AMHERST — After a report released Thursday by the Pioneer Institute in Boston criticized the University of Massachusetts for its selectivity, its increase in out-of-state enrollment and its expansion projects, the university issued a response calling it “deeply flawed and substantially unsound.”
The report states that the grade point average for incoming freshman has risen to 3.78 since 1992, when it was 2.92, and that in the five years leading up to 2014, the Amherst campus’ ranking rose by more than 20 spots in the U.S. News & World Report ranking of the top 100 national universities.
The Pioneer report’s authors wrote that they were concerned that this progress may have been achieved at the expense of the university’s central mission: serving Massachusetts students.
“In fact, UMass’s rise in stature has done nothing but expand opportunity for Massachusetts students,” UMass Amherst spokesman Edward Blaguszewski wrote in a statement. “Thousands of Massachusetts students now have a world-class, lower-cost option where they can pursue their dreams.”
The Pioneer report pointed to increases in out-of-state enrollment as a potential point of concern.
“In 2015-16, UMass Amherst crossed an imaginary Rubicon when it accepted more out-of-state than in-state students, and they did it in a year when in-state applications were at a high point,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute. “We have to have some hard conversations about the purpose of and strategy for UMass as a public institution.”
In its response, Blaguszewski offered UMass Amherst undergraduate enrollment numbers for the past several years, with steady increases shown for both in-state and out-of-state undergraduates. In-state undergraduate enrollment has increased from 15,136 in 2006 to 16,254 in 2015; out-of-state enrollment has gone up from 3,748 in 2006 to 4,948 in 2015.
“Roughly speaking, each out-of-state student pays the way for a deserving Massachusetts student,” Blaguszewski wrote in the response. “Without out-of-state revenue to make up for declining state support, some 6,000 Massachusetts residents each year would be denied their opportunity for a world-class, lower-cost education.”
Blaguszewski did not offer such statistics for graduate students. The Pioneer Institute report said out-of-state students comprise the majority of graduate students.
The report argued that using out-of-state enrollment to cover costs for in-state students is a disputed model.
“The pursuit of out-of-state students to generate additional revenue is a nationwide trend at public universities, and a contentious one,” authors wrote, offering examples of controversy. “The authors recommend that state leaders consider whether a cap on out-of-state enrollment is appropriate at UMass.”
The authors also recommended in the report that UMass increase out-of-state tuition.
“Tuition is 5.9 percent below the average of New England state flagship campuses for out-of-state students,” the report said. “The University of Vermont charges $39,130 in tuition and fees for out-of-state undergraduates; UMass charges $8,626 less at $30,504.”
The increases in enrollment, the report said, are paralleled with a spike in largely unfunded capital expenses — the university implemented a $3.8 billion capital expenditure plan in the past decade.
“The commonwealth only paid for $1.38 billion of the expansion program, leaving UMass to finance a majority of the cost with debt and straining university finances,” said the report.
Officials responded by saying that some campus buildings are deteriorating, a situation for which other states have set aside more funds.
“The Commonwealth’s students are not served by dilapidated facilities and outmoded teaching facilities and labs,” Blaguszewski wrote, referring to Connecticut’s “multi-billion dollar” investment in their flagship campus. “No university can fulfill its mission without maintaining fully functional facilities.”
Lastly, the report was critical of the university’s maintenance strategy.
“As UMass spent more on capital over the last decade, the university’s deferred maintenance backlog rose from $2.7 billion to $3.33 billion,” the report stated. The report urged the university to look to the Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA) for advice on reducing its maintenance backlog.
Blaguszewski called this criticism too singular in its perspective.
“With aging structures it is commonly the case that attempting to fix outdated structures and systems is the least cost-effective way to address deferred maintenance,” he wrote. “A simple focus on deferred maintenance obscures the essential question of return on investment, which should be driving decisions at all levels.”
Amanda Drane can be reached at adrane@gazettenet.com.