Starting in 1965, and ending in 1975, California's public higher education system experienced a "tidal wave" of new students as baby-boomers graduated from high school and entered state colleges and universities.1 Many observers believe the system is now beginning to experience another comparable influx ("Tidal Wave II") as a projected half-million new students prepare to enter college during the next decade (see Figure Six). Our findings suggest that the public is concerned about this problem, but does not yet see it as a crisis (see Table Nine).
 |
Enduring Values, Changing Concerns presented respondents with an array of possible solutions for dealing with Tidal Wave II, ranging from building new campuses to using the Internet for off-campus learning.
As one might expect, Californians' attitudes in this area are guided by the same enduring principles that shape their views on higher education generally. They strongly support steps that increase access to higher education and are especially receptive to solutions that relate to motivation. They are adamant in opposing anything that decreases access or raises prices for students and their families.
|
Table Nine Seriousness of Tidal Wave II |
|||
| In the next 10 years there will probably be a large increase in the number of people who apply and are eligible to go to California's colleges and universities. If this happened, do you think California would be faced with? | 1996 | ||
| A crisis | 13% | ||
| A serious problem | 31% | ||
| A moderate problem | 37% | ||
| No real problem at all | 17% | ||
Finding Eight: Californians strongly support more effective use of existing higher education facilities and making more college-level courses available to high school students.
Not surprisingly, the most appealing solution to the projected increases in enrollments is to use existing resources more effectively. Ninety-five percent favor "offering more classes in the evenings, weekends and over the summer to accommodate more students at existing campuses" (see Figure Seven). In other words, the public seems to be saying, "Use what you have before trying more expensive solutions." Although the survey did not probe this issue in detail, there are several possible reasons for its overwhelming popularity. On the one hand, people are deeply disturbed about government inefficiency and may be attracted to an efficient-sounding solution. Another reason may be that people believe that if a person really wants an education, he or she can go to school during the evening, on weekends, or at other inconvenient times. In other words, a motivated student can still get a college education.
 |
Q: Suppose there were a lot more qualified people applying to California's public colleges and universities and not enough room for everyone who was eligible. Please tell me if you would favor or oppose each of the following proposals for dealing with this problem:
|
Another very popular solution is to demand more from high school students so that they can complete some college work while still in high school and spend less time in colleges and universities as a result. Eighty-seven percent of those surveyed say they favor encouraging students to take more college-level courses while in high school.
The idea of high school students doing college-level work is consistent with public thinking on high school standards. In Assignment Incomplete: The Unfinished Business of Education Reform, Public Agenda examined national attitudes towards K12 education. Among the most conclusive findings of that study, and of many other similar studies, is the public belief that current standards are too low and that students will learn more and have a better experience in school if they are held to higher standards.
Seventy-two percent of Americans surveyed believe that "kids would actually learn more" if they were held to higher standards while in high school, and an equal percentage (71 percent) think they would pay more attention to their school work and study harder (see Table Ten). A Californian queried as part of Enduring Values, Changing Concerns said:
I don't think there is much stimulation from elementary school to high school to get the kids to learn. I think having more college-level courses would give them more motivation. They need to be more stimulated.
Here again, this solution offers the greatest benefits to those students who are the most motivated. They will be the same students who do well in advanced courses in high school and save themselves money on their college education.
|
Table Ten Support for Higher Standards for High School Students |
|
| Suppose the public schools set higher standards, and they also require kids to show that they have achieved those standards before they can graduate. Do you think that [INSERT STATEMENT]? | % responding "yes" |
| Most kids would actually learn more | 72% |
| Most kids would pay more attention to their school work and study harder |
71% |
| More kids will dislike education and resist learning |
38% |
|
Source: Public Agenda, Assignment Incomplete: The Unfinished Business of Education Reform (New York, NY: 1995). This report is based on a national telephone survey of 800 adults. |
|
Finding Nine: Californians also support building new campuses, allowing students to go to private institutions, and using new technologies.
Several other posed solutions to the projected increases in enrollment are attractive to the public, but do not command the very high levels of support as those discussed above (see Figure Seven).
Although Californians clearly prefer to fully utilize existing campuses first, the idea of building new college and university campuses to absorb additional students commands support. Forty-three percent of the respondents strongly support the idea, and 32 percent are somewhat supportive. The survey did not explore the question of how such new campuses would be financed, which could lead to more qualified support. As one respondent said:
The idea of a new campus sounds great, but we would have to get a grant or something to pay for it.
An equally appealing proposal is for eligible students to use state scholarships at private colleges in order to free up space at public colleges and universities. Seventy-four percent of those surveyed support this idea, although again the source of this financial aid was not included in the question. As with the proposal above, this idea protects access to higher education and enjoys solid support.
There is also interest in using new technologies such as the Internet and cable television to accommodate more students, with 68 percent of Californians saying that they strongly or somewhat support this approach. Sixty-four percent say they thought that technological innovation could usefully be employed in teaching, roughly the same level of support shown in the 1993 study (63 percent). One man thought that using the Internet might help students be more independent:
I think it would be smart to use the Internet. It would help the young person become more disciplined since he would have to learn something via the computer without a teacher standing around.
Finding Ten: Californians favor supporting students rather than supporting institutions.
Traditionally, California has spent most of its educational dollar on institutions. An alternative would be to provide money directly to qualified individuals, letting them use those funds at any public or private institution. The public seems at least somewhat interested in this idea, with 52 percent saying that if the state government had more money for college education, it should "give that money to qualified students in the form of scholarships to use at the private or public college of their choice" (see Table Eleven). By contrast, 39 percent say that money should go to public colleges and universities.
| Table Eleven Extra Funding to Individuals or to Colleges and Universities? |
|
| Suppose the state had more money for college education: | 1996 |
Should that money go directly to qualified students in the form of scholarships to use at the private or public college or university of their choice? |
52% |
--or-- |
|
Do you think it would be better to give that money to the public colleges and universities? |
39% |
This may reflect an increased public tendency to see government and public institutions generally as wasteful and inefficient. When asked why he supported giving money directly to individuals rather than to colleges, one respondent in this study said:
If the money actually got where it was supposed to go, it would probably make more sense to give it to the schools, but there is so much government waste that who knows where the money will end up.
Finding Eleven: For Californians, the least acceptable approach is limiting access.
The one solution that is clearly unacceptable to most people is to limit access. By two-to-one margins (61 percent to 32 percent), Californians say that they do not want to respond to greater demand for higher education by limiting the number of students who are accepted into the state's colleges and universities (see Figure Seven).
Finding Twelve: Who should bear the responsibility for necessary changes?
Californians are open to the proposition that universities and colleges should make changes, less receptive to the idea that taxpayers and state government should provide more funds, and completely opposed to asking students and their parents to pay higher fees.
To gain a sense of public thinking about which groups should bear the responsibility for necessary changes in California's system of higher education, the survey suggested three potential approaches: Students and their families paying more in fees, taxpayers and state government producing more revenue for higher education, and colleges and universities picking up the slack by making greater gains in productivity.
The least acceptable approach, from a public perspective, is for parents and students to pay more in fees. Californians seem less opposed to raising taxes on everyone than to requiring higher fees from students and their families. Seventy-two percent say students and their families are already doing all they can (see Table 12).
|
Table Twelve Who Should Take Responsibility? |
|
| To deal with an increase in students who apply and are eligible for California's public colleges and universities would mean that some changes and even sacrifices would have to be made. I'm going to mention several groups and ask if you think they should do more to help solve the problem, or if they are doing pretty much all they can already. | 1996 |
| Students and their families: | |
| They are doing pretty much all they can already |
72% |
| They should pay higher fees to help solve the problem |
23% |
| California's taxpayers and state government: | |
| They are doing pretty much all they can already |
47% |
| They should devote more tax dollars to help solve this problem |
46% |
| Faculty and administrators at the public colleges and universities: | |
| They are doing pretty much all they can do |
40% |
| They should teach more classes and cut costs |
50% |
Respondents are evenly divided on the question of whether taxpayers and state government should devote more tax dollars to helping solve the problem. Forty-six percent say the state should devote more tax dollars while an almost equal percentage (47 percent) say that taxpayers and state government are doing about all that they can do. Public opinion findings on taxes are notoriously unreliable so this finding does not necessarily translate into reliable support for higher taxes. However, it does suggest that, in the abstract, higher fees are even more objectionable than higher taxes.
The only proposal to achieve a thin majority of support is the idea that faculty and administrators should teach more classes and cut costs. Fifty percent of those surveyed support this idea, while only 40 percent think that higher education has done all that it can do in this area. Some respondents complained about inefficiency in higher education. One woman said:
I attend an exercise program at one of the community colleges. Before
I retired, I worked a 40-hour-plus week, but the teachers there only teach
20 hours a week.
To me that is a gravy job.
Another respondent said:
There is a lot of paper shuffling going on in the university, and a lot of memos flying back and forth, and not much getting done. It doesn't make sense to me.
* * *
In conclusion, Californians seemed to have followed recent developments in their state's higher education system. They are strongly committed to accessible higher education for all who are sufficiently motivated to take advantage of the opportunity. Several years ago, when they perceived this access to be in jeopardy, they were ready to support a major restructuring of the state's higher education system. Now that the urgency of the problem has lessened, support for a radical solution has also decreased. But the warning remains loud and clear: Don't tamper with access.
Californians also tell us what solutions they will tolerate. Before anything else is done, they want the state to use its existing resources more efficiently and to expect greater achievement at the high school level. They are willing to support other ideas--more campuses, greater reliance on technology, or utilizing private institutions--but are unwilling to tolerate higher fees. Even tax increases are more popular than fee increases, although the public apparently wants to see changes from the universities first.
1 Clark Kerr, Preserving the Master Plan (San Jose: The California Higher Education Policy Center, 1994) p. 3.