1. CERPP SYMPOSIUM “Aid in an Age of Uncertainty” Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, & Practice January 22, 2009 David Longanecker President, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) www.wiche.edu

2. Access the American Way  In the beginning, access was not a public goal. American higher education was an elitist system.  To What End – Educate to the highest level a select few; as it should be.  Then moved to a meritocratic system  Land Grant College Movement  Scholarships for the able  To What End – economic development

3. Access the American Way  Broad access became a “public” goal in the mid 20 th century.  Began as Economic Development  GI Bill  Became Egalitarian with Great Society (HEA of 1965)  Geographic access  “as free as possible” – low tuition  Need based financial aid

4. The TRIAD on Access – A cogent philosophy for the times.  Geographic access  U.S. invented the community college to ensure geographic accessibility.  Low tuition – a worthy public investment  Financial aid  Grants for the poor – to remove financial barriers (cash poor)  Loans for the less poor – to reduce financial burdens (cash flow)  Choice was in the public policy mix

5. SUCCESS ON ACCESS ERODED EFFICACY OF THE TRIAD  Geographic access did not ensure success  If you build it, they will come  But will they succeed?  Progression rates low by international standards  Low tuition limited supply, as demand grew  Limits in public resources limited “per student” funding  Left tuition as the revenue gap filler

6. SUCCESS ON ACCESS ERODED EFFICACY OF THE TRIAD  Financial Aid Strategy wasn’t working well.  Subsidy structures evolved -- from those who were in need to help those who vote  From Grants to Loans & Tax Benefits  Amounts grew, but not as rapidly as college costs or eligibility  Original access agenda lost momentum  “More is better but never enough” case got old  Students weren’t succeeding  Other public agendas began to take hold  True Choice Became Illusory As Broad Public Policy  Expensive as public policy  Some institutions stayed the course

7. SUCCESS ON ACCESS ERODED EFFICACY OF THE TRIAD  A new business model was taking hold in American higher education – Privatization  If it worked for the independent sector; why not for the public sector?

8. THE 1990s: ERA OF TUITION HIKES AND MERIT AID  The wealth of the 90’s drove policy  Tuition increased, because it could  State support increased, because it could  Students paid, because they could  More students went, because they could  But Access and Success did not “increase”

9. THE 1990s: ERA OF TUITION HIKES AND MERIT AID  The advent of merit aid  From State Policy Perspective “Merit” promised:  Greater participation by the middle-class  Holding power on the best and the brightest  Political prowess  On access  Didn’t undercut need-based aid (usually)  Serendipitously helped many access students  From Institutional Perspective “Merit” promised:  Competitive advantage  Productivity enhancement

10. The New Millennium – A Sobering Time  The shock of the economic downturn  Financial access eroded  Tuition increased  Aid did not  Enrollments began to erode

11. The New Millennium – A Renaissance of Sorts.  The new agenda : Frugal Essentialism  Reflected by:  Access becomes Access to Success  Need is redefined and reemphasized  Resources, however are quite constrained  Recent benevolence of the “have” institutions  First Generation: Carolina Covenant, UVA, MIT Pell Match, Harvard and Princeton filling the Gap.  Second Generation: Free for all  A drop in the bucket  From those few institutions with a bucket

12. The New Millennium – A Renaissance of Sorts.  Reemergence of focus on need – Returning to First Principles  The West – 15 States  Two states were already there – California and Washington  Three more have emerged – Wyoming, Oregon, and New Mexico  Two think they are there but aren’t – Nevada and Colorado  11 of fifteen engaged or reengaged  But,  No stomach for free-loaders  No stomach for higher taxes

13. The New World: Blended replacement for merit & need  Direct BLENDED Programs  Indiana 21 st Century Scholars  Oklahoma OLAP  Indirect BLENDED Programs  Oregon Shared Responsibility/Earned Opportunity Program  A Step Ahead – Texas  Grew out of merit component  Back to need-based

14. The New World: Policies In Sync  Finance Policies  Intentionally integrating institutional appropriations, tuition, and financial aid policies  A New World for Public Higher Ed/ Not the Independent Sector

15. The New World: What Makes Good Student Aid Policies  Contemporary “Local” Philosophy  Affordability  To students – does it eliminate the barriers  To Policy Makers  Is it defensible  Is it fundable  To Institutions  Is it fair  Is it fundable

16. The New World: What Makes Good Student Aid Policies  Transparency  Can consumers understand it – is it simple  Can institutions buy it (and complement it)  Do folks know about it  Does it leave others’ money on the table  Can it be implemented effectively & efficiently

17. The New World: What Makes Good Student Aid Policies The Conundrum The public good doesn’t always match the institutional good  Example: Attracting the Best & Brightest  Example: Transparency The Sum of the Parts don’t always equal the desired goal  Tuition discounting

18. A Brave New World  Don’t count on feds  What you won’t see  Substantially more $s  What you will see  Simplification  Complexity  Why  No Money  No Sense of Urgency  No Consensus on Approach

19. A Brave New World  A Mixed Bag at the State Level  Increased focus on need -- real need  But no money  A likely recovery initiative (a la Oregon)  Choice  Not so much  Why  They buy the independence argument  They can’t afford true choice – triag  Emerging Interest in Work – Work Study/Coop Work Study

20. A Brave New World  Institutional Policy versus Public Policy  Is tuition discounting a sustainable strategy?  Can this industry survive?  Is the current pricing structure sustainable?  Public  Private  Is the current cost structure sustainable?  Public  Private  Enjoy your discussions tomorrow!