Thursday, March 23, 1995
Academic imbalance
Ridge would boost tilt of financial aid to
wealthier students at private colleges
There has long been a tug-of-war
between Pennsylvania's public and
private institutions of higher
learning for the hearts and minds of
governors and state lawmakers.
For some time now, that is a
battle that the influential private
colleges and universities have been
winning, mostly by default, but
perhaps soon by design.
The political aspects of this battle
are shaped to a considerable degree
by an oddity of Pennsylvania
politics - recent governors,
including the current one, Tom
Ridge, are all products of private,
out-of-state institutions. In other
states, that singular distinction
would be a political liability; in
Pennsylvania it seems to be an
advantage.
• The state thus has had a series of
governors who have been
unfamiliar with, if not downright
unsympathetic to, public higher
education, which consists of the 14-
campus State System of Higher
Education and the four state-related
institutions; Penn State, Temple,
Pitt and Lincoln.
And perhaps no recent governor
has been less sympathetic than
Harvard-educated Ridge, who told
a gathering of editorial writers last
week that the state has an obligation
maintain the infrastructure of the
state schools, but that the bulk of
dollars for higher education should
be directed by the students
themselves by choices they make in
selecting which universities and
colleges to attend.
This sounds deceptively simple
and fair, except that the end result is
to eliminate the choice most other
states offer -- an affordable
education at a public university.
Pennsylvania ranks second only to
Vermont in the country in charging
the highest tuition rates at public
universities. Student of this state
have a choice between attending a
high-priced private university or a
high-priced public university.
Making matters worse is that
Ridge is making decisions about
funding higher education on the
basis of an erroneous assumption.
That assumption, which he voiced
at his meeting with editorial writers
and which has been bandied about
by officials of private institutions,
essentially is this: Students from
wealthier families now predominate
at public universities, while poorer
students are attending private
universities.
This would mean, if it were true,
that tax-supported public
institutions are serving the people
who can best afford a college
education, while the privates are
catering to the needs of those who
can least afford to go to college.
Figures complied by the
Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency for students
attending college this year,
however, appear to contradict this
notion. The average family income
of students attending private
institutions and receiving state
grants is $34,800, according to
PHEAA, compared to $26,500 for
grant students attending the State
System and $27,600 for grant
students at state-related universities.
And that's not all. Students
attending private institutions
received 40.8 percent of the state
grants provided through PHEAA in
1993-94, compared to 16.6 percent
for State System students and 25.4
percent of state-related students.
And their grants were higher, with
an average of $2,137 going to
students at private universities,
compared to $1,399 for State
System students and $1,711 for
students at state-related institutions.
It is these grants that Ridge
proposes to provide to a additional
10,000 students, bringing the total
162,000 grants next year. We
don't have any problem with this,
except for the fact that the public
institutions are being asked to hold
the line on tuition increases to 4.5
0 i lEd
percent to qualify for an additional
$lOO in state funding per student,
half of the incentive they received
last year. In addition, Ridge would
provide the State System with no
funds to address a long list of
physical deficiencies in facilities on
the 14 campuses, the same
infrastructure for which Ridge says
he sees a state responsibility.
Despite the increase in student
grants, the real consequence of the
Ridge higher-education strategy is
to further burden students from
working-class families with huge
amounts of debt to attend college.
Meanwhile, the State System is
shrinking in enrollment, turning
away thousands of qualified
students, even as the state enters
what is expected to be a long phase
of rising demand for a college
education.
Somehow we manage to find
huge sums for the permanent care
of the comonwealth's most odious
citizens, but for some unexplained
reason there is never enough to do a
decent job of providing affordable
public universities for those who
want to better themselves through
education.
The governor's call for creating
economic opportunity in
Pennsylvania doesn't quite resonate
the way it should when he proposes
to continue the practice of strapping
public higher education for funds.
Reprinted with permission
from The Patriot-News,
Harrisburg, PA
The Collegian
encourages
Letters to the
Editor on news
coverage,
editorial content,
current issues
and Un
affairs.
letters
should
be
typed
and
signed
by no
more than two
people and can
be mailed to The
Collegian office
addressed to the
Editors.
." 1'4 * 4 :21 . 10
timmbq
Pa:e 5
Aiiiiiin.•
, ,•./,.. •
:.
4111001,0 : : : ::
Zoor'''..f '''' ' . •40.•••••