FINDINGS:

We find that in recent years the South Carolina General Assembly has not made support for higher education one of its top priorities. When members of the General Assembly and recent governors have spoken about support for education, they generally have referred to K-12. This is reflected in general appropriated funding for higher education. Comparisons of state and local general operating appropriations per FTE student for public colleges in SREB states show that South Carolina's public colleges receive over $400 per student less than the SREB average appropriation. Interviews with a sample of legislators from across the state indicate an impression that higher education institutions are performing at an acceptable level and there is no dire need for big increases in funding. More of their concern and attention is focused on K-12 or funding for an individual institution of higher learning of their interest. However, there is some greater interest in funding higher education since the passage of the Performance Funding Act three years ago. The general operating funding for higher education for FY 98-99 and FY 99-00 increased greater than at any time in the past ten years. This is an encouraging sign that general operating funding for higher education may be on an incline. A healthy economy and good economic projections for the state in future years should further enhance the opportunities for additional funding.

We find that the College of Charleston, compared to other state colleges and universities, receives consistently good support from the General Assembly. Comments received from legislators have been almost unanimously positive about the College of Charleston and the direction the school has taken in recent years. Legislators are positive about the College's increase in standards and overall impression that the College provides a high quality education. Some concern has been expressed about the continuing increase in the size of the College and some negative comments received about a shortage of dormitory beds.

Measuring the College's support from the General Assembly in terms of funding indicates that the College has outpaced all other four-year colleges in funds received for special project requests. Funding for these types of requests is the greatest measure of legislative support. Since the presidency of Alex Sanders (1993), for example, the College has received special appropriations for the purchase of the Bishop England property ($7 million), expansion of the School of Business Building ($1.3 million), construction of a new library ($12 million), construction of a new athletic arena ($12 million), expansion of the School of the Arts Building ($3 million) and renovation of the Avery Research Center ($665,000). The College of Charleston received more funding than any school in the state other than USC during this time period.

We feel that the College is in a good political position to go forward with any new goal or mission which reflects an increase in quality. We believe that this is the direction in which most members of the General Assembly expect the College to head. We feel that any further move by the College in this direction would be supported by the General Assembly, particularly if there was a commitment by the College to contain growth.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

In light of these findings, we offer the following recommendations:

• We recommend that the College increase our admissions standards for incoming students and make every effort to become a nationally acclaimed, high quality liberal arts university.
• We recommend that the College adopt a policy to cap our freshman class and transfers each fall and spring to maintain our current enrollment level. Special emphasis should be continued on the recruitment of minority students. Out-of-state enrollment should be capped at 40% of total enrollment.
• We recommend that the College continue to work to increase space on campus and improve our existing facilities.
• We recommend that a comprehensive plan to accomplish these recommendations be forwarded to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education and the South Carolina General Assembly. The College should ask for support for this plan and ask for a special annual appropriation to help make this plan successful.
• We recommend that the College raise in-state tuition a modest amount over the next several years and have major increases in out-of-state tuition to help make this plan successful.

WHY THE COLLEGE SHOULD FOLLOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS:

Currently, there is no nationally acclaimed public college or university in South Carolina comparable to UNC-Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, William and Mary, Georgia Tech, etc. These type schools provide a high quality education for their citizens and bring prestige to the state. In surveying South Carolina's public colleges and universities, it is evident that the College of Charleston is the only school in the state with the capability to become this type institution. A significant reason is the popularity of the College of Charleston. The College continues to grow in popularity around the state and nation. Applications for admission have increased from 7230 in Fall 1994 to almost 10,000 in Fall 1999. Applications for admission to Fall 2000 are currently (December 15) 15% above those for Fall 1999. The College has used this popularity to increase enrollment from 6,361 FTE in 1990 to 9270 FTE in 1998. This is a 45.7% growth rate during this period. No other four year college or university in South Carolina grew more than 15% during this period and five schools lost enrollment during this period. These enrollment trends at other institutions were caused by decreasing applications for admissions for several schools and flat or only small increases in applications for others.

This increasing popularity gives the College the unique opportunity in South Carolina to be able to control our enrollment and be more selective in accepting students. With no other in-state school capable of accomplishing this task, the College should do so and provide our state and its citizens with a more high quality school than what currently exists.

Another reason is the quality of our faculty and academic programs. In CHE Performance Funding reviews, CHE academic program reviews and by certification process reviews, our faculty and most academic programs receive superlative ratings. In fact, we have received more CHE commendations for excellence in undergraduate degree programs than any other state institution. We have in place the personnel and academic programs to follow this recommendation of increasing our quality.

The growth that the College experienced in the 1990's has been beneficial in many ways, but it is time to let our infrastructure catch up with this growth. Rapid growth has caused space shortages on campus. Fortunately, a move in this direction has been taken as President Sanders has instructed the Admissions Office to admit only 2750 students for Fall 2000. This is 200 fewer students than was admitted for Fall 1999. When the construction of a new library, new athletics center, expansion of the School of the Arts Building and construction of a new science center are completed, most space problems on campus will be eliminated. Any future growth in student enrollment should be confined to a site off the Charleston peninsula such as North Charleston or Daniel Island.

These recommendations can be accomplished not only because of the good legislative support that the College receives but also due to the good financial condition of the College and other factors. Our total debt on facility bonds, for example, is only $4.1 million. We have the ability to issue over $30 million in new facility bonds without an increase in tuition. Funding from grants is at an all time high and the recent Capital Campaign was very successful in providing additional funds to support the College.

In addition, the College has the ability to increase tuition to financially support these recommendations and the loss of revenue from no student enrollment growth. Our tuition is only the sixth highest in the state, and our out-of-state tuition is an even greater bargain. Increases in tuition in recent years have had no negative impact on applications for admission. On the contrary, applications have continued to increase.

Increases in tuition can be justified due to significant increases in financial aid awarded to our students. Over the past three years, the General Assembly has created and funded the LIFE Scholarship Program, the Star Scholarship Program, the Need-Based Scholarship Program, the Palmetto Fellows Scholarship program, a tuition tax credit plan and the Education Initiative Act. Combine the funds from these state programs with federal programs, and the additional funds that the College Foundation raised for scholarships as part of the Capital Campaign ($11 million) and the total financial aid awarded for students have increased from $24 million in 1994 to $43 million in 1998. This figure does not include benefits from the tax credit plan whereby a tax credit is awarded directly to individuals paying in-state college tuition. The General Assembly will also include additional scholarship funds for students in the Lottery Bill which is likely to be enacted into state law.

We believe, if adopted, these recommendations will be supported by state and local governments, the Charleston community at large and by a majority of our alumni.