Editor’s note: This op-ed is by George Cross of Winooski. He is a graduate of Castleton State College and a former legislator member of the VSC Board of Trustees.
Gov. Peter Shumlin states that he is “convinced that Vermont can become known nationally as the education state…” Many Vermonters agree with him. A few may think we are already there.
The governor recently announced a plan to reassess the relationship between UVM and the state in order to “do a better job of investing scarce state dollars (in higher education) in the disciplines and research that will be the economic engines of the next century.” This is a laudable goal and a conversation that the state has needed for some time.
However, one has to wonder why the focus is only on UVM, as one of the stated priorities of the study is:
“The differing roles of the University of Vermont and the Vermont State Colleges, and the implications and opportunities for program consolidation, reduction in duplication, and cost savings.“
This same priority is first stated as: “Collaborating with the Vermont State Colleges to ensure that our system of higher education is maximizing opportunities for students, limiting duplication, and increasing access, particularly for first generation college students.”
If the state is going to obtain “the maximum return on investment for Vermont and Vermonters”, this priority is Priority One. Shumlin’s other priorities are very important, but they all flow from Priority One.
Willie Sutton is quoted as saying when asked why he robbed banks, “It is where the money is.” To stimulate improvements in return on investment in higher education one has to go where the students are. In the fall of 2010 there were 7,172 full time equivalent Vermont resident undergraduate students enrolled in the Vermont State Colleges colleges and 3,691 at UVM. Thus, about 66 percent of enrolled Vermont residents were attending VSC programs and 34 percent were attending UVM. In 2008 these percentages were 64 percent VSC and 36 percent UVM. First-time Vermont resident freshmen at VSC institutions totaled 1,466 full-time equivalents in the fall of 2010, while UVM had 604 enrolled. Regardless of the measure, there are more Vermonters educationally connected with VSC than with UVM. Any study of return on investment must acknowledge and embrace this fact.
As laudable as the governor’s call for action is, one has to be troubled that the “group of highly skilled individuals” (and it is a highly-skilled group) chosen to carry out this important mission is short in terms of connection with VSC and its institutions and students. The one notable member with a VSC background is Peggy Williams, a former President of Lyndon State College. However, Dr. Williams has not been directly involved with VSC since 1997. Given the priorities of the study and the growing resident student base of the VSC colleges, is this enough?
In conclusion, Shumlin deserves high praise for raising the issues, putting in place a strong committee and setting out an important list of priorities. The only questions raised here are:
- How does all this play into the interrelationships among and between UVM, VSC and the State of Vermont?
- Is the structure of the study committee inclusive of all parties?
