Administration and higher education
officials have put
forth preliminary ideas on the subject, pegging an amount of $2,000 per
student (per what unit of time left as of now unsaid, but it may be for an
academic year), although that could vary by field of study and institution.
Whatever structure it takes, for this to happen it would take two sets of
two-thirds majorities in each legislative chamber, one to add the fee and one to
increase the cigarette tax, while then needing a majority vote in each to
introduce the tax credit. And then it would cost extra to administer the
complicated thing and probably (the history
of tobacco tax hikes show) take in fewer dollars than anticipated, meaning
taxpayers pick up the tab to pay for the credits – which may not do much or any
good for the small portion of households whose tax liability does not equal the
fee.
The far more obvious and elegant
solution to bring in more money to higher education is to raise tuition. As
noted previously, with average Louisiana tuition and fees the fourth-lowest
among the states and the District of Columbia for baccalaureate-and-above
institutions and 39th overall for community colleges, with the state
ranking in proportion of family income going to pay for higher education 38th
and 32nd, respectively, with its former
students having the lowest proportional student loan debt of any state in
the south and among the lowest in the nation, and with a per capita income ranking 29th nationally, clearly the
ability for Louisiana families to pay more for their members’ education is
present – especially as historically taxpayers have disproportionately paid for
higher education in Louisiana compared to the rest of the country. It’s time
the major beneficiaries of higher education – the students themselves – pay their
fair share as a response to the lowering of the taxpayer subsidy instead of
finding another way to have a portion of taxpayers make up the difference.
Not only would this feature simpler,
less costly administration, it also would be fairer than the Jindal plan. Any
increase would vary with the service rendered, not being one flat fee. Also, it
would be easier procedurally to put into effect, requiring just a single
two-thirds majority legislative vote to allow an increase. With Louisiana
having one of the lowest average in-state senior institution tuition and fees rates
in the south, about
three-quarters the regional average, and seven-eighths of it for junior institutions,
even if brought up just to the average mark of the region, or about $1,650 and
$340 a year, respectively, that would account for (applying that to
out-of-state tuition as well, but not counting graduate student totals) about
$238 million, more than offsetting the $211 million cut.
Yet the Jindal budget does not suggest
across-the-board tuition increases, nor do any policy-makers, for three reasons.
One is that the extra $238 million really would be just 80 percent of that
total because of Taylor Opportunity Program for Students recipients getting
their tuition footed by the state. And student numbers would decrease because higher
tuition would encourage some to go to private schools, out of state, or to not
attend any college, deflating this figure more. Still, it would be better than
nothing, and the other reasons for rejection are peculiar to the governor and
legislators and to higher education officials.
The elected officials don’t want to
consider this because they think it will hurt their electoral chances. Even
though Jindal is term limited, a possible bid for the presidency in the future
has him acting on this issue like he did with his tax
reform plan of two years past, the basic idea of which was very sound: trying
to avoid making a policy change that might cost some people more money,
regardless of the fact that they would be closer to paying their fair share of
what they got as a result. Jindal may be reluctant to convey the impression
that he would be responsible in part for these cost increases because he could
be accused of making college more expensive than it is, despite its current
bargain status. Legislators relevant to their own political careers in their
current office or some other share the same sense of wishing to avoid electoral
temerity.
Higher education officials do not
want a blanket tuition increase (some express willingness to raise it on
certain programs, more often graduate than undergraduate ones) because enrollment
will go down – even though this will have the net effect of increasing money
coming into schools – as this exposes even more obviously that Louisiana
has an overbuilt higher education system, ranking in the top ten among
states with institutions per capita and as a result in the top twenty for costs
per capita. Keeping tuition
relatively low gets more warm bodies into the classrooms and deflects from the
fact that too many universities chase too few students – with the consequence
of encouraging the most marginal and less motivated students to attend of having
the seventh-lowest
degree completion rate in the country (of 48 reporting states). Lower
overall enrollment (which many think would not result from differential degree
pricing as opposed to a blanket increase) would prompt more discussion of
merging, demoting, and closing universities, with the loss of academic jobs,
resources, and thereby administrator power.
So these attitudes lead to the
gamesmanship of a fee unrelated to TOPS reimbursable by a tax credit funded by
cigarette smokers, just adding another layer of inefficiency to the funding of
and spending for higher education delivery. It’s far simpler to raise tuition
to the regional average and begin plans for reshaping the overbuilt system, but
this would run counter to the populist fantasy embedded in the state’s
political culture of giving away stuff for everybody, of making
the guy behind the tree pay.
If it would not, this would come
close to closing the year-over-year funding gap. The ability of students used
to heavy subsidization of their educations to pay is there. Just get on with
raising tuition at Louisiana’s higher education institutions. It’s a great time
to stop the madness instead of inviting in more chaos.
1 comment:
The argument here seems to be Louisiana is not as bad as the other places getting major criticism for rising costs of higher ed for students, rising debt loads, and rising inability for students and their families to afford college or pay off debts. It leaves the nationwide, and statewide call for higher education reform and prognostication that somethings gotta give in the way universities finance, prioritize budgets and educate or the problem will only get worse before it gets better.
To me, the approach advocates making Louisiana more like everybody else who is failing by shifting more burden of underperforming higher ed on students and their families.
I don't agree. I think a better approach is to harness relatively lower costs of education, and leverage the position to lead higher ed reform as a means to improve competitive advantage of Louisiana and its citizens.
.
Post a Comment