Responses

3

Review of Two Higher Education Finance Policies

Author’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Name

Instructor

Due Date

Review of Two Higher Education Finance Policies

           This paper gives a comparison of two higher education finance policies enacted in California and Minnesota. In California, there is the California Master Plan for Higher Education. According to St. John, Daun-Barnett, and Moronski-Chapman (2013), this policy has led to the creation of three campus systems, namely “the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems” (1). The fiscal woes of California have adversely affected this policy. Learning institutions have responded by raising tuition fees and lowering administrative costs. In Minnesota, Novak (2010) notes there are two financial policy systems, unlike California: “Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system, including four-year and two-year institutions, and the University of Minnesota (UMN) system”(1). These policies advocate for great aid and high tuition. More so, the plans provide scholarships for many students to reduce their tuition burden.

The outcome of these finance-related policies is that in both Minnesota and California, low-income students have difficulties paying their tuition fees and often end up with high tuition debts. Two main factors contribute to these outcomes, that is, increasing tuition fees and reducing state support. Nevertheless, these policies ensure that unemployment rates reduce since college graduates have a higher likelihood of getting decent jobs compared to individuals without degrees. Overall, policymakers must involve diverse stakeholders to improve the way they craft education policies. For instance, students, administrators, and faculty staff can be included in the creation of collaborative solutions that can minimize the financial problems encountered in higher learning institutions. One vital aspect is the subsidization of tuition fees. This action should only be taken if it does not lead to unintended negative consequences such as watered-down curriculums and grade inflation.

References

Novak, K. (2010). Governing higher education in Minnesota: Public postsecondary systems and agencies. Minnesota State House Research Department. Retrieved from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssppssa.pdf

St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2013). Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and college success. New York, NY: Routledge.