Leave it to intellectually incurious S.C. Rep. Chip Limehouse to kick off the whine fest regarding proposed budget “cuts” to South Carolina colleges and universities in the wake of plummeting state revenues.
And leave it to the state’s agenda-driven mainstream media to go along for the ride.
In saying that higher ed in South Carolina “got stabbed” in the proposed budget reductions that members of the General Assembly will vote on in emergency session this week, Limehouse is perpetuating a myth – one that continues to cost this state’s parents and taxpayers millions of dollars that could be used for more pressing needs. Or better yet, refunded to the people who send all that new money to Columbia.
According to the latest data available from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), South Carolina currently spends 17.8% of its budget on a bloated, wasteful, duplicative and inefficient system of higher education.
The average state spends only 10.1% of its budget on higher ed – but then again the average state doesn’t try to support one publicly-funded university for every 120,000 citizens, or one campus location per every 50,000 citizens.
Yet despite the fact that we spread our higher education dollars across such a ridiculously excessive number of state-supported schools, it’s not like our top three research universities have been hurting as a result of this overextension.
In fact, budgets at the University of South Carolina, Clemson and MUSC have soared in recent years, including this year.
Let’s take a look at the raw numbers from each school’s total budget over the past five years …
University of South Carolina (Columbia)
FY 2004-05 – $614.1 million
FY 2005-06 – $686.6 million
FY 2006-07 – $788.6 million
FY 2007-08 – $859.8 million
FY 2008-09 – $889.6 millionClemson University
FY 2004-05 – $471.6 million
FY 2005-06 – $501.5 million
FY 2006-07 – $532.8 million
FY 2007-08 – $562.7 million
FY 2008-09 – $583.3 millionClemson University (Public Service Activities)
FY 2004-05 – $54.6 million
FY 2005-06 – $59.5 million
FY 2006-07 – $67.1 million
FY 2007-08 – $74.1 million
FY 2008-09 – $76.5 millionMedical University of South Carolina
FY 2004-05 – $461.5 million
FY 2005-06 – $525.1 million
FY 2006-07 – $531.8 million
FY 2007-08 – $542.6 million
FY 2008-09 – $582.4 million
As you can see, each of these three schools has seen dramatic increases in their budgets, which has been mirrored by steady increases in state appropriations as well.
In 2004-05, South Carolina spent $840 million in state dollars on higher ed, a figure that soared to $917 million the next year, $1.03 billion the following year and $1.1 billion last year.
In fact, South Carolina even managed to increase its state appropriations this year to its three main research campuses in spite of dwindling revenue collections.
So … when you read in the mainstream media about draconian higher ed cuts of 14.9% percent, let’s put those numbers in context.
Even after $26.9 million in state “cuts,” USC’s budget is still bigger than it was last year. Same with Clemson (which is being “cut” by $16.5 million) and MUSC (which is being “cut” by $14.2 million).
And Clemson, in particular, should be able to handle slower growth seeing as they’ve got a secret $140 million reserve fund that they hid from lawmakers – all while they were busy tripling tuition on parents.
But the real question is not why South Carolina’s utterly clueless lawmakers (and similarly clueless mainstream media) keep falling for the same old song and dance from our institutions of higher spending … err, learning … it’s why nobody is proposing common sense reforms to the way we administer higher ed in this state.
Take Georgia, for example, which is currently facing a bigger budget shortfall than South Carolina could ever dream of.
Rather than “spread the pain,” which is generally S.C. lawmakers’ favored approach, Georgia has decided to deal with its budget cuts by merging several of its technical colleges together.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the move will save about $3.5 million in top administrators’ salaries, fringe benefits and other expenses annually.
The Georgia proposal actually came from its Board of Regents, which shows what happens when you have a real central authority concerned about educating kids rather than our current approach of letting a bunch of Bubbas bring home college campuses in the name of “economic development.”
Anyway, we’re sure the higher ed whine fest will be in full swing when lawmakers reconvene tomorrow to take up the emergency “cuts,” but don’t be fooled into thinking any of our ivory towers are in danger of crumbling.
They’re not.
Several of them (Aiken, Lancaster, Salkehatchie, Union, to name just a few) should be, but until we elect lawmakers who put quality ahead of quantity, don’t expect to see South Carolina embrace the sort of sensible reforms being adopted by our neighboring states.
By Charles Schulze October 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Sir: Your information is very misleading. You show the total budgets, not what the state contributes. As a member of the MUSC Board I can tell you that while our budget has increased as we have grown, we have done it with almost no help from state funding. We are very appreciateive of what the state gives but when you look at our entire enterprise the state contributes about 6% of our total budget. This number has gone down each of the six years I have been on the board. You can make the numbers come out to what you want but the fact is that state support for the three research universities is on a downhill slide.
As a graduate of the University of Georgia and a current member of an advisory board within the college of business there I can tell you that their board of regents does not work as well as you think. It operates in a much more political environment than SC boards. There are good and bad points to both systems. As a former supporter of a board of regents system I have come full circle and now support university specific boards who have a much better feel and understanding of what is going on in their institutions.
I do not have all of the answeres to our current higher education problems but I have gained enough understanding to know that it is much more complex than you may think. By the way, I enjoy reading your posts. Don’t always agree but that is what is great about this country.
By fitsnews October 19, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Mr. Schulze,
As a member of the MUSC board, you should know that the state contribution to MUSC’s budget over the past five years has been as follows:
FY 2004-05 – $80.1 million
FY 2005-06 – $82.1 million
FY 2006-07 – $85.9 million
FY 2007-08 – $89.4 million
FY 2008-09 – $94.6 million
Incidentally, those are only general fund revenues.
Oh, and we can debate the governance models for higher ed all day, that doesn’t change the fact that we’re still funding too many schools.
Glad you are a FITS fan, though, and we appreciate you reading (and responding).
-FITSNews
By James October 19, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Hint: numbers are too hard for the average plumber.
Here’s the quickest wayt to unearth the grotesque over-funding of higher education (what an oxymoron): List the professors and assistant professors at each institution and then list the number of classes each actually teach.
Mr. Shultze: should taxpayers expect assistant professors to teach more than one (semester only) class a year?
By Charles Schulze October 19, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I do not understand your reply. Those numbers look correct but as I stated they are only about 6% of our annual operating budget. While there could be other funds that we receive form the state from time to time, they are not for operations. Most have been to help in building a new dental school which has been over due for about twenty years.
James, I cannot answer your question but can tell you that our professors and doctors teach more than one class a year. In addition, they have to teach in clinical settings also. I might also add that they have to do their research in between the teaching and the clinical rounds. I would not want their jobs.
As a taxpayer, I agree that under normal conditions, I would expect professors to teach more than one class a year or even more than one class per semester.
By Tired of the good ole boys October 19, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Not only do they not teach much, they get paid a heck of a lot not to do it. Check out the state salary database at http://www.thestate.com/politics/story/17442.html
At USC, for example there are 529 people that make over $100,000 a year and 37 making over $200,000 a year. Give me a break.
And the total budget numbers are relevant because that’s what spent at these schools and it all comes from taxpayers and students…most of whom are children of taxpayers.
The problem wiht our state’s higher ed system is NOT that we need to put more of our taxes into this highly inefficient system. It is that there are way too many campuses each wasting way too much money with not enough emphasis on educating students.
By BIN News October 20, 2008 at 12:09 am
Mr. Shultze, when you realize everything sic(k) willie does is misleading you will realize what a waste it is to post anything intelligent on his blog.
Remember that sic(k) willie once claimed a Midlands’ elected official has a Strom problem? And he promised and promised for weeks to bring us details.
And he once claimed the gub’ner paid off the family of a “poor little black girl” in Beaufort. Again he promised and promised details. Still waiting.
One day when sic(k) willie was really seeking attention, he filed a FOI demand for the gub’ner’s laptop saying it was used “inappropriately.” Yawn.
We could list willie-scams for hours and hours. But, it serves no purpose.
Just remember that sic(k) willie is best known for his CDV conviction, being fired by the governor and SC Hotline and for the trail of empty beer cans he has been known to leave from the Vista to his residence.
Even now we suspect sic(k) willie is working on his next willie scam. Whatever it is it will be funded by the usual suspects. We can hardly wait.
BIN News
Flair and Balanced
By Rob W. October 20, 2008 at 10:10 am
James/Tired: Professors at research institutions are primarily there to do research, and that’s what they spend most of their time on. They provide education in the form of a little bit of teaching and a lot of mentoring/supervision of graduate students. This is the way the system is run in America; it makes sense for these professors to use their time for research (which boosts schools ratings) instead of for teaching classes. Professors at non-research schools (Lander, etc.) typically teach more classes.
Will: The Board of Regents in Georgia actually works out great because they’re in charge of both setting tuition and distributing lottery money. Since their lottery scholarship pays for the entire tuition (not a set amount), every time the Board raises tuition they have to use up their lottery money to pay for it, giving some serious budget restraint. Perhaps SC should look into this system as a way to keep down tuition.
By James October 20, 2008 at 10:27 am
BIN – weren’t you outed for your support of Dr. AndersEn before all hell broke loose in the AndersEn house? Oh, I’m sure you’re hoping everyone forgot that acording to your “wisdom” it was the Vote No crowd that forced your beloved Dr. AndersEn to sign away his parental rights to his seven children and tens of thousands of dollars per month in alimony and child support. Go to your own pathetic web-ste and let the real new news media work.
Mr. Shultze, thank you for your response – you may want to find out the answer to the question – it might enlighten you to some of the under-worked professors and assistant professors in higher education.
I am sure there are some that work long hours and are diligent and I am equally sure there are some that are grossly under-worked and THAT is were folks with your capacity should shine a light on and cut.
By BIN News October 20, 2008 at 11:09 am
I was wrong on this one. Sic(k) actually got one right. Kudos.
BIN News
Believes In Nothing
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) October 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Great read! It’s about time that the idea of one public university/college (four year) and one public tech school (two year) per region is pushed again. There is no reason the state should fund anything beyond that.
Three tech schools and three public universities – it’s so logical, it’s painful.
- SSHM
By James October 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Rob,
Thank you for the enlightenment. I was hoping someone would open up the pandora’s box of “higher education” and explain to mere mortals that these state employees are paid to NOT teach (probably why Mr. Shultze avoided answering the question).
Could these holier than thous somehow untangle themselves from all their “research” (some companies call this surfing the internet) and at least teach ONE actual class each semester? It would only be 3 hours in a classroom out of a 40 hour week for God’s sake.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' October 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Don’t you mean Dr. Chip Limehouse? As in the recipient of an honorary doctorate degree from MUSC in May 2007?
Pingback: MUSC: Start Cuts With President’s Pay :: FITSNews