The reply: Rep. Sells (part 2)

In part 1 of my reply to Rep. Mike Sells letter to the editor response to my March 14th letter to the editor I argue that a failure to fund full time equivalent (FTE) student positions, not lack of physical space, is causing our universities to refuse admission to some qualified students. Funding was a problem that could have been fixed in the last session if education was a paramount concern to the legislature.

In part 2 I would like to address Rep. Sells concern over the lack of graduates in high-demand areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). In his letter he states that "We have Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates in Washington, D.C., requesting a lift on the lid of H1B visas to bring more people with degrees from outside the country into Washington state for work". [The full text of Mr. Gates' testimony is available here and a NPR interview with him is available here.]

Rep. Sells implies that a new tech-focused university will solve the tech storage without actually demonstrating how that would happen. Unfortuately, we do not have enough students interested and prepared for these areas study (listen to a recent NPR report here about low computer science enrollment and read this article on declining results on the Science section of the WASL here) and it is unclear to me how a new campus would change that. STEM maybe high-demand for employers, but not for students.

My argument is that $1,000,000,000 Rep. Sells wants the State to spend on a new campus would be better spent encouraging participation in STEM and funding positions at existing campuses. Instead of a new campus we must:

1. fund changes to secondary education that encourage and prepare students into STEM areas of study (see Gates' testimony starting on page 4).
   
2. fund STEM positions at existing institutions. Dan Voelpel of the News Tribune reports that the UW Tacoma was suppose to be the State's independent technology institute and it should be funded before UW North Sound. Why build a new tech-focused campus if the first one isn't full.
   
3. aggressively recruit into STEM programs, including lowering tuition for students entering these areas of study. In particular, we must address the underrepresentation of women and most minority groups in STEM fields.
   
4. come to terms with the participation of foreign nationals in STEM education and employment (Mr. Gates notes that 60% of students at top computer science schools are non-US citizens). A new polytechnic university will have a high percentage of foreign students. For us to benefit from the massive investment in a new campus won't we need to keep those students here, working and paying taxes, at least for a few years after graduation?

I'm a hiring IT manager, so good IT education and pool of talented candidates is of particular interest to me. Nevertheless, no one has clearly stated how a new campus will encourage participation in STEM of high school students or career changers. Do that and I will be on board with the campus. Otherwise, stop wasting my money......

Tags: Mike Sells, UW North, STEM, UW Tacoma

The reply: Rep. Sells response (part 1)

Today the Herald published a letter to the editor from Representative Mike Sells of Everett, which is a response to my letter to the editor published March 15th. I'm glad to see a response, any response, just so that it appears there is some debate going on (maybe that will interest the average citizen).

I can't tell you how excited I was that he trotted out the old classic half-truth "We already have our four-year institutions in the state turning away eligible students". I never get tired of that chestnut. Okay, let's review how funding works (as I the average citizen understands it):

1. The legislature funds a certain number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students at each institution
2. Once the institution reaches that enrollment level, they are free to do one of the following:

• continue enrolling students if they can find other sources of funding and it doesn't hurt the quality of instruction.
• stop enrolling students
  

Each year the Office of Financial Management does a budget drivers report that looks at Budget vs. Actual/Projected Actual FTEs at each school. The 2007/2008 report shows that all the schools have taken in everyone they are budgeted for, with the exception of UW Bothell and UW Tacoma (isn't that interesting). As best as I can figure - and I am not an expert in education funding - the report indicates that the qualified students have been turned away because the legislature failed to fund enough positions and the schools decided to stop over-enrolling. I see nothing that says physical space was the issue (please let me know if you find it).

We really need to be watching the funding of FTEs, not the construction of colleges. Reports from the Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board on higher education trends and the Office of Financial Management on enrollment suggest that increased FTE funding is essential to just keep pace with current growth. If the legislature can pay for a new campus why can't it afford to fund the current shortfall in FTEs? What will guarantee that they will fully fund the FTEs in addition to the new campus?

The report of qualified students being turned away comes from another report from the Office of Financial Management called A Perspective on Unmet Demand. Once you get past all the definitions and sampling logic you come across this little quote:

The "waiting line" as indicated by unserved applicants should not be interpreted as a measure of total unmet need for higher education. Persons who may lack the resources to attend a four year institution, for example, and those who do not submit a complete application, are not counted among the unserved.

Like an unemployment report that shows false signs of improvement because some job seekers just give up and stop looking, this report would indicate that our problem is much bigger than even they estimate. Their waiting line is people who could attend if accepted, but doesn't include those who don't apply because they know they can't afford to go.

Want to be really depressed? Try reading the HEC Board's 2008 Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education. Start on page 5, the section called "How did we fall behind".

Oh, and if you see Mike, tell him Corey delved a little deeper.

Tags: Mike Sells, UW North, HEC Board

Added UW North Links

In a previous post I mentioned that I am using Google Alerts to find other sources of information about the branch campus (other than just the Snohomish County based Herald). When I find these articles I save the link to my del.icio.us account. I thought I would share these with you as well. In the left-hand column you will find my link roll showing the 10 most current links. You can see the whole list at any time by clicking of the title "MY DEL.ICIO.US - UW NORTH".

If you aren't familiar with del.icio.us, it is a social bookmarking site that lets you save your favorite links for easy access from anywhere. More important, it allows you to share your links with other and to search for other people linked to similar topics. It's a way to find out what other folks with similar interests are reading. If you like to know a little more about social bookmarking you might want to check out this short video clip from the Common Craft Show.

Is that sensible (edited for space)?

Well it appears that my proposed letter to the editor came in around 80 words too many (it was very nice of them to let me know and give me a chance to edit it). Instead of modifying the original post, I'm showing here as its own posting. Enjoy.

The UW North branch campus never made any sense and the last ditch attempt by representatives Dunshee and Sells to make the campus law, without funding, location or time table is laughable. How is this sensible (Sunday, March 9^th)?

We have 6 primary university campuses (plus many branch locations) serving the needs of traditional students yet we see dropout rates approaching 50% at some schools. Studies, including A Test of Leadership by the Secretary of Education, show that finances and preparation are 2 of our biggest barriers to college success, not geographic proximity. Further, we see that online and blended education models are booming, making place unimportant. Unless, of course, your goal is construction spending.

We can deliver post-secondary education in the tri-county area at a fraction of the cost of a new campus. I would ask local legislators to give up UW North and commit themselves to breaking down barriers to education in 2008. Go to Bellingham, Ellensburg and Cheney and talk to their Presidents. They offer several bachelor and master degree programs locally now, but find out how the legislature can help to expand them further. Find out how we can speed up articulation agreements and fund development of effective online coursework. Go to Everett CC's University Center for North Puget Sound and see what they need to expand. We have plenty of campuses, what we need now is to make the pieces of the system to work together.

Building a 1960's university won't benefit generations of Snohomish County citizens, but it will saddle them with a mountain of debt. We want increased education opportunity now, not a new campus 20 years from now.

I'm not familiar with that use of the term sensible

In their Sunday, March 9th editorial, the Herald's editors suggested that a new bill that would make it law that Snohomish county will get the next university campus is sensible (also noted in the UW's Capital Update). Here is my letter to the editor response:

The creation of the UW North branch campus never made any sense and the last ditch attempt by representatives Dunshee and Sells to make the campus law, without funding, location or time table is laughable. Only the Herald, who long ago signed on as the ad firm for the project, would characterize this as sensible (Sunday, March 9th).

We already have 6 campuses serving the needs of the traditional student population. Yet we are seeing dropout rates approaching 50% in our some of the universities. Studies, including A Test of Leadership by the Secretary of Education, show that costs and preparation are 2 of our biggest barriers to college success, not geographic proximity. UW North does nothing to address either. Further, we have learned that online and hybrid education models are booming, making place unimportant. Unless, of course, your goal is to bring home a bunch of construction spending to your district. You know, there is a reason why gluttony is a deadly sin.

Putting aside the polytechnic university for a moment (it has it own set of problems), we can deliver non-traditional, post-secondary educational experiences in the tri-county area at a fraction of the cost of a new campus. I would ask local legislators to give up UW North and commit themselves to breaking down barriers to education in 2008. Go to Bellingham, Ellensburg, Pullman and Cheney (put the purple and gold away, you're adults now) and talk to their Presidents. Ask them what the legislature can do to facilitate improvements in their offerings in our area. Ask about the Bachelor, Applied Bachelor and Masters programs already in place and what they hope to add. Find out how we can speed up articulation agreements and fund development of effective online coursework. Then come back to Everett CC and ask about the University Center for North Puget Sound and what they need to expand. We have all the buildings we need, what we need now are programs and funding.

Building a 1960's university won't benefit generations of Snohomish County citizens, but it will saddle them with a mountain of debt. It is time that we send a clear message to our legislators - we want increased education opportunity now, not a new campus 20 years from now. Join me at http://NoSnoU.blogspot.com and lets move this conversation forward.


I'll let you know if it gets published.