Radford University
by Dick Hall-Sizemore
James Sherlock has done a great service for this blog by starting a conversation on the future of higher education in the Commonwealth. There are several paths that could be followed.
One of his contributions was identifying the schools that have been losing enrollment. I was not surprised that Longwood, Radford, and Mary Washington led the list. They are essentially going after the same students. I was aware that VCU enrollment was down. It may be the victim of its over-optimistic projections. However, its enrollment decline may have been temporary. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports today that one the largest freshman classes in the school’s history arrived on campus this past weekend. I was surprised that the enrollment at Old Dominion has declined. Being the only major four-year institution in South Hampton Roads, one of the state’s growth leaders, and having a natural constituency with all the military installations in the area, one would have thought it was prepared for healthy growth. Alas, with the Virginian-Pilot being only a shadow of its former self, there are no media reports on the size of its incoming class this fall.
Jim’s proposal is intriguing and radical. He suggests turning one or more of the smaller colleges that are losing enrollment into “magnet” schools. They would offer junior- and senior-level courses in the most popular majors to students coming out of the community colleges. The idea has some merit. It would allow the senior colleges to specialize, thus being more efficient and cheaper. The total cost to students would be significantly less than a residential four-year institution. It would be radical, first of all, because it is a model that is not being used now. Furthermore, to be successful, there would need to be some central control (which institutions participate, which majors are offered at which colleges, etc.) and that goes against the tradition of Virginia’s model of decentralized higher education. Even if the concept were accepted, the logistical steps to implement would be daunting. For example, what happens to the “general education” (English, history, foreign languages, etc.) faculty whose positions would be eliminated?
In his comment to Jim Sherlock’s article, Jim Bacon points out the issue of decentralized higher education. He seems to support a market system in which each school finds its “niche.” For example, without explaining the basis for his conclusions, he claims, “Mary Washington appeals to progressive kids. Christopher Newport is secular, but hospitable to culturally conservative kids.”
Mr. Bacon is pining “for one of the smaller institutions to define itself as a small liberal arts school that believes in free speech and intellectual diversity.” I suspect that all of them claim they fit that description. As for me, I pine for a school to say, essentially, to parents: “We will provide your child with a good, solid liberal arts education at a cost significantly below what other schools cost. Your child will have good teachers and challenging courses. However, he or she will not have a fancy dorm room, recreational facilities that rival the fanciest private gyms, or a wide variety of meals catered by national companies.” (I know; I dream.)
Before Jim Sherlock beat me to it, I had been thinking of writing an article along these lines. However, my proposal to address the issue of declining enrollments at some institutions would have been much harsher. One or two of them would need to close.
Radford, Longwood, and Mary Washington, along with James Madison, had been teachers’ colleges for women before UVa and Virginia Tech admitted women. (Always the most progressive, William and Mary has been co-ed since 1918.) Of the three, Radford would be the most likely one to be chosen to close. It is only 20 minutes from Va. Tech, for which it once was its “sister” school. Inertia is probably the only justification for keeping it open. Nevertheless, any proposal to close a college would generate tremendous outrage among alumni, and members of the General Assembly would be loath to do it.
There is another avenue, which some readers of this blog are not going to like—more money. The amount of funding for higher education provided by the Commonwealth is significantly less than that provided by other states. A national study last year revealed that, on average, Virginia higher education students paid more than 55% of the cost of tuition, whereas the national average was about 42%. From another perspective, the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV) reports that, on average, students pay 46% of the total cost of higher education, and the state pays 54%. The state share is considerably below the state’s cost-share policy of 67%.
The Commonwealth began reducing its appropriations for higher ed during the Great Recession. In following years in which revenues were down and there were general state budget cuts, the colleges and universities, rather than reducing expenditures, made up for the cuts by raising tuition.
The state should significantly increase its general funding for higher education. However, the manner of providing that funding needs to change. Currently, the approach is to add incremental amounts to the funding already in place to begin with. Once the governor’s budget gets to the legislature, the lobbyists get to work. Each of the major institutions — UVa., Va Tech, W&M, and George Mason — have full-time lobbyists. Legislators serve as lobbyists for their alma maters. For example, Sen. Tommy Norment (R-James City), minority leader and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, is a proud alumnus of VMI. Furthermore, he is a long-time, part-time, highly paid faculty member of the William and Mary law school. The result is that the rich schools get richer. Many observers of the system describe it as irrational.
A report produced last year by SCHEV concluded, “Virginia’s current base funding formula no longer serves as a strategic and rational mechanism for resource allocation.” It recommended using a tailored formula system of funding. “The best formula-driven approaches are sensitive to variation in institutional costs that are driven by differences in mission, program array, institutional size (including provisions that support the success of smaller institutions that are less able to benefit from scale economies), and characteristics of the student body.”
Accompanying any increased funding, there need to be changes in addition to how the funds are distributed. The schools need to lose some of their autonomy. Somehow, through SCHEV, the General Assembly, or some other means, the burgeoning administrative costs need to be examined. However, other areas need to be examined as well.
In the following paragraph, E&G refers to “educational and general fees (those fees related to instruction and supported by the state).” “Non-E&G costs can include athletics, recreational facilities, student health services, transportation on campus and debt service for non-instruction-related buildings.”
As reported by SCHEV, the average total cost for a full-time in-state undergraduate in 2022-2023 was $26,484. Of that amount, tuition and mandatory E&G fees accounted for $9,731, or 37%. Room and board and mandatory non-E&G fees accounted for the remaining 63%. Room and board, at $11,981, was more than tuition and mandatory E&G fees. The mandatory non-E&G fees accounted for 18% of the total cost. The last two categories (room and board and mandatory non-E&G fees) were the fastest increasing portion of the total cost. Room and board increased by 4.2% and mandatory non-E&G fees, 3.3%. If one is to control the increases in the cost of higher education, one needs to start with those categories.
Finally, the list of courses offered by the institutions of higher education needs to be policed more closely by SCHEV. Other than prestige, is there a compelling reason for Radford, Longwood, and Mary Washington to offer graduate programs? In many of the universities, the majors and programs in some areas have become so narrowly focused that they are little more than vocational training. For example, in at least one institution, one can major in “hospitality management” or “sport and recreation management.” Why should Virginia’s colleges be offering majors in how to run hotels or recreation departments? Let the Marriott Corporation and other hotel chains run their own management training programs.
Any attempt to reform higher education in Virginia is going to be exceedingly difficult. As Peter Blake, the executive director of SCHEV, said, “Funding a higher education system as diverse as Virginia’s requires compromise between many different stakeholders. It will always be difficult to get all involved to agree on a single set of guidelines.”
