There are 109 institutions of higher education in the state: 15
public four-year institutions, 30 public two-year institutions
(including one tribally controlled community college), 56 private
four-year institutions, and 8 private two-year institutions. Total
enrollments include approximately 551,000 students by head count.
Public four-year institutions account for 47 percent of total
enrollment, public two-year institutions enroll 38 percent, and
the independent colleges and universities enroll 15 percent. Enrollment
has declined somewhat between 1991 and 1995; it is down by 1.2
percent at the four-year institutions and by 6.7 percent at the
two-year institutions. This enrollment decline is due primarily
to decreasing numbers of high school graduates. The state expects
relatively stable enrollment growth over the next decade or so,
with a 13 percent increase in the number of high school graduates
projected between 1996 and 2006, compared to an increase nationally
of 20 percent.
Each of Michigan's public institutions has its own governing board
(with the exception of the University of Michigan's two branch
campuses at Flint and Dearborn, which are governed by the same
board as the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor). All boards have
nine members, including the institutional president who serves
as an ex-officio member. Other board members serve eight-year
terms. The boards of the University of Michigan, Michigan State
University, and Wayne State University are elected by the public
in statewide elections. The Governor appoints the board members
governing the rest of the public four-year institutions. Each
of the public two-year community colleges has a regionally elected
governing board.
As Table 3 indicates, Michigan is about average relative to the
seven states in this study with regard to participation in higher
education among new high school graduates. The state has the highest
percentage of students enrolled in public four-year institutions
per 1,000 population among the study states, and average undergraduate,
graduate and professional enrollments per 1,000 population. This
indicates a possible change among generations in the emphasis
on higher education; the percentage of the entire population that
has completed a degree is low, yet the enrollment levels now are
high.
System Characteristics for Michigan Compared to Selected States (Numbers in Parentheses Represent Rank Among the Seven Study States) |
||||
(1-2) |
(3-5) |
(6-7) |
Average |
|
| Total Degree-Granting Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Four-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Two-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| % of Enrollment in Public Institutions (1994) | ||||
| FTE Students per 1,000 Population (Public Institutions Only) (1995-96)* | ||||
| Participation Ratio: Public FTE Students per New High School Graduate (1995-96)* | ||||
| % High School Graduates Going on to Higher Education Anywhere (1994)? | ||||
| State Appropriations plus Tuition Revenues per FTE Student (1995-96)* | ||||
| Sources: Unless otherwise noted, data are drawn from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (September 1996), p. 67. * Halstead, State Profiles: Trend Data (1996), pp. 45, 48. * Halstead, Higher Education Report Card 1995 (Washington D.C.: Research Associates of Washington, 1996), p. 61. |
||||
In 1850, the University of Michigan was granted constitutional
autonomy, making it the first institution in the country to be
accorded such status. This was primarily the result of many years
of political interference in the operation of the university,
including legislative and gubernatorial involvement in the selection
and removal of the faculty. Michigan's language regarding constitutional
autonomy, which can be found in all four state constitutions,
is designed to keep the Legislature from getting involved in areas
considered to be the domain of the faculty and university administration.
In 1963, Michigan rewrote its constitution and once again included
constitutional status for all universities in the state. Article
VIII, Section III states, "The power of the institutions of higher
education provided in this constitution to supervise their respective
institutions and control and direct the expenditures of the institutions
funds shall not be limited to this section." Based on this language,
individual boards have the power to set tuition and to determine
how their state appropriations will be spent.
While reaffirming the autonomous status of institutions, the language
of the 1963 constitution also reflects a shift toward the demands
for greater public accountability for higher education, with several
new provisions: the state Board of Education would be charged
with "planning and coordinating" the educational policies of those
institutions with constitutional status (though in such a way
as not to impinge on that autonomy); the Legislature would be
given an annual accounting of all income and expenditures; the
Governor could reduce institutional expenditures in the event
state revenues fell short of estimates on which the appropriations
were made; formal meetings of the institutional governing boards
would be open to the public; and the state auditor would be given
the power to audit the books of universities that were accorded
constitutional status.
The Constitution also gives the State Board of Education responsibility
for leadership and general supervision of community colleges. It does, however, affirm that
community colleges shall be supervised and controlled by locally
elected boards.
During the 1960s, when many states were creating centralized state
coordinating or governing agencies, Michigan resisted organizing
its higher education services into a centralized system. One university
administrator speculated that Michigan retained autonomy for its
institutions in the 1960s in part because of the "battles" between
the University of Michigan (U of M) and Michigan State University
(MSU) in the middle of the century. While Michigan State might
have been willing to organize with other institutions into an
overall system of higher education, the University of Michigan
did not want such a system, and did not want MSU to have that
kind of political clout either. Others speculate that the main
reason for preserving autonomous campuses while other states were
developing consolidated systems was that those responsible for
developing the constitution felt very strongly about keeping the
state's institutions of higher education separate and autonomous.
On many occasions, the universities have gone to the court to
preserve their autonomous status. One major result of these court
decisions is that the Supreme Court has told the state Board of
Education that it has no authority over public institutions of
higher education.
According to many individuals we interviewed, the autonomous status
of institutions in Michigan gives presidents a great deal of power.
A legislator commented that the system has been able to attract
very qualified candidates for president because of their relative
independence. It is important, he said, that the presidents "know
that they are essentially the boss, that they don't have to report
to a higher, system-level agency or to more than one coordinating
board." At the same time, however, presidents are more vulnerable
in Michigan, more at-risk because they have no system office or
board to insulate them. "There is no place to hide," said one
president.
Individuals we interviewed were very proud of the autonomy of
their institutions, and cited this often as a unique characteristic
of higher education in the state. The conventional view in the
state is that systems do not work, and that Michigan is much better
off without the added layer of bureaucracy. A university president
suggested, however, that while constitutional autonomy may be
valuable for the "big three" institutions (the University of Michigan,
Michigan State University and Wayne State University), it is somewhat
dysfunctional for the comprehensive institutions. "The state cannot
control growth of programs at those institutions," he argued,
and this is problematic from a statewide perspective.
At least according to some in Michigan, autonomy can lead to inefficiencies
and to many duplicative programs. We were told that the proliferation
of programs is most problematic in the area of doctoral degrees;
there used to be four public institutions in the state that offered
doctorates, and now there are eight. The Legislature could stop
this, either through intent language in the budget bill or funding
directed toward undergraduate education, but they do not. Institutions
are free to develop and offer new programs as they wish, and the
only limits on implementing new programs are those that are driven
by the "market."
In fact, advocates of the Michigan structure seem to be true believers in the power of the "market" to take care of inefficiencies such as duplication of programs. While almost everyone admits that there is more duplication than is desirable in the state, there appears to be little concern about this. "Market forces in Michigan control both enrollment and the number of programs," said one political staff member, echoing the sentiments of many of our respondents. Most of those we interviewed believe that the market is also a good check on duplication of programs. If the need for the program is not there, many respondents said, students will not come and the program will eliminate itself.
According to the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the state Board
of Education "shall serve as the general planning and coordinating
body for all public education, including higher education, and
shall advise the Legislature as to the financial requirements
in connection therewith." While these functions are stipulated
in the constitution, the past 30 years have provided numerous
examples of how the courts view this as somewhat contrary to the
notion of institutional autonomy. After the adoption of the 1963
constitution, the Board of Education tried to get involved in
several areas of planning and coordinating. The superintendent
at the time tried to assert the board's authority to gather information
about and exercise control over the number of out-of-state students
and program duplication.
According to many people we interviewed, the institutions, often
through their voluntary associations, challenged every attempt
of the state board to fulfill these planning and coordinating
responsibilities. One of the most commonly cited legal cases is
the Salman Decision in 1975, in which the courts found that the
University of Michigan does not need approval of the state Board
of Education to expand or establish programs or departments, or
to expand branch campuses. Essentially, this decision limited
the authority of the state board to advising the Legislature concerning
requests for funds. As a result of this and other similar cases,
the planning and coordinating activities of the state Board of
Education are essentially nonexistent for higher education.
Although the board does not have much authority with regard to
higher education in general, whatever authority it does have has
been further limited by the actions of the current Governor and
the Republican Legislature, according to some of those we interviewed.
The state board has been affected by the Governor's effort to
eliminate bureaucracy, as the budget appropriation for the board
was cut by almost 60 percent in fiscal year 1995.
Interestingly, the state board has more authority over the independent institutions than it does over the public colleges and universities. Independent colleges and universities operate under charters from the state; when an institution wants to change its charter (to add a degree level), it must petition the state board. Public institutions do not need to go through such a procedure.
While the percentages vary from college to college, community
colleges receive about 30 percent of their funding from local
property taxes, about 34 percent from state funds, and about 32
percent from tuition.
There are two statewide agencies serving the community colleges.
The first is the Michigan Community College Association, a statewide
association that represents the colleges, each of which contributes
funds for membership. The principal role of the association is
legislative advocacy. Lobbying the Legislature through a single
statewide organization is necessary, we were told, because of
the relatively small size of state appropriations to community
colleges; in fiscal year 1996, the state appropriation for all
community colleges was less than the state appropriation for Michigan
State University alone. The community colleges believe that they
enhance their political clout by negotiating with the Legislature
as a group instead of lobbying on their own.
The Community College Association also facilitates information
sharing and provides in-service professional development programs
for trustees. According to one college president, the association
fosters voluntary coordination among colleges even though there
is no formal mechanism for collaboration and communication. The
limited resources in the state, he said, force colleges to coordinate
services.
The second statewide agency is the Community College Board, which
was created in the 1963 constitution as an advisory body to the
state Board of Education. The board has the power to approve programs
that will receive federal funding, such as the Carl Perkins Funds.
Community colleges, therefore, collect and report information
to the department regularly to ensure their eligibility for federal
money. The board's role, according to one president, is "minimal
at best," and "That is best."
The Community College Board is quickly losing the little influence it has had in Michigan. One reason is that prior to 1978, the board was responsible for allocating the lump-sum state appropriation to each of the community colleges. Institutional funding is now based on a formula, and the allocation function of the board has been stripped. In addition, the board has experienced severe funding cuts, and the Governor has eliminated all per-diem expenses for board members, effectively reducing the number of meetings that the board holds. Currently, the board meets only three times a year, and according to one staff member, even that is about to end. At the time of our visit there were three vacancies on the eight-member board.
Enrollment at Four-Year Public Institutions, Fall 1995 |
|||
| Central Michigan University | Oakland University | ||
| Eastern Michigan University | Saginaw Valley State Univ. | ||
| Ferris State University | Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor | ||
| Grand Valley State University | Univ. of Michigan, Dearborn | ||
| Lake Superior State Univ. | Univ. of Michigan, Flint | ||
| Michigan State University | Wayne State University | ||
| Michigan Technological Univ. | Western Michigan University | ||
| Northern Michigan University | |||
| Source: Michigan Department of Education. "Fall 1995 Enrollment: Universities," Integrated Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) database, Lansing, 1996. | |||
Michigan's four-year public institutions vary widely in size and
mission. Three large research universities (the University of
Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne State) each enroll over 30,000
students and offer the full range of graduate and undergraduate
programs. Western Michigan University is classified under the
Carnegie Classification of Colleges and Universities as a doctoral
I institution, and the rest of the institutions are general comprehensive
universities, four of which offer the doctorate. Michigan Technological
University, which focuses on engineering, is the one specialized
institution.
Many of the individuals we interviewed described a certain "pecking
order" that exists for institutions of higher education in the
state. This hierarchy, which places the University of Michigan
at the top, followed by Michigan State and Wayne State, is generally
"accepted and understood," according to most individuals we spoke
with. The acceptance of this hierarchy has helped to keep the
amount of bickering among institutions down, at least until this
past year. According to several respondents, presidents generally
maintain a united front as long as the status quo and pecking
order are maintained.
Constitutional autonomy and the lack of any statewide governing
mechanism gives faculty much more power in Michigan, according
to many of our respondents. Faculty have greater influence, said
one president, because they only have to sway the president and
the board. There are fewer end runs because there are no higher-level
boards to which the faculty must go. Most of Michigan's four-year
faculties are unionized, but the University of Michigan, Michigan
State University and Grand Valley State University are exceptions.
Faculty groups have limited visibility at the state level. While
faculty unions have the opportunity to present information to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the faculty voice
is minimal in the state policy-making process. According to some
of the politicians we met with, unions have less influence now
because of the shift in control of the Legislature from Democrats
to Republicans. In today's environment, said one legislator, unions
"do not have as much clout."
Board members of the big three institutions are elected to eight-year
terms. There are concerns that individuals elected to boards are
often more representative of their particular special interest
than they are interested in higher education; by and large, however,
most people feel that once elected, the board members have been
able to set partisan politics aside and serve as "statesmen" for
their institution.
Circumstances at the University of Michigan (U of M) at the time
of our visit brought the issue of elected boards to the public's
attention. After the 1994 elections, the U of M board consisted
of four Republicans and four Democrats. The Republicans were representatives
of the far-right, while the Democrats were backed by the unions.
As a result, there was gridlock within the board, which resulted
in the inability to elect a chair for over a year.
In October of 1995, the president of the U of M surprised many
in the higher education community by announcing his resignation.
While he did not say so, many speculate that the infighting among
his board, and his inability to get the board to move, contributed
to his decision to resign.
Governor Engler has taken the president's resignation as a sign
of problems with elected boards, and is using this event to call
for the appointment, rather than election, of all higher education
boards. Until the president's resignation, appointed versus elected
boards was not a public issue.
The University of Michigan
The University of Michigan is the "flagship" institution in the
state, considered one of the best public research institutions
in the country. It enrolls over 36,000 students in its highly
selective undergraduate and graduate programs, attracting students
from across the state, country, and world. In fiscal year 1996,
the University of Michigan received about $288 million from state
appropriations. Depending on which revenues are counted (whether
or not auxiliary enterprises are included), this ranges from 10
to 37 percent of the institution's total revenues.
The University of Michigan has spearheaded many of the battles
in the courts to preserve its autonomy (and that of other institutions).
According to one long-time observer of Michigan higher education,
these suits have been over "long-standing, substantive issues
of conflict between the university and the state." The university
is currently suing the state over its sunshine laws, challenging
the open meetings act for the "big three" institutions.
Michigan State University
Michigan State University, located just outside of the state capitol
in East Lansing, is the largest institution in the state-with
over 40,000 students enrolled in 1995. Over 30,000 of these students
are undergraduates. As the state's land-grant institution, Michigan
State provides a wide array of undergraduate, master's and doctoral
programs, including several programs in agriculture and natural
resources. In 1995, the president, concerned with rising costs
to students, instituted a tuition guarantee which said tuition
would not increase by more than the rate of inflation, as long
as state appropriations kept pace with inflation. MSU received
approximately $256 million in state funding in fiscal year 1996.
Wayne State University
Located in Detroit, Wayne State University (WSU) differs from
the other two research universities in the state in that it is
located in an urban center. The university's 30,000-plus students
are from very diverse backgrounds. WSU has a larger percentage
of students from low-income and minority backgrounds than any
of the other four-year institutions. Tuition at WSU is lower than
in the other research institutions, and even lower than in some
of the comprehensive institutions. The president has argued that
if tuition increases too rapidly, the institution will lose enrollments
and ultimately lose revenues. Unlike the other "big three" institutions,
Wayne State has a unionized faculty, and union-administration
relations are said to be a constant source of tension on campus.
Wayne State received approximately $205 million dollars in state
appropriations in fiscal year 1996.
Many of our respondents argued that because of the autonomy of
individual institutions, the Michigan system produces a creative
university community that is responsive to the needs of the educational
market. The regional universities are said to be especially responsive.
According to one interviewee, "Individual institutions have been
able to develop their own character, to cultivate their own mission"
in response to student and economic needs. There is competition
for students among these regional institutions, another respondent
argued, but that competition makes for better institutions. "We
don't want to keep an institution from getting out of a category"
because of some artificial constraints, said one university administrator.
One example of this responsiveness can be found in the establishment
of an evening MBA program in Lansing by Western Michigan University
(WMU), which is located in Kalamazoo. Michigan State, which is
in East Lansing, was not interested in offering an evening MBA
program; WMU, however, saw a demand for such a program, and set
up shop in Lansing. Demand for the program proved high enough
that MSU eventually decided to offer the same type of program,
resulting in two evening MBA programs in Lansing.
Those arguing against the "creativity" of institutions and the
capacity of the institutions to develop their own missions have
pointed to the duplication of programs and a "mission creep" where
every institution wants to be like the University of Michigan
or Michigan State. There is no mechanism, except for the budget,
for keeping institutions from offering new kinds of degrees or
for duplicating what is offered by their neighbor. Some we spoke
with argued that this is wasteful and produces institutions that
have no real focus and no real expertise; others said that the
market takes care of duplication-that if there is no market for
a program, an institution will not be able to maintain it. In
general, however, those who admit that there is duplication and
waste are not too concerned about it; they still think that this
is less costly and more effective than a bureaucratic structure
designed to control duplication and costs.
Universities have begun to extend their reach beyond their traditional
geographic service areas, a practice that is viewed by some as
a significant benefit and by others as evidence of the need for
greater coordination. University centers are being developed with
the intention of extending the range of opportunities for the
bachelor's of science degree and for master's level work. In some
cases, it is possible to earn a bachelor's degree without attending
the main campus of the institution granting the degree.
Supporters of the centers suggested that the universities are extending services into communities where the programs and services have not been offered previously, and therefore are providing a key statewide benefit. A critic of this process argued that this has become a free-for-all, where institutions can expand all over the state, regardless of need. No one decides who can set up a center and where, he argued, and as a result, there is an increasing problem with duplication.
The presidents of the 15 public four-year institutions provide
overall direction for council activities. In addition, there is
an extensive committee structure, through which provosts, academic
deans, business officers, governmental relations officers, etc.,
gather to discuss particular policy and programmatic issues.
The council's roles include: developing positions on the state
budget for higher education; reviewing and monitoring legislation
affecting higher education; collecting and disseminating data,
reviewing academic programs, and interacting with state agencies
and organizations. The council operates, according to its executive
director, within the "unique context of Michigan and its autonomous
institutions." The council serves as a referee among institutions
that want to offer services in the same locale, and through its
lobbying efforts tries to ensure that community colleges do not
become upper-division institutions.
There are some disagreements among the various participants in
the Michigan system as to the role the Presidents Council plays.
One president we spoke with described the council as a "forum"
but not much else. It is important for the presidents to gather,
he said, because there are issues that must be resolved that do
not necessarily affect the institutions directly or significantly.
He cited the State Postsecondary Review Entities (SPRE) and the
grants for Native American students as examples of the kinds of
issues the council handles effectively. He went on to say that
the council works well together on these types of issues, but
that there is no common ground when it comes to questions of allocation
of funding. Presidents do not necessarily have common goals and
missions, he said, so the role the group can play is limited.
He said that it is a forum for solving immediate problems, but
other than that, the council does not play a very important role.
One political staff member agreed with this assessment, arguing
that the universities use the Presidents Council for those issues
that benefit them, but that they prefer to stand by themselves
on most issues. This staff member noted that all institutions
have a substantial lobbying presence in Lansing and do not rely
on the council to speak for them.
An authority on the organization of state higher education, however, argued that the Council-as the only vehicle for communication among the presidents in the state-reveals that voluntary coordination can be successful. It particularly works well, he pointed out, when there are lots of resources and when the institutional pecking order is maintained. Other respondents suggested that the Presidents Council is an important vehicle for bringing institutions together on key issues of consensus, and most importantly, for presenting a united front to the Legislature on the budget.
Average Public Undergraduate Tuition |
||
| Research Universities | ||
| State Colleges and Universities | ||
| Community Colleges | ||
| Source: Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1995-96 Tuition and Fee Rates: A National Comparison (Olympia: 1996), not paginated. | ||
Students and families in Michigan contribute approximately 43
percent of total funding for higher education (state appropriations
plus tuition), while the national average on this measure is 31.6
percent.
We heard from many of our respondents that affordability is a
great concern to policy makers in Michigan. "Tuition is the number
one issue in the Legislature," one university board member said.
Michigan institutions have some of the highest tuition rates in
the country and many worry that students are being priced out
of the market.
The state has undertaken several initiatives to address affordability.
In the late 1980s, Governor Blanchard (the previous Governor)
tried to use the threat of financial sanctions to convince governing
boards to hold down tuition; he suggested that tuition increases
would result in cuts in the executive budget the following year.
Despite constitutional autonomy, a tuition freeze was in effect
from 1987 to 1989 due to political pressure.
In 1995, Governor Engler also emphasized the need to keep tuition
increases down. After a 44 percent increase in tuition over a
four-year period in the early 1990s, the Governor developed a
tuition tax credit plan that worked as follows: at institutions
where tuition increases were held below the rate of inflation
for the previous year, students attending those institutions (or
their parents) would receive a tax credit equal to four percent
of that institution's tuition. The plan was meant to encourage
institutions to hold down tuition, and to encourage students to
attend those institutions that were keeping tuition increases
to a minimum. Four public universities-Michigan State, Grand Valley
State, Western Michigan, and Lake Superior State-were able to
hold tuition increases below the inflation level, and thus their
students were eligible for the tax credit.
This incentive, however, was not popular with some institutions,
many of which argued the state should have provided more money
for all institutions, thus helping institutions to keep tuition
increases down. In addition, there was some concern that the Legislature
interfered with institutional autonomy, since the constitution
grants to individual boards the right to set tuition. This issue
caused a fair amount of divisiveness between elected officials
and the campuses. Several legislators who were early supporters
of the tax credit told us that they were reconsidering their position.
The tax credit was not continued in the 1996-97 budget.
Not everyone agreed that tuition increases need to be avoided. One respondent told us that the state has not yet reached its tuition threshold, and there is significant untapped revenue in terms of tuition. Another respondent suggested that at some institutions, tuition can still be increased significantly, while many of the smaller regional institutions may have reached their limits.
Private colleges do serve a high percentage of minority students:
almost 19 percent of students at the private colleges and universities
are from underrepresented groups.
The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities is the
lobbying arm of the private institutions in the state. The association's
lobbying efforts focus primarily on a number of financial aid
and degree reimbursement programs available to the private sector.
There are three degree reimbursement programs, the first of which
is the general degree reimbursement program covering all degrees
except in areas such as theology and divinity. The state awards
$425 to private institutions for each bachelor's or master's degree
that they grant to a Michigan resident in the preceding year,
and half that amount for each associate degree granted to a Michigan
resident.
The second degree reimbursement program provides awards for each
degree that is awarded to a Michigan resident in allied health
fields requiring clinical experience or state licensing. In 1994-95,
institutions received $2,325 for each bachelor's or master's degree
awarded in this area. The philosophy behind this reimbursement,
according to one respondent, is that the state needs professionals
in these fields, and this type of training is very high cost-the
state gets a bargain by paying $2,325 for these degrees.
The third reimbursement program includes a grant to the University
of Detroit's Mercy Dental School. This is a flat grant of $4 million.
Essentially, the state does not want to open another public dental
school (there is one now at the University of Michigan) and this
is a way to support the need for dental training at a lower cost
to the state.
The two largest state financial aid programs are the competitive
scholarships (for students at public and private institutions)
and the tuition grants (for students attending private colleges
and universities). The competitive scholarships, which have need-
and merit-based components, award a maximum of $1,200 per student.
Approximately 26,500 scholarships totaling $32 million were awarded
in 1994-95, with 78 percent of the grants awarded to students
at public institutions.
The Tuition Grant Program, available to students attending the
state's private colleges, is need-based and is meant to promote
choice. The maximum grant under this program in 1994-95 was $1,975.
This amount is a function of the total appropriations to the program
divided by the number of eligible students. Because almost 85
percent of students at independent colleges in Michigan are Michigan
residents, there are large numbers of eligible students. As a
result, the maximum award is lower than it is in most states.
In 1994-95, this program awarded approximately $45 million to
over 31,000 students.
The Michigan Educational Opportunity Grants, provide public institutions
with discretionary financial aid money. Approximately $1.7 million
was given for 5,000 awards under this program in 1994-95.
There are two entitlement programs in Michigan as well. The first
is a tuition incentive program, which is a guarantee to children
from welfare families; if these children stay in school, the state
will provide the first two years of college tuition, equal to
the average of two-year public tuition in the state. A second
entitlement program is the Indian Tuition Waiver Program, which
the Governor has proposed eliminating.
One university board member said that although financial aid programs are serving poor students in Michigan well, working class students must borrow in order to attend institutions of higher education. This is an increasing concern among the general public, according to several individuals, because the public tends to equate low tuition with access; increasing prices, without commensurate increases in financial aid, means that the system is no longer able to provide the access it once could.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]