Welcome to Salisbury University!
Special Committee on Higher
Education Affordability and
Accessibility
December 1, 2003
President Janet Dudley-Eshbach
1
“Maryland has established a method for comparing
State general fund support for our public four-year
institutions with State support at our peer
institutions across the country—the funding
guidelines developed by MHEC. Currently, it is
estimated that USM institutions are at 64% of the
funding guidelines—in other words, we are funded
at 64% or our goal (which is the 75th percentile of
peers for most USM institutions) for State support
when compared to our peer institutions.”
(Chairman of the USM Board of Regents, Clifford M. Kendall)
22
Salisbury University Performance Peers
FY 2002 State Appropriation per FTES
$12,000
$10,000
$10,713
$8,838
$8,000
$8,616
$6,924
$6,000
$6,715
$5,616
$5,063
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Humboldt State
U.
Massachusetts, Sonoma State U.
U. of Dartmouth
Northern
Michigan U.
Avg. of All
Performance
Peers
North Carolina,
U. of Wilmington
Salisbury U.
33
Salisbury University is today funded at
lower levels than in the early 1990s
$5,000
$4,000
$4,333
$4,148
$3,000
$2,970
$2,000
$1,000
$-
State Appropriation per FTES
FY 1990
$4,333
FY 2004
$4,148
FY '04 adjusted for inflation
(1990 dollars)
$2,970
Salisbury
University
44
Salisbury University
How we have addressed the cuts over
the past two years:
Total $9,367,144
55
Positions Lost:
1. USM: 600 positions eliminated (including
many that were vacant).
2. SU: 60 positions eliminated.
Tuition Increases:
1. USM: Tuition increases constituted
$75 million of a $200 million deficit.
2. SU: Tuition increases made up 39% of the
total $9,367,144 lost to SU in State
appropriations.
66
According to MHEC statistics,
Maryland’s public tuition increases
have not been out-of-line with what is
happening nationally: The average
increase in Maryland over the past
two years was $1,064; nationally the
average increase was $950.
77
Average Increase in Annual Full-Time
Tuition & Fees Since Fall 2002
$1,600
Note: Approval for across-the-board
tuition increases of a certain
percentage do not allow the
institutions who have lower tuitions to
“catch up” to other publics.
$1,400
$1,360
$1,284
$1,200
$1,120
$1,000
$1,064
$950
$930
$918
$918
$800
$897
$894
$701
$600
$555
$400
$200
Co
pp
in
UM
ES
Fr
os
tb
ur
g
Sa
lis
bu
ry
ie
Bo
w
so
n
To
w
's
St
M
ar
y
vg
vg
Na
tio
na
lA
A
M
D
UM
BC
UB
UM
CP
$-
88
KEY POINTS:
1. Maryland ranks 42nd among all states in support
provided for public higher education per capita.
This is why Maryland is a high tuition state.
2. Maryland ranks 4th among all states in per capita
income. We are not a poor state, yet we are starving our
public higher education system.
3. Many states are spending more on education than in past
years, but there are far more students being served.
Per student funding has fallen in Maryland.
4. Cuts in State appropriations are a key factor in rising
costs passed on to students.
99
Salisbury University
Source of Revenue per FTES
$7,000
Tuition & Fees per FTES
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
MD General Funds per FTES
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$-
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
MD Gener al Funds
$3,253
$3,315
$3,376
$3,961
$4,333
$4,121
$3,550
$3,692
$3,801
$3,971
$4,067
$4,139
$4,261
$4,393
$4,769
$5,126
$5,185
$4,645
$4,148
$4,148
Tuit ion & Fees
$1,542
$1,632
$1,744
$1,842
$1,946
$2,124
$2,448
$2,755
$3,070
$3,226
$3,413
$3,613
$3,921
$4,040
$4,189
$4,320
$4,467
$5,164
$5,596
$6,069
10
10
When looking at tuition increases, it is important
also to consider fees and fee increases.
While some institutions raised both last year, SU
held the line on student fees because of the
significant increase in tuition.
When the two (tuition and fees) are combined, the
total increase was 15.8% (not nearly as high as the
22% tuition increase would suggest).
11
11
Maryland Public 4-Year Institutions
Annual Full-Time In-State Tuition and Fees
$9,000
$8,740
$8,000
$7,388
$7,000
$6,759
$6,226
$6,000
$5,913
$5,564
$5,342
$5,000
$5,105
$4,853
$4,240
$4,000
St Mary's
UMBC
UMCP
Tow son
UB
Salisbury
Frostburg
UMES
Bow ie
Coppin
12
12
ni
ve
rs
i ty
ni
ve
rs
i ty
of
E
P
TU
D
M
C
Lo
ng
of
wo
VA
od
U
M
ni
i ll
ve
er
rs
sv
i ty
i ll
Sh
e
ip
U
pe
ni
ve
ns
rs
bu
i ty
rg
U
ni
Sa
ve
l is
rs
bu
i ty
ry
U
ni
ve
rs
U
N
ity
C
-W
il m
Ap
in
pa
gt
on
la
ch
ia
n
St
at
e
U
U
$2,811
$3,311
$2,000
$5,564
$5,746
$5,819
$5,877
$4,000
$5,964
$6,226
$6,498
$6,759
$7,388
$6,000
U
M
BC
$8,206
$8,740
$24,450
$24,800
$29,230
$8,000
U
H
W
op
as
ki
hi
ns
ng
to
n
C
ol
le
ge
G
ou
ch
er
C
S
ol
t.
le
M
ge
ar
y's
of
N
ew
Je
rs
ey
Jo
hn
s
Select Universities
2003-04 Annual In-State Tuition & Fees
$10,000
On average, public universities in North Carolina
receive state appropriations per student that are
150-200% that of comparable peers.
$-
13
13
Increases in financial aid have helped offset tuition increases.
According to reports issued by the College Board, the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges:
“Over the past 10 years, grant aid has increased at a rate that
surpasses that of tuition prices at both private and public four-year
colleges. In constant 2002 dollars, grant aid has grown by 85% since
the ’92-93 academic year, while tuition at public four-year colleges has
jumped 37.9%, and tuition at private four-year colleges has risen
39.2%.”
(Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 31, 2003)
Funding in dollars/ student
Comparison of Average Institutional Financial Aid
Awards for Five USM Institutions 1996-2000
$2,000
$1,569
$1,500
$1,000
$1,212
$1,899
$1,223
$731
$500
$0
SU
TU
TotalFSU
funds/student
UMCP
UMBC
14
14
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
$2,000
$1,500
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
ow
ie
C
op
pi
Fr
os n
tb
ur
g
Sa
l is
bu
r
To y
w
so
n
U
M
B
C
U
M
C
P
U
M
ES
M
or
ga
St
n
.M
ar
y'
s
$0
$2,010
$2,353
$1,669
$1,650
$2,171
$1,388
$828
$1,024
$1,124
$500
$886
$1,000
B
Average Dollars Awarded
$2,500
Ratio
Scholarships Awarded at Maryland Public
Institutions - Fall 1999
Average aw ard per FT undergrad
Ratio of unduplicated scholarships aw arded per FT undergrads
15
15
Percentage of Loans in all Funds Awarded
Among Select Maryland Publics - FY 2000
61%
53%
wi
e
53%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bo
in
pp
Co
rg
tb
u
Fr
os
lis
b
Sa
ws
on
ur
y
50%
To
56%
74%
64%
UM
BC
52%
UM
ES
n
M
or
ga
St
.M
ar
y' s
49%
UM
CP
62%
16
16
Funding decisions to date have supported the
research mission of Maryland’s public universities,
but have not helped to build capacity for
undergraduate student education.
USM Appropriation per FTES: FY 2004
$11,338
$12,000
$4,276
$4,148
$5,005
$5,553
$6,273
$6,360
$4,000
$6,482
$7,111
$8,000
TU
SU
$UMCP UMBC
UB
UMES CSC
FSU
BSU
17
17
USM: FY 2004 Appropriation per Student
And In-State Tuition and Fees
$20,000
$15,000
$6,759
$18,097
$14,499
$12,395
$10,502
BSU
$5,564
$6,226
$4,148
FSU
$9,712
$4,276
CSC
$5,005
$6,273
UMES
$5,553
$6,360
UB
$4,853
$5,342
$4,240
$5,105
$9,858
$6,482
$7,111
$5,000
$10,895
$11,338
$10,000
$10,513
$5,913
$7,388
$11,465
TU
SU
$UMCP
UMBC
FY 2004 App/FTES
In-State Tuition & Fees
18
18
Enrollment Growth and the Need
To Increase Capacity:
By 2010 there will be an increase in higher
education enrollments
of 22% to 31%.
(MHEC, USM & MACC data)
19
19
Salisbury University
Number of Freshman Applicants vs. Number of
Freshman Enrollments; Mean SAT of New Freshmen
6,000
1,140
5,549
5,298
5,000
4
13
1,
4,978
Number of Students
4,501
4,466
4,000
3,000
1,135
1,130
6
12
1,
4
12
1,
1,125
M
1
12
1,
2,000
n
ea
T
SA
1,120
8
11
1,
1,000
1,115
870
934
942
900
951
Fall 1999
Fall 2000
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
0
1,110
Applied
Enrolled
Mean SAT
20
20
Transfer Issues:
Approximately 40% of the degrees we award at SU
go to transfer students.
If SU cannot create more capacity for freshmen
students, increasingly we will become a transfer,
upper-division institution.
Three-fourths of transfers to SU are from
community colleges.
(Of these, only 4% hold an associate’s degree.)
21
21
Efficiency Measure: Appropriation per Student vs.
Graduation Rates
To meet undergraduate enrollment growth and build capacity in a time of
constrained State funding support, resources should be directed to those
institutions that offer the greatest “bang for the buck,” those that require a lower
funding per FTES and yet have high graduation rates.
22
22
Attempts to Respond to Critical Workforce Needs
Off-Campus:
Teacher Education:
In Fall 1999 SU had 1,147 students majoring in education.
In Fall 2003 we have 1,176 students majoring in education.
Nursing:
In Fall 1999 SU had 221 students majoring in nursing.
In Fall 2003 we have 369 students majoring in nursing.
On-Campus:
• The retention of faculty and staff (and, yes, administrators!) is a major issue at
SU and other resource-starved campuses.
• We are losing competitiveness after three years without salary increases. The
private colleges and universities have not had this constraint!
• The best way to increase one’s salary is to find a job elsewhere. We are
experiencing “brain drain” as people in high demand move out of Maryland.
23
23
Recommendations
24
24
Recommendation # 1:
Commit to adequate and more predictable (multi-year
allocations?) State funding support for Maryland’s public
colleges and universities.
Recommendation # 2:
Apply the funding formula equitably.
Recommendation # 3:
Reward institutions that show high performance in terms of
graduation rates and other measures.
25
25
Recommendation # 4:
Continue to support the capital needs of those institutions that
can demonstrate their efficiency and effectiveness.
Recommendation # 5:
Authorize and encourage growth at those institutions that give more
bang for the buck. Over time, redistribute enrollments and
State funds to the comprehensive public universities.
Currently, some public institutions subsidize others, and not in a
way that promotes access and affordability.
Recommendation # 6:
Determine the role of Maryland’s research institutions: They are more
expensive to operate and do not meet burgeoning undergraduate
demand in the most cost-effective way.
26
26
Recommendation # 7:
Since the political reality is that not all USM institutions are
funded at the same level of the funding guideline, allow
institutions increased flexibility to set tuition rates based on:
• student demand
• State support per FTES
• mission
• performance
• marketing strategies
Recommendation # 8:
Do not impose tuition caps unless and until
• the funding guideline is applied as a formula and not used selectively
• limits on tuition increases are tied to guaranteed and adequate State
appropriations.
27
27
Recommendation # 9:
The State of Maryland generously supports private colleges and
universities with State taxpayer dollars. At a time of declining
State support, should these funds not instead go to public
colleges and universities?
As Maryland’s publics raise tuition to offset cutbacks in State
appropriations, our publics are becoming more “private.”
Should Maryland’s citizens not expect to have affordable access
to their public institutions of higher education?
28
28
Thank you for your
on-going commitment to
Maryland’s public
colleges and universities.
29
29