Last week, a study commission examining the feasibility of bringing North Carolina Wesleyan College into the University of North Carolina system released its findings and recommendations.
The study commission was created through legislation backed by legislators from eastern North Carolina last year. Political and business leaders from Rocky Mount had hoped that adding North Carolina Wesleyan into the UNC system would give a large boost to the region’s economy, described by one supporter as like a “Third World country.” While acknowledging the economic concerns, the report made it clear that UNC had to look at what was best for the entire state not just that particular region.
First of all, the commission looked at the cost of the proposal, which was placed at $207 million to bring the school up to UNC standards. The commissioners were not convinced that this expenditure was the best use of UNC funds.
Another key issue for the commission, which was chaired by former UNC-Wilmington Chancellor Dr. James Leutze, was whether the school could attract 2,500 students. That number was regarded as the minimum needed to maintain a public institution, putting it on par with UNC-Asheville and Elizabeth City State.
The commission’s doubt about that stemmed from the fact that there has been no increase in students from Nash and surrounding counties attending UNC institutions. In fact, over the past five years the percentage of high school graduates from that area attending UNC institutions has decreased by 8 percent. Furthermore, the report pointed out that to attract enough students to UNC-Rocky Mount (as the proposed school was being called by its supporters), admissions and academic standards would have to be low. Even then, there would be no guarantee that the “if you build it they will come” model of higher education would work in Rocky Mount.
Recently the University of California has experienced an embarrassing shortage of students at its newest campus, UC-Merced, as this article indicates.
“If academic standards were set low, this fact alone would make it very difficult to convince well-prepared students from outside the region to choice UNC-Rocky Mount over better-known alternatives – whether they were other UNC institutions or private colleges,” the report states. Low academic standards were presumed necessary because area high schools “are not producing a large pool of graduates…who are adequately prepared to enter the University and perform at high levels without significant remediation,” according to the report.
Supporters had argued that by adding “UNC-Rocky Mount” to the UNC system would help it to better serve the estimated increase of 80,000 students by 2017. The commission said “we must ask ourselves whether a UNC-Rocky Mount would significantly mitigate UNC’s growth challenge or whether the University system is capable of absorbing the additional students anticipated for UNC-Rocky Mount in other ways.”
UNC could easily absorb the 2,500 students who might be serviced by “UNC-Rocky Mount.” For instance, nearby East Carolina University wants to increase enrollment by 4,000 students in five years. That alone would cover the supposed need for a public university in Rocky Mount. In fact, the report observes, there are six public colleges within a 100-mile radius that could take on the 2,500 students that Rocky Mount would serve: East Carolina, Elizabeth City, Fayetteville State, North Carolina Central, North Carolina State, and UNC-Chapel Hill. There are also several private colleges and numerous community colleges.
If there really should be an increase in demand for higher education in the area, most of UNC-Rocky Mount’s 2,500 students could be absorbed just by area institutions reaching their enrollment targets. Admissions officials at East Carolina, Fayetteville State, and Elizabeth City State say that they have fallen short of their enrollment targets in each of the last several years. As the report concludes, area institutions have “the capacity to grow in the years ahead.”
Even though the commission’s report is firmly against UNC taking over NC Wesleyan, that doesn’t mean that UNC can’t play a role in improving the education quality of residents in the Rocky Mount area. The report makes clear that there are ways that can be accomplished without creating an expensive new burden to state residents. It specifically mentions the existing Gateway Technology Center, a joint distance education program at North Carolina Wesleyan College with courses being offered by East Carolina and North Carolina State.
The report recommends expanding the capabilities of the center by offering more on-line education programs and offering face-to-face courses at the center. Online education offers more flexibility for students without the high cost of new “bricks and mortar” investment by the state.
Over the history of this controversy, the Pope Center has published several articles subjecting the arguments in favor of the Rocky Mount proposal to critical analysis, most recently here. It’s gratifying to see that the study commission has arrived at the same conclusion as we have.
After the release of the report, backers of the proposal were disappointed, but unwilling to concede defeat. They are hoping that the Board of Governors will ignore the recommendations and vote to support the project when it meets in May. That seems highly unlikely. The commission’s analysis was painstaking and solid.
In this case, political clout and wishful thinking seem to have been defeated by clear, objective thinking.