/faculty ratios along the lines of what they want them to be.</p>

<p>It seems to me where you were going with your post is that state schools are starting out at a disadvantage and are only getting worse. </p>

<p>I don't think it's a very useful exercise, though, to compare your average state school to average privates in terms of certain measures like student/faculty ratios and how they track with overall quality.</p>

<p>Is Harvard with its $35+ billion endowment doing better than the average public school? Of course.</p>

<p>The average public research university does better in terms of educating more people and at the same time being a place of scholarship and research than the vast majority of private schools, though, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Public schools have a different mission. They educate more people and provide a greater amount of opportunity for more people. </p>

<p>Take two Bay Area unis, Berkeley and Stanford, that are both at the pinnacle in their respective private/public worlds. On an overall basis, both schools are arguably across the board the most academically productive and quality graduate schools in the nation (according to the National Research Council). </p>

<p>Are they comparable? In terms of sheer academic output and quality (the best proxy of which is graduate school quality perhaps), they are very comparable.</p>

<p>But how do they do educating undergrads? Well, Stanford is among the most selective insitutions and it lets in about 5% Pell Grantees. Berkeley lets in, on a percentage basis, about 3 or 4 times that amount. On an absolute basis, it is probably 12-15 times that amount because Berkeley's admit class is so much larger.</p>

<p>Both schools are top-notch academic institutions. Berkeley is less selective on the undergrad academic level than Stanford, but it makes more an investment that broadly improves society, in my opinion, in terms of providing access to the possibility of receiving a first-rate education to people that might not otherwise have a shot at it.</p>

<p>I've noticed on these boards that you take great exception to the "peer assessment" assigned to institutions by USNWR. Clearly, this rating is both vaguely specified and, paradoxically, entirely useful. Without it, a school that allows for the quality of academic possibility that a public school like Berkeley does would receive no credit, really, for the fact that it is full of professors that teach and research at the highest echelons within their respective fields. The peer assessment score redresses the fact that a school such as Berkeley, with its different parameters of success and poorer standings in terms of such measures as endowment per student etc, is at the same time performing in other respects at the paramount.</p>

<p>If you quote items like faculty/student ratios without looking at the bigger picture, in my opinion, you are making a fairly obvious case: all else being equal, smaller schools are better than bigger schools.</p>

<p>But all else is not equal. Berkeley provides a lot more access for more top students than do typical private counterparts, all the while it maintains world-class research prowess.</p>

<p>How is Berkeley doing financially?</p>

<p>It struggles -- but in comparison to its "peer privates." It raised nearly $500 million last year, in a great fundraising year. That may pale in comparison to Harvard, but it's pretty da**ed good.</p>

<p>Now, where it gets more telling or interesting is when one goes down the quality scale. How does a middling private school fare vs. a solid, but not stellar, state school? I think at this level, as vaguely defined as it is, you'd find both types of institutions having problems that don't compare with the problems of either publics or privates at the pinnacle.</p>

<p>And cities? A dying city does not imply a dying college. Carnegie Mellon has done pretty well long after Pittsburgh moved beyond its heyday. Detroit is dying, but I have confidence University of Michigan will prevail as top-flight public institution. </p>

<p>I think your point is focusing on the relative weakness of public institutions, but you have overlooked a lot of their relative strengths.</p>

20

<p>Last week D and I were in Dayton, OH, one of the cities mentioned. We visited U of Dayton and then went to Miami-Ohio later in the day. Spent the night in downtown Dayton. As we drove into town we were both surprised at the lack of people around about 6:00 p.m. or so. It was dead. She really liked the U of Dayton, which is about a 5 minute or so drive from downtown, but the the town was a "pit." Not dirty, but just desolate and kind of creepy. </p>

<p>It definitely has an impact on what my H and I think about the possibility of U of Dayton. He brought this article to my attention at some point early today. It's really unfortunate as there were a lot of very neat things about this school.</p>