Murchison supports Perry higher ed reforms
Bill Murchison published this column on Dallas Blog. I am publishing it, with my responses, because Murchison attacks my own writings on the subject as well as making a gratuitous personal allusion. In an earlier version of this post, I erroneously identified Mr. Murchison as a columnist for the Dallas Morning News, based on information in his online biography. Mr. Murchison has not been associated with the paper for ten years and now writes for Dallas Blog and other web sites. I regret publishing the error.
A media storm over the future of the University of Texas – the academic, not the football part – abated last week after a day or two: leaving puddles all over the ground, nonetheless, and significant questions strewn about, such as, who says UT couldn’t stand some reforming?
The UT establishment says it couldn’t, that’s who; together with Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka and likeminded defenders of the modern academic commitment to research. The fear among these folk is that Gov. Rick Perry has declared ideological war on UT in the name of accountability and efficiency. Why – gasp! – the man wants teachers to teach more. He and his cronies on the board of regents suspect the academic product is becoming unaffordable for many Texans. Why not a cheaper alternative?, he inquires innocently. “[T]he moneychangers are in the temple, and there is no getting them out,” Burka warns, with a face – I presume – like Bernie Madoff at a parole hearing.
–It is not my intention to revisit the points I made in my column on this subject, “The Old College Try,” which was posted on the TEXAS MONTHLY Web site and appears in the April issue of TEXAS MONTHLY. My belief is that Texas has two flagship universities of national class, and that those who think that UT and Texas A&M need reforming should reflect on the wisdom of the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
[Murchison resumes] All of which sounds, well, a bit academic to voters who think the university’s main mission consists in keeping the Tower bright orange on autumn Saturday evenings. The issues at stake are basic and urgent, bearing heavily on the state’s economic and cultural competitiveness. A UT ex (BA 1963) speculates that we’re just at the front end of this conversation – assuming it turns out to resemble conversation more than it does a 2 a.m. fray with beer bottles.
The well-groomed, well-educated folk who run modern universities grow testy when told certain things they do might be done better. The Governor has them in this mood, with – in Burka’s words – his “ideological blueprint for how the state’s universities should be governed.” That’s to say, with an eye open for ways of broadening the present high-cost mission.
–I would put it another way. The folk who run modern universities grow testy when politicians threaten to meddle with what they have achieved and attempt to impose ideological preference on their institutions. One of the most harmful of the reform proposals, all of which were developed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, is to separate the teaching and research budgets. To do so is inconsistent with the mission of a modern university. It is a conservative mantra that money spent on research is often wasted. This is why I have described the attack on UT and A&M as ideologically motivated: because it is.
The anointed bogeyman for the Longhorn defense is the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which, as the state’s leading, free market-oriented state policy think tank, has been vetting new ideas about higher education reform. I blush to acknowledge myself as a senior fellow of this estimable outfit. Lest I seem to be shilling for TPPF, I will confine myself to general remarks about higher education and the role of the college teacher. I do think, as it happens, that TPPF is asking the right questions: mainly, are there better ways our two “flagship universities,” Texas A&M being the other one, can do their jobs better? (For really, truly full disclosure I confess that a direct forbear was A&M’s first president.)
–Of course he is shilling for TPPF.
All right, then: the question of cost. UT tuition costs a comparative bundle these days – something like 10 grand a year for residents. I hate to reveal what it was a half century ago – to wit, $50 a semester, plus $40-odd for the “blanket tax” that covered campus events and Daily Texan subscription. Ah, but what about inflation? I checked that. The $50 that tuition cost back then equates to $380.26 today. That leaves $9,619.74 to explain in increased costs. Better teachers today? I wouldn’t be so sure of that. No one living could excel Dr. Thomas Mabry Cranfill as expositor – not to mention actor – of Shakespeare. Walter Prescott Webb was still on the faculty then, even if starting to fade. Frank Dobie had lately retired from the English department. This was fairly high cotton for a state – as the Eastern press often portrayed us – full of cattle rustlers and oilmen encased in grease.
–Yes, there are increased costs. And where did they come from? As public education and health care accounted for more and more of the state budget, the Texas Legislature could no longer afford to fund higher ed. In 2003, the Legislature allowed universities to set their own tuition rates. Governor Perry signed the bill. And now he complains that the cost of education is too high. That outcome became inevitable when he approved tuition deregulation.
A lot of the increased cost today is due to UT’s function as a developer of ideas and new scientific understandings through, inter alia, big salaries and benefits for famous researchers. This is likely a good thing in terms of prestige and distinct contributions to American life. Yet research is hardly a self-justifying enterprise in an academic institution. The cultivating of young minds is the university’s larger function – the exposure of kids to ideas and, yes, hard, dull facts of the sort that get such a bad rap in modern times.
TPPF (without my collaboration, be it duly noted) has developed information and ideas on possible ways of delivering the educational product at less cost while making teachers more accountable for productivity and effectiveness. I feel bound neither to oppose nor support such initiatives. I would instead ask a question:
We’re not to look at ways of improving the product? How come? Where’s the value in assuming anywhere, at any time, it’s not possible to do a better job; that the only direction worth pursuing is the one we’re on at present?
–The question is not whether we should look for ways to improve the product. The question is whether the reforms will improve the product — or harm it? Does anyone think that submitting Texas’s universities to a nonstandard method of accreditation — one of the governor’s major reform proposals — will improve the product? Nothing could be more harmful.
The Governor has made, among other recommendations, one that seems well worth careful examination. It is the creation of a college degree program costing $10,000. Not per-year, as at UT now; for four years, rather. Maybe three. It seems exactly the kind of program a state concerned with educating its burgeoning, not exactly wealthy Hispanic population might want to adopt. How do we know it can’t be done unless we get out of our perpetually defensive crouch on matters academic. Don’t we want at the very least to talk about new ideas, new opportunities?
–Mr. Murchison and I are not far apart here. Texas must stay the course on its “closing the gaps” strategy. We part company, however, when he would impose a mandate of $10,000 degree, while I would urge that the cost of education be reduced by increased funding of academic scholarships.
A common delusion about the Academy is that universities are “liberal.” Ha! The cries of outrage one hears over calls for reassessment of academic mission and means show that the posture of many modern academics would do credit to someone we learned about in UT’s history department way back there – King Louis XIV. Or was it Attila the Hun?
–The cries of outrage are not over calls for reassessment of academic mission. They are over ideologically driven reforms that are unnecessary and untested. If UT and Texas A&M were failing in their missions, it would be appropriate to consider reforms. But they’re not, and it isn’t.
Kimmy says:
I appreciate a whole lot of what William Murchison writes… Still, TPPF often comes up with the right question…. and then propagates some cockamamie policy solution. It’s like they’re actually scared to fully vet a wide range of options/alternatives from a conservative bent. (Marc Levin excepted, of course.)
Like anybody else, I’d like a college degree that (all) families (or I) could afford. Simply put, I don’t think the TPPF reform package gets us there, or anywhere. The problems are there… but the answers don’t address the actual issues.
Reply »
AgProf Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 11:06 am
There are a LOT of places you can get a college degree that a family could afford. Compared to most other states, the tuition at UT and A&M is still MUCH lower than that in Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, New York, and other states with very good state university systems. Tuition at state universities in Texas are a fraction of that at private universities (think Rice, SMU, Southwestern). Texans have a bargain and don’t recognize it.
The problem is everyone feels entitled to the experience (both academic and football) and a degree from a respected Tier 1 universities, while only paying the community college price.
I’m sorry, but several alternatives exist within the UT, A&M, and Texas State University systems that cost much less and are supplemented with taxpayer dollars. Recognize that UT and A&M expose and incorporate students into cutting edge research projects, provide a nationally competitive degree, and provide valuable knowledge to society, while charging a little bit more to ensure excellence.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Republicans deregulated tuition and the state has reduced higher education funding. In this atmosphere the flagship universities raised tuition. What did they expect? No university can afford to offer a 10,000 dollar degree now. There are possibilities for a lower cost college degree for students willing to go to school in the evenings, and not have all of the benefits that students paying full price receive.
Politicians need to let our flagship universities to manage more of their own business. Perry is part of the problem here. Other universities have also raised tuition across the state and this is just another problem Republicans created during a smaller budget crisis than we have now. The budget crisis this year will hurt all levels of education and Republicans need to be held accountable for the damage they are about to inflict.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 9:59 am
At least until this session it is not true that the state “reduced higher education funding” since tuition deregulation.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
Burka couldn’t use his “Like, worst column EVER!” line because he already fired that round.
Reply »
Andrew Birkenheuer says:
Why doesn’t Perry focus his efforts on improving the quality and availability of the satellite campuses in the UT/A&M system? My understanding was that the flagships were going to be the elite research institutions while the satellite campuses were going to be charged with educating the masses.
Reply »
Weary and Wary says:
Has anyone read TPPF’s “research”? I can’t find any evidence of serious research on higher education on their web site. There are a couple of briefs that try measure of productivity of the whole state based on UT. Their analysis is very simplistic and it appears that the TPPF’s donors are not getting much for their money.
Reply »
Bill White's Invisible Hair Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
TPPF’s idea of doing research is lifting charts and graphs from stuff the Heritage Foundation or CATO published six months earlier. That’s what happens when your fellows consist of a room full of people with BAs in political science.
Reply »
They Don't Get It Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Yes, and those Poli Sci BA’s can’t read a financial statement and don’t have a clue about how a university operates or how research gets funded. TPPF’s policy recommendations suggest they believe student tuition and fees represent the sole revenue stream coming in to an institution of higher education. The fact is most research brings revenue IN to the institution to cover the cost of a researcher’s salary and benefits, among other things. This fact can be readily substantiated by a brief examination of the revenue section of UT or A&M’s financial statements. It’s right there, under “Sponsored Programs”.
Problems also exist with TPPF’s stance on accreditation, mostly with who makes a profit from an alternative, and presumably less rigorous accreditation process. A discussion for another day.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I guess what comes around goes around: Burka picks on a columnist yesterday for a couple small West Texas markets, and then he finds his own words burned in effigy by another columnist. I see some karma here.
Reply »
ATTICUS says:
The URL to the Murchison column doesn’t work…
Reply »
Tim says:
Ah. I found the document. TPFF is trying to destroy UT and A&M to open up the door for poor quality for-profit universities.
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2007-10-PB31-CHE-odonnell.pdf
Pretty fantastically logic in there too:
“the most likely explanation for the state’s lack of enrollment in for-profit, degree-granting institutions is the many regulatory barriers such institutions must surmount in order
to receive approval to operate in Texas”
I’m sure it’s not the general disgust the general public has with profiteering in education.
Reply »
anita says:
If TPPF really cared about the rising cost of college tuition, we’ve they been for the last 8 years?
Over the last 8 years, how many columns has William Murchison written critical of the Governor and his appointees for the rising cost of tuition?
Let’s be honest here — this has nothing to do with rising tuition costs and its impacts on students and families.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
If tuition is too high at Texas Universities, should illegals get in-state rates?
Liberals win the sharp stick in the eye award again. By insisting on state subsidized in-state rates for illegals democrats have forced Texas citizens to pay a higher rate.
Reply »
anita Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Actually, these folks aren’t “illegals” — they are non-citizen residents who graduate from high school and must apply for permanent resident status in this country.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
ahhh non citizens which means they aren’t here legelly.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Actually that was a bill passed while Bush was gov and the senate had a republican majority. And hasn’t Gov. Goodhair been around long enough to make that an emergency item and get it repealed if he thought that it was important?
David Rogers Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
The law as currently in effect gives illegal aliens (how many exactly is in dispute–certainly thousands) not only in-state tuition rates (which 40 states don’t), but also gives cash grants–direct payments–to illegal aliens. Only one other state is that crazy.
Of course, until recently that state was run by a Bill Clinton protege.
No word on why Rick Perry signed those laws. Must be all that conservatism.
Reply »
centexliberal says:
I sincerely doubt that the number of illegals enrolled in Texas Universities forces Texas citizens to pay more. That is ludicrous. How could Democrats “force” the state to subsidize in state rates for illegals?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
its a state law sponsored and forced into law by democrats under Pete Raney(D).
Reply »
Moderate Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
There’s a very simple adage to sum this up – “You get what you pay for.” UT & A&M will not be able to provide the same educational experience they are providing now for a tenth of the cost, I don’t care what “fat” can be cut.
Reply »
David Rogers Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Actually, it was HB 1403, 77th Legislature, authored by Rick Noriega (D-Houston). Signed by Rick Perry.
Reply »
anita says:
Actually, it became law by an act of Governor Perry. And he offered a fairly forceful defense of it, but I guess he’s not wing-nut fringe enough for you.
What about the freeloaders who get FREE tuition in this state — don’t you think we need to do something about that, JBB?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
or the ones who are paid, yanno the democrats who have their school loans forgiven by democrats. Doncha love it!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Guv Perry intoduced the bill? Who knew?
Reply »
Bill says:
“…making teachers more accountable…”
Next they’ll want to institute standardized testing for all college students. No coed left behind and all that.
Reply »
Robert says:
Murchison is right on this.
Reply »
anita Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Right to shill for TPPF?
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Maybe it would cost less to go to a State university if the State was not subsidizing private colleges in Texas thru the Tuition Equalization Program…which gives taxpayers’ dollars to students going to private (including Baylor) schools in Texas. It was adopted back in the 1960s supposedly because it was cheaper than building enough classrooms, etc. to handle all the Baby Boomers at state schools. It has been kept since then for “educational diversity”–i.e.–to help a number of small Church schools continue to survive. Why don’t you ask the Chisums, Patricks and Gov. Perry’s how they feel about canceling this “give away”? (Of couse, with both Perry and TPFF being such big fans of “vouchers”, they are sure to want to increase funding for TEG grants while cutting aid to the state schools.)
Reply »
West Texan says:
Who cares about William Murchison? I’ve read his stuff for thirty years, and he’s been wrong about so many things, he would’ve been fired from almost any job in the world.
It’s good for him that bloviating about what “conservatives” want doesn’t require anyone to have a long memory.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Many of those so-called “freeloaders” who get “free tuition” (or reduced tuition) are current or former members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. I suppose they are kind of “freeloaders” some want to penalize?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
ahhh a flagdrapped freeloader.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
WTF is wrong with you? People fight for a country that they arent even citizens of and you are going to call them freeloaders?
Reply »
anita Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
We give free tuition to senior citizens in Texas. Where’s your outrage, JBB?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:05 am
I’m sorry liberals don’t get it. It was what the November election was about. Illegals getting tax dollars just won’t cut it anymore.
comprehende?
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
“My belief is that Texas has two flagship universities of national class”. Really? You think people from TCU, SMU or RICE might disagree? Or were you just talking about GOVERNMENT SKOOLS? Oh, and I’m sure there are MORE universitys in this state that would qualify as “national class”, I just mentioned the first few that came to mind.
Reply »
David Rogers says:
“Nothing could be more harmful.”
Really, Paul?
That’s not lazy writing?
Reply »
texun says:
It might be useful to remember that Murchison graduated from one of those elitist Eastern universities, the same bunch that, together with Stanford, stand to gain the most from the decline in funding for state universities.
Fiftycall: Rice usually does show up in lists of universities of national class, but the usual reference is to “two state-supported universities of national class.” As to TCU and SMU, both have strong areas–Perkins Divinity and the Law School at the latter, for example, but I haven’t seen them near “national class” standings in the various ratings. One can argue about the criteria for the ratings, obviously, because they often compare apples with oranges and tend to run a bit behind the times, usually to UT’s and A&M’s disavantage, I think.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2011 at 8:24 am
“As to TCU and SMU, both have strong areas–Perkins Divinity and the Law School at the latter, for example . . .”
Not even close
Reply »
texun says:
For what they are worth, here are the USNWR National University Numbers for Texas: Rice #17 tied with Vanderbilt, UT Austin tied with U of Wis for #45, SMU #56–better than I remembered, A & M # 63, TCU #99, UT-Dallas #143, and Texas Tech #159.
For the most part the large wide-mission state institutions were undervalued. UCal-Berkeley, for example was #22. In the end, the rankings can be useful for institutions that look good. Brown, for example, tied with Cornell for #15. That couldn’t have hurt Brown at fund-raising, last reported at $1.6 billion for their drive that just ended.
Some of the spread is explained by the absence of “credit” for having non-comparable programs; so if UT-Austin has first-rate programs in Nursing, Pharmacy, Social Work, and more, it doesn’t pick up “points” for them. Nor will A & M receive much recognition for Rick Perry’s specialty, Animal Science.
Tellingly, the top-ranked state-supported university in that feature is Cal Tech at #7; narrow focus is “rewarded” in the USNWR evaluations. So, it’s apples and oranges, often.
The only instances in which I can guess that such evaluations are important is at the program-department level, especially in the sciences, because grants are peer-reviewed. Both UT-Austin and A & M have some heavy hitters in that league.
Reply »