The Funding for College Education Essay Example

As time passes, the U.S. becomes more and more diverse, both ethnically and economically. A professor at the City College of New York, recounts the dynamics of her class, “African-Americans and West Indians, students from the Dominican Republic and Yemen and Israel, Russian immigrants and longtime white Brooklynites, Orthodox Jewish students, Muslim South Asian students and Catholic Nuyoricans, men and women, gay and straight” (Theoharis). However, with this growing population, the workforce is getting increasingly more competitive. This competitiveness fuels the societal push for college and degrees. Enough so that 85% of freshmen reported that the main reason for going to college was to get a better paying job when responding to a survey by the University of California-Los Angeles in 2017 (Kerr).  Despite the importance of higher education in our society, there has been a declining state funding trend. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that nationally there has been a reduction of state spending  around 23 percent per student (Mitchell et al). Higher education is suffering because of these cuts. An institution like the University of South Florida that shows promise in their academics should not get their state funding from Florida reduced.

A reduction in funding will hurt the institution’s quality of education. For instance an executive vice president at Arizona State University, where cuts have been made, reports on the impacts of the cuts, “Between 2008 and 2010, ASU decreased the number of faculty members supported by state funds and tuition from 2,838 to 2,609...Our enrollment during this period grew from 67,082 students to 70,440, which increased the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students per faculty member from 24.7 to 27.9” (Capaldi). A simultaneous increased class size with less faculty, creates a new ratio with more students per teacher, which results in more misunderstandings and lost learning potential. Similarly, USF is cutting costs due to the Coronavirus pandemic, in the proposed list of cuts to the Board of Governors, $16.3 million was reduced under “instruction” related expenses which contains faculty workload increase, reduced number of programs, and limiting the available courses (Kumar). As a result of this workload increase, the faculty would have to spend less time accommodating each class’s needs, resorting to a more standardized way of teaching. This change in teaching style that ignores the class dynamic and individuality will result in a decrease in the quality of education received. Furthermore these efforts in trying to maintain a level of. Going along the same lines of class size increase, ASU also had to limit the availability of class sections by 16.5 percent (Capaldi). These efforts taken to adapt to funding cuts takes away the choice for students. By reducing the number of class sections, the students' academic rankings will fall. Each student has a schedule and desired classes/class times, limiting these choices, essentially forces the student to take a class they are not passionate about or not in the right headspace to focus on. These outcomes are not ideal for institutions looking to increase their academic standings. For a higher education institution showing potential to be highly ranked in Florida such as USF, these cuts can have fatal consequences.

The student population’s well being and quality of life will be negatively affected by the budget cuts. Due to the reduced state funding, there isn't enough money to support all the services the institution provides, as a result programs and services are cut, many of which are mental health services. For instance, USF proposed to cut around $13.76 million in university and academic support services due to the pandemic (Kumar). College is an extremely stressful time for students and for support services to be inaccessible would rapidly deteriorate their mental state and grades. Support services are vital in de-stressing, comforting, and reassuring students in their volatile states. To set students up for success there must be support systems in higher education institutions. With stable mental states, students are able to perform better both academically and in life. Adding onto the deadlines and college life, many students work to pay for college. The Institute for Research on Higher Education University of Pennsylvania states that community college students work more than 20 hours a week in 37 states to cover college expenses (Williams et al, 4). Rather than fully using their efforts in education, students are worn out trying to pay for their education and the costs keep rising. Since the 2007-2008 school year adjusting for inflation, there was a 28 percent increase in tuition at four year public institutions (Mitchell et al). Students already have so much on their plate, removing services to support them will hinder their abilities to take on these burdens. These effects are amplified on low-income students, college costs are already high and if they keep increasing, higher education would be unattainable. This lost academic potential and lowered mental health are only some of the consequences of state funding cuts.

Continued funding would allow more investment in research, which opens academic and economic possibilities. For instance in 2008 the outcomes of research done by public universities were “358 start-up companies, 2,891 new technology licenses (16,555 are actively in force), 6,460 applications for new patents, and 1,791 patents” (McPherson et al, 24). These new start-ups and ideas serve as a driving force in the economy. Not only does research benefit the universities, it also benefits our society. As investment in research increases, the progress to a more advanced society will hasten in medicine, technology, and serve the public good. Research in medicine at this time is especially important to lessen the impacts of COVID-19. Many universities are taking actions to combat this virus. In particular USF is spending their funding on 14 projects researching, technologies, potential treatments, and social strategies (USFRI). Because of funding from the state, universities are able to support their research. Without funding, universities are forfeiting their opportunity to nurture the available plethora of ideas and abilities. In turn, they are not receiving the benefits of that investment in research such as advancements that help the public and recognition. Higher education plays a large role in U.S. research, around half of the basic research ($74.6 billion) in 2018 was performed (NSB). So lessening state funding will drastically decrease the research in the U.S., which will drive economic activity down. 

While it is true that there are other institutions ranked higher academically in Florida, USF's potential and performance outweighs the formal ranking of “Top Florida Universities”. For instance, the University of Florida, ranked 8th in the top public universities in the nation, raised their six-year graduation rate to 88% and 85% for Pell grant receivers regarding first time students (Orlando). Keeping in mind that this institution receives more funding from Florida, these rates are understandable. USF on the other hand with less state funding, achieved the highest scores in four categories: four-year graduation rate, net tuition and fees, and bachelor’s and graduate degrees awarded in areas that emphasized strategy (USF). It also obtained the status of “preeminence” which is based on reaching 11 out of 12 benchmarks, but didn’t get the funding awarded with this because in the same year Florida’s legislature decided to focus on financing only the top two universities (Taylor). USF is quickly rising in ranks as they are consistently leading the state’s performance-based funding model (USF). These support the idea that USF is thriving with their current budget and will excel even more with increased funding. Briefly to conclude, state funding cuts will decrease the institution’s academic quality, student population’s mental health, and research opportunities.