Political Will, and Will not in dealing with the State’s ever increasing number of Universities.

Way too many universities in this state, with the very little amount of tax dollars we have (low property taxes, sales tax, no income tax). Combine BHSU and SDSMT. Combine NSU and DSU. We need to evaluate having 6 regental institutions, and 2 “non-university” universities (USDSU, and the new one talked about in Rapid), with the very few tax dollars we have to support them.

I guess I have to disagree with the idea that the university system has “exponentially increasing costs.” A few points:

1 – The universities were one of the only things in state government to take an actual cut this year, of $1.5M off the top.

2 – Over the past ten years, the universities have increased enrollment every year. They have gotten money from the state for salary increases during that time. However, they have not received any inflationary increase from the state AT ALL during that period to fund their operations. Most units of government, like K-12, get a percentage increase automatically.

3 – The “new universities” in SF and RC are completely self-sufficient. Their ongoing operations, as well as the payments on the bonds for their buildings, are paid for by the tuition charged at those centers. I think the state put a little money into SF upfront, but none for RC at all.

4 – Practically all of the new state money that has gone to the universities under Rounds has been for new research programs or PhD programs – not increases for existing programs. The news recently reported that the first five-year 2010 research grants recently expired, and the centers those grants helped create have brought millions in external research funds into the state.

5 – Over the past decade, SD has consistently had among the lowest tuition increases every year, and continues to have a total cost of higher ed that is substantially lower than just about every neighboring state.

6 – North Dakota, who has 10 recognized state universities, spends $100 Million a year MORE on higher ed than South Dakota does, despite having fewer people in the state and fewer students.

I suppose people can argue that higher ed is over-funded, or that we have too many universities. That is a matter of opinion. But it is important to know the facts, and anyone making that case has to do so in light of these facts.

between 2002 and 2009….

k-12 funding increased by 20%
BOR funding increased by 40%
(appropriations from the States general fund)

I like facts also,,,

Wow! Number 2, who pays your salary? A) The Regents, or B) The Governor

Between 2002 and 2008…

K-12 enrollment decreased 7.6%
BOR enrollment increased 8.9%

Take a look at the Regents Factbook:
http://www.sdbor.edu/publications/documents/09Factbook.pdf

Pages 34-35 show every single increase the Regents have gotten, going back to 1990. You can judge each one for yourself. What is noticeable to me is that, almost every time the Regents get additional state money, it is to DO SOMETHING additional. It is an increase, in that their operation grows; but they are also doing more things. Obviously the legislature thinks those new things are important because they keep appropriating the money to do them.

What the Regents almost never get is extra money for what they are already doing.

There is also a very good chart on Page 42, at the bottom. It shows how, every year, the state is paying a smaller portion of the total cost of a college education. In 2009, for the first time, student tuition makes up a larger share than state money. Ten years ago, the state was paying almost 60% – now it is under half.

“The “new universities” in SF and RC are completely self-sufficient. Their ongoing operations, as well as the payments on the bonds for their buildings, are paid for by the tuition charged at those centers..”

Might this be an example of how to run a university? Class buildings and teachers, basics. No sports and the attendant facilities they need. Just asking. If they can support themselves with tuition alone, it is well considering why.

Nebraska has one million more folks than SD and has six state universities and one medical center. At that rate SD has twice as many as needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_Nebraska .

Let’s have an independent audit of the “self-sufficient” SF & RC universities. Did they pay for their BOR and legislative hearings, their own personnel retirement (including “match”) (or are they part of the state system), do they pay their own infrastructure and utility bills, do they fully fund all personnel – not one iota of government assistance (accounting, social security, paid holidays, etc.).

A bigger issue is the bad management. We need a state university system. Instead we have redundant state university presidents and their repetitive administrative staffs at each. We should cut this to two: one for the land grant school & another for the others. Rather than repeating majors (three U’s offer physics majors for a total of 5 graduates annually) – we must consolidate programs, allow smarter scheduling, and more distance learning. Offering some classes every other semester, every other year is a cruel joke that drives up costs, enlarges the time spent in college, and puffs department credentials.

I was interested in the Nebraska comparison so I looked up their proposed state budget for FY10.

Nebraska will spend $551,010,364 of general funds on the U of Nebraska system, the other state colleges, and the higher education coordinating board. Nebraska has 1,783,432 – so that works out to $308.96 per person.

South Dakota will spend $170,902,101 of general funds on the state universities. We have 804,194 people – so that works out to $212.15 per person.

So Nebraska’s supposedly more efficient system spends 45% more in state general funds, per capita.

(It’s about the same if you go on a per student basis – Nebraska has about 55,000 and S. Dakota has about 30,000).

5:02:

Using your numbers, on a per student basis, Nebraska spends over $10,000 per student and SD spends $5,700 per student.

Either I’m missing something or you need a new calculator.

Troy – I was surprised by that too. You can check it for yourself.

The NE Governor’s proposed general fund budget is at
http://www.budget.state.ne.us/das_budget/budget09/gfapprop.pdf

Look at Page 5. You need to add together “Postsecondary Coord. Coom”, “State Colleges”, and “University of Nebraska” to get everything. Nebraska does biennial budgets, but they still break it down into years. I went with the 2009-10 proposed budgets. The heading at the top of the page indicates that this is just general funds.

You can see the recently passed SD 2009-10 budget at:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2009/Bill.aspx?File=HB1300ENR.htm

You have to scroll down or search for “DEPARTMENT TOTAL, BOARD OF REGENTS”. It is maybe three-fourths of the way down. The general fund budget is the first column on the left.

Maybe I’m missing something too, because it is surprising that Nebraska would spend THAT MUCH more – but both of these documents seem pretty straightforward.

I did wonder whether the Nebraska budget of $551M is for two years instead of one, but does that not seem to be the case, as there are separate headings for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years. I also wondered if it was the TOTAL (all funds) budget for Nebraska, but that cannot be the case – because the SD all funds budget is something like $600M, and obviously Nebraska’s would be higher.

Troy – I had the same reaction. Please double check the documents I looked at:

Nebraska governor’s proposed general fund budget: http://www.budget.state.ne.us/das_budget/budget09/gfapprop.pdf
The higher education budgets are on page 5 – the first three items on that page. I looked at the column for “FY 2009-10 recommendation.” I was concerned that this budget was for TWO years, because Nebraska does biennial budgets, but the separate column for 2010-11 shows that this is not the case

SD General Appropriations bill:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2009/Bill.aspx?File=HB1300ENR.htm
You will have to search for “DEPARTMENT TOTAL, BOARD OF REGENTS” which is about three-fourths of the way down. The general fund expenditure is the far left column.

Although the Nebraska document says that it is “general fund appropriations,” I was concerned that there was some kind of nomenclature difference and that $551M is the total budget. But that cannot be the case – after all, SD’s total university budget, from all funds, is over $600M and certain Nebraska’s would be higher.

Like I said, I’m very surprised by the huge disparity too. Please tell me if I’m missing something.

Sorry for the double post. I didn’t work the first time so I did it over.

I tried to do a cursory review of these two documents and I’m not sure they are organized for easy apples to apples comparison. I’m not even sure we can just divide the Regents budget by students to get an accurate state subsidy of a college education because I believe (could be wrong) that some of the money that goes through our Regents budget is actually subsidy of the provision of health care related to the Medical School. Or is it that some educational costs are absorbed by the Department of Health? My point is that I don’t think a simple division gives reliable information or at least it may not.

Then, when you try to compare Nebraska which might run through more of its athletic costs through the Regents when they are really subsidy of quality of life (in Nebraska, football is like the arts ) expenditure.

Diana, Tony, Clyde, Harry, Steve, Jerry, and most importantly Bill. Without these people the closure of Springfield would have never occurred. Without these types of people no other school will be closed.