At What Level of Subsidization Do We Draw the Line?
Recently, EFF came across a publication from the Higher Education Coordinating Board that details the average costs per student, per university in 1997-98. The information is staggering.
Undergraduate
Graduate
Central Washington University
$6,897
$8,659
Eastern Washington University
$7,245
$9,043
The Evergreen State College
$7,680
$11,222
University of Washington - Bothell
$9,465
$38,939
University of Washington - Seattle
$6,844
$16,990
University of Washington - Tacoma
$9,787
$23,646
Washington State University - Pullman
$7,223
$15,562
Washington State University - Spokane
$16,757
$17,737
Washington State University - Vancouver
$10,651
$14,636
Western Washington University
$6,406
$9,436
The Higher Education Coordinating Board warned not to compare the costs between main universities and their branch campuses because of start-up costs related to new programs, limited enrollment in some disciplines, etc. The question that remains to be asked, however, is how useful it is to the state to have these costly branch campuses with limited enrollment.
Is it really fair for the taxpayers to be forced to pick up the tab on these high costs? Where is the incentive for the university to provide an excellent education at the lowest cost possible? Why would a university try to reduce costs when the difference between expenditures and tuition will be subsidized no matter how large the cost overruns?
If Western Washington University can educate an undergraduate student for $6,406 per year, why should the Washington State University Spokane campus be subsidized for its $16,757 per undergraduate student?
EFF suggests that the state cap subsidies on a per student basis. If student tuition and the state subsidy are not adequate to cover costs, the university would foot the bill or solve the problem.
Or how about another idea: In 1997-98 the average cost per student at Washington's community colleges was $4,425 - a remarkable difference from the cost of a four-year institution. Why not send more students to community colleges for two years before transferring to a four-year university to complete their educations?
Many possible solutions exist. The legislature needs to assert its authority as holder of the state purse and universities must understand that higher education subsidies are not drawn from a bottomless barrel.
Prepared by Bob Williams, Senior Research Analyst (360) 956-3482 or effwa@effwa.org
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"