.-
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
FUNDING IN INDIANA AND ITS SURROUNDING
STATES: IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FINANCIAL CAPACITY AND COMPETITIVENESS?
HONORS 499 -- SENIOR THESIS
BY
Kevin R. Ober
Thesis Advisor
Dr. Robert T. Tad Perry
~1f~/~
---------------------
------~~-------------
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
May, 1994
--
·
-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
, .
q. .,
.~I "
I would like to thank Dr. Tad Perry for not only guiding me through the research, .
but also for engaging me in the learning process. It has been an enlightening
experience. His availability, flexibility, knowledge, and insight allowed me to learn and
gain greatly from this project. This experience has been a positive introduction to the
challenges inherent in the governmental relations of state-supported institutions. Higher
education is a valuable component of any state, and I am hopeful that our efforts have
highlighted some notable ideas regarding its present condition and its limitless future
possi bi I ities.
Again, I want to express my most sincere appreciation for this opportunity.
-
-,J
-
Abstract
This investigation entailed a five state study of higher education at state-supported
institutions in Indiana and the four surrounding states. The analysis attempted to
determine whether or not a relationship exists in state government policy regarding
financial capacity and competitiveness in higher education. It evaluated the plausibility
of any connection between these two concepts, financial capacity and competitiveness .
. Ultimately, it was an effort to define further certain variables in order to evidence a
relationship between the higher education policies of state government and the results of
those policies.
It was concluded that no direct correlation exists between those variables of
financial capacity and competitiveness that were studied in this investigation.
Notwithstanding that, state government policy certainly influences the competitiveness of
its institutions; however, other variables outside of state policy must be considered as
well.
-
-
-
T able of Contents
I. Introduction
3
II. Financial Capacity and Competitiveness
4
III. The State of Indiana
5
IV. The Four Surrounding States: Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Kentucky
6
V. Defining Financial Capacity
7
VI. Defining a System's Competitiveness
12
VII. The Relationship Between Financial Capacity and Competitiveness
in Indiana
15
VIII. Conclusions About the Potential Relationship Between Financial Capacity
and Competitiveness: Is There a Plausible Connection?
23
IX. Summary and Concluding Views on Higher Education in Indiana
27
Works Cited
29
Bibliography
30
Appendix: Graphs and Table
31
-
3
I. 1ntroduction
The responsibility of state government is to set policy for the common good of its
citizens. This responsibility is both enormous in financial terms and serious in practical
application in the every day lives of its citizens. Financially, the state must appropriate
funds to facilitate the growth of the state. In practical terms, these funds must support
countless programs that advance the lives of the citizens. Among these expenditures is
the appropriation for the provision of higher education services within the state. This
commitment to fund higher education services may have a greater and more valuable
long-term impact than any other expenditures a state may choose to make.
The strength of a state's commitment for higher education distinguishes it from the
-
other forty-nine states. It defines not only the financial obligation, but also the
culmination of an overall effort to educate the state's students. Herein lies the challenge
for state governments. State governments are charged, and expected, to support a system
of higher education that encourages the availability of preeminent learning opportunities,
a prominent system of high quality institutions that are competitive among their peers.
-
4
II. Financial Capacity and Competitiveness
A state's financial capacity and the competitiveness of its system of higher
education are two concepts which exist mutually, yet they are interrelated in the
determination of each other. This indicates a cause and effect relationship where the
concept of financial capacity drives the concept of competitiveness. Moreover, this
relationship defines each on the basis of one's ability to impact the other. However, the
policy of state government ultimately determines this relationship and the resulting
impact.
Financial capacity is the result of state government policy and vice versa. State
tax revenue and budget appropriations are the most significant aspect of financial
capacity. Financial capacity can be measured, compared, and contrasted objectively.
Consequently, financial capacity is the foundation of the relationship.
Competitiveness is a more precarious determination. A state's system of higher
education aspires toward prominence among the other forty-nine states. It is the result of
not only a state's financial capacity, but also academic policy and individual institutional
decisions. In fact, competitiveness is determined by the services a system provides and
the value of those higher education opportunities at state-supported institutions.
Competitiveness is measured, compared, and contrasted through both objective and
subjective determinations; hence, competitiveness is the result of a state's higher
education policy relative to the concept of financial capacity .
-
.
-
5
III. The State of Indiana
The state of Indiana and its system of higher education are the focus of this
analysis. The role of Indiana state government policy in defining financial capacity and
competitiveness will be evaluated with respect to the four surrounding states: Illinois,
Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio.
Indiana's system of higher education receives its funding from the budget of the
state and student tuition. This funding is one of many appropriations for which the state
is responsible. Other state appropriations include expenditures such as law enforcement,
corrections, public school education, and highway maintenance.
Indiana's system of higher education is comprised of institutions which provide
higher educational opportunities primarily for the citizens of the state. The higher
education policy of Indiana's state government is to maintain a quality system. Such a
system strives to prepare each of its students to compete and succeed in the job market.
This goal is facilitated by the need of the citizens to further their education in an
affordable institution of higher education.
Setting Indiana state policy that promotes a quality, competitive system is a
difficult task. Many other budget areas exist and place financial constraints on higher
education funding. Such areas are actually competitors for the limited resources of the
state. This restricts appropriations for higher education. The impact of these constraints
can affect the financial capacity and competitiveness of higher education within the state,
especially with respect to systems in other states.
-
6
IV. The Four Surrounding States: Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio
The four surrounding states of Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio face
challenges similar to Indiana in funding their systems of higher education. They must
also set state government policy that promotes a quality system of higher education.
They must provide equally strong higher educational opportunities for the citizens of
. their state.
For the purpose of this analysis, the four states surrounding Indiana serve as points
of comparison. Because of their close geographic proximity, Indiana must remain
competitive among them. It is important for each state to advance a system of higher
education that is attractive to it citizens. Such a system must provide access to quality
higher education services that ultimately prepare students to compete in the job market.
These higher education opportunities will attract citizens to remain in their home state
for their education.
-
-
7
v.
Defining Financial Capacity
Theoretically, financial capacity is defined as the ability of a state, through the
legislation of policy, to fund and promote a system of higher education which provides
academic opportunities to the citizens of its state. However, there are various aspects of
a state's policy that define and measure financial capacity. One cannot point to a single
figure that defines the entire concept of capacity. A state's financial capacity is a concept
that incorporates components that exist independently, yet impact each other. It is the
nature of this relationship to encompass not only state government policy, but also the
consequences of such policy. Nonetheless, financial capacity is a single concept that is
not simply illustrated, yet it can be measured. The relationship of these measures
consequently defines a state's financial capacity.
The foundation of financial capacity is a state's tax revenue. The total amount of
money procured by a given state is the single most important factor in budget
appropriations. Tax revenue is drawn from the citizens of the state through various
means. Ultimately, it is the mandatory contribution of citizens toward the programs of
state government. State policy for the funding of higher education is determined on the
basis of tax revenue.
The other components of financial capacity are state appropriations, individual
tuition contributions, and the measures of the relationships between appropriated dollars,
procured tax revenues, individual contributions and income, and projections of a state's
financial potential. Each piece of data that measures these components constitutes the
-
definition of financial capacity.
-
8
The measures and ratios for financial capacity that are determined from the base
data are critical to the analysis as they operationalize the definition of this concept. The
base data are comprised of three figures including: tax revenue per capita, appropriation
per full-time equivalent (FTE), and net tuition revenue per student. These data serve as
the basis for more comparative measures. Additionally, it is important to define each in
order to understand its application in other measures.
Tax revenue is defined as those state and local funds collected per capita, and it is
representative of the wealth procured by the state (Halstead 63). It is indicative of an
individual citizen's contribution toward the programs of the state. Furthermore, it serves
as an excellent comparative variable for state government policy and commitment.
The state appropriation toward higher education is the variable that illustrates the
financial commitment a state places on the education of the students attending its
institutions. It is defined as those tax revenues apportioned for the current educational
operating expenses of state-supported institutions (Halstead 65). This variable is
expressed as Full-Tjme Equivalent (per FTE) students. The state appropriation indicates
an actual monetary figure for the state contribution to higher education.
The third base component of the data is the net tuition revenue per student. It is
the average tuition paid by both in-state and out-of-state students, not including student
aid (Halstead 67). This tuition figure indicates the amount of money a student
contributes to his or her education at a state-supported institution. It measures the
financial commitment that the state expects a student to contribute to his or her
education.
-
9
In addition to these base data, there are comparative measures. These are the
sums, ratios, and projected (or expected) figures that are determined from the base data.
These comparative measures serve as constructive tools for the evaluation of a state's
financial capacity and contribute to the definition of capacity.
The first two comparative measures for the financial capacity of a state are its tax
capacity and tax effort. They serve as an important evaluator of a state's potential to
raise tax revenues. A state's tax capacity is defined as the amount of state and local
revenue a state could accumulate if its state and local systems applied identical tax rates,
the national average, to their particular tax bases (Halstead 61). In addition, a state's tax
effort is defined as the percentage of state and local revenue procured with respect to tax
capacity. It is the percentage of the tax capacity actually being utilized. Consequently,
tax capacity and tax effort can be compared among the states as an effective eval uator of
the potential wealth present.
Tax capacity and tax effort further evaluate the foundation of financial capacity,
tax revenue. Notwithstanding this, there are other important variables used to measure
and refine this analysis of capacity. These are other figures, sums, and ratios which
combine the revenue, appropriation, and tuition data. They include the following:
appropriation per FTE as a percentage of tax revenue, appropriation per FTE as a
percentage of tax capacity, total educational expenditure (appropriation plus tuition),
tuition as a percentage of the total higher education expenditure, and tuition as a
percentage of personal disposable income.
-
The above variables are not only important to defining financial capacity, but they
-
10
are also an intricate part of analyzing the relationship between capacity and
competitiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to explain each and its purpose.
The first is appropriation per FTE as a percentage of tax revenue, and it measures
the fraction of revenue committed to an FTE's education. This ratio can be compared
among states as a means for analyzing the concepts of capacity because it is related to
revenue. It is also a tool for evaluating policy as it is indicative of a state's allocation of
budget resources for higher education.
The appropriation per FTE as a percentage of tax capacity is another fraction
measure of tax revenue. However, it differs from the above data as it utilizes tax
capacity. The ratio of appropriation to tax capacity is a variable used as a base of
comparison. It can be contrasted with the ratio of appropriation to tax revenue. The
result is the variation between the actual commitment of tax revenue and the potential
commitment of a state's capacity. The utilization of this measure augments the definition
of financial capacity. It is also important in the analysis of the relationship between
capacity and competitiveness.
The total educational expenditure is an aggregate figure combining appropriation
and tuition. The sum of these two figures is useful for comparison among states as well.
It measures the total allocation for higher education, the total amount of money spent on
a student's education, and is indicative of the result of state government policy. This
policy is derived from the concept of financial capacity.
Tuition as a percentage of the total educational expenditure measures the fraction
of tuition with respect to the total contribution to the higher education of an individual.
"-
11
It effectively calculates the magnitude of an individual's contribution to his or her
education. The extent of this contribution further determines whether the state or the
individual student will fund the bulk of the expenditure for higher education services. It
can be compared among the states in an effort to evaluate the result of state government
policy in terms of an individual's financial burden.
The final comparative measure is the measure of tuition as a percentage of
personal disposable income. This is a practical measure of an individual's financial
sacrifice for his or her education. The fraction of an individual's disposable income that
is allocated for higher education is suggestive of state government policy in terms of state
funding effectively reducing the burden for the students.
The base data and the comparative measures are all important in defining
financial capacity. However, they do not exclusively delineate exactly the financial
capacity of a state to fund higher education services. It is their constitution and
relationship with each other that ultimately comprises a working definition of capacity.
The ensuing discussion about their relationship to a system's competitiveness will clarify
further this somewhat abstract variable.
-
-
12
VI. Defining a System's Competitiveness
As stated before, defining a system's competitiveness is a rather precarious task. It
can be defined conceptually as the standard toward which state government endeavors
to set its higher education policy, where state-supported institutions provide distinguished
academic opportunities for the citizens of the state. There are two aspects of the concept
of competitiveness that assist one in reaching a working definition for it. The first aspect
of competitiveness is the value of the education one receives at a state institution. The
second is the particular higher education services provided by these institutions.
Assessing value involves using subjectivity in the evaluation of variables and
subsequently, in the conclusions which one reaches. However, there are objective data
available to use in assessing the actual higher education services provided. Nonetheless,
this analysis will utilize reputation rankings for state-supported universities and the
measures for enrollment and participation in the system by combining them into the
single concept of competitiveness.
The academic reputation rankings evaluate the value of an education received
from state institutions. They were compiled from survey data and reported in the U. S.
News & World Report 1994 College Guide titled, "America's Best Colleges." U. S.
News surveyed 2655 college presidents who rated institutions in the same category as
their own. The magazine received a sixty-five percent response rate. In the survey, the
presidents were asked to rank their peer institutions in one of four quartiles. The schools
were assigned points for being ranked in a particular quartile. The total points a school
received was then divided by the total number of participants who placed the school in
13
...one of the four quartiles. The schools were then given an academic reputation ranking
based on their scores among the other institutions (Morse 9).
In addition to the reputation rankings, there are two objective measures for the
provision of higher education services to use in this analysis. They are the following:
enrollment in institutions of higher education and the participation ratio among high
school graduates.
In order to accurately evaluate any of the data, it is valuable to know the trends in
enrollment. Increases in enrollment, or the lack thereof, would indicate a certain level
of success in attracting and retaining students at state institutions or a declining level of
success in keeping students at state-supported institutions. Enrollment expresses
empirically the extent of the higher education opportunities within a state. It is defined
as the annual average of FTE students enrolled in state-supported institutions per one
thousand population (Halstead 59). This provision of higher education services to the
population is a characteristic of competitiveness. Also, enrollment can assist in
evaluating financial capacity by providing some measure of control in the assessment of
capacity variables.
The participation ratio is defined as the annual FTE enrollment per high school
graduate. It is indicative of the accessibility of higher education services in a state
(Halstead 59). It includes in-state and out-of-state students compared to the graduates of
in-state high schools. This variable of availability is important to competitiveness as it
illustrates the attractiveness of higher education opportunities at state-supported
universities. A high participation ratio indicates a highly competitive system in a state.
-
14
Because of the nature of competitiveness, actually defining this concept generates
conjecture. t'-.onetheless, certain states sustain systems of higher education that are
clearly more prominent. For the purpose of this study, one must concede that this is
indeed the case. By acknowledging that more prominent systems exist, an environment
of competition in which state-supported institutions contend with each other is defined,
and the concept of competitiveness is established for further analysis.
-
15
VII. The Relationship Between Financial Capacity and Competitiveness in Indiana
Ideally, state government policy that formulates the financial capacity from which
higher education services are funded should foster competitiveness in the institutions it
supports. Indiana focuses its efforts toward this end. However, the question remains:
Has Indiana state government legislated policy that fosters a greater promotion and use
of its financial capacity over the past ten years (1982-1983 to 1992-1993) to champion a
system of higher education that is competitive?
The first step in analyzing this relationship is finding a good indicator of state
government policy. This indicator must incorporate characteristics of time and change,
and these are embodied in the year-to-year changes, the trends, that are found in the
data.
Trends, or the lack thereof, illustrate policy as they are expressive of change over
a period of time. In this case, the period of time spans from 1982 to 1993. This change
from year-to-year can be compared among the states. Also, policy does not always have
an immediate effect; hence, specific trends may signify the sustaining impact of previous
policy decisions.
The first capacity variable to examine is the state appropriation per FTE. Since it
is the basic financial contribution toward a student's education, its role in developing the
financial capacity of a state is paramount. However, it is difficult to assess its importance
as a specific figure. Its impact on the other capacity variables exemplifies its value in
this analysis.
-
The importance of the state appropriation is represented first in correlation with
-
16
the revenue figures (actual revenue, revenue, or tax capacity, and tax effort) of each state.
In this evaluation of financial capacity, the ratios developed from the data serve as the
best source of contrast.
Tax revenue per capita procured in the state of Indiana has steadily increased
since 1982. However, it has consistently lagged behind Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio
(see graph 1.1). The state of Indiana's capacity to raise revenue has also remained
behind these three states during the same time span (graph 1.2), which one can conclude
is the reason why Indiana ranks behind them in actual revenue per capita.
In order to further distinguish this situation, one must account for the difference
between the actual and potential revenue (tax effort). In every year, Indiana has raised
revenue under its capacity, while Michigan and Illinois collect wealth at or above the
national norm (graph 1.3). Ohio also achieves a greater percentage of its capacity than
Indiana, and as recent as 1992-1993, Indiana ranked fifth among these states in its tax
effort (graph 1.3).
What exact impact does this have on appropriation? It is logical to assume that
limited tax revenue will restrict the state appropriation toward higher education.
However, this is not necessarily the case. In Indiana's case, its appropriation to higher
education as a percent of tax revenue procured per capita has consistently ranked second
among the five states (graph 1.4). A higher percentage of its revenue per capita is
allocated for higher education, with only Kentucky achieving a higher fraction.
Besides Kentucky, Indiana is apportioning a greater proportion of its tax resources
for higher education services at state-supported institutions. It is achieving this despite its
-
17
failure to utilize its entire tax capacity for raising revenue. Furthermore, the state of
Indiana realizes an effective use of its financial capacity with less wealth and less
potential to raise such wealth.
The role of the state's appropriation is further analyzed with respect to student
tuition. Student tuition, in and of itself, is a worthwhile financial capacity variable for
the analysis of this relationship because it illustrates the manner in which state higher
education policy impacts the investment an individual makes toward academic
opportunities at state-supported institutions. Lower tuition signifies a smaller contribution
a student must make and a less significant burden he or she must bear.
Indiana has ranked third among the five states in this area since 1988. It has
commanded the third lowest tuition payment from the students at its institutions, with
only Illinois and Kentucky below it (graph 2.1). In terms of financial capacity, this is an
important element. It demonstrates that Indiana's state government higher education
policy has sustained a reduced tuition contribution; hence, the Indiana students have a
lesser financial hardship than their peers in the Michigan and Ohio.
There are supplementary ratios which employ the tuition variable that further
measure the concept of financial capacity. When added to the state appropriation, there
exists a figure for the total allocation for a student's education (graph 2.4). This total is
important in order to figure these ratios. From this one can ascertain the proportion of
tuition and appropriation allocated for higher education services that ultimately
influences the concept of financial capacity.
-
Tuition as a percent of the total expenditure is a measure for the fraction of the
18
total allocation that students expend for their education. A lower percentage signifies a
greater commitment from the state in the form of appropriations. A higher percentage
indicates that a student pays a greater amount of the total for his or her opportunities at
state-supported institutions. Indiana has maintained its tuition at about thirty-five percent
of the total allocation since 1982, a ranking of third among the five states (graph 2.2).
Illinois is the lowest at about twenty percent.
This factor is indicative of the actual strength of sustaining a low tuition for
students. Despite having the third-lowest net tuition, Indiana student contribution is a
higher percentage of the total allocation, with only Kentucky and Illinois having a lower
proportion. This effects the determination of financial capacity in one sense. Low
tuition is good for attracting students to higher education. However, the provision of
these services for students is a serious financial obligation. Accordingly, low tuition that
is a lesser percentage of the total allocation is a more productive use of financial capacity
as the state policy has resulted in a greater assumption of responsibility for supporting
higher education by' the state, yet the state is maintaining a smaller financial burden for
the students.
Lastly, the financial burden manifest in this relationship should be evaluated. It is
assessed as the percentage of tuition with respect to personal disposable income. A
lower percentage would indicate a lesser burden in proportion to one's income. This
suggests that a state uti I izes its financial capacity for the benefit of its students at statesupported institutions. Also, there is a higher degree of wealth proportionally among
these students. Indiana ranks fourth, the second highest percentage, among the five
19
states in this area with tuition exhausting an average of nearly sixteen percent of
disposable income since 1982 (graph 2.3). This higher percentage would indicate a
larger burden for Indiana's students.
With respect to financial capacity, the ratio of tuition to income is meaningful. In
this analysis, this measure presents the argument that higher education policy and the
concept of financial capacity impact the individual contribution significantly.
Additionally, low tuition may not always indicate a smaller burden for the student. This
is the sense in which this ratio is most critical. Subsequently, it assesses whether or not
state government policy has influenced financial capacity in a manner which not only
reduces the financial burden, but also is supportive of a system of higher education
services that is fiscally attractive to students who are constrained unfavorably by their
income.
On the contrasting side of this relationship is a system's competitiveness.
Competitiveness is the concept measuring the prominence of these state-supported
institutions. This analysis is examining the potential impact on competitiveness by state
government policy for higher education with respect to financial capacity. It
incorporates variables that are determined both objectively and subjectively. Ultimately,
the conclusions one may reach about competitiveness are primarily subjective, yet they
are also realistic assumptions that include components of objectivity.
The first objective variable of competitiveness is the FTE enrollment at statesupported institutions. As a state provides higher education services to its population, it
--
attracts students to its institutions. High enrollments would demonstrate that a large
-
20
number of students are seeking educational opportunities at state institutions. By itself,
this enrollment figure is not necessarily indicative of a competitive system; rather, it
signifies that a state is providing many opportunities for both in-state and out-of-state
students. Nevertheless, a state with a high enrollment is supporting a system that
apparently is utilizing its financial capacity for competitive benefit. The state of
Michigan sustains the highest rate among the states with Indiana maintaining a rate that
has ranked consistently fourth since 1982 (graph 3.1).
The second objective component is the participation ratio of FTE students per high
school graduate. This is a notable measure of a system's competitiveness. A high
participation ratio would signify a system which provides higher education opportunities
to not only its high school graduates, but also students drawn from out-of-state. This
would certainly indicate that a state is competing among the others in attracting students
to its institutions.
This assumption may also be associated with the notion that a state achieving a
high participation ratio is setting policy that facilitates a productive use of its financial
capacity in order to provide higher education services and academic opportunities that
are apparently enticing students to attend state-supported institutions. As of 1992-1993,
the state of Indiana ranks last among the five states. Illinois and Michigan have
paralleled each other, with Michigan sustaining the highest ratio since 1987 (graph 3.2).
This fact will be more clearly assessed as it is correlated with the reputation rankings.
Finally, there are the reputation rankings to consider. This is basically the point
where the data culminates. It is the end toward which state higher education policy
-
21
alms. These rankings are subjective, yet they are realistically one of the best indicators
of competitiveness. The 1993 rankings have been chosen in order to arrive at a
meaningful present day conclusion about the impact of financial capacity.
The reputation rankings cover one category of state-supported institutions, national
un iversities. The national un iversities are those that generally attract students from all
over their own state and a significant number of students from out-of-state. These are
generally the largest universities in the state.
The national universities are representative of the state's system of higher
education in one significant aspect. They are the largest research universities, those that
receive the most federal funding for their projects. These universities are generally
considered the "flagship" institutions of the state and are the most prominent and most
reputable state-funded institutions.
Lastly, these national universities receive the greatest investment from the state in
the form of appropriations. They require the highest investment. In turn, they provide
the highest degree of higher education services and sustain a greater participation of
students from both in-state and out-of-state.
The reputation rankings for national universities are listed in Table 1.1. (National
Universities Chart, 20 and 30-32). The "flagship" institutions are ranked based first on
the individual institution's score based on the U. S. News rating. For the purpose of
comparing these institutions between the states, their rankings are then averaged. This
allows them to be contrasted against the variables for financial capacity. This analysis
will further utilize them in the next section in drawing conclusions about the existing
--
22
relationship. Consequently, one can evaluate possible conclusions about the relationship
between financial capacity and competitiveness, and can conceivably assess the
plausibility therein .
-
.
-
23
VIII. Conclusions About the Potential Relationship Between Financial Capacity and
Competitiveness: Is There a Plausible Connection?
From the previous assessments about financial capacity and a system's
competitiveness, the analysis continues to the final step of assimilating the measures of
both concepts. By contrasting these measures, one can draw conclusions about the
impact financial capacity has on competitiveness. The best method by which the
relationship can be examined is to consider all the variables for financial capacity with
respect to the measures of competitiveness with a specific focus on Indiana. The 19921993 data for each variable of the five states can be cross-tabulated in order to address
whether any relationship between financial capacity and competitiveness exists.
Consequently, one can draw conclusions about not only the relationship, but also about
the implications in Indiana.
Ultimately, a state should attempt to set higher education policy that will facilitate
an effective use of its financial capacity that results in an increasingly competitive system
of state-supported i~stitutions. A direct relationship between an effective use of financial
capacity and high competitiveness will evidence a high output of higher education
services and a high value for those same services. Hence, when the 1992-1993 financial
capacity measures for all five states are evaluated against the competitiveness measures,
one can compare and contrast the outcome for each state not only individually but also
against the others. The final conclusion for Indiana will result based first on its
individual performance and second on how it measures up to the other four states.
The competitiveness variables for service can be evaluated against the variables
-
24
for financial capacity in the following three ways: competitiveness and services in terms
of wealth and tax revenue, the state financial commitment of its tax resources to services
and competitiveness, and the student financial burden. By subdividing the manner in
which one evaluates the relationship, a conclusion can be reached about the strength of
the relationship financial capacity and competitiveness. The conclusion about the
relationship is then applicable in terms of the state, the student, and the impact of higher
education policy in the state.
Tax revenue, the state's effort to raise revenue, and its capacity to raise revenue
with respect to the national average are all important to financial capacity. However, the
only one that displays a relationship between financial capacity and competitiveness is
tax effort. There is a direct relationship among the five states between tax effort and
enrollment and participation. The higher degree of effort in raising revenue furthers
student enrollment and participation in the state's system of higher education. Michigan
exerts the highest effort and has the highest enrollment and participation (graphs 4.1 and
4.1A).
In that comparison, Indiana ranks fifth among the five states. As of 1992-1993, it
has the lowest tax effort, the lowest enrollment, and the lowest participation ratio. It
raises more revenue and has a greater capacity to do so than Kentucky, yet its tax effort
is lower along with its enrollment and participation, both of which rank fifth.
In the other two revenue comparisons, those between tax capacity, tax revenue
raised per capita, and enrollment and participation ratio, there is no direct relationship
displayed (graphs 4.2, 4.2A, 4.3 and 4.3A). Neither variable of financial capacity
-
25
directly correlates to higher education competitiveness in terms of services.
The commitment of a state's resources for higher education services may be
evaluated in terms of its impact on competitiveness. This is accomplished by measuring
enrollment and participation ratio as compared to the state appropriation and that
appropriation as a percentage of tax revenue (graphs 5.1, 5.1 A, 5.2, and 5.2A). In both
cases there is no direct correlation between financial capacity and the competitiveness of
the state's services.
Lastly, the student financial investment in terms of financial capacity needs to be
evaluated based on the competitiveness of higher education services. The net tuition,
net tuition as a percentage of the total allocation, and net tuition as a percentage of
personal disposable income are all variables of financial capacity. When viewing them
in comparison to enrollment and tuition, an indirect relationship would signify that
financial capacity in terms of the student investment impacts the competitiveness of
higher education.
In the case of all three comparisons, there is no correlation (graphs 6.1, 6.1 A, 6.2,
6.2A, 6.3, and 6.3A). Michigan defies all comparisons as its sustains the highest
enrollment and highest participation ratio. In contrast, Michigan commands the highest
tuition; tuition as a percentage of the total allocation is second highest; and tuition as a
percentage of personal disposable income is highest. In terms of financial capacity, this
should not facilitate competitiveness because of the financial burden a student must bear.
The results from the comparisons between the financial capacity variables and
academic reputation are scattered at best (graphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and
26
7.8). A relationship does not appear to exist. The reputability of a state's "flagship"
institutions achieve no correlation to financial capacity. This essentially discounts the
presence of any relationship.
Accordingly, reputation denotes competitiveness in the value of higher education
services provided by a state. However, an effective use of a state's financial capacity
. does not necessarily promote a competitive system of state-supported institutions.
The "flagship" institutions require the greatest investment from the state in the
form of appropriations. Notwithstanding that, a state that utilizes a greater proportion of
its financial capacity toward these institutions may not see resulting competitiveness from
its institutions. Consequently, this signifies that a state's utilization of financial capacity
in the provision of higher education services does not automatically bring about
prominence in its system.
By combining the conclusions regarding the competitiveness of services (i. e.
enrollment and participation) with those concerning reputability and value, one can
assess the plausibility of whether or not a relationship does indeed exist. In the case of
Indiana and its four surrounding states, a plausible relationship between financial
capacity and competitiveness is not present. It is apparent from the cross-tabulation of
the variables that competitiveness is not the result of any particular utilization of financial
capacity. When viewed cumulatively, these variables illustrate that competitiveness is
not specifically and distinctly connected to financial capacity.
-
-
27
IX. Summary and Concluding Views on Higher Education in Indiana
Higher education policy in the state of Indiana is unquestionably an important
appropriation. The resources Indiana commits to its institutions are significant both
financially and theoretically. The financial commitment is large in terms of actual money
being appropriated for such services. Theoretically, this is an investment in the state in
the hopes that economic and intellectual growth among its citizens will benefit the state.
Ultimately, a sound state policy for higher education will result in a strong education for
citizens, better jobs, a growing tax base, and simply, a better state in which one can live.
On the other hand, this policy must maintain a system that provides a high degree
of reputable higher education services. In this respect, Indiana is performing adequately.
Nonetheless, there is room for improvement. However, one cannot ignore the fact that
higher education is one of many budget appropriations and states possess limited
resources; hence, higher education must compete not only against the other forty-nine
states, but also among other state programs. This is a dilemma that constrains financial
capacity and competitiveness.
Consequently, state government must assess the priority of higher education and
determine whether it will commit itself to championing a preeminent system of statesupported institutions or to maintaining simply a satisfactory system. This is the
consummate challenge a state faces in setting higher education policy, the determination
of priority and commitment.
Each individual institution makes decisions that also affect financial capacity and
competitiveness. This must be considered as well. Institutional decision-making exhibits
28
priority, which is providing the best possible education for students. They are, however,
constrained by the state's commitment of its financial capacity, yet they can influence
competitiveness in their own decisions through the programs and curricula they sustain.
In conclusion, state government higher education policy in Indiana determines its
financial capacity. However, financial capacity does not solely influence the
competitiveness of Indiana's system. Numerous factors are manifest in this analysis, each
of which impacts competitiveness. Priority, commitment, and the decisions of each
institution must be considered.
In the end the fact remains that higher education is vital to the state of Indiana in
many respects. It the intellectual locus of the state, and from it the state has a
foundation on which to build and support a positive environment in which citizens can
live. State government and its decision-makers must embrace these challenges and
discharge their constitutional responsibilities by working aggressively to promote,
support, and sustain comprehensive efforts that will not only champion a system of
higher education th~t is nationally prominent and an economic asset for the state, but
also advocate and fund one that produces students that will compete and succeed among
their peers in the job market.
--
29
Works Cited
Halstead, Kent. State Profiles: Financing Public Higher Education 1978-1993. 16th ed.
Washington, DC: Research Associates, Nov. 1993. 59-67.
Morse, Robert
J.
"America's Best Colleges." U. S. News & World Report: 1994. 9.
National Universities. "America's Best Colleges." U. S. News & World Report: 199.
20,30-32.
-
.-
-
30
Bibliography
State Profiles: Financing Public Higher Education 1978-1993. 16th ed. Washington,
DC: Research Associates,
1993.
"America's Best Colleges." U. S. News & World Report: 1994.
*** All graphs and tables were created from data that were published in the above
sources.
-
-
-
31
Appendix: Graphs and Table
-
)
)
Tax Revenue
(per capita)
--
2200 ---,---------------
--------------------~------- ~
2000
~
-------------------~-x
/~-~-
1800
~ 1600
............. ..
a:::
::s
o1400
<----
--~/
...
-~--~_/
--- '
//
--//
----------~~
1200
800
x---
/
~~~-~/ ...
£:)
1000
..cu/<--,cor:
/
_-7'.
~------­
- - - - / - - - - - -/ -
T
- - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - -
I
,
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1989-90
1991-92
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
YEAR
[-- IL_=-+--- IN--~ KY-B- MI
~
OH J
)
)
Tax Capacity
(per capita)
2400 -.-,- - - - - 2200 -+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - ~--- - -
!
--------~2000
- --=======::::--$<::
~1800
_-~~---k:-:)
en
~
.....J
-----
1600
.....J
g 1400
1200
1000
800
-
1.
~-~~~~~..::/
1·~~~~
1
. . ------------------
..................
-
.
-
-
-
-
I
..
I
~-
1-
I
___ 1
u
1
I
.J
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1989-90
1991-92
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
YEAR
1------ IL
-----t-
IN ---e- KY
--8--
MI
~ OH 1
)
)
Tax Effort
(percent of tax capacity utilized)
130
-,------------=,-----------
------,
120
~------o-
-~110
o
.-z
~
------------
w
()
a:
w 100
--El- _____
-
.
- -
.
-
..
-------
a..
_______ .
------~~--s-~--~_c:__
-~--~
---~//---~//:~,Z~~)(~~~
90 --r - - ~
80-i
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
YEAR
I
&-
IL
--+-
IN ----e-- KY
-B----
MI
~
OH]
)
)
State Appropriation as a Percent
of Tax Revenue
13
T------
12 I
.~~~cc_>_&
_11
-
------&:-_-_--_~-/-~------------
--------
o~
j:'10
------ -
-----------------------------
Z
---------,~
. _
W
~ 9
W
~
-----~~___________
--------- --------------------------
__~
a..
8
-+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r:::l------
I
"----><
7
6
D
- - - -
I
.
-
I
~~
~-------a-------------'-~-- ---;------,
- - -
I
><
~
- - - -
---- - - - - - '-- - - - -
•
I T T
I
-~
---------,--
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
YEAR
F
IL
---t--
IN -e- KY
---8--
MI
~
OH
I
)
)
)
Net Tuition
(average per student)
3500~1-------------------------------------------
___ ..........-FI
3000
_2500
~-
~__ -----t~
,
--
U7
(J)
a:
:5 2000
~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~/£i----------------~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
~
/r _ ~:;;:;:?~:C-C
__ ~
I~::C;:'~ - :~~>-B'-~~ ~-:~::/%:~~:~~
-
-
-
-
-
-
------~-~
~--B-------B------0--- ~
...J
1500
~--
- - - - - - - - - _-0-
-e-
____ ___
1000
500
__ / x
,
o
Cl
-
- ----....,....
I
~
I
I
I
-~
-
-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~---_~_--O
- -
--e--------- - - -
--~~---~---~~--I
__
u , _____ u_, ___ :
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
YEAR
1---- IL
----+-
IN --e- KY
-E3-
MI -*- OH]
)
)
Net Tuition as a Percent
of the Total Expenditure
5 0 - ---- ----45 -+ - - - - - - 40
--------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _~:x - .
/~
--
o
0 ' ,
~------
.
~--
-.~-~~~~~=~=~~-~~~~~~---~-------
oW
-
----------
./~/
~ 30
...........
25
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_~~--;;::=r---;;::=r-~--~-------'::'-
...-....
~35
i
/D
_-+y.--Ef---·-0.. ~:~7·
- -~--B------:~--=-~e---:c---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
. .
---
-------~--.
------------
J
15!
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
I
YEAR
t--
IL
-t--
IN --e- KY
-B--
MI
~
OH
J
)
)
Net Tuition as a Percent
of the Personal Disposable Income
18
16
-----~
_-----t~
_----8---8---- - c::-- ---'7<
-~-~-'-
- - - - - - - ~. --+--
14
J - - - - - - - -
",,*---~
r: - - - - -x - - ~- - - - ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~12 -V>-cc~CCif~ --.->~- • • _ _ ..'~'B~~~_<~Y~
~k'-__
w
~
w
a..
-
__
10
8 -+ - - - - - - - - - - -
~~-~ ..
-
-0
_
-----
- - -
- -
-
--
-
-
-
!
6 i - - - -~:-: - - - - ---:-- - - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - - - - - - - - - -~~-~--
4
I
I
r - - -- --- --
I
I
I
---
I
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
YEAR
[ ---- IL
---+--
IN
-e-
KY
--B--
MI
~
OH-j
)
)
Total Expenditure for Higher Education
(appropriation + tuition)
8
----------
,---~------~----
---~
~ Cii' 7 -+ - - - - - -
___ ~-H-~~:'e>---<t<-:-- ---
C/) "C
- - - - - - - -
:ii 6
«a:
-J gj 5
------_.vr<- - - --
- -
.<:
g t:. 4
_ _
_
3
~
_-x--,:,,-:->:k---~-
_------<~-----<~ _-- _----~/-c<- __ _
'-r--------------'
_
-J 0
----------
-~-~----- ----
-- '
_ _ /_--------___
__x--------x--------~
--
"
Xc--=---::---:-----7<
-
--:c __ -c-~---.
~~~-~6:-.:--:c~:-e---- _~--e----.--:-~~::o~ / - -
~
-----
_ _ _ _ _ ________ -_.__:-:--- ______ ------
-
---H- -
c----"'C) -
- -~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-1
2 --'1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
[
I
YEAR
1---
IL - --t-- IN
0-
KY
-8-
MI -*- OH I
)
)
Enrollment in State Institutions
(FTE per 1000 population)
38 ,36
~
___ ~. _~~__~__-:::=r---
~_-'T-~---8-
- - - - - - --
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ -~:
34 -+ - - - - -
~32
~~~.~~
Z
- - - - - - - . ~~~~
w
o 30
~ >r/~
~ ~ ~ ~~/~""------~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~:-:./_ _~~_
~~ ~
H
~-
::J
~
I(f)
28
.
-K___
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~/-/
~
- -- •
-x _
~~~~~
-
~--~
. /_/T~~>->-
-.--; -cc'-¥-_··
.-/----/y/--
>_x-c//':;;:---7
,-
~
-~~-------------------.--
26
24
~
22
I
- - - - - - - - -I
--~---.
I
-
I
i
I
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1989-90
1991-92
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
YEAR
t-- IL
--+---
IN-e-- KY· -B- MI
~ OH-j
)
)
)
State Institution Participation Ratio
(FTE per high school graduate)
4~1-----------------------------------------
3.5
~
- - ----0
-:::::.:::-----
~
z
w
o
3·
___
----1-~----
:::::>
~2.5 ~-----
--< ~~
_
-t:::J..-
~
2 - - ---- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.5
I
I
I
I
I
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
YEAR
l~-IL-- -+- IN --e- KY
-a--
MI ~ 08]
)
)
)
Tax Effort Versus
Student Participation Ratio
106 --,
-
104
~
LJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
o-;!!.
-102
....
a:
o
LL
LL
100
W
X
~
....
98-
•
w
!;;(
....
Cf)
o
- - - x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
96
94
-;-
92
·~I----------~------
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
[~IL
----t-----
IN ---e- KY
--Er-
MI
~
OH-j
3.8
)
)
Tax Effort Versus
Student Enrollment
106
I
104
~
-
L...
---------
-------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
.o~
-102
....
a:
o
u..
u.. 100
w
X
«
....
98
•
w
....en~
o
- - -x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
96
94
~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
92
--
~---------------r---
32
33
34
35
36
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
1----- IL
------+-
IN _ -::- KY
-B--
MI_____ )( OH
1
- - - -- I
37
)
)
)
Tax Capacity per Capita Versus
Student Participation Ratio
2300
->-
.
1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --------------~
- 2200j
<h
0«
2100
-----
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~.
I
I
a.
:
<3 2000 i
~
....
o
- -x
+
w 1900
~cl
....
1800 I - - - - - -
C/)
1700 I
2.8
~
3
3.2
3.4
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
[ --- IL
~
IN
-&-
KY
-B-
MI
~
3.6
OH J
3.8
)
)
)
Tax Capacity per Capita Versus
Student Enrollment
2300 -,--,------~
--
_2200
->-
fJ7
~ 2100
«
a..
C3 2000
_x __ _
~
I~
+
1900
«
I-
en 1800
o
1700+1--------~--------~--------~--------~-----
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
1---
IL
-+-
IN
--B-
KY
-B-
MI
36
--*--oI=lJ
37
)
)
)
Tax Revenue per Capita Versus
Student Participation Ratio
2200
•
o
--=>
y;2100
w
Z
~ 2000
w
a::
x
><
~ 1900
w
~
en 1BOO
I-
J
- - - -
- -t- -
o
1700
+I----------~--------~--------------------~---
2.B
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
1---
IL
-+- IN ---e- KY ----B- MI
~
OH
I
3.B
)
)
)
Tax Revenue per Capita Versus
Student Enrollment
2200 -,------------------
•
1--
--
~2100
W
:::J
Z
~ 2000
w
a:
x
><
~ 1900
w
.-en~ 1800
--1
+ -
o
1700
+--------~----------~--------~---------
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
[--- IL
-+-
IN --e- KY
-B-
MI
~
36
Ofil
37
)
)
State Appropriation per FTE Versus
Student Participation Ratio
4400~----------------------------------------
-----~
o
;;;4200
-oz
•
+
r- 4000
a:
a..
03800
a:
a..
a..
~ 3600
«
r-
~
en
3400
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - -
-
o
x
3200
+1- - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - -
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
1---
IL
-t-
IN -e- KY --a- MI
~
OH
I
3.8
)
)
)
State Appropriation per FTE Versus
Student Enrollment
4400 --,-,- - - - -
y;4200
-z
~ 4000
•
+
«
c::
~
3800
c::
a..
a..
«w 3600
~ ---------
r-
~ 3400
(J)
3200
I
- - - - - - -
0 - - - ------------r-~-
I
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
1----- IL
-(- IN ---e- KY
-B-
MI
~
36
OH
I
37
)
)
)
Appropriation as a Percent of Revenue
Versus Student Participation Ratio
~9.S
-w
o
::>
zw
o
9 ------------
>
~ 8.5
---t - - - - -- - - - - - -+-
X
~ 8
o
l-
e..:
0..
7.5
o
<l::
u.
o
IZ
~
7 -, - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
6.5 --. -
a:
w
0..
•
x
6
I
2.8
l~-------------~,__
3
-------------,---~---
3.2
3.4
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
1----- IL
-+- IN
-e-
KY
--B--
MI
~
OH
3.6
1
3.8
)
)
)
Appropriation as a Percent of Revenue
Versus Student Enrollment
~9.5
--
T'---------------------------------------------------
o
w
~
w
9
>
~ 8.5
+-
x
~ 8
o
Ia.: 7.5
a..
<
~
o
7
I-
Z
~
6.5
•
a:
w
a..
6
-+-1-
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
[~IL
-+- IN
-e- KY --a-- MI
~
36
OH I
37
)
)
Net Tuition per Student Versus
Student Participation Ratio
3500 - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-
--
fh
rz 3000
~
LJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
w
o
- - - - - - - -
x
tJ:::> 2500
J __________
-t-
a:
w
a..
~
2000
r
r
r 1500
-------
:::>
w
~
o
-----------
z
1000
•
+-1- - - - - - - , - - - -
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
l_
~_ _I L
-t---
IN
---e--
KY
-B--
MI
~. 0Hl
3.8
)
)
)
Net Tuition per Student Versus
Student Enrollment
3500 '-'- - - - - - - -
--z
{ fl
I - 3000 - - - - - - .
w
::>
-
LJ
- - - -
~
-
x
o
til 2500
[+
c::
a..
w
5 2000
-------
-------
I-
::>
II- 1500
0
w
--- ----------.
z
1000
•
-+-1--
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
t-- IL--~ IN
--e--
KY
-B--
36
MI ~ OH-,
37
)
)
Tuition as Percent of Total Expense
Versus Student Participation Ratio
50
-r---------
z
o
x
I- 45
::::>
I-
+
---.J
0..- 40
a..
~
-- - -- --
«
u.
o
35
+
-~-
cfi
o
«
(/) 30
«
z
o
I- 25
::::>
•
I-
20
-+-1----
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
[~- IL
-r-
IN
-8-
KY
-B-
MI
~-OHJ
3.8
)
)
)
Tuition as a Percent of Total
Expenditure Versus Student Enrollment
50
e45
~
I-
+
a.: 40
«
LL
a..
r""~"""""
~
- - - - - - - - - - -
-
-"
L~
1+
.
035 J""""
eft.
«
(/) 30
«
o
z
o
I-
25
~
I-
•
20 ""~-~----"------
32
33
34
.. -
35
36
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
1---
IL
-+-
IN -e- Ky-a- MI
~
OH
j
j
37
)
)
)
Tuition as Percent of PDI Versus
Student Participation Ratio
w
~ 18
o
U
z
~
T
~
x
~ 16
m
- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - -
i
~
CJ)
~
o
14
CJ)
~ 12
z
o
CJ)
o
a: 10
a..
- - - - - - - -
w
LL
o
8 - - --
z
r
w
U
a:
~
._
6 I
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
FTE PER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
1---- IL
----+---
IN
-e--
KY
-B--
MI
~-OH]
3.6
3.8
)
)
)
Tuition as a Percent of PDI Versus
Student Enrollment
w
~
018
u
z
~---X
I
w
_
..J 1 E5 -t ~- - - - - - -
co
«
(J)
~ 14 ~ - - (J)
o
~ 12
z
o(J)
o
a::10~-----
w
a..
LL
o
8
~
E5
I
--
tW
Z
u
a::
w
a..
•
32
33
34
35
FTE PER 1000 POPULATION
I~
IL
-t-
IN --e- KY -a-- MI
--7(--
3E5
OHJ
37
)
)
)
Tax Effort Versus
Academic Reputation
106 --,--,~~~~~~-~~~-
D
104
--102
-o::!!..
lcc
,
o
I
I
u.
u. 100
w
S
98
•
w
~ 96
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
o
~~~~x~~~~~~~
I(J)
94
~t ~
. .
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.. .
~
+
92
20
30
40
50
60
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
[=.- IL
-+--
IN
--8-
KY
-EJ-
MI
~
OH
I
80
)
)
Tax Capacity per Capita Versus
Academic Reputation
2300
---~,
.
I
_2200
-->-
{;/)-
-
_.
~ 2100
«
a..
«
U 2000
X
«......
D
- - - - - - _. . . x.
i··
I
+
w 1900 - - - - - - .... - .
~
en
......
1800
. (J
1700 -+20
~~~---'---~-~--'-~~~-,--~~~----r-
30
- - -
40
50
60
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
1--- IL~IN---e-
KY
-a--MI-~ OHJ
80
)
)
)
Tax Revenue per Capita Versus
Academic Reputation
2200 ,-----,-
•
o
--
y;2100
w
:::>
z
~
w
a:
2000
x
x
~ 1900
w
~
J(J)
_-t:
1800
__ _ _ _
_ ________________________ _
o
1700
I
20
,
30
40
50
60
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
1---
IL
-+- IN
-e- KY -a-- MI
~
OH
I
80
)
)
)
State Appropriation per FTE Versus
Academic Reputation
4400
,------~
LJ
fii4200
--z
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
•
~ 4000 ~ ............................ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - .
T-
<
a:
a..
o
3800
a:
~
------. -.
a..
a..
< 3600 ~ - - _..
w
~
...... 3400
en
"1 - - .
- - -- - - - - -- . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - -
-
.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
.
-
0.
x
3200+1--------~------~------~--------~------~------~
20
30
40
50
60
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
1----- IL
--+--
IN -e- KY
--E!-
MI
-~
OH
1
80
)
)
)
Appropriation as a Percent of Revenue
Versus Academic Reputation
~9.S
-o
W
:::>
Z
o
9
______
---------------------
~-
_ ___ _
W
>
~ 8.5
--t - - - - - - - - -+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
8
o
r- 7.5
a.:
a..
«
~
- - - - - - - -----
~
~
~
___ _
c
r-
-----
------
-----
7
z 6.5
w
-----
----
- - - __
---------------
•
x
I
6 l,--------,--------,--------;-------~------_,-----30
40
50
60
70
20
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
u
1 ___
IL ---+- IN
---8---
KY
-B---
MI ~ OH-I
80
)
)
)
Net Tuition per Student Versus
Academic Reputation
3500
I
•
-~30001
~1 ................. .
tn 2500
::J
I
-----
........
- - - - - - -
c
x
I
CC
W
a..
i
5 2000 L
Itu 1500
I-
::J
o
z
1000
•
+I--------~------~--------~------~------~------~
20
30
40
50
60
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
1---
IL
--+-
IN
-B-
KY
--B-
MI
~
OH
l
80
)
)
Tuition as a Percent of Total Expense
Versus Academic Reputation
50
z
0
t- 45
:::>
t-
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
-
- - - -
-
-
- - - - -
x
D
+
a.: 40
«
+
a..
u..
035
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
- -
- -
- - - - - - - - - - -
~
0
o
«
(/) 30
«
z
0
t- 25
:::>
t-
•
20
20
30
40
60
50
70
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
[~IL
-+---
IN --e- KY
--B-
MI
~
OH I
80
)
)
)
Tuition as a Percent of PDI Versus
Academic Reputation
w
~
o
U
18
---- - ----i
0
Z
:
x
~ 16
- - - - - - - - -+-
m
------------------
-
I
- - - - - --!
------------
1
<
I
I
00
~ 14
'
00
o
~ 12
Z
o
o
00
a: 10
w
a..
LL
o
r-
8
~
6
I
- --
- -
- -
- - - -
Z
w
U
a:
w
a..
20
-
---1-
30
40
50
60
STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC REPUTATION
r---- IL
-t-
IN -e- Ky-a----- M I
~~
---
70
~
80
1.1
Table
---"
National Universities
ILLINOIS
University of Illinois - Champaign
Univerisity of Illinois - Chicago
Southern Illinois University - Carbondale
131
IL state average
75.3
INDIANA
Indiana University
Purdue University
IN state average
_
Reputation
16
79
26
31
28.5
KENTUCKY
University of Kentucky
79
KY state average
79
MICHIGAN
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Michigan State University
Wayne State University
7
41
131
MI state average
59.7
OHIO
The Ohio State University
University of Cincinnati
31
102
OH state average
66.5