Sponsored by Energy Trust

First person: PSU's dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Marvin Kaiser

| Print |  Email
Archives - October 2006
Sunday, October 01, 2006

{safe_alt_text}An investment lesson

Look to Colorado to see what impact Measure 48 could have on Oregon’s higher education.

By Marvin Kaiser

Over the past decade I have watched public higher education, a key ingredient to the successful future of our state, fall victim to disinvestment. And now Oregon faces yet another crossroads — the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), on the ballot in November as Measure 48. It seeks to limit state spending to the percentage increase of population growth, plus inflation. As we enter the political debate over TABOR, an understanding of its implications for higher education is our shared responsibility.

Let me begin with a picture of higher education in Oregon. One view is of hope and accomplishment. In 2006 alone, Oregon University System (OUS) institutions served nearly 80,000 students. This is in addition to the nearly 86,000 students served in community colleges and another 33,000 in Oregon’s private colleges. In 2005, OUS institutions received more than $280 million in grants and contracts, mostly from federal agencies, for cutting-edge research, creative work and outreach, an amount nearly equal to what OUS annually gets in state support. OUS universities, with an annual payroll of more than $746 million, is one of the state’s major business enterprises. Oregon universities have entered into partnered initiatives in support of economic development through Manufacturing 21, ONAMI, ETIC, and the PSU Business Accelerator, among others. At an institutional level, OHSU continues to be among Portland’s largest employers. In 2005, Portland State University’s economic impact on the region was estimated at more than $1 billion.

But while highly productive and efficient, OUS institutions are in a precarious state. At the most basic level, the state is failing to invest in higher education. Oregon ranks 46th in the United States in its funding per student at public colleges and universities. To compensate for this disinvestment in higher education, students now pay two-thirds of the cost of their education; 10 years ago they paid about one-third. Oregon received in 2002 and 2004 an “F” in overall college affordability from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and ranked 46th in the country in the ability of families to pay the cost of a college education. Faculty salaries on six of the seven OUS campuses rank last among their respective peer institutions. Investment in faculty is the key to a developing a major competitive edge in research activity and grant support that flows into our institutions.

As an academic, I look to lessons learned to frame the present debate: our neighbors in Colorado. Colorado adopted its TABOR in 1992 and voted in 2005 to suspend it for five years. What happened to higher education between 1992 and 2005 is variously described by the Bell Policy Center of Denver as “a state of crisis” to a system “at the breaking point.” The center found, among others things, that:

  • Colorado’s state general fund appropriations for higher education reached its lowest level in 20 years — a decrease of 21.3% over four years.

  • In 2004-2005, Colorado suffered the largest decrease in general fund appropriations for higher ed in the nation.

  • Colorado ranks 48th in the nation in state tax funds devoted to higher education per $1,000 of personal income — the lowest level of state investment in over 40 years.

  • In the past two years, funding for need-based grant aid programs that serve the vast majority of low-income students in Colorado has been cut by 13%, reducing funding for almost 10,000 students.

  • Since 2003, the University of Colorado-Boulder has closed six academic departments and has lost more than 280 faculty and staff. Colorado State University over the last two years lost 54 faculty positions because of budget cuts.

Why should we care what happened in Colorado? One might argue that times are tight and we cannot afford the luxury of adequate support for most public services, including higher education. But the evidence raises questions about this conclusion. Seattle and the Silicon Valley make explicit the connection between a region’s economic health and a vital higher education system that produces an educated and creative citizenry.

Oregon has a proud heritage of taking on challenges and opportunities. This heritage has set us apart. Being 46th in state support, having an “F” in affordability and being last in faculty salaries is an affront to that heritage.

If Oregon has a stake in a creative and knowledge-based world, we must invest in an educated, creative class that is nurtured by robust higher-education institutions. The informed choices we make now will determine our future.  Will we invest or not?

Marvin Kaiser is dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and professor of sociology at Portland State University.


Have an opinion? E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

More Articles

Water World

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY KIM MOORE

Fred Ziari aims to feed the global population.


Read more...

Kill the Meeting

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY AMY MILSHTEIN

Meetings get a bad rap. A few local companies make them count.


Read more...

Shuffling the Deck

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY JON BELL

Oregon tribes still bet on casinos.


Read more...

Fly Zone

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY JOE ROJAS-BURKE

The black soldier fly’s larvae are among the most ravenous and least picky eaters on earth.


Read more...

The short list: 5 hot coffee shops for entrepreneurs

Contributed Blogs
Friday, November 14, 2014

CupojoeBY JESSICA RIDGWAY

Oregon entrepreneurs reveal their favorite caffeine hangouts.


Read more...

Editor's Letter: Power Play

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

There’s a fascinating article in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review about a profound power shift taking place in business and society. It’s a long read, but the gist revolves around the tension between “old power” and “new power” as a driver of transformation. Here’s an excerpt:

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The authors, Henry Timms and Jeremy Heimans, don’t necessarily favor one form of power over another but merely outline how power is transitioning, and how companies can take advantage of these changes to strengthen their positions in the marketplace. 

Our Powerbook issue might be viewed as a case study in the new-power transition. This annual book of lists provides information on leading businesses, nonprofits and universities in the state. Most of the featured companies are entrenched power players now pursuing more flexible and less hierarchical approaches to doing business. Law firms, for example, are adopting new technologies and fee structures to make legal services more accessible and affordable.

This month we also take a look at a controversial new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose the median pay of workers, as well as the ratio between CEO and median-worker pay. 

Part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the rule will compel public companies to be more open about employee compensation, with the assumption that greater transparency will improve corporate performance and, perhaps, help address one of the major challenges of our time: income inequality.

New power is not only about strategy and tactics, the Harvard Business Review authors say. “The ultimate questions are ethical. The big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems.”

That sounds like a call to arms. Or a New Year’s resolution. Old power or new, the goals are the same: to be a force for positive change in the world. Happy 2015!

— Linda


Read more...

Legislative Preview: A Shifting Balance

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014
BY APRIL STREETER

Democratic gains pave the way for a revival of environment and labor bills as revenue reform languishes.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS