Can the UO compete?

The 2007 legislative session was the best in a generation for higher education, with an 18 percent increase in state financial support for the Oregon University System. Lawmakers basking in the warmth of that achievement might have been shocked to hear University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer warn the state Board of Higher Education last week that his institution is in danger of slipping from the top tier of American universities.

They shouldn't have been surprised. In fact, the slippage has already occurred. The state's challenge now is to restore its flagship university's former status. It can't be done in a single budget cycle.

Among the seven OUS institutions, the UO received the smallest increase, 12 percent, in state support in the 2007-09 budget. That's partly because a portion of the overall increase was targeted for specific programs. Oregon State University's engineering programs and its statewide services such as the Agricultural Experiment Station, for instance, benefitted from targeted appropriations. Two of the regional universities, the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls and Eastern Oregon University in La Grande, were favored with increases of 20 percent or more.

These appropriations are defensible, even necessary - but one result was that the UO ended up last in line.

Frohnmayer told the state board that if the state won't provide funding, it should get out of the way and let the UO manage its own financial affairs. Among other things, Frohnmayer said, the UO needs the freedom to raise tuition rates and incur debt for construction projects without state approval. The logic is unassailable: As state support wanes, so should state influence over university decision-making. Last year the state general fund provided only 13 percent of the UO's total budget, compared to 35 percent from tuition and fees and 27 percent from grants, contracts and donations.

Even with the increase in the current budget, the UO lags far behind the universities with which it hopes to compete. Just one example: The University of Washington receives $339 million in state support, or $8,546 per student. The UO receives $65 million, or $3,232 per student.

This disparity could threaten the UO's ability to make up for meager state support by charging high tuition, winning research grants and soliciting contributions. Prospective students, faculty members and donors want their tuition, grants and gifts to add an increment of excellence, not serve as a substitute for state dollars.

Frohnmayer's mention of the possibility of tuition increases should also have alerted lawmakers to the magnitude of the UO's financial problems. The board has approved relatively modest tuition increases averaging 3.3 percent for the current academic year. This, coupled with a doubling of the state's primary financial aid program, should help relieve a crisis of affordability in Oregon higher education. But Frohnmayer is asking for authority to exceed the approved increase, shifting even more of the cost of college onto the backs of students and their families. This should be done only if the university's academic integrity is at stake.

Some lawmakers undoubtedly hoped that after the progress they made in 2007, they'd stop hearing dire warnings of the kind Frohnmayer delivered last week. But it took more than one biennium for Oregon to push the UO to the brink of mediocrity. The UO has fallen so far behind institutions that once were its peers that it will take a series of healthy budget increases to win back what has been lost.