Public universities: economic saviors
Or so says economic and business guru of everything Michael Porter of Harvard.
Columnist David Brooks writes about his conversation with Porter regarding what the expected economic stimulus package President-elect Obama is working with Congress to put together should contain.
Says Brooks:
Porter wrote that the U.S. economy has historically benefited from several great assets: an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurialism, a tremendous infrastructure for scientific research, the world’s best universities, a strong commitment to competition and free markets, decentralized regional economies, and efficient capital markets.
But, Porter continued, these advantages are starting to erode. The U.S. has an inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology. America’s confidence in free markets is waning. Lack of regulatory oversight has undermined capital markets. Universities have not sufficiently increased graduation rates. American workers do not have a credible safety net. Regulations and litigation have inflated the cost of business. Most important, there is no long-term economic strategy to organize responses to these problems.
I asked Porter how this short-term crisis might serve as an opportunity to address those long-term problems. First, he said, the Obama team will have to avoid a few temptations: Don’t just try to throw out money as fast as possible to stimulate demand. Don’t spread the spending around too thinly. Don’t try to save jobs that are going to disappear anyway.
Then he threw out a bunch of ideas that could be part of a stimulus package:
Send federal money to the states, but make sure a lot of it goes to state universities. There’s going to be increased demand for their services at the same time their budgets are cut. We can’t weaken that link in the social mobility chain.
Dear Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and members of the Ohio General Assembly,
Did you happen to see Friday’s New York Times?
Sincerely,
Jon
Jon Strunk is UT’s media relations manager, a graduate of UT’s College of Arts and Sciences, a student in its College of Business Administration and a man constantly wary of his cell phone ringing. With the media having only so much space and so much time to tell a story, Jon has reserved this space on the World Wide Web to highlight, analyze, complain, lobby, beg, apologize and comment on media coverage of UT, higher education and, from time to time, his half-hearted quest to replace his ’96 Mercury Sable.
November 30th, 2008at 6:30 pm
The title of this journal article is misleading, Porter’s main assertion is that the U.S. has the world’s best universities. He does not specifically state anything unique about public universities that would make them anymore of a savior than private universities. In fact, the universities that are consistently ranked best in the world (and are also located in the U.S.) are generally private universities). Even if one argued that the main metric of these rankings (research output) were inadequate, the universities that provide the best educational experience to their students (as measured by student satisfaction) tend to be private. In short, there is limited evidence to support the main assertion of this article. Moreover, one might question how effectively our public universities would be able to use the money given to them. The University of Toledo consistently chooses to invest in new buildings, and athletic expenses. Unless our athletic department is able to make a profit, it should be eliminated. If that money were instead used to either lower tuition, or to hire more faculty members devoted to teaching, the vast majority of students would be better off. At the very least, it makes little sense to award scholarships to individuals who show athletic ability over students who show academic ability. As Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “Universities exist to transmit knowledge and understanding of ideas and values to students, not to provide entertainment for spectators or employment for athletes.” Put simply, if the University of Toledo wants to really be an “economic savior” it should invest its money in providing students with more professors (and thus more attention to each student) who are devoted to teaching, and not just research. If the University can provide the Toledo area with more college graduates (by investing in academic quality, and not just new buildings or more money to athletics) the university would stand a much better chance of fulfilling its role as an agent for economic development in the area.
November 30th, 2008at 10:39 pm
Zack,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. While government couldn’t very well invest more dollars in private universities, as they already have very little financial commitment to them, they can substantially influence the publics. Also, reading the column, it seemed like the public university investment comment was made in conversation with Brooks, if not in the journal article.
In my opinion it is also an open question whether the huge student loan debts from private universities (even when compared to the overly high cost of public higher education) make those degrees so superior as to be worth the tradeoff. Naturally the ability to meticulously screen students makes it more likely privates will choose to admit only the very best. Many private institutions have better-connected alumni networks and a college brand name on the resume can certainly help getting a foot in the door, but many of the reasons these privates institutions are so well regarded is that they have invested in their academic and research infrastructure (and hugely in their athletic programs for a great number of them).
I think buildings play a huge role in UT’s economic impact. Not only are we using a large number of local businesses and workers to build these buildings, but
- the Orthopaedic Center on the HSC is seeing more patients;
- the Pharmacy Building to be constructed on the HSC will strengthen UT graduates already being snatched up upon graduation for 6-figure jobs;
- the Savage & Associates Complex for Business Learning and Engagement will help increase internships and real-life learning opportunities to make UT business students more employable,
- the Memorial Field House will provide additional space for English and Foreign Languages
- and Savage Arena is probably one of the strongest economic drivers in Toledo and will be even more so once concerts and outside, non-athletic events start being booked there.
Otherwise I would only point out to those unfamiliar with UT funding models that no tuition dollars go to building structures or the athletic department. Buildings come out of private donations and state monies allocated specifically for capital spending (http://www.obm.ohio.gov/budget/capital/) and athletic department money comes from the student general fee.
December 1st, 2008at 2:42 pm
I will be the first to agree that subsidies to athletics probably are not the best use of student fees. And donors contributing to athletic facilities may be more often solicited than not–I don’t disagree that they might be persuaded to make more impactful investments in more faculty endowments.
However, while all of that is therapeutic to rail about, I don’t see how anyone could dispute that public universities have been principally responsible for developing intellectual infrastructure and middle class prosperity in America. I think that’s what Porter is alluding to in that bit where he says, “We can’t weaken that link in the social mobility chain.”
You are correct, Mr. Gray, that private universities specifically are ranked as the best universities. But then again, Harvard has an endowment of more than $30 billion (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/24/harvards_endowment_surpasses_34_billion/); if they can’t stand out with that kind of investment behind them, who can? The occasional Cinderella story aside (including our President-elect), most folks attending the “best” universities in the country have the sort of social and financial support from their families not only to mitigate the cost of attending, but also to allow them to flourish and reach more of their full potential in the pre-college years.
The public universities once served the role of providing opportunities to we plebes who have fought just to get to college in the first place, and whose families are unable to provide us with positive home learning environments, let alone the best prep schools, SAT training courses, and application coaches. That is the “link in the social mobility chain” Porter is talking about. The environment of post-war goodwill and can-do spirit drove a fantastic public investment in higher education, including the Montgomery G.I. Bill. The majority of soldiers benefiting from that legislation did not attend “the best universities in the country,” but went to public colleges and universities seeking a better life for themselves and their families. I could be mistaken, but I’ve even heard the Dowd/Nash/White halls on-campus here at UT were originally built as housing for married veterans enrolling after the G.I. Bill passed.
In fact, it turns out that the earning power of comparable graduates of a public university versus a private one is not significantly different, except in the case of students coming from the lowest income levels who are least likely to be able to afford it in the first place (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/pf/college/college_price.moneymag/index.htm). There is little or no evidence to support the claim that the education delivered by a private university at the undergraduate level is significantly better than at public universities, except for the claims of the schools themselves. On average, students of comparable intelligence with a drive for success will get there equally whether they have a degree from The University of Toledo or from Columbia University.
What should be of chief concern then, is the erosion of that American spirit which drove the post-war education investment in the first place. The investment gave a passionate population an opportunity to fulfill their dreams for a better life; it did not give them the dream in the first place. With the notable exception of Kennedy’s 10-year Space Challenge, America has had a drought of nationally shared dreams for industrial and economic progress. The funding question is a matter of How, but unless we continue to cultivate the Why, we will just end up throwing good money after bad.
I’ll end these musings here for now. There may or may not be a technically-enforced word limit to responses here, but etiquette at least suggests I should not make a reply more than three times as long as the original post.
December 3rd, 2008at 6:52 pm
I’ll respond to each point separately by first quoting the argument made, and my response to the argument. I would first like to note that I was only stating that there is nothing in the article that suggests something unique about public universities that make them more of an economic savior than private ones.
“In my opinion it is also an open question whether the huge student loan debts from private universities (even when compared to the overly high cost of public higher education) make those degrees so superior as to be worth the tradeoff.”
The reason those private universities tend to be more expensive than public universities is because they do not receive nearly as much taxpayer money to subsidize their costs.
“aturally the ability to meticulously screen students makes it more likely privates will choose to admit only the very best. Many private institutions have better-connected alumni networks and a college brand name on the resume can certainly help getting a foot in the door, but many of the reasons these privates institutions are so well regarded is that they have invested in their academic and research infrastructure (and hugely in their athletic programs for a great number of them).”
They are not regarded as the best universities in the world because they have well-regarded athletic programs (with the exception of Notre Dame, the vast majority of world renowned research universities have rather mediocre athletic programs. The reason they are well-regarded is because they produce the most valuable research (although this is certainly not always the case). The reason those (top research) schools also tend to have better students can partially be attributed to pre-existing circumstances (like prestige, which isn’t inherently connected to the value a school adds to a student).
“I think buildings play a huge role in UT’s economic impact. Not only are we using a large number of local businesses and workers to build these buildings, but
- the Orthopaedic Center on the HSC is seeing more patients;
- the Pharmacy Building to be constructed on the HSC will strengthen UT graduates already being snatched up upon graduation for 6-figure jobs;
- the Savage & Associates Complex for Business Learning and Engagement will help increase internships and real-life learning opportunities to make UT business students more employable,
- the Memorial Field House will provide additional space for English and Foreign Languages
- and Savage Arena is probably one of the strongest economic drivers in Toledo and will be even more so once concerts and outside, non-athletic events start being booked there.
Otherwise I would only point out to those unfamiliar with UT funding models that no tuition dollars go to building structures or the athletic department. Buildings come out of private donations and state monies allocated specifically for capital spending (http://www.obm.ohio.gov/budget/capital/) and athletic department money comes from the student general fee.”
If funding comes from the student general fee, and from the state (see taxpayer dollars) then the money for the department either comes directly or indirectly (taxes) from the pocketbooks of UT’s students, and Ohio’s residents. That money would be better spent (whether it requires a policy change by UT, or by the state) for expenditures that directly affect academic outcomes. If we focused on creating an educated workforce (rather than using short-sighted analysis to justify a basketball court) Toledo would see much more sustainable long-term development. If you want businesses to come to the area, and stay there (having a mediocre athletic department usually doesn’t do it) you need skilled workers. It’s not an issue of whether or not spending money on buildings creates benefits, its whether that money can be better spend elsewhere.
“There is little or no evidence to support the claim that the education delivered by a private university at the undergraduate level is significantly better than at public universities, except for the claims of the schools themselves.”
The reason those top universities do not see a significant value added, by that metric, is because they are top universities more because of their research output, than their value-added to students (although it should be noted that it is rather hard to compute value-added for education). In general, because Harvard professors (like many other professors) are rather busy producing research, they tend to have less time for students. However, at schools without a heavily weighted preference towards research (liberal arts colleges especially), the best schools tend to be private (this is in no small part because the professors at these universities are hired for their teaching ability more so than their research ability). It should also be noted that the reason these universities have served as a gateway is because they are cheaper than their private counterparts. They are generally cheaper because they are subsidized by taxpayers. Moreover, it should be noted that using post-graduation lifetime income as a metric for value-added is more likely to show the limited impact the courses taught at universities directly relate to workplace productivity. It could very well be that the students at Columbia have a better grasp of Political Theory (or any other subject for that matter) (by virtue of tougher curves than we’d see at UT), but that that does not necessarily translate into a better understanding of their work. It may be more plausible to say that the top universities do provide better education, but that that education does not