One of the issues that has always seemed strange to me about state institutions of higher education is just how much power the politicians of the state have over the “state’s” institutions given the limited funding the states tend to provide to keep these institutions functioning. This is vastly different from the state and local funding that dominates K12 funding. Unlike K12, those who enroll in higher education pay for the education they receive. The Institutions themselves are also responsible for raising money from other sources e.g., research grants, contributions from interested parties.
For example, why does the state have anything to say about tuition? Institutions of higher education must function within a higher education environment, receive limited funding from their state, and yet cannot set tuition as they see fit. They obviously have to deal with the consequences of overcharging if such a decision would price them out of the range of potential students.
I happened across this article from Inside Higher Education which focuses on higher education in North Dakota. This is the system I worked in for 39 years. Higher education in North Dakota gets little national attention so I pay attention when an article is featured at this level. The article uses the situation in North Dakota to comment on “public governance” of state institutions.
For example, the situation in North Dakota involves:
Making any major changes to the governance structure would require a constitutional amendment. The task force would approve a recommendation, and the state Legislature would have to agree to put it on the ballot. Voters would then decide whether to change the Constitution. A majority of voters would have to approve of the change.
This situation creates a very strange environment in which local state legislators tend to vote based on local interests (11 institutions in a state with a very small population) rather than on what would allow the development of the best institutions given what the state is willing to spend. The many institutions have a tendency to be perceived as a way to support the local economy rather than a collective asset that is best for the state as a whole. While I agree that bigger is not always better, the small size of all of the institutions and the limited state funding create serious problems of what I would describe as critical mass. At some level of size and state funding, it is impossible to compete at a national level.