Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="azfan, post: 5123207, member: 7748"] Observation: non-profit and for-profit labels for colleges need to be considered very carefully as both sets of institutions are heavily subsidized by the federal government and receive significant loan advantages unavailable to other institutions in our society. As a former member of higher education it speaks very highly of you that you have both the humility to recognize the limits of your understanding of higher ed as well as to acknowledge that as with any institution there are positives as well as negatives. Such is the case with GCU and such as the case with ASU. The Grand Canyon situation is an extraordinarily complex one particularly when examining the intersection of the role of the state in general and the role of the state in higher education in particular and the impact of the various tax advantages that are provided to colleges and universities. The impact of all of that government involvement in higher education is multi-faceted and it's tempting to focus more on the perverse negative consequences than on other aspects of issues surrounding higher ed. As to the issue of Grand Canyon's historical changes in structure there are a couple of issues I think that are relevant to those who are not close to the controversy. The expansion in enrollment from a tiny Baptist college to its current status is a result of a myriad of issues that include demographics, evolution of higher education, and the impact of competing institutions. Over a longer time horizon Arizona Normal school now Arizona State University increased enrollment by a similar percentage if one looks at a more lengthy time horizon. 1. After conversion to for profit Grand Canyon was the only institution of higher ed in the state of Arizona that paid property taxes. When one drives by the campus on 29th Avenue and Camelback the new construction and build out took place within the taxable world and was not subsidized by taxpayers. Contrast that with Michael Crowe's Arizona State University which used the tax advantage offered by the federal and state governments and it's non-profit status to become a major developer throughout the state. Crow has also used legal machinations to extend this non-profit status to private development and is one drives around Tempe Town Lake in North Tempe one can see the results. While one can have a conclusion whether this is positive or negative it's quite clear that the taxpayers of Arizona have financed this. it's worth reflecting about the optimal use of tax dollars and some might argue that issues of homelessness, water, direct classroom education, housing affordability, well the list goes on and on might be better use of taxpayer monies in this kind of private development. The new construction that one sees over Tempe was all financed with the help of taxpayers through the subsidy granted to tax exempt, non-profit organizations such as Arizona State. Conclusion: a part of the underappreciated story of Grand Canyon is this difference in contribution back to the state through taxes. I would guess most who look at the negative press are either unaware or choose to ignore the significant difference between Grand Canyon and the tax deferred institutions in the state ASU, NAU and the kitties. That is Grand canyon paid taxes in the form of those on property as well as transactions and the tax exempt so-called public institutions did not. Basic economics tells us that when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax something you get less of it. It's worth thinking about that in terms of the resource allocation for higher ed and which institutions are better serving the public. What is so often lost in the story is that Grand Canyon University as a taxpayer contributed financially to the State of Arizona in general, the local community in particular and its payment of taxes represented a that benefit beyond the university community. Arizona State University like the other public institutions in not paying taxes on net was a user of taxpayer funds. I'm always baffled why this basic reality seems lost in all of the hoopla. A slight correction to your observation regarding real estate values. While I haven't been to Southern Cal in years the university like the University of Chicago was surrounded by low-income disadvantaged areas with high rates of crime the last time I was there. This is also true of Grand Canyon, the surrounding area is extremely low income with marginal real estate value. There has in fact been no significant appreciation in real estate around Grand Canyon and like Southern Cal and University of Chicago the entire campus is surrounded by fences and security guards. As to the issue of debt whether it's held by the institution or by the students who attend, Grand canyon is not appreciably different than any other College. That is all institutions of higher learning whether they adopt the label profit or nonprofit are heavily subsidized by direct and indirect loans from the federal government and students who attend all these colleges I think are relatively equally subsidized and encouraged to assume student debt. As tuition at Grand canyon University is comparable to the end State institutions and much less than allied institutions around the country the level of debt assumed by students at that institution would be the same or less than in the nonprofit environment. Conclusion: Grand Canyon is not significantly different than so-called nonprofit colleges in the area of subsidies, loans, and student loans. In fact they contribute more back into the state through the payment of taxes. 2. Competition. Through most of the '80s and '90s as Arizona State began a trajectory of rapid growth Grand Canyon offered no competition either in state or out of state enrollment. Two factors occured in sequence that had profound consequences: first Michael Crow arrived in Tempe from Columbia University with a vision that I've discussed in previous posts. Subsequently Grand Canyon had a change in mission and perspective and ownership. For a number of years Grand Canyon was ignored by ASU but once it became apparent that Grand Canyon was moving into the health sciences, online delivery, and aggressively recruiting in-state students Crowe took notice. A part of the backlash and negative publicity surrounding Grand Canyon is well deserved. Just like the negative publicity and backlash against Arizona State University are well deserved, and under reported due to the outsized influence of the crow administration. However what remains to be explored is the role that Michael Crowe and his development minions at Arizona State University played both in the general negative press received by Grand Canyon and given Crow's deep and long-standing connections to the federal government, that may have played a role in Grand Canyons challenges. Given the decline of investigative journalism both locally and nationally and the reluctance to explore power brokers such as Crow as well as the obstacles that are obvious and attempting to examine these kind of interwebbed relationships I would expect that the focus would remain on Grand Canyon and be deflected from Arizona State. It's a narrative that sells well and serves Crow's interest. One of the conclusions that I've always come to is I think about the for-profit versus non-for-profit status in higher education is the same as the school choice movement. It's a significantly complex issue and the role of the state involvement is one that deserves reflection. As a retired member of the higher education community I like you have developed humility and like you I'm not really certain about the full level of costs and benefits in higher education whether for profit or not for profit. Grand Canyon's nursing program, education program, health sciences program, and online program certainly do appear to be meeting needs within the state of Arizona. Likewise Arizona State university's massive expansion supports issues of research and development particularly innovations in technology. It's worth noting however that Arizona State University has become deeply involved in issues of development, politics, and social policy. While this is not uncommon in research one institutions it certainly worth reflecting upon institutions that widen the scope and breadth of their reach. Finally I think sport is illustrative of the different impact that incentives have. As I indicated in my post regarding coaches Molly Miller earns a salary of $250,000 while her counterpart at ASU makes slightly more than three times that. I guess I'm saying this reflects both stewardship of funds and efficiency. As a former season ticket holder for ASU and current season ticket holder at Grand Canyon University I have attended games at both institutions over the past 10 years and the experience is wildly different. As are the results. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach