Las Vegas Sun

March 18, 2024

Higher education is not broken

Gov. Brian Sandoval’s State of the State address has certainly given us all a great deal to consider. His proposals for Nevada’s public higher education system, in particular, will prompt needed dialogue. However, it is critical that such discussions begin with correct assumptions, and contrary to what we have been told, the Nevada System of Higher Education is not broken.

As evidence of that assertion, some point to our universities’ six-year graduation rates (for the period beginning in 2004) of only 50 percent. However, that statement is misleading. When student transfers and eight-year graduation rates are reflected in the calculation, the graduation rate is much higher, ranging from 55 to 70 percent — certainly in need of improvement, but a respectable figure in any national comparison.

Many have been critical of Nevada’s community college graduation rates, which range from 5 to 26 percent. However, many, if not most, community college students don’t attend community colleges to graduate from a community college — they attend to take specific courses or they transfer within a relatively short period of time. These are designed to be access institutions, and graduation rates, taken alone, really don’t adequately reflect their mission.

In fact, in Nevada, higher education has made enormous progress. UNR, the governor’s alma mater, is a good example. In 2010, UNR graduated 66 percent more students than in 2000, and UNR’s current freshman retention rate is 80 percent, more than 5 percent higher than the national average. (Freshman retention rates are critical because experience teaches us that it takes nearly 10 years to raise graduation rates.) UNLV can tell a similar story.

Nevada higher education has had many other accomplishments: common course numbering, which allows students to transfer easily from one institution to another; increased enrollment; more total graduates; greater numbers of minority and disadvantaged students; first-rate professional schools; progressively stricter admission standards; and world-class research institutions (Desert Research Institute, UNR and UNLV).

Significantly, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni gave Nevada’s four-year institutions all a B grade for general-course requirements, on par with Arizona State and the University of Utah, and ahead of the University of Arizona.

I welcome the governor’s proposal to give the Board of Regents more authority over fees and tuition. We have had little reason to increase tuition because, under our funding formula in Nevada, increased tuition (generally speaking) rolled back into the state budget and did not remain with the campuses. Certainly, with a new authority to control the expenditure of all tuition and fees, the Board of Regents has more flexibility with which to deal with our financial crisis.

However, increased tuition is not a panacea. The governor has stated that his budget reductions for higher education will approach 17.5 percent, which is an enormous figure. However, depending on the method of calculation, the actual cuts in state support (not just cuts in the budget) actually range from 17.5 percent to as high as 29.1 percent (depending on whether just state funding or other funding sources are included in the calculation). The bottom line is that higher education will receive $162 million less in state funds under the governor’s budget.

Tuition increases of more than 70 percent would be required to make up that shortfall.

Certainly we have tough budget choices to make — but such policy discussions should begin with a correct statement of the facts.

Michael Wixom is a member, and former chairman, of the Board of Regents, which oversees the Nevada System of Higher Education.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy