I once had the feeling that OU is really going places. It is hard to not feel that way given the campus improvements and announcements coming from the administration. The pace of construction is unbelievable and the administration rarely struggles to convey just how well things are going. Endowments grow at an epic rate, scholarship opportunities are on the rise and there are more endowed professorships. Most importantly, the quality of students is increasing with seemingly every subsequent batch of freshmen being touted as the best to date.
I, along with many others, have been caught up in enthusiasm of the recent years and subconsciously accepted the idea that all these actions will result, one day, in a university that can match up with the North Carolinas, Texas’, Michigans and Berkeleys of the world.
I now think that outcome is unlikely given OU’s apparent strategy.
I came to this conclusion after looking through the changes in the student body makeup, courtesy of OU’s annual fact book, interest in which was caused by stumbling upon a chart of incoming freshman’s average ACT scores over the last decade. While the average score has increased from 24.5 in 1997 to 25.9 in 2008, scores have stagnated around 25.7 since the fall of 2003 following a period of rapid increase. Furthermore, data on the percent of students in the top 25 percent of their graduating classes exhibits similar behavior, albeit with more variation.
I think the best explanation is the most obvious one. OU football re-emerged as a national powerhouse and Texas (enrollment from other states appears to have been unaffected) high school students flocked to secure their season tickets.
In response to a surge in applications following the 2000 championship, OU raised ACT requirements for out-of-state applicants to 26, and the metrics stabilized as the surge of out-of-staters admitted under the more rigorous guidelines leveled off.
This was a good thing for OU, but the numbers – and anecdotal evidence – do not suggest OU is stealing students away from the region’s more acclaimed universities, which must be happening if OU’s freshmen are indeed getting smarter each year.
Rather, I believe we have all been fooled into linking the activities of the administration – construction projects, endowed professorships and so forth – to an alleged rise in the quality of the student body and, in turn, the university. It is a classic example of correlation not equaling causation. While I won’t go as far to say the administration engineered such, I do believe they have exploited the situation.
Specifically, they have used the positive feelings about the university’s future as political capital to be spent holding down angst over tuition hikes.
Tuition and fees for 30 credit hours, unadjusted for inflation, have jumped from $2,713 in 2001 to $6,493 this year. State appropriations per student, adjusted for inflation, did fall from $8,745 to $7,475 over the same time period, but the impact should have been negligible given a ballooning endowment and increasing ratio of higher paying out-of-state students over the same time period. Scholarships have increased as well, but students’ loan burden has more than kept pace.
The increases have paid for swanky new classrooms with comfortable chairs – largely enjoyed by those in the Price and Gaylord colleges – but have not increased the quality of discussions within those classrooms or, more broadly, the quality of education offered by our university. It seems reasonable that the efforts will be of greater value in the long run, but that means the current students are effectively subsidizing the education of those that will attend many years after we have graduated. This is unjust.
Instead, I think the administration should change its strategy in four ways.
Primarily, OU should make a concerted effort to retain or even improve its position as the relative bargain it was just a decade ago. Ten years ago, undergraduate resident/nonresident academic costs were roughly 80 percent and 70 percent of the Big 12 average. They are currently 90 percent and 85 percent.
Second, expand scholarships, especially for nonresidents and the national scholars program. Initiated by the state government in 1990, the state Regents, not OU, pays $22,000 of every regents and National Merit Scholarship.
The program, in addition to money added by OU, has been very successful in bribing both nonresidents and residents to attend. I use the word bribe because it is just that.
One only needs to talk to a handful of people on those scholarships to realize it. OU could attract even more scholars if it were to increase its offer and, additionally, have discretionary funds available to use when competing for the very best high school students, especially those who fall just under the national merit threshold.
Third, the university should aggressively develop its image in neighboring states, so OU is to Kansas City high school students as it is to those from Dallas.
Fourth, increase the rigor of courses in certain disciplines. I don’t know the best way to go about this, but a good start would be eliminating business calculus. It needs to be done. Do it.
Then, after the quality of an OU education rises, tuition can be raised.
Given President David Boren’s prolific fundraising ability and Bob Stoops’ continued success and loyalty, this approach would be feasible and, compared to the university’s current strategy, have a similar long-term impact, while not leaving current students paying more for the same quality of education. Admittedly, this does present a challenge.
After all, what in the world are we going to tell donors we will name after them?
-Jacob Jones is an economics senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mikedavis 3 years, 1 month ago
This was a thoughtful critique, complete with proposed alternatives. I wish every column was as well written and as balanced as this one.