Each year, 31,000 of New Jersey's graduating high school seniors -- more than half of our college-bound seniors -- pack their bags and head to college out of state, many never to return.
As part of this "brain drain," they take with them not only the $250,000 we taxpayers have invested in their K-12 educations, but also their unrealized potential for our state's economy -- as economic engines, employers and employees, and as taxpayers.
And so as Gov. Chris Christie prepares his annual budget address before the state Legislature on Feb. 28, our political leaders would be wise to stanch the exodus of college students from our state. New Jersey is the No. 1 state exporter of college students, and this out-migration is a pressing issue for both today's students and the future of our state that demands reforms to our higher education and tuition-assistance funding processes.
Part of the reason so many of our students leave begins with the simple economics of supply and demand: We have more college-bound students than we have the capacity to educate at our colleges and universities. But part of the reason also lies with a complex, inequitable and irrational system for funding our colleges and universities and supporting our needy students that most students and their parents are unaware of.
But back to supply and demand: If there are too few spots for our students, then why not expand our colleges so there is greater capacity? Some colleges have done so, but when state colleges and universities attempt to expand to meet the needs of our residents, an archaic state funding formula penalizes those schools. That's because the state funds colleges and universities based exclusively on the past year's allocation.
Should a university decide to expand to meet increasing demand, it is effectively punished because the funding formula does not take growth of student enrollment into account in appropriations. Instead, the state relies on "across the board" increases (or decreases) rather than gauging how many students are being served. Thus, schools that decrease in size are in effect rewarded, garnering comparable funds for fewer students.
But even state schools that are not growing are victims of New Jersey's financial circumstances, as higher education has seen a 23 percent net decrease in state funding per student in New Jersey's public colleges and universities since 2008, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. While the Building Our Future Bond Act, a bond referendum approved by voters in 2012, did facilitate the bonding of $1.3 billion for 176 higher education construction projects, those funds are for building -- not for the operating expenses that serve students. And so while many states cut higher education funding during the Great Recession, New Jersey under Christie is one of the very few that has continued those cuts.
Stockton University President Harvey Kesselman recognizes the effect of this disparity: "Under the current funding for higher education, there is a disincentive to grow, and this plays a role in the significant out-migration of New Jersey high school graduates. There needs to be a higher education funding formula that recognizes the state colleges/universities that have grown and increased access to our residents."
Another area in which glaring inequities in state funding contribute to out-migration, and to an increased burden on New Jersey's college students, is the Tuition Aid Grant program. TAGs are state grants allocated according to a student's financial need, and the award amount is determined by the cost of tuition. While funding for TAG grants has increased under Christie, eligible students receive much larger taxpayer-funded TAG awards if they attend a more expensive private college or university than if they attend a public one.
Indeed, some students are eligible to receive hefty awards if they choose a private school, but no money at all for attending a less expensive public college. When the state Legislature attempted to correct the TAG funding structure, Christie vetoed their efforts.
Free tuition plan deserves a robust debate | Editorial
So as this structure works now, a needy student would receive $2,734 to study at Essex County Community College, but the very same student would receive $12,438 -- nearly $10,000 a year more -- to study at Drew University. This bizarre system -- in which taxpayers subsidize private and religious colleges and universities and penalize students for making cost-saving decisions -- could be reformed by allocating a set amount to an individual student based on need, and then allowing that student to use that allocation at the college of his or her choosing.
This reform would enable eligible students to pay a much greater proportion of community college or public university tuition with TAG grants, while making New Jersey's colleges more affordable, incentivizing students to stay in state, rewarding them for making cost-conscious decisions, and reducing their net costs and debt burden. Today, New Jersey invests $400 million in TAG annually, but the structure of the grants puts students attending public institutions at an increasing disadvantage. This has had a significantly negative impact on affordability and is a contributing factor to out-migration.
It is time that meaningful public review and reform begin now, so that our colleges and universities can more effectively and affordably serve a greater proportion of New Jersey's college-bound students.
Brigid Callahan Harrison, a regular contributor to The Star-Ledger, is professor of political science and law at Montclair State University. A frequent commentator on state and national politics, she is the author of five books on American politics. Like her on Facebook. Follow her on Twitter @BriCalHar.
Follow NJ.com Opinion on Twitter@NJ_Opinion. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
