Justin Clark Morrill is Very Disappointed

After reading the recent Education Life in the Sunday New York Times, I do wonder what Representative Morrill would think about the present state of public higher education in this country. Representative Morrill was responsible for introducing the legislation to create the land grant university movement in this country in 1859 that ultimately was passed by the Congress and signed by President Lincoln in 1862. In his own words, "This bill proposes to establish at least one college in every State upon a sure and perpetual foundation, accessible to all, but especially to the sons of toil, where all of needful science for the practical avocations of life shall be taught, where neither the higher graces of classical studies nor that military drill our country now so greatly appreciates will be entirely ignored, and where agriculture, the foundation of all present and future prosperity, may look for troops of earnest friends, studying its familiar and recondite economies, and at last elevating it to that higher level where it may fearlessly invoke comparison with the most advanced standards of the world."

His was a revolutionary idea to transform the mission and purposes of higher education in this country. Unfortunately, the original concept somehow has become an artifact of a distant era. Most publicly supported universities are increasingly acting like private colleges in search of financial viability during very uncertain economic times. We have distorted Morrill’s call that these universities be “accessible to all, but especially to sons of toil.” Public universities claim that they strive to remain accessible and affordable. Yet there is increasing evidence that most land grant and other public universities are far more concerned about their competitive status among their peers as per the US News and World Report Rankings than finding ways to control costs or to increase financial aid to the most need sensitive students.

After controlling for inflation, the costs of attending a public four-year college has almost doubled over the last 20 years (96% increase from 1977-78 to 2007-2008). In the 1975-76 school year, Pell Grants covered up to 84% of the average annual costs of a four-year public college. Because of sharp rises in college tuition and fees, by the 2007-08 school year, the Pell Grant now covers only 32% of a student’s annual college costs. Not surprisingly, students with limited financial resources must find other means to meet college costs. They borrow and work. Total borrowing through private student loan programs grew by 900% in the 10-year period 1996-2005. Almost two out of three college students owes an average of more than $19,000 when they graduate.

While many middle and working class students struggle to meet college costs, public universities are in a Sisyphus like struggle to achieve higher ratings and status. To compete with their peer institutions for academically talented students and to improve their quality ratings, more and more public universities offer scholarships to high ability students in an attempt to increase their reported admissions standards, improve their rankings in the various rating journals, and to raise their overall profile to attract future students, parents and donors.

A practice once relegated to private colleges, tuition discounting, is now standard operating procedure at most public universities. An institution discounts a portion of the tuition and fees and offers that discount as a scholarship to recruit a high ability student. In a struggle to compete with their peers, public universities risk losing a significant portion of their potential revenue to attract better quality students. Many of those highly sought after students also come from upper middle class families that can afford the costs of attending public universities. In essence, public universities are in the business of buying academically talented students who could easily pursue their degrees without those discount-based scholarships. This overheated competition to buy highly able and wealthier students is occurring during an era when public university costs have doubled in 20 years and most federal grants barely pay for 1/3 the cost of tuition for the poorest students with the greatest financial need!

One could make the argument that discounting tuition at the front end may pay major dividends. Attracting better students increases an institution’s profile thereby increasing applications and attention that may lead to more gifts to its endowment. At a time when most states are reducing their support for public universities, this approach has some validity. Public universities must behave more like private universities to remain in business. The interest from endowments and tuition are increasingly paying most of the bills for public universities.

One does wonder though how many of a university’s direct and indirect resources are being directed at recruiting and “buying” academically talented students, particularly when there is a finite number to chase! At the end of day, do these efforts actually help public universities with their balance sheets? All those Garrison Keillor students who are “above average,” with major financial need and are the most cost sensitive suffer in this equation. They increasingly borrow and work more to meet college costs. Not surprisingly, they are most at risk at not completing their degrees. For every high ability student a college buys, another high financial need student is more likely to drop out. I don't believe such a status driven practice and unintended negative outcome are in spirit with Mr. Morrill's original idea.

Mr. Morrill would probably not understand the present enrollment practices in public universities. “The sons of toil” continue to toil working night shifts at UPS, serving Lattes at Starbucks, or stocking shelves at Staples. And the sons and daughters of the upper middle classes are pushing those poorer students out of their seats in the Physics labs. Not surprisingly, there has been a surge in community college enrollment simply due to these enrollment practices and higher costs at public universities.

I understand why public universities have adopted these aggressive enrollment practices, but I don't believe in them. Is one public university really better than another because the first one has more national merit scholars than the second one? Our country thrives on competition. Public universities increasingly are addicted to the adrenaline high that comes with buying high ability students to move up on the widely published rankings. I am not sure anyone has really taken the time to examine the human and financial costs of such a race.