Like most other higher ed institutions, the University of Nebraska has to reduce its planned budget, even though tuition will increase by more than 4% this year. Some of the cost-cutting by other US colleges would probably make sense to Nebraskans, such as giving scholarships to students who do maintenance and landscaping over the summer. Public funding for higher education has dropped tremendously over the past thirty years, mainly because its historical share of state and federal funding has been co-opted by the rapidly growing costs of Medicaid and the loss of sales tax revenues due to internet sales. Tuition, as we all know, has risen dramatically and that trend shows no sign of changing.
How much of a problem is this, and what should be done about it?
In my opinion, the worst outcome of the drop in public funding is that it has forced higher ed institutions to act like businesses. We sell our rights, names, logos, stadium seats, and property to the highest bidder. We make money off of student purchases of everything from bank accounts to soft drinks, driving up their costs for things that aren't education-related. We sport corporate logos where college slogans used to be. My university has even agreed to let a corporation puts its name on one of our master's degrees. Research funding has always been policy and market-driven, and I would argue rightly so...but we now allow funders and donors unprecedented control over our programs and outputs, simply because we need the money.
As I see it, the state's interests used to come first, followed closely by the student's interests. Now, we chase dollars like a profit-driven company. It's a major change of focus, and an unfortunate one.
The states need more revenue, starting with sales tax on internet and catalog purchases that are equal to the sales taxes brick-and-mortar stores must collect and send to the state. Also, now that we have a service-based economy, services must be taxed the same way products always have been. Sure it would be painful to pay taxes on everything we purchase, but it's fair.
Entitlement programs are unbelievably costly and growing fast. Can we go back to calling these payments what they really are, that is, public assistance or welfare? This is the United States of America! Nobody should be "entitled" to free money. I think our society has its priorities upside-down. For example, we give away more college scholarships to rich students than middle class or poor ones. The highest agricultural subsidies go to huge agribusinesses, and social security payments are highest for the people who earned the most money throughout their lives. That's because we have taken on an entitlement mentality instead of a need-based public assistance mentality.
The two changes I suggest--sales tax for all purchases and need-based public assistance--might not balance the public books completely, but they would close most of the gap. They would also create a business and welfare climate that is more empowering and fair than the current one.
