University Times

HARRISBURG – Apparently stung by recent media reports noting Pennsylvania's standing near the bottom when it comes to support for higher education, members of the Senate appropriations committee during a Feb. 25 meeting asked Pitt administrators what they believe is an appropriate level of state support.

Gov. Tom Ridge's proposed budget contains a 2 percent increase in funding for higher education. The 1997 budget is the first in seven years that includes a no-strings appropriations hike for state-owned and state-related universities, such as Pitt. Previous increases were tied to limits on tuition hikes.

A 2 percent funding increase would raise Pitt's appropriation $2.97 million to $151.5 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The University has asked for $163.43 million, which would be an 8.9 percent hike over its current state appropriation.

Sen. Robert Jubelirer, R-Blair County, began the questioning of Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, Provost James Maher and School of Medicine Interim Dean George Michalopoulos by pointing out that although Pitt's appropriation has decreased over the past 30 years from 34 percent to 18 percent of the school's budget, Pitt seems to have prospered.

"From what I understand, Pitt has gotten a lot better as a university," Jubelirer said. "A lot of people look at it a lot better now than they did 15 years ago when I was considering going to college. Is money the only thing? Will money solve your problems? Or don't you have any problems?" Nordenberg admitted that a decline in state funding is not the only problem facing Pitt and agreed that the University has progressed over the past 30 years, even though the proportion of state appropriations in its budget have declined. He said the University has been able to weather the cuts through better use of its resources and increases in other support, such as federal research grants, but that those areas are now reaching their limits.

"What's an appropriate level of expenditure for us?" Jubelirer then asked. "Is it $1.78 billion to $1.88 billion? Is it $1.9 billion? Is it $140 per capita? Is it $150 per capita? What is the appropriate level of expenditure that you would expect a state to provide for its higher education?" While expressing thanks for the money Pitt has received from the state in the past, Nordenberg replied that he is not sure anyone has an answer to the question of how much money is appropriate. "But surely," he added, "when you see these numbers, one would think that we would want to be better than we are." According to State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), a national organization of university administrators, Pennsylvania in fiscal year 1996 ranked 46th in the nation in per capita support for higher education, contributing $136.27 per capita toward support of higher education or $6.14 for every $1,000 in income. The only states SHEEO ranked lower than Pennsylvania when it came to funding support for higher education last year were Florida, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire. Missouri was ranked just ahead of Pennsylvania. Hawaii was ranked No. 1. Its per capita contribution was $287.77.

One way public universities might lessen their dependence on state appropriations, Jubelirer and other senators suggested, would be through more cooperation. Several legislators were disturbed over plans by Penn State to expand its satellite campus system. They feel that the programs those satellites will offer duplicate existing programs at other schools near those campuses.

"When is that day of reckoning going to come when we just get so over built with capacity that we can't afford our higher education system?" Jubelirer said.

When asked if Penn State's expansion is going to have an adverse effect on Pitt's regional campuses and if Pitt has similar expansion plans, Nordenberg assured the committee that Pitt has no plans for such territorial expansion. He said Pitt would like to turn the Penn State initiative into an area of cooperation where the two schools overlap, particularly at Johnstown and Greensburg.

Throughout the meeting, Nordenberg sought to make a case for an increase in Pitt's appropriation by pointing out the importance of the University to Pittsburgh and to western Pennsylvania. He was helped by questions from a generally friendly group of senators.

When Pitt law school graduate Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango County, asked Nordenberg to describe some ways that Pitt benefits the region, the chancellor pointed out that the University is the largest employer in the city. Nordenberg noted too that both Pitt and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center provide more jobs than any manufacturing business in the region.

In his remarks, Nordenberg also touted the fact that Pitt annually brings approximately $250 million in research money into the region, which is roughly $100 million more than the University's state appropriation.

As for how the University has spent its money, the chancellor noted that Pitt engineers developed silver sheathed superconducting wire; a Pitt geologist found the meteorite that may contain fossils of tiny Martian organisms; Pitt astronomers discovered what appear to be two new planets, and Pitt physicians were the first to utilize gene therapy on a patient with rheumatoid arthritis.

After acknowledging Pitt's accomplishments, Sen. Allyson Schwartz, D-Philadelphia, asked Nordenberg what will happen to Pitt's tuition should the University's appropriation hold at the 2 percent increase proposed by the governor. To make up the difference between what Gov. Ridge is proposing and what the University's needs is about the equivalent of a 3 percent tuition increase, according to Nordenberg.

"If the governor's proposal holds in the end, we certainly will be looking at some additional tuition increase," the chancellor said. "The only question is how much. And I should say to you as well, we really are trying to be responsible about this. I consider myself to be first and foremost a teacher. I want people to have access to our programs." Despite all of the praise the University received, Sen. Pat Stapleton, D-Indiana County, said about the University's chances for additional support: "It's very doubtful you're going to get what you ask for." However, Stapleton also had some possible good news for the University. He pointed out that recently both Penn State and Temple University built new sports arenas with aid from the state and said he believes it is time Pitt got its convocation center. "I think you've waited long enough and something will be done," Stapleton said.

–Mike Sajna