I was interested, but skeptical. After all, many universities seem to be highly rated somewhere. Is State Tech really that good? In a 2024 article, I worked with two University of Missouri graduate students, Maxx Cook and Michael Reda, to find out. We examined State Tech’s impact on student graduation and earnings.

It quickly became apparent that State Tech students had better outcomes in the data, which is consistent with what they report on their website. However, we weren’t sure whether this was because of State Tech’s superior educational programming, or just because it attracts stronger students in the first place.

We used two strategies to sort this out. First, we used detailed data from the Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development to compare students who attended State Tech with students who had similar pre-college qualifications but attended other two-year colleges in Missouri. Second, we used econometric tools to isolate a group of students who attended State Tech only because it happened to be near where they lived, rather than for other reasons. We then compared these students to otherwise similar students who happened to live farther away. This strategy helps remove a lot of potential confounding factors that might make State Tech look better than it really is.

Our findings confirm that State Tech is the real deal. It increases associate degree attainment by more than 20 percentage points compared to other two-year colleges in Missouri, and State Tech students graduate faster. It also increases earnings (measured six years after initial enrollment) by over $11,000 annually. Importantly, State Tech students outperform both non-technical and technical students elsewhere in Missouri.

We should celebrate the presence of such an excellent institution in our great state. We should also try to learn from State Tech to replicate its success. If this were any other industry, competitors would be flocking to Linn to figure out the secret sauce. But based on my years of experience studying education, I doubt this is happening. Why not? Because there is no competitive incentive to do so. In business, an exceptional company forces rivals to adapt or close. In public education—K–12 or higher ed—the risk of closure due to poor performance is almost nonexistent.

This means Missouri’s other public two-year colleges have little reason to put in the work required to emulate State Tech. It’s a missed opportunity, but we can still appreciate State Tech’s success and be proud to call it our own.

The post Let’s Celebrate (and learn from) State Tech, One of the Best Technical Colleges in the Country appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 10, 2025, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites, visited Washington University School of Law to discuss the ideological and bureaucratic challenges facing American higher education. In this lecture, Shapiro argues that elite universities have abandoned their core mission of truth-seeking in favor of activism, driven by bloated administrations and timid leadership. Drawing on personal experience and national trends, he explains how law schools, in particular, are failing to uphold classical liberal values such as free speech, academic freedom, and equal justice.

Listen to it as a podcast

The event was hosted by the Show-Me Institute, the Federalist Society, the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

The post Lawless: Ilya Shapiro on Free Speech in Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The goal of this language change would be to address concerns about diversity statements resembling “loyalty oaths” or “litmus tests,” Choi explained in his letter. MU spokesperson Christian Basi said Friday afternoon that the university does not and has not used these practices during the hiring process but wanted to clarify its practices. . . .

The Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank that advocates for “free markets and individual liberty,” also criticized the state’s universities for using diversity statements as “loyalty oaths” in the hiring process.

“We do not use loyalty oaths or litmus tests but a few of our job advertisements contained information that may give some readers the impression that such a request was inferred,” Choi wrote in his letter this week.

As reported by the Columbia Missourian, the new “values” language reads as follows:

We value the uniqueness of every individual and strive to ensure each person’s success. Contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote intellectual pluralism and enable us to achieve the excellence that we seek in learning, research and engagement. This commitment makes our university a better place to work, learn and innovate. In your application materials, please discuss your experiences and expertise that support these values and enrich our missions of teaching, research and engagement.

Without nitpicking, I will say that this language is an improvement over previous university job application expectations, such as noting that ideal candidates for a math professor position “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” in their work.

No one should blind themselves to the fact that the woke mindset has penetrated deep into Missouri’s higher academy. The incidents I cited were not isolated, and they are likely the tip of the iceberg. President Choi’s statement was good as far as it goes, but so far as I can tell no university employee was disciplined for requiring diversity statements, and the bureaucracies that produced them remain untouched.

Barring a legislative solution, we are going to see the woke agenda continue to consolidate its control over Missouri higher education.

If the system’s move was made to halt a statutory solution, Missouri legislators should not oblige. While I welcome President Choi’s improved and appropriate expectations for prospective hires, he doesn’t lead every public university in the state, and there’s nothing to stop other universities—or the University of Missouri System in the future—from falling back on woke bad habits.

President Choi’s decision to excise woke loyalty oaths from university hiring documents is encouraging. The legislature should finish the job.

The post University of Missouri System Walks Back “Loyalty Oaths” in Job Listings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Loyalty oaths” can mean a lot of things, but here I mean “loyalty oath” to be an ideological attestation required for public employment. Want to work at Missouri State? UMSL? UMKC? You might have to toe the DEI line first, even though doing so (1) is prejudicial to applicants, (2) undermines the free inquiry objectives of government colleges and universities by homogenizing professors, and (3) could deny Missouri students the best teachers by biasing hiring toward ideologues rather than experts.

Here’s another example: a University of Central Missouri job listing for a librarian features this remarkable sentence that starts reasonably and spirals from there:

The Cataloging and Metadata Librarian identifies and addresses metadata remediation needs, as well as the adoption of new or updated standards and vocabularies in support of James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ commitment to incorporating social justice into our work, focusing on the James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist efforts.

A math professor listing for Mizzou notes that an applicant who can “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” to their work would be a preferred applicant.

Taxpayers should be paying to “decolonize” math, huh?

Employees of America’s higher education system have long been left of center on average, but taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize this special kind of nonsense. Compelling librarians and math professors to commit to the Left’s preferred politics is viewpoint discrimination that encourages groupthink and creates an academic environment where everyone who’s hired to educate is part of some political in-group. That’s unhealthy if you want an academic environment that challenges biases rather than affirms them.

Hiring practices like those required in these “loyalty oaths” could discourage highly qualified subject matter experts from even applying for jobs that have no, or should have no, political or social justice component. Florida is in the process of uprooting this sort of caustic academic culture entirely, dismantling DEI programs in colleges and universities statewide. All other things being equal, are Missouri taxpayers really willing to cede qualified conservative and moderate professors to states like Florida? I don’t think so.

Missouri institutions of higher learning should focus on creating a welcoming environment by treating employees and students as individuals instead of trying to engineer campus-wide groupthink through the way that they hire teachers. Woke loyalty oaths have no business in the state’s hiring documents.

Update: University of Missouri President Mun Choi responded to this post with the following statement:

University of Missouri President on faculty recruiting practices:

The UM System does not have loyalty oaths

——-

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A recent post from the Show-Me Institute references “loyalty oaths” related to faculty hiring at higher education institutions. I want to be very clear — we do not have loyalty oaths of any kind at the University of Missouri System.

We strive to ensure that every UM System university has employees who are committed to an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone. Currently, we have students and scholars from every county in Missouri, all 50 states and more than 50 countries, among them individuals from various walks of life, including from rural and metro areas, military veterans and first-generation students — each with a different point of view.

———–

We hire the best faculty who exemplify the highest standards of teaching and research, and we do not compromise on quality.

The post “Loyalty Oaths” in University Employment Should Be a Non-starter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Traditionally, unprepared students have taken remedial classes, in which students learn high school–level content and don’t earn credit, yet still pay tuition. The percentage of Missouri public high school graduates taking remedial courses at public universities has declined notably in recent years. In 2013, remedial course taking was at 35.6 percent when college and career readiness was at 37.2 percent; by 2017 remediation had tumbled nearly 13 points to 22.8 percent. At first glance, this is a noteworthy improvement—but what caused it?

Are students simply better prepared for college than students of a few years ago? It’s unlikely. DESE’s own numbers show 37.2 percent of graduates being college- or career-ready in 2013 compared to 42.5 percent in 2017. It’s progress, but probably not enough to account for a much larger decline in remedial course-taking.

A more likely explanation might be a shift in the methods used by Missouri’s Department of Higher Education (DHE) to help underprepared students. One of DHE’s objectives is to “eliminate remedial education in favor of co-requisite models and similar proven methods.” Remedial students are less likely to finish their degree within six years, setting them even further behind and potentially saddling them with student debt. Co-requisite programs help underprepared students by enrolling them in introductory, credit-bearing courses and providing support services. The support services normally include labs and tutoring to supplement the course material, but the specific services offered vary by university. Alternative forms of remediation are offered by 92 percent of public higher education institutions. The most common is co-requisite courses, but other alternative remediation offerings include modularized courses and fast-track options.

DHE only recently began collecting data on course completion rates of co-requisite students, who already show a higher college-level course passage rate than those taking traditional remedial courses. Students in co-requisite programs (page 14) were able to pass a college-level math course in their first academic year at a rate of 53.2 percent, compared to a 19.6 percent passing rate from other types of remediation. In English, 65.5 percent of co-requisite students passed a college-level English class, whereas only 35.7 percent of students enrolled in other types of remediation passed such a class within one academic year.

It’s possible that these numbers overstate the advantage of corequisite courses. For example, remedial classes set students back a semester while corequisite courses are taken concurrently with the credit-bearing class—which means that the rate of completing of a college-level class in the first academic year might not be a fair way to compare remedial and corequisite classes. And in any case, the real test of the corequisite course model will be how likely participants are to earn their college degrees, not just pass a single college-level class.

But giving corequisites the benefit of the doubt—and giving colleges and universities due credit for finding a better way to help underprepared students—shouldn’t mean overlooking the fact that Missouri still has a public school system from which fewer than half of graduates emerge unprepared for college or a career. Rather than leaving it to colleges to finish their students’ high school education, shouldn’t Missouri public schools take a hard look at why so many kids are graduating high school without the necessary skills to succeed in adult life?

The post Do Fewer Remedial Course-takers Mean Better-prepared College Students? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the career prospects for someone entering the workforce are still highly dependent on his or her educational attainment. So how can Missouri reverse these unhealthy trends—poor perceived value, lack of affodability, and low completion rates—in higher education? Susan Pendergrass explores the problems and offers possible solutions. Click on the link below to read the entire essay.

The post Higher Education: Where Are We Going and What Can We Do About It? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To be sure, there were different degrees of socialism. The totalitarian socialism of Mao and the Soviet Union killed people, ruined economies, and snuffed out freedoms critical to both political and personal life. The democratic socialism common in the West, softer and therefore less destructive, merely specialized in overregulating the private economy and extreme redistribution of wealth.

But even in the West, socialism manifestly failed. The democratic socialism of Great Britain reduced that country from a leading economic power to the “sick man of Europe,” and was firmly rejected by British voters during the Thatcher years.

Unfortunately, socialism has come slouching back onto our college campuses, settling itself comfortably among the students. A 2015 Reason-Rupe poll showed that 58 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds viewed socialism favorably. By contrast, only 28 percent of seniors ages 65 and above were favorable toward socialism. Several other polls say the same thing: A majority of young adults support socialism, and in fact prefer it to capitalism.

To older adults, this fact probably seems disturbing and inexplicable. How could anyone support a philosophy that has spawned evils ranging from economic stagnation to mass killing? Speaking as a 21-year-old college student, I believe that the explanation boils down to two things—discontent and ignorance. Most of today’s college students grew up during the Great Recession. They are graduating with large debts and, for many, bleak prospects for employment. They feel cheated, and believe that something is deeply wrong with our current system. Since that system is capitalist, they see socialism as an alternative.

At the same time, however, most young adults misunderstand socialism. In one study only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as a government-managed economy. And who can blame them for their ignorance, considering what they’ve learned—or haven’t learned—in the classroom? In my experience, professors may not espouse socialism, but they seldom challenge its tenets. Most of my history classes in college have focused on the many ways America has victimized the poor and downtrodden. Professors equated capitalism with imperialism while failing to even mention the evils committed by totalitarian socialist countries or the economic destructiveness of democratic socialism. One of my professors dismissed the atrocities committed under Mao Zedong’s regime by saying, “While there were certainly many failures with Mao’s reign, during his rule China’s literacy rate went up, as did migration to cities.”

“Failures”—that is how my professor referred to the 45 million who starved to death under Mao.

I believe this same indifference to truth is what turned so many college students into enthusiastic supporters of Bernie Sanders during the last presidential campaign, giving him more youth votes in the primary than Clinton and Trump combined. While Sanders is no totalitarian, he certainly supports the same democratic socialism that emaciated Britain in the postwar years. Students loved the promises he made (free college, free healthcare, and forgiveness of debt) and were perfectly willing to believe that big and benevolent government could make almost anything “free” simply by raising taxes on the very rich.

It should be said that this support for socialism isn’t necessarily permanent. Studies find that support for socialism drops after college and goes down as people earn higher salaries. Young people aren’t stupid; they are just young, and some economic truths cannot be truly appreciated until experienced.

Of course, some college students don’t make it easier for themselves. Many refuse to listen to conservative voices and cannot stand correction—or argument. Nothing strengthens a lie quite like an echo chamber, so the lie of socialism has grown into a powerful force on campus that threatens competing (and worthier) ideas. Yes, most students are just young and will outgrow their revolutionary fervor. But right now, students are being cheated out of the best opportunity most will ever have to test competing political and economic ideas against one another. And until our colleges have the courage to break through the echo chamber, students will get—at best—only half the education they’re paying for.

The post Socialism: The Slouching Beast on our Campuses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Higher education reform.

Reform in Missouri should focus on reduc­ing costs through innovation to attract more students. Universities could help reduce costs by encouraging competency-based education (CBE), which can reduce the time that students must spend in the classroom by granting ac­creditation when a student shows that she has mastered the subject matter. These programs allow students to pursue a degree while simul­taneously protecting them from excessive costs and loan defaults. At the same time, the state could promote income-share agreements (ISAs), which provide an alternative to student loans whereby a student agrees to pay a percentage of future income in exchange for present financial aid.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Schools across the nation, such as Texas A&M, Purdue, University of Michigan, and University of Wisconsin, offer CBE degrees. Purdue has a self-funding ISA program in which it loans money to current students and then reinvests returns into future student borrowing.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Recent upheaval at Missouri’s largest university has given us a chance to step back and evaluate how best to improve the higher education environment and provide cost-effective options to students. The University of Missouri system made progress in protecting free speech this past summer; now it should focus on reducing costs to help draw more students to our public universities.

KEY POINTS

• Higher education can greatly increase a student’s financial prospects, but not everyone who spends money at a university comes out in the black.
• CBE programs can reduce tuition costs and the time a student must spend in class.
• By reinvesting earnings, ISAs can fund future de­grees.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Essay: Stuck in the Middle with Mizzou: Examining the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the University of Missouri

Case Study: Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from Around the Nation

Op-Ed: Reaping the Whirlwind in Columbia

Blog Post: Mizzou Enrollment Shrinks to a New Low

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Forum: David Steelman Discusses Mizzou Two Years after the 2015 Protests appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nationwide there are six liberal professors for every conservative professor.

This data point was emphasized in a recent Boston Magazine article in which Chris Sweeny records stories of students and professors afraid to express their conservative viewpoints because of the threat of backlash. While there is no single cause behind this fear, the political composition of colleges’ faculties may be a significant factor.

The 6-to-1 ratio comes from the work of Dr. Samuel Abrams, professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. Interestingly, this ratio was not uniform nationwide. Of all the factors he examined—religious affiliations, departmental differences, size of college, etc.—the region in which the college is located had the biggest impact.

The West Coast matched the national average of 6 to 1 and the Plains and Southeast had the most balanced ratio, at 3 to 1. Far surpassing other regions, however, was New England—where liberal professors outnumbered their conservative colleagues 28 to 1.

While it is not surprising that university faculty in New England are more liberal than their counterparts in the Plains region, such a large disparity is disturbing. Moreover, it should concern Missourians that the University of Missouri is currently facing some problems that we might expect to see in New England schools, given their apparent lack of intellectual diversity.

In November, Mike McShane wrote about Mizzou being tied for last place on Heterodox Academy’s ranking of the top 150 universities for their policies on free speech and acceptance of different viewpoints. Since then, Mizzou has “improved,” and is now second to last according to the updated rankings. The University of Oregon, scoring 0 out of 100, is in sole possession of last place. Mizzou scored an underwhelming 6.25 out of 100 points, tying them with Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Rutgers.

While it is unlikely the ratio between liberal and conservative professors will become more balanced any time soon, universities can implement policies to protect the viewpoints of students and faculty. The University of Chicago’s commitment to Freedom of Expression is one such policy Mizzou should adopt.

In their recent paper, Mike McShane and Michael Highsmith wrote:

Freedom of speech and debate is at risk and can be protected. It seems that not a week of the school year goes by without some story emerging about efforts by a student council, residence hall, professor, or school administrator to stifle the speech of students. If we do not impress upon our students the importance of free speech and defend it vigorously, we risk creating a citizenry that does not value one of the foundational values upon which our nation was built. Luckily, institutions like the University of Chicago offer a great blueprint for fostering debate and protecting speech. Mizzou would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.

Even in an environment where conservative students and faculty are in the minority, their rights and contributions can be respected.

The post Conservatives on Campus: A Vanishing Breed? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Courage does not tremble in the face of coercion. It does not beg for forgiveness for non-existent crimes.  It stands tall in the defense of freedom . . . and in opposition to the dangers of mob rule or jackbooted tyranny.

All of which brings us to the wave of student protests that hit colleges and universities across the country in the fall of 2015. In one college after another, college presidents and administrators capitulated to unreasonable demands and went out of their way to curry favor with unruly protestors. In doing so, the titular leaders of these citadels of higher education acted both unwisely and with a shameful lack of courage.

The wave of protests began at the University of Missouri in Columbia, and it was here that assault on free speech became crystallized in the now-infamous picture of an MU communications professor calling for “some muscle” to bar campus journalists from a public area occupied by protestors.

Showing real courage in the face of taunts and physical intimidation, Tim Tai, a student photographer on assignment from ESPN, refused to leave the scene and asserted his First Amendment right to videotape in a public place—telling the protestors that his desire was to protect free speech for them no less than for himself.

In a quick succession of events in early November, protesters toppled University of Missouri system President Tim Wolfe, who was unpopular for reasons that had little or nothing to do with race. It began when a black graduate student (the son of a wealthy business executive) went on a hunger strike demanding Wolfe’s resignation. A few days later, black football players (coming to the end of a losing season) joined in a sympathy strike—refusing to play and  exposing the university to a $1 million fine if it were forced to forfeit an upcoming game against Brigham Young University. Then head football coach Gary Pinkel (only days before announcing his retirement for health reasons) chose to play Fletcher Christian to Wolfe’s Captain Bligh – supporting his players in the mutiny against a sitting university president. On the very next day, Wolfe resigned—and black football players agreed to end their strike.

Lessons learned?

We are all limited to our own experience, so no one can tell how prevalent bias and racism may be at an institution the size of the University of Missouri (with 35,000 students).  However, putting aside undocumented claims of deep and widespread bias by a few protestors (including a much-trumpeted but spurious report of a large Ku Klux Klan presence on the MU campus), we will cite three lessons.

First, there is a clear free-speech problem at the University of Missouri and other campuses. People are not allowed to express certain opinions, and even media coverage of protesting students is prohibited by those whose self-righteousness is overwhelming.

Second, you can tell that the values of the university have been misplaced—and indeed corrupted—when the football team and its coach play a decisive role in the resolution of a major conflict. 

Third, it seems to us that the obsessive insistence by protest leaders (not just at MU but within the larger Black Lives Matter movement) that almost everything that is wrong in our society reduces to a single problem—white racism and supremacy in an ongoing saga that casts blacks in the role of victims—is not only unfair but truly unhelpful. More than anything else, it is a major distraction in the way of any serious attempt to come to grips with problems that disproportionately affect black people living in poorer neighborhoods—everything from low rates of K-12 educational achievement to high rates of unemployment and crime among black youth, and from government programs that discourage work to the sharp decline in recent decades of intact two-parent families.

At the end of the day, it may be that what happened at Mizzou last November will serve a useful purpose—alerting many people to the danger of falling into an intellectual trap: supporting calls for greater “diversity” that are more realistically described as an attempt to enforce an unquestioning and frightened conformity.

We hope that the new leaders of the university will have the wisdom and courage to reject an anti-free speech conformity that masquerades as a paradigm-busting “diversity.”

The post Free Speech Under Fire at Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The A-Plus program currently grants over 13,000 scholarships to Missouri community college students.  To be eligible, students need to attend a community college or vocational school, must have graduated from a Missouri high school with at least a 2.5 GPA and 95% attendance, and have completed at least 50 hours of community service.  The cost for the program in 2014–15 was more than $33 million.

At slightly more than $2,500 per student, this may seem like a good deal, until we see exactly what we are getting for our money. A forthcoming study in the Journal of Higher Education by scholars at the University of Missouri, for example, finds the A+ program increased “two-year college-going rates by 5.3 percentage points.” This gain, however, was nearly offset by a 3.8 percentage point decline in the number of students attending four-year institutions.  While this is not entirely bad, it is a far cry from a “bright shining light.” If the goal is to get more students into college, we are not seeing much bang for our buck.

There is no question that college costs have been spiraling out of control.  According to the College Board, the cost of public, two-year college has more than tripled in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1975. It has almost quadrupled at public four-year colleges. Middle class families are feeling the squeeze. They want their children to get good jobs, which increasingly require a college degree, but cannot afford the skyrocketing prices. 

Some politicians are tapping into those fears and proposing plans, like the A+ scholarship, that would make some or all of college “free.”  But here is the dirty little secret about “free college” plans. They don’t actually make college free. They simply shift who pays for it.

We have a college cost problem. Just changing who pays that cost doesn’t make it any less of a problem.  We should be talking about ways to rein in the cost of college, like promoting greater transparency of results and breaking up the accreditation cartel that keeps out new, lower-cost providers. We should also make universities that accept public scholarship dollars have some skin in the game, and require them to pay the state back some portion of those dollars if students do not succeed.  Andrew Kelly at the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute has written volumes on how to accomplish this.

These reforms would actually help drive down the cost of college and help the state strategically use its scholarship dollars to promote real student success.  That, not revolving-payer shell games, is what we can do if we really want to help our students.

The goals of Missouri’s A+ program are certainly commendable, but that does not make the program a model for the nation. We’re not even confident that is the right model for Missouri. 

The post Is Missouri’s A-Plus Program a Model for the Nation? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There have been a slew of common-sense, market-oriented reforms that have been floated to help rein in the cost of college. No, not just making it “free.” Rather, opening up the college market to more experimentation, innovation, and competition to help hold prices in check.

In general, these reforms have gone nowhere. Why? Well, a new data visualization by Washington D.C.’s New America Foundation puts some great numbers to what  my old friend Andrew Kelly of the American Enterprise Institute has been arguing for years; college and universities are enmeshed in the economies and political ecosystems of the state and nation. That gives them an incredible amount of power to block or water down efforts to spur competition and reform.

New America breaks down the number of institutions, the number of employees, the amount of money institutions receive in Pell grants (federal scholarships for low-income students) and the total amount of money institutions spend by congressional district.

Here’s what Missouri looks like:

Seventy thousand employees, nearly $10 billion in spending, and $685 million straight from the federal government . . . who wants to upset that apple cart? Somebody needs to, because the current trends are unsustainable.

The post Why Taming the Higher-ed Leviathan is Hard Going appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Default Rates among Missouri Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a recent Saint Louis Beacon editorial, I noted that budget decisions have reduced funding for higher education. Spending on higher education has declined in real terms since 1990. This has had several effects, including forcing Missouri universities and colleges to raise tuition. It also has affected the educational accomplishment of the average Missourian.

How does Missouri stack up when compared to other states in educational achievement by its citizens? In 2008, Missouri ranked 33rd out of the 50 states using the statistic “percent of adults having a bachelor’s degree or more.” Don’t like “number of degrees” as a measure of what you have learned? Using standardized test scores (the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP) as a measure of educational attainment, Stanford University professor Eric Hanushek recently reported that since 1992, the gain in NAEP test scores for Missouri relative to other states is unimpressive.  On this score, Missouri ranks 27th out of 41 states for which data are available.

Missouri’s lackluster educational record is one of several factors that has negatively affected our economic standard of living. In a 2012 Show-Me Institute study, SMI economists Joseph Haslag and Michael Podgursky reported that Missouri’s economy expanded at a slower pace than any of its neighbors since 1997. Compared to all 50 states, Missouri ranked 48th in terms of economic growth. Even in a world of social promotion, this is not a passing record of achievement.

Nixon has called for additional funds for higher education in the fiscal year 2015 budget. Whether these funds survive the political battlefield and find their way to colleges and universities is a dubious proposition. Nor do I mean to suggest that simply throwing more dollars at education is the answer to improving the situation. One thing is certain, however: Unless Missouri’s educational report card improves in the coming years, do not expect to experience an economic boom any time soon.

The post Governor Nixon And Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Childhood Poverty is Indeed a Problem in Missouri, but Big Government Programs Aren’t the Way to Solve it (Michael Rathbone)
• St. Louis Beacon: High College Costs are Hard to Solve (R.W. Hafer)
• Tony’s Kansas City: City Leaders Shouldn’t Duplicate Cincinnati’s Mistakes when Renovating KCI (Patrick Tuohey)
• KTRS’s McGraw Milhaven: Analysis of the Recently Completed Legislative Session (David Stokes)

New this week:

• Video: Michelle Rhee: Radical: Fighting to put Students First
• Testimony: Warren County Should Not Institute An Enhanced Enterprise Zone (David Stokes)

And much more from the Show-Me Institute on our Show-Me Daily blog.

The post Show-Me Hits (May 25) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly, through House Bill 1812 and Senate Bill 784, is focused on reform of the Access Missouri grant. Currently, Access Missouri is structured to award a maximum of $1,000 in aid to students enrolled in two-year Missouri public schools, $2,150 to students at four-year public schools, and $4,600 for students attending Missouri's private colleges and universities. The bills in consideration would equalize these aid amounts to a maximum of $2,850 for all students, across all participating schools.

Choking the channels of aid to private school students while continuing to lavish aid on public school students only exacerbates the inequality and inefficiency that is characteristic of how the state currently supports its students. The current level of funds that the state awards to public school students already dwarfs the pool of funds directed toward private school students. In 2009, the General Assembly appropriated roughly $808 billion for four-year public higher education institutions. This amounts to an average per-student subsidy of approximately $7,280.

On top of this, qualifying public school students enjoyed an additional $56 million of publicly funded scholarships. Meanwhile, private school students received no per-student subsidies and shared a slightly smaller total of $52 million in public scholarship funds. Those who argue in favor of equalizing Access Missouri funds are misguided when they consider only Access Missouri and ignore the state's larger funding apparatus. Put simply, moving toward greater equality in Access Missouri is also a move toward greater inequality in total state support. There is, and always has been, a large disparity of public aid distributed between public and private students. Both reform proposals increase the size of this wedge. It is imperative, then, to consider whether this wedge is justified.

In 2008, Missouri's Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopted a set of basic values to guide higher education policy in the state. First among the list of values, the board recognized that the system is focused on students, learning, and each individual's realization of his or her full educational potential. The proposed reforms to higher education funding fail to do this vision justice.

First, the reforms do not support the full realization of student potential because they fail to honor the individual interests, skills, and needs of Missouri's diverse student population. For example, no public institutions in Missouri offer a complete architectural studies program, so students with an interest in architecture must turn to private institutions. On the margin, students unable to finance a private school education without assistance will necessarily settle for public-institution programs to which they are comparatively less suited.

Second, the proposed reforms pervert the vision of a higher education funding apparatus as centered on students. Instead, the reforms elevate the importance of institutions and suggest that students who attend public institutions are somehow more deserving of the taxpayer dime than students attending private colleges and universities. This is especially disturbing when considering that students attending private institutions contribute along with their parents funds to the pool of tax dollars that finance Missouri's support for higher education. The reform bills in the legislature would only serve to more unevenly distribute the resources of this pool. Meanwhile, Nixon's proposal would restrict private students access to the pool entirely.

The governor has said, In times like these, we simply can't continue to subsidize the choice to attend a private school.” This seems to suggest that the institutional choices that students make should be more relevant to the amount of aid they receive than their income, ability, or interest. This view fails to recognize that it is precisely in times like these that Missouri cannot afford to abandon its principles, or its investments in higher education students regardless of the institutions they choose.

Abhi Sivasailam is an intern with the Show-Me Institute and an economics student at the University of Missouri Columbia.

The post Scholarship Cuts for Private University Students Favor Institutions, not Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.