Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[apl68]

How many colleges does that make so far that have thrown in the towel since the pandemic started?

[jonadam]

How many colleges does that make so far that have thrown in the towel since the pandemic started?

Unfortunately, not the last.

[Wahoo Redux]

Can Public College Stave Off Closure? in IHE

[marshwiggle]

Can Public College Stave Off Closure? in IHE

It's kind of weird that in only one place does it comment on a critical issue:

The Pennsylvania state system struggled financially for years and has yet to reverse declining enrollments across the system.

And society has yet to reverse climate change. No biggie.

[TreadingLife]

Check out the situation in Pennsylvania. This is an analysis of the Public system, not private schools. Sobering graphs.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/student-debt-pennsylvania-colleges-penn-state-20191127.html

[marshwiggle]

Check out the situation in Pennsylvania. This is an analysis of the Public system, not private schools. Sobering graphs.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/student-debt-pennsylvania-colleges-penn-state-20191127.html

This article also buries the lede by only peripherally mentioning

After years of under-investment, Pennsylvania's tax-supported networks of four-year colleges look like the nation's Rust Belt of higher-education systems — plagued by high costs, a dramatic drop in Pennsylvania students, and a rash of empty dorm rooms.


....

The number of Pennsylvania college-bound high school graduates declined 8 percent over this period.

It would make a whole lot more sense to project how many students there are likely to be over the next couple decades, and what sort of system will serve them best, than to just wail about how expesive the current system is.

[Wahoo Redux]

Check out the situation in Pennsylvania. This is an analysis of the Public system, not private schools. Sobering graphs.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/student-debt-pennsylvania-colleges-penn-state-20191127.html

This article also buries the lede by only peripherally mentioning

After years of under-investment, Pennsylvania's tax-supported networks of four-year colleges look like the nation's Rust Belt of higher-education systems — plagued by high costs, a dramatic drop in Pennsylvania students, and a rash of empty dorm rooms.


....

The number of Pennsylvania college-bound high school graduates declined 8 percent over this period.

It would make a whole lot more sense to project how many students there are likely to be over the next couple decades, and what sort of system will serve them best, than to just wail about how expesive the current system is.

Brilliant, Marshy!  Can't believe no one's thought of that before!

[apl68]

Check out the situation in Pennsylvania. This is an analysis of the Public system, not private schools. Sobering graphs.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/student-debt-pennsylvania-colleges-penn-state-20191127.html

Pennsylvania appears to be an outlier in how drastic their cuts to higher education have been in the last couple of decades.  There's no question that they've GOT to put more money into that system.  Yes, there's been an 8% decline in high school graduates--but the decline in college enrollments has been much steeper.  No doubt some of those students need something other than a four-year degree, but it looks like Pennsylvania's failure to fund its system so that students can at least sort of afford it is ruining a lot of people's chances of getting any higher education. 

All that said--the traditional-student-age population IS down significantly.  And some schools in the system, for whatever reason, have clearly suffered much larger enrollment drops.  Some of them have lost something like half their enrollment!  Even with a much-needed increase in funding, they're going to have to make some hard choices about downsizing and perhaps even closing some campuses.  There's just no way they'll ever realistically get enough money to keep all those campuses going strong.

[marshwiggle]

Check out the situation in Pennsylvania. This is an analysis of the Public system, not private schools. Sobering graphs.

https://www.inquirer.com/business/student-debt-pennsylvania-colleges-penn-state-20191127.html

This article also buries the lede by only peripherally mentioning

After years of under-investment, Pennsylvania's tax-supported networks of four-year colleges look like the nation's Rust Belt of higher-education systems — plagued by high costs, a dramatic drop in Pennsylvania students, and a rash of empty dorm rooms.


....

The number of Pennsylvania college-bound high school graduates declined 8 percent over this period.

It would make a whole lot more sense to project how many students there are likely to be over the next couple decades, and what sort of system will serve them best, than to just wail about how expesive the current system is.

Brilliant, Marshy!  Can't believe no one's thought of that before!

You know, once in a while you might actually make a rational argument in response to what I say rather than just being snarky. Such as in these articles, why is the demographic shift presented as some sort of minor inconvenience rather than the fundamental issue? Part of the reason money is getting tighter is that there are fewer and fewer students and there is more competition for them. How long do you keep pumping money into a place with declining enrollment? If it gets to zero, but people are still pouring in enough money to keep the lights on, is it a "success"?

[Aster]

Perhaps lots of students are choosing this fine establishment.

Some joint called "Independence University" has been recently plastering the TV with ads claiming how awesome they are.

They Care About You.

There Are No Hidden Fees.

Coming to Campus is Not a Hassle. They Have Everything Online.

You Can Get Your Degree in Three Years.

You Get a Free Laptop and Tablet Computer When You Graduate.

Man, Independence University is so awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPJOuxtWAwc

[Wahoo Redux]

Part of the reason money is getting tighter is that there are fewer and fewer students and there is more competition for them. How long do you keep pumping money into a place with declining enrollment? If it gets to zero, but people are still pouring in enough money to keep the lights on, is it a "success"?

Part of the reason that MySpace is no longer a successful enterprise is that fewer and fewer people are using it and there is more competition from aps such as Twitter and Facebook.  Apparently I am the first person ever to think of this!

My God, man. 

I mean, for the love of Pete, do you have anything that is truly insightful to say?  Is your world really that simple and primary?

How about this: Education is changing.  Education has always been in flux.  My education was different in many ways from my father's education. 

However, we want to make rational, intelligent decisions.  Change is not always good, and reducing college to a career enterprise goes against what we know about technocracy which itself is ever changing and evolving.  We want people who can think and evolve themselves, not just turn a wrench. 

If we can save colleges for future generations, we should.  Some will inevitably close.  If we can find a reasonable way to save our colleges and employ our people we should. 

We should also try to keep majors afloat if we can.  Some people find the concept of "The Life of the Mind" risible, but the majority of us do not.

I try to skip your posts because you just want to argue, and not very well at that.  Sometimes, as happened this time, I read from the bottom up and don't see the poster's name until I am good and annoyed.

Try not to say the obvious, simplistic thing if you can.

[marshwiggle]

If we can save colleges for future generations, we should.  Some will inevitably close.  If we can find a reasonable way to save our colleges and employ our people we should. 

Which ones "will close" depends on the choices made about which ones to save. I would really like to hear what sort of criteria you think should be applied so that those choices can be made most judiciously.

[Wahoo Redux]

If we can save colleges for future generations, we should.  Some will inevitably close.  If we can find a reasonable way to save our colleges and employ our people we should. 

Which ones "will close" depends on the choices made about which ones to save. I would really like to hear what sort of criteria you think should be applied so that those choices can be made most judiciously.

I don't know, Marshy.  I can imagine all sorts of scenarios (effect on the local economy; access to alternative education; reputation; the reality of finances and the institution's own plan for viability; competency of school leadership; regional wealth and resources; and most importantly, the will of the people to save any given institution; plus many more I haven't thought of off the top of my head) which would make a difference. 

Just please don't pretend you have some deeper understanding or honest objections. 

[marshwiggle]

A Tale of 5 Hgih Schools (true story)

A small city has 5 high schools, owing partly to the city being created by amalgamation of smaller cities decades ago. Due to declining enrollments, among other things, all of these schools are relatively small; around 1000 students or less. Teacher salaries are good, and the schools are decently maintained. A while ago, the school board proposed closing one or more schools in order to consolidate. This is for a few reasons:

• These schools have fewer course and program offerings than the bigger schools in nearby cities.
• These schools have fewer extracurricular activities than the bigger schools in nearby cities.

In addition to having fewer extracurriculars, because of the smaller student pool then the quality tends to be lower as well; a team drawing from 2000 students is likely to be stronger than a team drawing from 1000 students.

Many parents fought the proposal of amalgamation. Some of the high schools students themselves supported it.
Funding is not the problem. The provincial government allocates the same amount per student everywhere, so there aren't "rich" schools and "poor" schools. The board does the same. But the economies of scale cannot be avoided. The cost of a principal and a vice-principal divided among 2000 students is lower than divided among 1000 students. Similarly, the size and amount of mainatenance required for a soccer or football field is the same, whether it's for 1000 students or 2000 students.

In addition to this there are new subdivisions in part of the city, where student numbers are growing, and parents would like a school for their kids, but instead their kids are bused to the other schools to slow the decline there.

There are no villains in this story, but the experience the students have in these smaller schools cannot be what it would be if one or two were closed so they could amalagmate. If none of these schools existed now, the board wouldn't set things up this way.

Hanging on to the status quo means *"preserving" a system which provides an experience for the students that is less than it could be.

Is it worth it?

(*When those schools were created, they fit their communities, so the experience students had then was better. So the experience now is a shadow of what it was, so it's more a case of "preserving" the fantasy of what it was.)

[tuxthepenguin]

If we can save colleges for future generations, we should.  Some will inevitably close.  If we can find a reasonable way to save our colleges and employ our people we should. 

Which ones "will close" depends on the choices made about which ones to save. I would really like to hear what sort of criteria you think should be applied so that those choices can be made most judiciously.

I don't know, Marshy.  I can imagine all sorts of scenarios (effect on the local economy; access to alternative education; reputation; the reality of finances and the institution's own plan for viability; competency of school leadership; regional wealth and resources; and most importantly, the will of the people to save any given institution; plus many more I haven't thought of off the top of my head) which would make a difference. 

Just please don't pretend you have some deeper understanding or honest objections.

In the cases of the public universities I've seen close (only a few, but I've been close enough to observe the decision) these were the major factors:

• Students have access to other universities in the region
• The schools provided no programs serving the area (for example, don't train teachers for that area)
• The schools have no programs that are considered among the best in that part of the US
• The economic impact wouldn't destroy the local economy

Schools wanting to avoid closure should be concerned if they check all these boxes. The second is really important. If a smaller school can't argue "But where will we get our [teachers, nurses, ...]? What are we going to do?" they may be in trouble.