Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Bringing it all Together: State and Federal Funding

Dear Readers,

A multitude of federal laws were passed pertaining to the development of higher education. The number of public laws regarding higher education is equally overwhelming. Despite the fact that this galaxy relevant documents exists- I have documented some of which I believe to be the most significant. Rather than the acts themselves, I found the common themes of the decades to be more insightful. I also found the reaction to federal laws equally fascinating.

A general trend emerged through examining the relationship between the federal government, state government, and higher education institutions. After Sputnik- the federal government was the driving force behind the development of higher education institutions. Access to higher education was expanded as well by means of federal grants. The Higher Education Act of 1965 exemplifies this type of federal support. However, this resulted in what many consider the over-regulation of institutions. This issue arose most notably in the mid 1970s. Government grants were given to universities but with a flawed administrative system. These universities had lost a great deal of autonomy due to the fact that the funds granted to them by the federal government were geared towards specific programs. A bureaucracy emerged that overpowered the needs of particular universities. A significant shift emerged by 1980 when the state government- particularly the governor- became the central source of authority with respect to the regulation/funding of public universities.

This lack of federal support and bureaucracy increased the power of the university president. For example; Arizona State University President Russell Nelson had to compensate for this lack of federal support by making significant policy changes. A large part of that had to do with his capabilities as a leader. This represents the relationship of philanthropy to higher education in America as a whole. The foundations of public universities were built by private gifts that were either given by a single individual or organization. As the federal government invested itself- a bureaucracy resulted. Economic circumstances (especially in the 1980s) redeemed a more individualistic and local authority and influence.





Bringing it All Together- Creative Philanthropy

Greetings Readers

Over the past few weeks I've been examining the various sources I've acquired which pertain to philanthropic history of each research university of focus. This has been a bitter-sweet process due to vast range of private funding each university has received. Funding not only goes to the universities themselves, but also towards specific areas of either curriculum or infrastructure. One of the key questions I had at the beginning of the semester was how philanthropy effected each major research university that Biz Ed will focus on. Through examining various private gifts and examining their effect on each university, I've found a multitude of names, organizations, effects, and financial figures. However, certain instances of philanthropic acts stand out as particularly innovative.

The Moorehead Foundation's impact on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill serves as a perfect example of how a moderate gift (monetarily speaking) can make a tremendous impact. John Motley Moorehead III headed the foundation and his primary mission was developing the institution in any way shape or form. Several of his donations lead to the physical growth of the university- including the construction of a planetarium in 1949. However, his most significant contribution was the development of the Moorehead Scholarship Program in 1951, which was the first undergraduate scholarship program (applicable to non-athletes) at a public institution. This program caused the university's enrollment figures to skyrocket, which transformed the campus and student body to an incredible degree.

Arizona State University was the very first public university to develop an honors college of its kind. Barrett College was innovative in that it had its own residence halls (in addition to its independent faculty, administration, and facilities). In essence it was a university within a university. It was founded by the then CEO of Intel Craig Barrett, who firmly believed that honors programs could only develop to their maxim if they had their own distinct cutting edge facilities and technology. A crucial aspect of this was the development of residence halls which exclusively held students that were enrolled in ASU's Barrett College. Barrett felt that having a common living space for the honors students would foster an environment of intellectual interaction. In order to actualize this idea- he engaged in a public-private partnership with the American Campus Communities organization. This was a bold move due to the fact that this 140 million dollar plan was developed in the mid 1980s during an economic recession. Barrett himself donated ten million dollars to the development of the honors college. The Barrett Honors College of Arizona State University was established in 1988 and was the largest and most sophisticated honors college of its time. To this day it remains a national standard.

These two instances epitomize how philanthropy can have a profound effect by creative thinking (rather than simply a certain sum of money). The Barrett College example illustrates a clear and definite sense of adaptability- an enormous sum of money was required to fund such a project and it was a resounding success. America was in the midst of a recession, and reshaping/creating a world renown institution that fosters intellectual progress epitomizes one of the key motives of philanthropy- progressing society.