Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[kaysixteen]

There are massive consequences for killing a state college, almost all of which are negative (and this does not even include the political ramifications).   'Underperforming' can mean a whole lot of things, and we'd best make sure that that underperformance is endemic and cannot be fixed, and is really a relevant type of underperformance, before imposing the nuclear option.

[polly_mer]

There are massive consequences for killing a state college, almost all of which are negative (and this does not even include the political ramifications).   'Underperforming' can mean a whole lot of things, and we'd best make sure that that underperformance is endemic and cannot be fixed, and is really a relevant type of underperformance, before imposing the nuclear option.

People who have been paying attention to the data and the trends have the relevant evidence.

Refusing to face the reality and do what needs to be done is one reason that "academic" is a perjorative.

[selecter]

"Refusing to face the reality and do what needs to be done is one reason that "academic" is a perjorative."

An accurate summation of the most recent 96 pages of this thread.

[Wahoo Redux]

There are massive consequences for killing a state college, almost all of which are negative (and this does not even include the political ramifications).   'Underperforming' can mean a whole lot of things, and we'd best make sure that that underperformance is endemic and cannot be fixed, and is really a relevant type of underperformance, before imposing the nuclear option.

People who have been paying attention to the data and the trends have the relevant evidence.

Refusing to face the reality and do what needs to be done is one reason that "academic" is a perjorative.

It's interesting, because I've done some journalism about it. We also have to take in the loss of payroll; the loss to local merchants, renters, and various other businesses of student and personnel customers; the loss to vendors who serviced the campuses; the loss to the life of the regional community; and the remaining derelict campus which is not easy to repurpose, particularly in small towns which do not have businesses looking for space.  The loss of a campus can have a devastating effect on local economies, particular the small rural areas. 

We know, Polly, that the auguries are bad.  You have no esoteric knowledge or data there.   And you are quite fixated on a couple of ideas.

You seem like a very good, moral person, Polly, but are you rooting for these colleges to close?

[apl68]

There are massive consequences for killing a state college, almost all of which are negative (and this does not even include the political ramifications).   'Underperforming' can mean a whole lot of things, and we'd best make sure that that underperformance is endemic and cannot be fixed, and is really a relevant type of underperformance, before imposing the nuclear option.

People who have been paying attention to the data and the trends have the relevant evidence.

Refusing to face the reality and do what needs to be done is one reason that "academic" is a perjorative.

It's interesting, because I've done some journalism about it. We also have to take in the loss of payroll; the loss to local merchants, renters, and various other businesses of student and personnel customers; the loss to vendors who serviced the campuses; the loss to the life of the regional community; and the remaining derelict campus which is not easy to repurpose, particularly in small towns which do not have businesses looking for space.  The loss of a campus can have a devastating effect on local economies, particular the small rural areas. 

I think what we see in Pennsylvania's case is that the legislature is being pushed closer and closer to having to face some tough decisions.  Either they're going to have to shut down some campuses, with all the above consequences and the resulting political fallout, or they're going to have to put up some serious money to prevent all of this.  It appears that they've kicked the can down the road about as far as they can go at this point.

[marshwiggle]

It's interesting, because I've done some journalism about it. We also have to take in the loss of payroll; the loss to local merchants, renters, and various other businesses of student and personnel customers; the loss to vendors who serviced the campuses; the loss to the life of the regional community; and the remaining derelict campus which is not easy to repurpose, particularly in small towns which do not have businesses looking for space.  The loss of a campus can have a devastating effect on local economies, particular the small rural areas. 

I think what we see in Pennsylvania's case is that the legislature is being pushed closer and closer to having to face some tough decisions.  Either they're going to have to shut down some campuses, with all the above consequences and the resulting political fallout, or they're going to have to put up some serious money to prevent all of this.  It appears that they've kicked the can down the road about as far as they can go at this point.

Since governments all over the place have been deficit spending for years, this is the reality; if they're going to increase spending on PSE, they have to take it from somewhere else. (And if they're already going deeper into debt, continuing to do so is unsustainable. Remember 2007? Eventually a reckoning happens.)

[Hibush]

It's interesting, because I've done some journalism about it. We also have to take in the loss of payroll; the loss to local merchants, renters, and various other businesses of student and personnel customers; the loss to vendors who serviced the campuses; the loss to the life of the regional community; and the remaining derelict campus which is not easy to repurpose, particularly in small towns which do not have businesses looking for space.  The loss of a campus can have a devastating effect on local economies, particular the small rural areas. 

I think what we see in Pennsylvania's case is that the legislature is being pushed closer and closer to having to face some tough decisions.  Either they're going to have to shut down some campuses, with all the above consequences and the resulting political fallout, or they're going to have to put up some serious money to prevent all of this.  It appears that they've kicked the can down the road about as far as they can go at this point.

Since governments all over the place have been deficit spending for years, this is the reality; if they're going to increase spending on PSE, they have to take it from somewhere else. (And if they're already going deeper into debt, continuing to do so is unsustainable. Remember 2007? Eventually a reckoning happens.)

PAs neighbor to the north has identical demographic challenges, and the same oversupply of rural public and private colleges. The NY FY22 budget just came out with a 3.8% increase in support for public colleges, and an 8.5% increase in base funding for community colleges. It also adds a number of job-readiness programs within the higher-ed system. That is the example PA would have to follow if they want a decent rural society supported by local education in the PASSHE system.

[polly_mer]

You seem like a very good, moral person, Polly, but are you rooting for these colleges to close?

I'm rooting for people to make the hard decisions to have best, realistic outcomes instead of just letting things crash as individual pieces run out of money.  I am quite familiar with rural poverty and dying areas.  I currently own two houses in those areas and purposely left academia instead of moving to a third area where the pace of life is good, but the outlook is near certain to crash before I retire.  There's a lot of those places in the US currently.

Artificially propping up a struggling public higher ed institution instead of dealing directly with the problem of a poor rural area is a misuse of resources.  The struggling college is a symptom of the dying region.  The actions to help move the region to a better space often mean gracefully closing the college, investing that money in other aspects of the region, and being ready to open something new in 10 years after the transformation has occurred.

Having people redistribute themselves to do something new is individually painful, but can be a net positive for . the region after the pain.  The college to be closed is being closed because prospective students have already noped and voted with their feet for something else.  Redirecting that money to  pay people to relocate and attend a university with the full range of degrees in all fields in a more populous area where those folks can get jobs after graduation with any bachelor's degree is a much better investment. 

"Study anything you like in college and then take an unrelated middle-class job" is acceptable advice when one is earning a degree from a prestigious enough institution where recruiters do go and do hire those unrelated bachelor's holders.

I am fixated on "make the hard decisions before the crash" in large part because the crash will be so much worse for everyone involved than making a hard decision with a plan and having enough time for the plan to work.

Reality will kill that region anyway if the other aspects aren't fixed.  Then, the region will lose the college and everything else all at the same time.  Closing the college gracefully means a slowed continued migration over a few years, especially if closing a couple colleges means the other colleges in the region then have sufficient students and faculty to grow and grow their communities.

The Midwest and New England would be much more sustainable with far fewer towns that are bigger instead of still having a settlement every however many miles the horse and wagon could get in a day.  Even just consolidating the colleges into regional universities spaced by current population would be a better use of state and other resources.

[marshwiggle]

Since governments all over the place have been deficit spending for years, this is the reality; if they're going to increase spending on PSE, they have to take it from somewhere else. (And if they're already going deeper into debt, continuing to do so is unsustainable. Remember 2007? Eventually a reckoning happens.)

PAs neighbor to the north has identical demographic challenges, and the same oversupply of rural public and private colleges. The NY FY22 budget just came out with a 3.8% increase in support for public colleges, and an 8.5% increase in base funding for community colleges. It also adds a number of job-readiness programs within the higher-ed system. That is the example PA would have to follow if they want a decent rural society supported by local education in the PASSHE system.

So does NY have a balanced budget? Or are they just digging themselves in a deeper hole?
In early 2007, you could point out  "the example banks should follow" in offering mortgages to people who previously wouldn't qualify.

[apl68]

Though I don't know the situation in Pennsylvania in detail, I suspect that a case can be made for keeping those regional campuses open.  As much as the regions may be in decline, they're not going to become entirely depopulated any time soon.  There will remain a need for, and demand for, higher education, even if it is on a reduced level.  What may be needed there is planned downsizing of the threatened campuses, not complete closure.  If nothing else they could probably survive as community colleges or vo-tech schools. 

Note that I'm NOT arguing for business as usual here.  It appears that the current situation of weaker campuses draining resources from more viable ones is unsustainable.  The question is, will they address the situation constructively, to restructure the threatened campuses to better meet the changed needs of the regions that they serve, or will they let them keep muddling through in decline until they're past saving?  Maybe they already are, but I'd rather let people closer to the scene who know more about it make that call.

As regards finances, I suspect that Pennsylvania, like most states, has been guilty of under-investing in public higher education for a long time now.  They could surely find funds for improvements if they decided to make it a priority.  Again, this is not an argument for just trying to keep everything as it is.  The public would have to be assured that any new funds would not just be used to prop up a status quo that no longer meets regional needs.

[marshwiggle]

Note that I'm NOT arguing for business as usual here.  It appears that the current situation of weaker campuses draining resources from more viable ones is unsustainable.  The question is, will they address the situation constructively, to restructure the threatened campuses to better meet the changed needs of the regions that they serve, or will they let them keep muddling through in decline until they're past saving?  Maybe they already are, but I'd rather let people closer to the scene who know more about it make that call.

A neighbouring city was created decades ago by the amalgamation of three smaller communities. Because of that history, the city has 5 high schools, each with less than  1000 students. Nearby cities have high schools that all have over 1500 students. These bigger schools can offer more courses, more extracurricular activities, etc. The school board would like to close at least one of those under 1000 student schools, but no-one wants it to be their school. So there is no way to change the situation, even though almost everyone would be better off.

A similar situation happens with elementary schools as demographic shifts reduce the student population in some areas.

[Wahoo Redux]

Note that I'm NOT arguing for business as usual here.  It appears that the current situation of weaker campuses draining resources from more viable ones is unsustainable.  The question is, will they address the situation constructively, to restructure the threatened campuses to better meet the changed needs of the regions that they serve, or will they let them keep muddling through in decline until they're past saving?  Maybe they already are, but I'd rather let people closer to the scene who know more about it make that call.

A neighbouring city was created decades ago by the amalgamation of three smaller communities. Because of that history, the city has 5 high schools, each with less than  1000 students. Nearby cities have high schools that all have over 1500 students. These bigger schools can offer more courses, more extracurricular activities, etc. The school board would like to close at least one of those under 1000 student schools, but no-one wants it to be their school. So there is no way to change the situation, even though almost everyone would be better off.

A similar situation happens with elementary schools as demographic shifts reduce the student population in some areas.

More is not always better.  Bigger is not always better.  A smaller school will serve some people better for whatever reason.  I imagine this is particularly true of secondary schooling.

[marshwiggle]

A neighbouring city was created decades ago by the amalgamation of three smaller communities. Because of that history, the city has 5 high schools, each with less than  1000 students. Nearby cities have high schools that all have over 1500 students. These bigger schools can offer more courses, more extracurricular activities, etc. The school board would like to close at least one of those under 1000 student schools, but no-one wants it to be their school. So there is no way to change the situation, even though almost everyone would be better off.

A similar situation happens with elementary schools as demographic shifts reduce the student population in some areas.

More is not always better.  Bigger is not always better.  A smaller school will serve some people better for whatever reason. I imagine this is particularly true of secondary schooling.

Yes, but by refusing to close even one school, no-one gets the benefit of a bigger school. So, unless the smaller schools are better for everyone, or at least a majority, the status quo is sub-optimal.  And if the student-age population declines, the situation will just get worse.

[Mobius]

Though I don't know the situation in Pennsylvania in detail, I suspect that a case can be made for keeping those regional campuses open.  As much as the regions may be in decline, they're not going to become entirely depopulated any time soon.  There will remain a need for, and demand for, higher education, even if it is on a reduced level.  What may be needed there is planned downsizing of the threatened campuses, not complete closure.  If nothing else they could probably survive as community colleges or vo-tech schools. 

Note that I'm NOT arguing for business as usual here.  It appears that the current situation of weaker campuses draining resources from more viable ones is unsustainable.  The question is, will they address the situation constructively, to restructure the threatened campuses to better meet the changed needs of the regions that they serve, or will they let them keep muddling through in decline until they're past saving?  Maybe they already are, but I'd rather let people closer to the scene who know more about it make that call.

As regards finances, I suspect that Pennsylvania, like most states, has been guilty of under-investing in public higher education for a long time now.  They could surely find funds for improvements if they decided to make it a priority.  Again, this is not an argument for just trying to keep everything as it is.  The public would have to be assured that any new funds would not just be used to prop up a status quo that no longer meets regional needs.

There just isn't political will to keep the universities going under the status quo. Most of the universities are in rural areas in GOP state legislative districts. To say the state just needs to spend more money is ignoring reality, and it's hard to take those who want to keep the status quo (or even increase funding) seriously because that won't happen.

[Hibush]

There just isn't political will to keep the universities going under the status quo. Most of the universities are in rural areas in GOP state legislative districts. To say the state just needs to spend more money is ignoring reality, and it's hard to take those who want to keep the status quo (or even increase funding) seriously because that won't happen.

IOW the condition "if they want a decent rural society supported by local education in the PASSHE system" is likely to be false when "they"=PA legislature.