Testimony of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of
Pennsylvania (AICUP)
Presented by Dr. Don L. Francis, President
Before the House Subcommittee on Higher Education
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Reaction to Recent Reports on the State of American Higher Education
I am Don Francis, President of the Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities of Pennsylvania (AICUP), an organization representing 85 independent
colleges and universities located throughout the Commonwealth. I am delighted to be
here this afternoon to discuss with you the private college reaction to some of the recent
reports issued on the state of higher education in America. I applaud the Chairman and
members of this House Subcommittee on Higher Education for taking an interest in these
reports and wanting to hear from those in higher education on this important topic. A
strong higher education sector and large participation in that sector is critical to
Pennsylvania’s and America’s long-term economic success. Reports like the Spellings
Commission’s A Test of Leadership—Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education and
NCSL’s Transforming Higher Education: National Imperative—State Responsibility
appropriately recognize that America’s long-time predominance in higher education can
no longer be taken for granted. Both federal and state policymakers need to carefully
consider their higher education policies to ensure that they will meet our citizens’ future
needs.
These reports—and other recent reports produced by think tanks, scientific
academies, and gubernatorial task forces—have had the following common themes:
1) Recognizing the importance of higher education to future economic development,
other nations are investing heavily in higher education and are catching up to, if
not surpassing, American higher education.
2) Because the federal and state governments have done a poor job of stating what
they expect for the dollars they invest in higher education, higher education
institutions have not been held accountable for their results.
3) Current costs, funding and demographic trends threaten accessibility to higher
education, especially for low-income, minority and adult students. Affordability
may become increasingly problematic for a larger proportion of our population.
I would like to share briefly my perspective on each of these themes.
These reports do all of us a service by calling attention to the changing position of
the American people versus the rest of the world when it comes to the percentage of
people with college degrees. Once the undisputed world leader in the proportion of
college educated citizens, the US is slipping and the demographics suggest that our
position will slip further behind if we don’t find ways to increase the percentage of
minority and low-income people who obtain a college degree. Legislators need to solve
this important policy issue now before we fall behind and need years to catch up.
1
Pennsylvania competes not just with surrounding states for economic growth
opportunities; we compete with other nations in the world and they are increasingly
focused on improving their standards of living through higher education.
Having said this, however, I offer this reminder: most of these competing nations
are still trying to emulate us. They see the benefits of the diversity of the American
higher education system—ranging from community colleges, trade schools, public
research universities, and private colleges and universities of every type imaginable.
Many of these nations have a centrally-controlled higher education system, which results
in limited educational opportunity and less quality. We should not make the mistake of
trying to federalize our higher education system, and I was very pleased to see the NCSL
report specifically warn against this. States have different strengths and weaknesses and
they should develop policy solutions that meet their distinctive needs. Similarly, I
believe that Pennsylvania possesses the strongest collection of public and private colleges
and universities in the nation partly because our state leaders have given more autonomy
to our institutional leaders and created more of a laissez faire marketplace for higher
education in the Commonwealth than in most other states.
As far as accountability is concerned, I am very proud of the specific outcomes I
can recite regarding the graduates of Pennsylvania’s private colleges and universities.
Only a handful of states receive such a great benefit from the private college sector as
Pennsylvania. For instance, private colleges and universities in Pennsylvania award 49%
of the bachelor’s degrees; 63% of the advanced degrees; 52% of the bachelor’s degrees to
minority students, including 61% of B.S. degrees in math, science & engineering to
minority students. And we graduate a higher percentage of students in four years than the
public sector graduates in six years. Furthermore, as a recent survey of the Class of 1999
discovered, less than one percent of the alumni from this class was unemployed and
looking for work. Five years after graduation, the median income for these alumni who
were employed full-time was $56,429 and 55% had already bought a home. Perhaps,
most significantly, the annual earnings and the rates of continued education, home
ownership, and volunteer activity were almost identical for the Pell Grant recipients from
this class as for their more affluent classmates. In other words, education was doing what
it is supposed to do: it was leveling the economic playing field for students from diverse
socio-economic backgrounds.
However, neither federal nor state legislators have developed policies to
encourage our institutions—either public or private—to accomplish these or any other
goals. The very first recommendation in the NCSL report is “Define clear state goals.”
Until the General Assembly defines it goals and establishes a system that reward
institutions for meeting those state goals, then institutions—whether public or private—
will largely pursue their own interests rather than those of the state. Private colleges meet
public objectives and we are eager to compete with our public colleagues in meeting state
objectives. I have long argued that state government is missing a great opportunity in
Pennsylvania to use the private higher education sector to address more directly specific
state needs by not identifying and rewarding public and private institutions for meeting
those needs.
2
As to access and affordability, private colleges and universities are committed to
meeting the needs of those from all economic strata as well as those of adult learners.
Private colleges and universities in Pennsylvania enroll more Pell Grant recipients and
more non-traditional students than either the State System or state-related university
sectors. Yet this is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as higher education costs
increase faster than federal and state grant aid. And this is not just a problem for private
colleges as the public university sector confronts some of the same problems. Several of
the NCSL recommendations speak to the need for states to “rethink funding,” “rethink
student aid” or “recommit to access and success.” To accomplish this, however, states
must improve the efficiency of their funding.
Current state higher education funding policy gives significant financial
assistance to some students who don’t need this help to attend college. When you lower
tuition at state universities through institutional appropriations, you help many needy
students but you also equally help many who could pay more of the true cost of their
education. This is an inefficient use of state funds because you are not making college
affordable for the later group of students, you are just making it easier for dad to buy a
new car with money he might otherwise have to spend on education. At the same time,
other students are receiving less money than they need and are having to assume loans
larger than they should. And this group of students, primarily low-income and minority
but also including many from middle class families, is the one our two reports are saying
we cannot afford to leave behind.
How do you then more efficiently re-distribute this money? You allow public
universities to charge tuition closer to the true cost of the education and you deliver more
of the dollars through a need-based aid system like the PHEAA Grant Program. This
allows those with the ability to pay to actually pay more of the true cost of the education,
while re-directing state funds to those who need assistance. Further, PHEAA Grants are
targeted to those with demonstrated need, but there are many middle class students who
are shut out of the PHEAA system and who could benefit from this state help if more
money was available. Of course, you need to be certain that tuition does not rise higher
than the grant dollars available for those students in need, but removing subsidies from
those with no need and re-directing to those with need would directly address the
problem identified in these reports.
Finally, because students receive the money, it would have the added benefit of
allowing those students to use these state dollars at the state’s private colleges, thereby
using all of the state’s educational infrastructure to educate students. Remember,
Pennsylvania has twice the national average for enrollment in private higher education,
yet many private colleges still have additional capacity. With our proven track record of
success and the private dollars we bring to assist each student with his education, using
the private sector capacity makes great sense.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this topic and I would be happy
to answer any questions.
3