Merge UNLV, UNR? A bad idea

To the editor:

I read with interest Geoff Schumacher's column in the Jan. 23 Review-Journal and was immediately struck by what seemed to be his uninformed and essentially defeatist attitude toward the future of higher education in our state.

In sum, he argued that perhaps Nevada's two universities should effectively be merged into one campus with two branches, each offering selective programs that could be funded at some level better than they are now in two locations.

While to some this might seem like a superficially plausible perspective -- and I usually admire Mr. Schumacher's support of education at all levels -- I believe it is a seriously flawed argument and position.

If we were to implement his suggestions, Nevada would become even less supportive of higher education than it already is compared to other Mountain West states. Moreover, such an arrangement would force students to move to the university with the program -- an economic and logistical impossibility for the vast majority of UNLV's students, many of whom have families, jobs and lack the resources to relocate for several years.

And just imagine if they changed majors -- a common pattern among undergraduate students. They might need to move again!

In addition, the overall impact of such a merger of campuses would deepen Nevada's economic woes by eliminating jobs and the many dollars a research university produces as a spinoff of its primary activities (e.g. for UNLV, about $4 for every $1 of expenditure).

One of the things that is least understood by the general populace in our state is the level at which our neighboring states support higher education generally and research universities in particular. (We rarely compare ourselves to California because of their size and prodigious support for research universities, including per student funding at twice the rate Nevada funds UNLV and UNR.)

As should be clear from the accompanying chart, Nevada has relatively high per capita income and population among its neighbors but supports no Research I universities (the highest level of national research institutions)! Arizona supports two, Colorado three, Utah and New Mexico each one. Nevada has yet to expend the resources to support a single Research I institution, despite having the third-highest per capita income and the fourth-largest population among seven comparable states.

Even Idaho, at 60 percent of Nevada's population and much lower per capita income, supports two research universities and Boise State as well, an institution with almost 19,000 students that does not yet qualify as a research university (and is therefore not represented on the chart below).

So here is poor little Idaho also doing better than Nevada in offering multiple higher education opportunities to its citizens! Competition with these states for an educated work force is already incredibly difficult. Should we implement Mr. Schumacher's plan, even fewer opportunities for Nevada's citizens would exist than they do now.

Nevada's future should no longer be one that relies far too heavily on any one industry to sustain its public life and government services. As we repeatedly see, we are whipsawed here when our fragile hospitality and entertainment industry is negatively affected, as it always will be in times of economic stress in the rest of the country. It is therefore incumbent upon us to produce an educated work force that will help expand our economy, and no entities can do that more effectively than research universities. Nevada's population and per capita income can clearly support two major universities, a state college and a thriving community college system and there is no shortcut -- no merging of campuses north and south -- that can accomplish those ends.

It is clear from the data that California, Arizona, Colorado and Utah have made strategic decisions to invest in research universities, not only to serve residents, but to create the intellectual capital that brings significant economic returns to these states.

The answer is that Nevada must find the revenue to support education at all levels if we are to thrive in the future. Many, if not most, of Las Vegas-based students do not have the luxury to go to Reno for a program not available locally. We need UNR and UNLV funded equally and more generously than they are now -- and certainly not at the laughable level proposed by the governor -- if we have any dream of becoming a state to admire, a state to live in with a high quality of life for all, and a state with an economic vitality not subject to the ying-yang of a one trick pony economy.

Disappointingly, it seems as if Geoff Schumacher has fallen for the conservative argument that we can indeed do a quality job by doing less. That is the governor's argument, too, and one that shall lead us down the road to economic ruin and cultural deprivation.

Nevada must do more and reasonably -- not lavishly -- funded education at all levels is the key to that future.

Carol C. Harter

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER, A FORMER PRESIDENT OF UNLV, IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BLACK MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER DEDICATED TO ADVANCING LITERARY AND CROSS-CULTURAL DIALOGUE.