UW Tacoma's Technolgoy Institute Unfunded

Dan Voelpel of The News Tribune wonders why the State would launch a new tech-focused university in Snohomish county when the UWT's Institute of Technology has never been properly funded in an article titled "Backward Legislature could hurt UWT".

Does anyone remember that UWT already has an Institute of Technology with a polytechnic focus and a statewide mission?

I’ll forgive you if you forgot. Because the Legislature has failed to live up to the original scope of UWT’s institute when it created the computer science, technology and engineering program in 2001.

Ouch! The article goes on to say that the original expectation was to have 1,900+ undergrad students and almost 250 graduate students in the 2009-2010 school year. However, they only have 252 students this year, and only because they over enrolled. Over enrollment is when a school allows in more students than the state has funded, using some other source of funds, like grants, to make up the difference.

Why on earth should we spend nearly a billion dollars on a new institute for science, technology, engineering and math when we won't fund the one we have? If you're a civic or legislative leader from Snohomish county you should know that wasn't a rhetorical question.

Hark the Herald: Other people are covering the campus procedings

One of the most disappointing aspects of the SnoU circus has been the Everett Herald signing up as pep squad leader for the project. I understand that the editorial board is free to jump on whatever ill-conceived bandwagon that rolls by, but the editors, columnists and beat reporters have no excuse for their actions.

Anyway, I've enrolled the help of the beta product Google Alerts to help me seek out other sources of news. At Google Alerts you can enter a search criteria, some other information about delivery preferences and your email address. Click create alert and you will get a list of links in your email. See a sample of Google Alerts at left.

Here are a few articles not from the Herald:

1. The UW daily covers yesterday's action by the House Higher Ed committee. They approved the Everett site only if the funding does not effect funding for existing schools.
2. The UW daily covers the debate over the cost of funding the new campus. They cover the opinion of Rep. Dan Kristiansen, who is one of the few legislators not totally in favor of the idea.
3. The Left Shue blog covers the infighting among democrats who want the university in Lake Stevens or Snohomish. Councilman Dave Somers is on the receiving end of the spears.
   
4. The Seattle Times covers the removal of the funds to start class this year and gives it to existing community colleges. Originally backers wanted seed money to start classes right away. A legislative committee voted to give that money to existing community colleges until it is determined if the branch campus will really be approved.
   
5. Crosscut.com covers branch campus bingo. Lisa Albers looks at the other UW branch campuses their structure, organization and effects on surrounding schools. She also describes similar efforts in California to create a research school. My take away on this article is we need to decide what we really want out of a new campus. If we want a world-class research facility, then lets stop pretending it is going to help local kids who can leave home.
   
6. Crosscut.com is also discusses the issues/impacts in the conflict over funding. The author is one of the original UW geography professors to research the placement of the original branch campuses. Its a brief article, but it gives some historical perspective and raises a warning about not properly funding the campuses.

So there you are, some news and opinion pieces that aren't the same old, same old from the Herald.

Depending on the kindness of strangers

Knowing that expressing my views on a UW branch campus to my representatives won't do any good, I took some time today to email my thoughts to the members of key committees in the process. That includes all members of the Senate Ways and Means, Senate Higher Education and House Higher Education committees.

Emailing a legislator is really slow process - necessary to eliminate spam and mass mailings - so if anyone else wanted to do it you might want to use regular old mail. I think it is a good investment of time, however, because they are the only ones who might actually halt this process. I don't think they are less greedy than Snohomish county political leaders, they just have less to gain.

Below is a sample sent to the Senate Ways and Means members who are meeting this week on the topic according to Jerry Cornfield's column in the Herald today.

I am not a resident of your district, but I am writing you today because my Snohomish county congressional delegation does not represent my views regarding the creation of a new university in Snohomish county. I see the effort to build a new or branch university campus here or anywhere else in the state as siphoning precious tax dollars from education to construction and oppose its funding, regardless of location. I fully support investment in the delivery of education, but not in sewer systems, freeway off-ramps and ivy-covered buildings.

I feel strongly about the importance of education and, unlike most people, I demonstrate that commitment by volunteering to serve on advisory boards for technical and/or business programs at Edmonds Community College, Everett School District and Mukilteo School district (I have a blog for sharing this at http://advisorybored.blogspot.com). As a result, I see issues such as tuition costs and lower high school graduation rates as far more serious threats to education in Snohomish county than having to drive to Seattle. Also, as an IT hiring manager I am painfully aware that the lack of interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) is not caused by the lack of a university in Everett or Marysville. In general terms, I see this branch campus as the solution to Snohomish county's educational needs 30 years ago, not 30 years from now.

As a member of the Ways and Means committee you will have an opportunity to question supporters of the new UW branch this week. I hope you use this meeting to challenge the need for this massive capital expenditure. I would like to see discussion of other options, such as online or hybrid (online/in-person) programs and mini-branch campuses such as Central's branch campuses at Edmonds CC, Everett CC and Highline CC.

Education, not construction

It seems like the proper way to kick off this blog is by republishing a letter to the editor I sent to the Everett Herald one year ago. The idea is that focusing on construction spending takes away from the real issues of tuition costs, student preparation and high school completion. Unfortunately the Herald and its reports never did show the alternatives

"David Beyer's commentary was a welcome change from the pro-construction view for a university in Snohomish County, but I remain disappointed that the Herald has not done more to seek out alternative viewpoints or challenged prevailing assumptions.

The university has been portrayed as a gift to residents who can't leave home for college. Pro-constructionists have characterized the problem as a lack of space even as we have seen enrollment downturns at many local community colleges. College presidents and others like Senator McAuliffe who are concerned about the effect on existing programs have been dismissed as having a monetary interest in the status quo, even though pro-construction legislators have a significantly larger monetary interest in pouring concrete. Let's face it; the gift at stake is not access to education, but money for infrastructure development.

Our tax dollars currently support college campuses in all three counties and regional universities offering degrees at one or more of those sites. WSU offers bachelor degrees online, making geography irrelevant. Equally important, schools are offering innovative course delivery methods, pairing online and classroom instruction in the evenings and on weekends, to meet demand without the construction costs. For those who are motivated, the opportunity to earn a degree already exists.

Visions of a new university stir fond memories of college life, but the reality is that it distracts us from the real problems of improving access to higher education. A Department of Education study titled "A Test of Leadership" outlines a range of problems with affordability the most pressing. It's unlikely that spending ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars on roads, sewers and stadiums is the best way to make college affordable. Perhaps the Herald's reporters can share with us information and alternatives that will foster a meaningful debate of the issues."