Weather and Admissions

A few weeks ago, I met a good friend for dinner. It was in between snow storms and I vividly remember how slippery the restaurant parking lot was. Once I got into the restaurant, a few minutes before my friend arrived, I was one of only two customers in this large restaurant. And almost as soon as my friend arrived, the other person left. We had the restaurant to ourselves. In this terrible winter in the northeast, having restaurants almost empty - even during normally busy times - has become the norm rather than the exception. Clearly, many businesses suffered. In fact there was a front page story in USA Today on February 17th that talked about how the "Brutal Winter Stymies Shipping," specifically how stalled shipments have had a negative "ripple" effect on the economy. The impact on the airlines was also widely reported with 75,000 canceled flights since December 1st.

It's not hard to identify areas of the economy that falter when the weather impacts day to day activities in a significant way. Hurricane Sandy had that impact; the recent snow storms provide another significant example. It is also not hard to identify sectors of the economy that do better when the fury of nature makes itself felt. Snow blower sales have, I am sure, been impressive. And snow melting salt sales have without question exceeded virtually all expectations. Teenagers have also done well shoveling driveways. But what about colleges' admissions, both undergraduate as well as graduate?

Many of us work with sophisticated econometric admissions prediction models. These simulation models include more and more variables and more and more and more data. The models predict the future based on the past and the more things remain as they had been, the more likely the simulations are accurate. But what happens when the weather is far worse than the previous years? Do fewer families visit campuses? Do fewer students decide to go to colleges and universities in the hard hit areas? Both New Orleans and the Hurricane Sandy impact areas seem to suggest that weather challenges may not necessarily adversely impact admissions. Even if initial visits to the campus are down, admissions can be fine. I think this rough winter will also not adversely impact admissions. I am hoping there will not be a weather related transfer effect but we won't know the reality until sometime in the summer. On the graduate level, where many students work full time as well as pursue an advanced degree, I think there will be an effect that favors hybrid and online programs.

So for anyone who believes that their simulation model will be an accurate predictor, please remember that there is so much not under our control that a model's accuracy always is somewhat uncertain. Hopefully, however, when there are surprises, more will be positive than negative.

Right Priorities but…

I have been watching and listening to multiple state and local leaders articulating their priorities for next year. And much of what I hear is music to my ears. I support a longer school day, I support universal pre-K, and I support no increase and, if possible, a decrease in local and state taxes. What is there that anyone could argue with in this ambitious agenda?

If you take a look at much of the K-12 education that we already provide in our local communities, there are often areas where more could be done or more resources are necessary. I live in an excellent school district but we are nevertheless constrained. There are a significant number of excellent districts; and there are unfortunately too many districts that are far from excellent. Dated facilities, limited technology, dated textbooks, and limited support services are just a few of the symptoms of districts that are not able to provide what is needed. And please remember that the end result of not providing the inputs that are necessary is that the children in the schools are at a disadvantage, one that often lasts throughout their careers and their lives. These kids would benefit from universal pre-K and they would benefit from a longer school day but before we do more, with an added cost, we first need to make sure what we are doing is being done as well as possible.

Universal pre-K and a longer school day are very worthwhile objectives but cannot be implemented with the present resources and obviously require added funding. Where will that come from? Vastly greater government or school efficiency? At the margin perhaps there are a few resources that can be reallocated. But the bulk of what is necessary will have to come from added taxes. Either very visible taxes such as income or property taxes or more subtle taxes such as sales taxes or fees. Other than income taxes, much of our tax structure is regressive. Increased taxes can be positioned as impacting only the rich, or millionaires, or the top 1%. But if the tax is only on the top 1%, and if the increase is reasonable, I doubt that sufficient funds will be generated for what needs to be done. Who, then, do you tax next?

Robust growth can of course lead to more employment, higher income, greater purchases and as a consequence, more revenue for government. Our economy is stronger but the growth won’t be sufficient to provide the resources we need. The reality is that at best we will be able to make token progress in these new priorities given the constraints we operate under. And if that is the case, my vote and my priority would be to concentrate on doing better what we are already doing rather than do more but with too little of it done well.

New Year’s Gift

The Congressional compromise deficit reduction agreement is a very good end of the year present. After the prior budget impasses, government shutdowns, sequestration, and not helpful rhetoric, it is refreshing to see that an agreement has been crafted that will last two years and move us in the right direction—spending increases will decline in a more rational way, some fees will go up, and a non scorched earth fiscal discipline seems to be in place at last.

This clearly wasn’t an easy compromise to craft, especially given the current climate. And it is already evident that certain ultra conservative politicians and think tanks are vehemently opposed to this package. On the other hand, though perhaps less vocal, the far left leaning liberals are equally disenchanted. But isn’t this what compromise is all about? No side gets all that it wants; the country however wins when there is a measured response to serious issues that have major ramifications on the economy.

Our economy is strengthening. Third quarter GDP increased an annual rate of 3.6% which is a significant improvement over the second quarter increase of 2.5%. New residential sales of single family homes increase by 444,000 units which is more than a 25% increase. Unemployment for the month of November was at 7%, a rate unseen since the end of 2008. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average being close to 16,000 has helped bring comfort after years of concern about the viability of investments in the stock market. In all these areas we can and should do even better but the improvement has made a significant positive difference.

But, we should all remember that an economy can be both robust and yet still fragile. Every threat of a government shutdown, every mention of sequestration and, most importantly, every indication that common sense compromise is off the table, weakens the threads that hold the economy together and move the economy forward. Our government leaders do a tremendous disservice when they turn their backs on what needs to happen to best serve the interests of our country.

There are fundamental differences between the Democratic Party nationally and the Republican Party nationally. Those differences are a healthy part of the fabric of our society. But getting past these differences when decisions need to be made makes all the difference in helping to move an economy forward and a society forward.

All the best for the New Year.

Change

Our new students have been on campus for about 6 weeks but we are already entering prime season in recruiting new students.  I already have had the pleasure of talking to the first fall open house group of the season and potential students and their families were very clearly focused on the decision they likely would be making in the next 6 months.  In thinking about my talk to these students and their loved ones, I focused on what I have heard from parents and new/potential students last year as well as what I have heard from talking with students and parents in the school district where I live. 

There seems to be, up to the last few weeks when the ill conceived effort to defund Obamacare threatened to undermine the slowly progressing economic recovery, a greater sense of optimism permeating our country.  Hopefully, that sense of optimism will reappear in the weeks ahead.  Optimism works to shift some attention from the sticker price of higher education to the value inherent in the education.  In a weak economy, price often trumps all; when the economy improves, class size, personal attention, and support services all take on greater prominence.  Scholarships, however, remain an important part of the currency of higher education; parents clearly feel they have been more successful, along with the son or daughter, when a scholarship is part of the attraction.

Even with the economy improving, students and their families seem to be maintaining their focus on the job or graduate school opportunity at the end of the baccalaureate degree studies.  Thankfully our increased attention to outcomes assessment provides us with reliable information on what recent graduates are doing and that information is very reassuring.  Students and their parents also seem to be maintaining their interest in and enthusiasm for an internship along the way. I strongly agree that an internship can provide that important bridge between school and a career and provide the student with added sophistication that increases the chances for success.  Dual degree programs also seem to be more and more attractive to potential students.  The opportunity to earn both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in an overall shorter period of time enhances the value proposition.  Think about it, even five years ago and certainly a decade ago, there was much less concern about the job at the end of the degree, much less emphasis on internships, and much less emphasis on dual degrees.  I believe the new priorities have strengthened higher education but there certainly has been a price to be paid.

The price has been the declining appreciation for the importance of a well rounded liberal arts education as the foundation for higher education.  A dual major, a minor along with a major, more time for internships, a chance at a dual degree, all are often made possible by a reduction on the number of foundational liberal arts courses that are the critical source of the common body of knowledge that higher education should provide.  The appreciation for the liberal arts is often overshadowed now by the desire to have more professional experiences, certifications and credentials.  Graduates are often expected to be more specialists and less generalists, more sophisticated in the imediate needs of the chosen profession but less able to understand world issues and challenges.

We all work hard to provide incoming students and their families with the quality education they want in their chosen field.  We change with the changing times and here there is no choice.  But along with the changes, there also has to be an ongoing commitment to the liberal arts.  Higher education should never be confused with a trade school education.

Car Focus

It is the time of year when the new automobile models are being introduced and as usual I find myself looking to read everything I can about the new models.  I have been fascinated by cars since I was a young kid, and only later on did I realize how important the automobile industry was to the American economy.  Now I am not a believer that whatever is good for GM (or Ford of Chrysler) is good for the United States, but I do believe that the American car industry doing well is inextricably interwoven with the American economy doing well.

For many years, the greatest excitement about the new models being introduced was reserved for foreign cars, for the most part those cars imported either from Germany or Japan. And the reality was that I was part of the foreign car bandwagon.  American cars didn’t excite me and more importantly, I just didn’t have a sense that they were as durable or well designed as the German or Japanese cars. Now American cars are at the top of the list in almost every category.  The new Corvette, the new Impala, the new Cadillac CTS, the new Jeep Cherokee, the new Ford Fusion are all the best of breed; tested continuously and praised for all they represent and for all the value they provide.  And because American cars are so good at doing what they should do, it is no longer unusual to see American cars well represented in important foreign cities.  Beijing and Buick is the best example.

In many ways, the higher education industry is in a similar position.  American higher education is respected at home and around the globe. The impact of higher education on the economy – taking into consideration all levels of public and private education– is huge, and here too, the American economy doing well is dependent on higher education continuing to do well.  We need to be relevant, we need to be reasonable, and we need to be a good investment in the future.  Foreign competition continues to grow but in almost every area, our education is still the most sought after.

At times, for the automobile industry, economic incentives have been key to the public’s purchase of automobiles.  No money down, very low interest rates, low leasing rates, and discounts off the sticker price have all made a difference.  Discount rates are key to higher education purchases as well.  Either scholarships or well below cost public tuition provide the same, price cutting, economic incentives.  As the economy improved and as cars improved, the automobile industry was able to reduce the reliance on price incentives.  In higher education, we are still struggling with how to come to grips with price incentives.  And what makes it especially difficult is that public institutions may have exactly the same cost structure but because there is a subsidy from the state where the public institution is located, public institutions do their discounting up front and visible for all to see.  Imagine higher education, if Ford were a public company with a permanent subsidy for all Ford purchasers.  What would GM and Chrysler do?

I know many of us – especially in the private section– are looking for ways to reduce the increasing reliance in higher education on discounting to attract students.  Since it is no longer unusual for a private institution to approach 50% in the first year discount rate, the pace of discount rate increases by definition will slow down.  But unfortunately, I don’t see a workable solution for phasing out what so many of us have become dependent on.

Conflict or Cooperation

Our Business School is named for Frank Zarb who has had a remarkable career in government and business including service as President Ford's energy czar.  Because Mr. Zarb has had such a distinguished career spanning almost half a century, we have been recording his oral history to include with the Zarb papers and materials we already have in our library.  One video clip contains a conversation between Representative John Dingell and Mr. Zarb and contains an important lesson for today's government leaders. The lesson concerns cooperation between the Democratic and Republican parties to successfully confront, what in their case was the energy crisis.  Cooperation carried the day then; confrontation threatens our economic recovery today.

The fight today is over health care, Obamacare as it is widely known, and instead of cooperation we have escalating confrontation. I remember from when I was growing up, the effort to pass Medicare and the efforts to discredit Medicare as socialized medicine.  I was persuaded in those days that health care support for the elderly, especially the poor elderly was an important responsibility of government in an affluent society.  Time has proven both the need for and the merit in a system of support for the elderly just when they most need access to health care.

The fight against Obamacare has that same tone.  The message is we need to stop Uncle Sam before he takes over our health care system.  But we have so many uninsured individuals and families that need help, that our affluent society has a responsibility to do more.  In addition with our current system we have tremendous unrecovered health care costs and the accompanying loss in productivity.  For these reasons, I support Obamacare but also understand the concern from the critics.

Our economy is in a fragile and halting recovery.  Inflation is still low, the unemployment rate is slowly dropping, the GDP is increasing at a meaningful rate and the stock market has flirted with record highs.  Against this backdrop, government is hitting a debt ceiling and there is an effort to tie any help with the economy to a defunding and destroying of Obamacare. 

We need cooperation and even more we need for government leaders, both Democratic and Republican to remember the pain of the recent recession and the need to continue cultivating the recovery. Combining the health care bill with debt ceiling legislation is a recipe for economic malaise.  Where are the Frank Zarbs and John Dingells of 2013? 

The June Unemployment Rate

The June unemployment rate staying at 8.2% is really not a surprise.  The economy is lackluster and the 80,000 jobs added, a number well below what would be necessary to reduce the unemployment rate, is all the economy is capable of generating.  Of greater concern and regardless of the November presidential /congressional election results, the economy will not quickly spring to life with a major decline in the unemployment rate. 

As I have noted previously, if you look at the economy at the state and local level, part of the reason for the lackluster economy becomes clear.  States and localities are still in the process of cutting back.  Whether it is caused by escalating pension and health care costs or by tax caps, the number of positions is declining and the concern about still more positions being eliminated is escalating. The immediate impact plus the natural caution regarding the future that accompanies situations like this are clearly a brake on economic recovery.

A much more interconnected economic world is also a brake at this moment on the US economy.  The economic situation in Greece and other European countries must lead to greater austerity measures in those countries and that certainly won’t help our exports.  Plus the continuing political instability in the Middle East also is potentially counterproductive to economic recovery.

And I haven’t even mentioned the tax increases that are already programmed to take effect on January 1. 2013.  If Congress and the White House don’t get their act together and resolve the tax increase and spending issues, we are headed with certainty for a much more serious economic crisis and a new recession; a recession that will take place long before we have fully recovered from the last recession.

For all of us in higher education, we clearly know the impact the economy has.  From endowment earnings, to fundraising, to the ability and willingness of our students and their families to pay tuition or take out loans, to government support, to placement statistics, we are vulnerable.  Since the recession of 2008, higher education has dealt with greater resource constraints.  I don’t think that we should expect any change in the short term in this constrained environment and I consider myself to be an economic optimist.

An out of the area colleague noted that he welcomed these difficult times because he is able to do more with less.  If that is the case, other than at the margin, this colleague is running an inefficient operation.  For almost all of us, fewer resources means we are able to do less.  That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to maintain quality in what we do.  But no one should underestimate how difficult this is, and everyone should remember that maintaining quality works best if there is continuing faculty and administration cooperation and collaboration.

News Overshadowing News

On Friday, February 3rd, I was waiting for the economic update. The jobs picture is a key indicator (even though it is considered a lagging indicator) of economic recovery, and I was looking to see if there were tangible signs that a real and perhaps more robust recovery was underway. But even though I was tuned into the economy, my greatest attention was focused on the decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation decision to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. There could not have been a worse decision. It was wrong on all levels. First why would an organization focused on a cure for breast cancer cut off funding to a highly regarded organization’s breast screening program? In a nation where we know there is a significant divide between pro-choice and pro-life advocates, why would an organization committed to the cure interject politics into our war against cancer? Did Susan Komen’s hiring of a known pro-life person (and recent anti-abortion candidate for Georgia’s governor) translate into an intolerant policy toward those with a different political ideology but at least as strong a commitment to eradicating breast cancer? I greatly admire how quickly New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stepped forward to pledge a matching donation to Planned Parenthood of up to $250,000. The total that would be raised of up to $500,000 would almost make up for the reduction from Susan Komen. Our economy is showing signs of life. There were 243,000 new jobs in January and the unemployment rate has dipped from 8.5% to 8.3%. Not terrific but nevertheless a world better than the 9.1% unemployment rate we had in August. And the stock market has also rallied with the DJIA now resting comfortably above the 12,000 level. There are great divides in our country. Our recovery is proceeding but almost certainly, with political cooperation, it would proceed faster. On the issue of abortion, the differences are equally great but can’t we agree that women have a right to choice when the decision involves their own body? Isn’t there still room in our society for people agreeing to disagree? And when it comes to cancer research and cancer care, how dare any organization play politics? February 3rd was a good day. First the economic news and later in the day Susan Komen reversed their position and announced that funding would be restored to Planned Parenthood. If our country is to continue to succeed and if our efforts regarding breast cancer are also to succeed, we need to be both more united and more respectful of individual differences.

Important Role of Government

I am today philosophically close to where I was when I was in graduate school. I am a middle of the road economist. I recognize the importance of government fiscal and monetary policy and yet government needs to make sure it doesn’t micromanage where it isn’t necessary, and government needs to make sure that the laws are constructed in the fairest way possible. I’m not sure at this moment that government—all levels of government—are doing all they can do to be fair and to not micromanage. For example, when a major presidential candidate can earn over $20 million dollars per year and not pay more than a 15% tax rate, I question the fairness of the system. I don’t fault Mitt Romney—there is no reason that he should pay more than is required. Nor should he be ashamed either of his earning power and his level of taxation. He is an American success story. I do, however, fault our federal government for creating a tax structure where the wealthiest Americans are so clearly paying a lesser percentage than millions of Americans whose earnings are a fraction of Governor Romney’s earnings. I would never suggest we impose an onerous tax rate for individuals in this bracket and perhaps we should all pay the same percentage, but no one should believe that the system that presently exists meets the fairness test. I’ve written before about defined benefit pension plans. There is no question that they are very beneficial for the recipients but there is also no question that substituting certainty for risk on the part of the pension recipients is made possible at the expense of tax payers. These are the same tax payers who, for the most part, save what they can for retirement without the ability to shelter these monies from the winds of economic uncertainty. What a nice system it is when you win if the stock market rises and you can’t lose if the stock market falls. I would never diminish the defined benefit pension plans for those who already have them. But can we really justify their continuation in the same form going forward? And to prop up these pensions, what are we now not able to do which meet important needs. Are we cutting back, for example, on our support for public K-12 education? Bad decision and bad news for the competitive future of our country. The few times in my life that I have seen momentary price controls, the end results have been serious market disruptions. In a market economy, it doesn’t really work to bypass the market. And now there is mention of government efforts to limit tuition increases. The market already is an effective brake on excessive tuition increases. If the value equation isn’t there for a particular college or university, there are multiple other universities—private as well as public, senior as well as community – to chose from. A dynamic institution striving to make greater use of full-time faculty, or greater merit-based or need-based scholarships, or smaller class size, or new majors in more costly areas, may need a larger than average tuition rate increase. Should institutions making initiatives like this be dissuaded from doing so or penalized for doing so? It makes no sense. And I do understand the high cost of education and the strains that it puts on many families. Competition from lower priced alternatives including on-line degree programs or for profit colleges and universities are better alternatives than price controls. Here is my dilemma and the dilemma for so many of us. Government is a lifeline we all need but when government undermines a level playing field, we are all hurt.

Democracy on the Local Level

Our local school board, of which I am vice president, recently held an open town hall meeting. The meeting was very well attended and the individuals present represented a broad spectrum of local opinion. These are challenging times for many local schools and in fact for many residents in the community. A sluggish economy and high taxes take their toll. But even with the formidable challenges present and the vast differences of opinion, I was impressed by the community and had great respect for all the voices that made their opinions known. In New York, we have a strict tax cap that will impact the school budget beginning next year. A very passionate resident who spoke early in the meeting pushed us to propose overriding the cap. Later in the program there were multiple retirees talking about the impact that the school budget and real estate taxes in general have on their well being. I understand and sympathize with both points of view. If resources weren’t scarce, we could do more in terms of serving the needs of our kids. If taxes didn’t rise, social security recipients who waited two years for an increase would have their purchasing power remain stable rather than being compromised by higher taxes. As the meeting continued, there were speakers who expressed concern about services for special needs children, speakers who questioned why there were defined benefit pension plans for individuals working in the school system, speakers who wanted to know the effect on class size and elective offerings under the tax cap. We reassured parents that special education programs were mandated and would not be trimmed. We talked about the problems inherent in a defined benefit pension plan but no one suggested or would suggest any change or diminution for existing employees. And we reminded the audience that defined benefit pensions were legislated by the state and that the school board had no options other than to adhere to the state requirements. We talked about the modest impact of the tax cap on class size, on elective offerings and the overall breadth and depth of the education we provide. At the end of the town hall meeting, almost three hours later, I think everyone in the audience had a clearer sense of the issues, of the opinion of others, and the fact that difficult questions rarely have black and white easy answers. What happens next? I have confidence that the critical issues are being aired in an open and transparent manner. I have confidence that the community is being well informed and that it has a real voice in the decision making process. And I also have confidence in the school board and especially in my colleagues and the superintendent that at the end of the day, we will make the decisions that are in the best interests of our kids, of our teachers, and of our community. Doing more with less should always be a goal but won’t result in major savings assuming that basic efficiencies are already in place. With mandated costs that are rising faster than the tax cap, there will be an impact and at the margin we will be making changes. But by hearing, listening, working together and striking a balance, I am convinced we will make the right decisions and serve the community well. Now if only Washington could function in the same collaborative way.

Plans

We are in the process of preparing our next five-year plan which will cover the years 2012-2017.  Our previous plan focused on providing additional resources to enhance the academic profile of the University and very substantial progress was made in enhancing undergraduate student quality as well as adding additional faculty lines and other resources.  This new plan will again have an academic orientation but not the luxury of focusing just on what we would like to add.

Our previous plan predated the current economic recession.  This  new plan is taking shape as we are hopefully slowly pulling out of the economic decline.  But as we all know the landscape has changed. There is more family and student financial need and consequently many institutions are responding by increasing need-based scholarships and increasing their discount rate. This money needs to be budgeted and some of the funds are reallocated from other present expenditure items in the budget.  Some of this reallocation will come almost inevitably from the academic budget.

But if the economy is really improving can’t we go back to business as usual; won’t reallocations be reversed and need-based scholarships (and discounting) decline?  I don’t think so.  The expectations of need based scholarships and of tuition discounting are now so firmly implanted in the hearts and minds of our students and their families that we will need to continue our present discounting practices.  But there is good news.  An improving economy will allow for additional revenues and that includes tuition revenues as well as fund raising.  We will have funding for new academic initiatives but we are still constrained. 

New academic initiatives are the lifeblood of an institution but the usual practice is to implement the new without a careful look at everything we are presently doing, and whether the need still exists for every program that is being offered.  As educators, I think we know we are likely offering some majors and some courses where there is not a critical mass of students (or a critical mass of faculty to teach the program).  We are also likely still awarding some stipends or released time based on what existed before that doesn’t necessarily still exist today. We need, in preparing new five-year plans (and planning for the future in general), to look at everything we are presently offering.  If the student demand isn’t there, if our resources are being overly diluted because of too many programs, if we have an ambitious agenda for moving the institution forward but not all the new resources we need to accomplish the goal,  we need to be  prepared to make the tough decisions. I am sure we have made some already but I am also fairly sure there are more that can and should be made.

We all know that it is easier to give resources than to reduce resources.  But the age old definition of economics still holds true—we are dealing with the allocation of scarce resources among alternative ends.  Scarcity is a fact of life.  Our test is how well we manage in this reality.

Civil Engineering Yes; Tea No

Though it is difficult to demonstrate, even in the era of outcomes assessment, we all strive to provide an education that enhances integrity, civility, and compassion.  For years, many of us have emphasized that increased education makes us better parents, citizens, and voters.  And yet, today’s environment in the United States seems to be moving us in the opposite direction.   We appear to be less enlightened and less civil.  A mosque and community center near ground zero is challenged because the sins of a few radicals have been used to try and tarnish an entire faith. Health care access and reform becomes a political football rather than a mandate. Support for the poor gets tied to preserving tax breaks for the wealthy.  Washington is awash in deficits while states and localities collapse under the weight of decades of bad judgment.  And overall, politicians all too often look to blame rather than reform, to criticize rather than to cure.   Where are these benefits of education when we need them most?

Our economy is not doing well. Though the decline seems to have halted, the recovery lacks the momentum necessary to ignite a robust recovery.  How can this be?  Why aren’t we moving rapidly toward full employment and prosperity?  We are so used to fast response times in everything we do.  Snail mail is becoming a reminder of a world that was, rather than a powerful tool for promoting commerce and communication.  In its place, we find email, text messaging, social media and tweeting.  Regardless of what we now utilize, we are looking for a fast turnaround time.  When I started teaching, faculty had office hours two or three days a week at set times.   If students missed the office hours on a certain day, they would come back a day or two later.  And sometimes, given the delay in meeting together, with some study time, questions found answers and there was no longer the need to utilize office hours.  But office hours are no longer the communications method of choice.  Instead email or some variation has taken its place together with an accompanying expectation of a fast response.

Accessing information often also took substantial time. As an economist, I would often visit the government documents room and access the data there and work on it subsequently at home or in my office.  Now though the government documents room is located in the same building and same floor as my office, I never utilize these paper resources.  Instead I access government documents on line.  Not only is the process easier and faster but there is more information readily available in more formats.  No more paper for me.  I welcome the instant access and use it often.

But instant communication and instant access to information should not be confused with problem solving.  Nor should the questions and problems we need to answer for an exam or a term project be confused with real world problem solving.  There is much that we can access and or resolve instantly, but solutions to complex problems don’t lend themselves to quick solutions.  Turning around a weakened economy takes time. Unfortunately, the prevailing response from our leaders and the public often seems to be an escalation of the rhetoric and a hardening of positions.  At my most optimistic, I believe the generation we are educating now or have recently educated, will not follow this pattern.  Instead I like to believe that this is a holdover from the education that previous generations received.  Time and outcomes assessment will certainly tell if our civil engineering works.   In the meantime, however, given the present political connotations no one should be surprised that tea is no longer my drink of choice.

Undercover Economics

Given the severity of our current recession, everyone I know has either been touched directly by this economic malaise or knows someone who has been adversely impacted – jobs lost or not found, salaries reduced or not increased, houses lost or not purchased, health insurance foregone, vacations foregone and the list goes on and on.  People are clearly hurting.  But the impact of this and any recession is on more than people; colleges and universities are good examples of institutions adversely impacted. The adverse impact can happen in many ways and take many forms; some are almost invisible with a price to be paid only over a long term time period.

We know that support from governments for public higher education has declined in many parts of the country.  As support has declined, tuition has increased and often there have been major increases in fees as well. In community colleges where the cost of education is lower (both for the supplier and the consumer) there have been some dramatic increases in enrollment.  In four year and graduate public institutions, enrollments are more likely capped and in some areas reduced.  Often at the same time that tuition is rapidly increasing, so is the use of adjuncts and the average class size. Faculty travel and sabbaticals in support of research are often also adversely impacted.

Private higher education faces many of the same challenges.  The difference between public higher education tuition (where there are varying degrees of government support) and private higher education tuition (where such support is much more limited and most likely tied to financial need) prompts some families, especially during economic uncertainty, to favor the lower priced alternative (even if they clearly recognize the benefits of private higher education).  Or the uncertainty could lead to more commuter students rather than residential students. Private higher education’s response, almost across the board is to increase need and or merit based financial aid, which requires almost across the board tuition increases as the funding source.  And here too, adjunct usage is increasing as is average class size.

The economic consequences of these actions are visible to either a greater or lesser degree to the student and his or her family.  Tuition increases are clear to everyone; increased class size is clear only if you have a basis for comparison; and increased use of adjuncts is much less visible.  But there are other effects which are even more undercover.  First of all, what is taking place is a fundamental shift in the allocation of resources away from the classroom.  Because funding has declined or because more dollars need to be allocated to financial aid, the dollars spent on education have been constrained. There is no alternative but unless too many resources were originally allocated to direct classroom education something has been lost. And it remains to be seen whether the allocation will shift back again to the classroom experience either in the short term or in the longer term.  For faculty, and faculty clearly are the heart of the education we provide, the lack of job opportunities for new faculty, the increased economic uncertainly for continuing faculty, larger classes and the reduced level of support for research can result in a morale problem that could extend past the current recession.  All at the same time as we look to faculty to play an increased role in retention.

Overall, as we move forward, we need to objectively look at what we have enhanced and what we have compromised.  And where compromises have been made, we must look for opportunities to restore what has been lost.