Funding Higher Education For Universities

Today, Susan Hansen, Admissions Director of East Liberal Arts College, wishes to increase tuition and reduce financial aid available to students (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman, 2009, p. 110). Moreover, she has expressed that “increasing tuition and reducing the amount of financial aid will solve the schools financial problems” (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman, 2009, p. 110). This will be done by “increasing an effective tuition from $15,000 to $25,000” (Brickley et al., 2009). She also projects that the tuition increase enrollment from 400 to 600 students (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman,

From inception, public institutions have been primarily funded by the state they reside in. In the last couple of decades state funding of higher education has dropped significantly, with a dramatic drop during the recession that started around 2008. The drop in funding has pushed an additional loan burden onto students, and has forced universities to re-evaluate and change how they operate. Aside from making cuts, universities have become more creative in generating different sources of revenue.

The state of California has long been reliant on the University of California system to provide its resident companies with skilled and educated business, technology, and science leaders. Highly regarded as one of the top educational systems in the world, the University of California boasts a high number of distinguished and respected faculty members in almost every field of study. However, while most private colleges and universities have learned how to streamline their processes in order to better respond to stakeholder needs, public educational institutions, such as the University of California, have not been willing to control their bureaucratic growth resulting in a rise of tuition rates and a decline in the level of student satisfaction. In her article for the TIME magazine, Kate Pickert writes that as recently as November of this year the University of California has approved a plan that could raise tuition rates by up to 28% (Pickert). Pickert also points out that the tuition rates at the University of California have more than tripled since 2001. The University of California has blamed the increased tuition on the state of California budget cuts caused by the economic downturn of recent years. However, a closer examination of the University of California faculty and administration data makes it obvious that the higher rates of tuition are cause by the inability and

Financial barriers for higher education has climbed over the last ten years. Today, over 40 million Americans have student loans. Of these 40 million, most individuals are struggling to maintain payments on the loans (Hillary for America, 2016). Since 2004, the tuition for in-state colleges and universities has risen by about 42 percent and with the recent Great Recession, states have continued to decrease spending on higher education at a rapid rate (Hillary for America, 2016). It is estimated that states are only contributing around $1,805 per student, which is estimated to be 20 percent less than what was contributed only seven years’ prior. The federal government in

Christopher Newfield’s "The View From 2020: How Universities Came Back" breaks down the reasons for why the American universities are in a cycle of increasing student tuition and debt. By deconstructing the causes, Newfield provides readers a way to grasp the seriousness of student debt that is usually seen as intangible thus encouraging a call to action to change the structure of the education system. The subject of education is extremely relevant with the current presidential election coming up and the fact that California is the 7th largest economy and is educating 80% of the US college students (Newfield 2011).

A surging $1.2 trillion in student debt and rising rapidly in tuition is the critical issue America public universities face today. These student debts and rising tuitions are caused mainly by administrative hiring and pay or expensive building projects on campuses. When public universities are spending money toward expensive building projects, this does not help with making tuition cheap to attend a certain university, instead it’s high.

Many colleges raise the issue of low budget funds, struggles with the student loans and financial aid. Now that the government has put the pressure on the students to pay for their education many schools have trouble saving up money or giving out financial supports to all their students

In the past fifty years since the inception of the Higher Education Act, federal policies regarding financial aid have expanded in scope, intent, and access. Prior to this landmark legislation, federal intervention and financial support of higher education was minimal, with most of the control lying with individual states. Whereas financial support for higher education was previously directed at institutions, federal financial aid provided funding for individual students, initially as a means for increasing access for underrepresented and disadvantaged populations. The evolution of federal financial aid represents the historical, political, and policy changes during the past five decades and illustrates the gradual shift in societal values

With a rise in the cost of tuition, college students must consider the possibility of alternative sources of funding to stay afloat through their degree programs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, textbook prices have skyrocketed by eighty-two percent in the last decade.

These programs come under much controversy and scrutiny nationwide, but whether or not they are consistently successful; their aim is noble in attempting to fix the quagmire that is educational attainment rates through inceitiveing success with money. These same principals are being increasingly applied to higher education as state appropriations are (at least in part) beginning to factor in retention, progression, and graduation when funding state colleges and universities.

Like any other state, South Carolina is suffering an economic downturn. One of the problems is that the state has a financial obligation to cover federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. This leaves the state with little to no funding for other state services. One of those state services includes higher education. Since most of the money that funds colleges and universities comes from the state and federal government, if that money is cut, the institutions have to find other means to gather the money they need. When this occurs, it makes higher education unaffordable for state residents. Besides causing tuition rates to rise, budget cutting causes institutions to cut programs and services, cancel professional development opportunities for faculty and staff, delay necessary facility renovations and construction, lay off employees etc. Due to this, it leads many to believe that budget cutting causes a decrease of quality for higher education. The purpose of this research article was to prove that it is difficult to maintain the quality of higher education while losing valuable resources. Brinkman and Morgan designed the study to identify a potential correlation between the budget cuts and the quality of South Carolina higher education.

With this being said, higher education accounts for approximately 18.1% of the total state budget and 8.2% of the general fund. Unfortunately this is still far below the “maintenance level” that is required for the universities to provide the same level of service as they did the year before. A maintenance-level budget includes cost increases over which the institutions have no control, such as negotiated wage and benefit agreements, inflation in the cost of goods and services, and increased energy costs. In

Everyone at the table did research into the issue of state funding for higher education by looking at state budget numbers as well as looking at studies published by education-focused think tanks such as the National Education Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When we debated the issue, many of us noticed a horrible trend of decreasing

The landscape of state-funded higher education has become one of diminishing resources (Tinto, 2007). This trend which began within the last few decades has continued to the present time. Across the country, state legislatures have cut an average of 28% of its funding to state higher education since the great recession of 2008 after adjusting for inflation (Mitchell, Palacios, & Leachman, 2014). By virtue of their make-up, state intuitions of higher education still get the majority of their funding through state endowments, but revenue collection from students (mainly undergraduates) via tuition and fees, are becoming an increasingly important resource stream for fiscal solvency (York online textbook). According to a recent report, public four-year institutions spent an astounding $457 per student in recruiting affiliated expenditures. That is to say, every member from the freshman class of 2013 in the United States cost their respective schools nearly $500 to recruit them (Noel-Levitz, 2013). With universities investing such vast amounts of money, time, and effort; it is safe to assume that retention of these college freshmen is vital to their future fiscal health, and the ultimate goal (of both student and institution) of baccalaureate degree conferral.

These four part financial steps are a vital area we felt that would be of great contribution to help address the current financial problem PC is facing. Exploring each step within the recovery plan will provide a clear understanding of how PC administration is expected to put the institution in good financial standing. These financial plans will be successful based on the information that was collected and research conducted throughout the academic year. As noted by Lorin (2014) College prices in the U.S have gain increased faster than the rate of inflation, extending decades long pattern of higher education costs. According to the College Board, a decade ago tuition and fee jumped 10.4 percent for in state students at a four yea-public colleges and 5.8 percent at private schools. The institution had a negative net