SECTION FOUR: Ambiguities


There were other areas where many of respondents felt that our questions needed to be further articulated and justified before they could give any opinion about them. For example, we reviewed with our respondents the idea of "linking state reinvestment to enrollment growth" and other reforms. Many of our respondents said that they were unable to comment on this approach until they knew what goals were envisioned, how the reforms would address those goals, and who would monitor the process. It is not that they thought that higher education should not reform itself or that it shouldn't emphasize enrollment. They were skeptical of reforms without a clearer articulation of goals, and they were especially skeptical about the ability of the Legislature to incentivize higher education.
(a) It is the mechanics that bother me; you want to put more money into the system, reward those that are taking more students, punish those who are not. But this approach is funding-driven; it doesn't address the real issues of what you need to do in higher education.

(b) I wouldn't want to apply these formulas mechanistically. I think it is even more damaging to be mechanistic when there are fewer resources. It is probably less justifiable then, than in was in the time of growth.

(c) I think that government planners always look for formulas, without clear experience of how they work.

(d) There are things that might be done, but it becomes very expensive to monitor to see whether or not the reforms are really warranting the additional funding. I think when all is said and done you are tinkering on the fringes of the more major significant needs, when you start trying to do something like that. I doubt that it would really warrant the kind of expenditure. Every time someone talks about a reform it costs money.


[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]