Opinion

Editorial

Maybe the Legislature Finally Gets It

The adjectives used in the comments made in reaction to the state Legislature’s recent approval of a major funding increase for the University of Massachusetts pretty much tell the story.

‘Extraordinary’ was one of the words UMass President Robert Caret used to describe the Legislature’s commitment to another $40 million increase in funding for the university (subject to approval from the governor), which will become $50 million due to an additional $10 million in state fringe-benefit funding, and $100 million over the past two years for the same reason.

Meanwhile, Henry Thomas III, chairman of the UMass board of trustees, summoned ‘historic’ to describe the Legislature’s action.

They’re both right. It is historic, and in most ways, it is extraordinary.

That’s because the Legislature has made it a habit to traditionally underfund public higher education, at least when compared to other states, and the schools, and the students attending them (or not attending because they couldn’t afford them) have suffered accordingly.

We’re not sure why this track record for underfunding public schools, and especially the university, continued for so long, but the prevailing theory is that in a state known around the world for its prestigious private institutions — Harvard, MIT, Smith, Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, and dozens more are on that list — it’s been easy to overlook the public institutions and perhaps take them for granted.

But it seems that attitudes are changing, and that’s good, because they need to change.

Indeed, as the cost of higher education continues to increase at rates far greater than that of inflation, access to such an education becomes threatened. Harvard, Smith, Amherst, and Wellesley can always find students with families willing and able to spend $60,000 per year to come to their campuses, and they have huge endowments to help talented students who don’t have such resources to attend as well.

Public schools, including the university, do not have such luxuries. As their costs continue to rise, they must pass them on to students in the form of higher tuition and fees, putting a college education out of reach for some.

It is this simple math that prompted Caret to propose his so-called 50-50 plan, which called for a two-year, $100 million commitment from the state, with the goals of strengthening the university and equalizing the amount of money students and the state provided for educational programs. In exchange for full funding of the 50-50 program, UMass has committed to not raising tuition and fees for in-state undergraduate students, an important initiative when the cost of attending the university’s flagship campus in Amherst has reached $24,215, including $13,258 in tuition and mandatory fees.

The Legislature’s commitment to the university is worthy of terms like ‘historic’ and ‘extraordinary’ for those reasons mentioned above and the fact that this vote amounts to a change of course. But also because this action amounts to an important economic-development strategy.

Indeed, to succeed in this state’s knowledge-driven economy, a college education is becoming increasingly essential. Meanwhile, there is considerable evidence to suggest that those who attend the state’s public institutions are more likely to stay in this state than those who graduate from those prestigious private institutions.

Thus, the Legislature’s investment in the university is an investment in the state’s future and could be a pivotal weapon in the ongoing fight to halt that phenomenon known as brain drain.

Moving forward, our only hope is that we can soon retire words like ‘historic’ and ‘extraordinary’ when talking about the Legislature’s funding of public higher education, because consistently appropriate funding levels will mean that they no longer apply.

Time will tell if that happens. For now, we’ll just join Caret, Thomas, and others in applauding the Legislature for doing the right thing and the appropriate thing.