Paul Fulton: Keep Research Institutions Strong, Competitive

Planning university's financial needs
For good of state's future, keep research institutions strong, competitive
By Paul Fulton
GUEST COLUMNIST
Wednesday, June 1, 2005

There has been a great deal of criticism about the state Senate's budget provisions allowing our two University of North Carolina system research universities, UNC Chapel Hill and N.C. State University, to set tuition and allowing full undergraduate scholarship recipients to be considered North Carolina residents. The attacks on these provisions are an overreaction. Rather than leading to the demise of the UNC system, as some claim, these provisions could strengthen our system by recognizing our campuses' individual needs and by allowing all our universities to compete for the highest-quality faculty and students.

There is precedent all over this country for allowing tuition to be set at the campus level. And although, over the years, our state has provided substantial support for higher education, North Carolina now faces serious challenges with regard to financing other critical needs such as health care, infrastructure, K-12 and preschool, natural-disaster relief, technology and economic development. There also is strong opposition from the right that regularly opposes any sort of additional tax revenue to better meet our state's many needs. In short, we have a real dilemma.

At UNC Chapel Hill, student access is simply not an issue. Forty percent of all tuition increases go to student aid. Our Carolina Covenant guarantees that if any family is at or below 150 percent of the poverty level, its student will graduate debt-free. We meet 100 percent of demonstrated student aid. I am sure that comparable programs exist at N.C. State.

UNC Chapel Hill's board of trustees, of which I am a member, has been highly criticized for the tuition provision and one that would count all out-of-state full scholarship recipients as in-state students at UNC system schools.

This is the same board of trustees that struggles mightily to identify the resources necessary to properly finance one of our flagship institutions. Competition for faculty is severe, and with no significant state financing increases in the past three years, it has been difficult to keep pace with faculty market demands. We are now leading a capital campaign that will eventually raise $2 billion for UNC Chapel Hill to help finance faculty salaries, student aid and programs - the fundamental things that make a university great.

Again, however, we are competing against such public and private powerhouses as the University of Michigan, the University of Virginia and Duke University. Simply put, our research institutions compete in different markets and have different missions than other UNC campuses do, and I believe the Senate leadership shows wisdom in providing our research institutions another source of revenue to build on their excellence.

These trustees are highly motivated about their university and its long-term needs, and serious about making the campus a better educational environment for all students and raising the university's competitiveness worldwide. I have a hard time seeing why giving this board the ability to set tuition and better plan the university's financial future is such a problem. Giving the campuses the authority to set their own tuition within properly approved guidelines and philosophies would then allow the board of governors to focus on bigger strategic priorities that would make our system as a whole more focused and efficient and thereby stronger, not weaker.

The out-of-state scholarship provision merely allows all our campuses to compete more effectively for bright, gifted and highly talented students. There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the fact that we have kids leaving our state to go elsewhere because of a lack of adequate merit scholarships. With this provision, our UNC system immediately would have about 50 percent more Morehead Scholars, about 50 percent more Robertson Scholars and about 50 percent more Parks Scholars. Athletic programs also would become more competitive.

Perhaps this provision would allow more out-of-state students on our campuses, but the number of in-state students also would increase. I am confident that expanding merit scholarship programs, both academic and athletic, would make it easier for all our campuses to attract bright, gifted and talented students.

Well-intended people can disagree on goals and the methods by which to achieve those goals. We at Chapel Hill want to have the best public institution of higher education we can possibly have - the best faculty, the best students, the best programs, the best facilities. Yes, President Molly Broad is right: Chapel Hill has benefited greatly from the $3.1 billion bond issue. But as a co-chairman of the Higher Education Bond Oversight Committee, I know that the administration and the constituency of UNC Chapel Hill were a key part of why the bond issue passed so overwhelmingly.

We want to be an integral part of this team, and I believe we are. But we also need the latitude to take actions that can make our university truly great.

North Carolina has some huge challenges ahead - primarily in the area of creating new jobs and opportunities to replace those that are going abroad. These job opportunities are going to come in areas such as financial services, technology, biotechnology and health care, and our research institutions can play a vital role in this effort if they are given the opportunity to be as good as they can be.

- Paul Fulton is a UNC Chapel Hill trustee who lives in Winston-Salem.

Click here to view this article in the Wall Street Journal