Extending the Tree of Knowledge through Branching

A striking feature of the Great Depression was the number of bank failures. Between 1930 and 1933, over 9,000 banks suspended operations, never to conduct business again.  The problem became so desperate that newly-elected President Roosevelt declared a “Bank Holiday” in which an inspection was to occur and only the sound ones would be allowed to reopen.  There are many reasons for the number of bank failures, but curiously Canada’s banking system didn’t suffer the same fate.  In fact Canada had zero bank failures between 1927 and 1980.  (That’s over fifty years without a failure!)  What could be the difference?  The answer is simple: branch banking was allowed in Canada, but not allowed in the US.  The simple principle of diversification was denied to the US banking industry and when the crisis hit, the banks fell like dominos.

Today, there is another industry set up for a similar failure: US colleges and universities—private institutions in particular.  In the same way that the US imposed “unit banking” on the financial industry, we currently have a similar anti-competitive, and anti-diversification, system targeting higher education.

It wasn’t until just recently that I discovered this situation firsthand.

I teach Economics and Finance at the University of Mount Olive in North Carolina.  UMO is a small, private, Christian and non-profit school in eastern North Carolina.  In January 2014, we launched our first graduate program, a Masters of Business Administration.  As a part of our business strategy we decided to launch the program entirely online.  The original idea was once we had the program up and running, we would look into seated and hybrid courses.  The business strategy was simple.  We wanted to diversify.  First, by adding a Graduate Program and, second, by extending ourselves outside of our region.  We had all seen the ads on TV by other schools pitching their online degree programs.  We wanted to get into that market where the world could provide us with students.  At UMO, a majority of our students are adult learners and many of those are affiliated with the military.  Working around deployments is nothing new for us.  For example, I have had a student who had to finish his Money and Banking course from Qatar.  So the faculty’s acceptance of the idea of an online degree for adult learners from all over the country came naturally.

The ability of a small Southern, Christian school to diversify is necessary.  As a regional school, we have been putting too many of our financial eggs in a single basket.  Some have made the quiet projection that within the next 5 years, 3 to 4 North Carolina colleges may disappear.  Mount Olive has had its fair share of financial difficulties, has successfully emerged from them and is better as a result.  We have learned, the hard way, the difficulties for a private school competing against tax-supported public schools.  We owe it to ourselves, our students and most importantly to our alumni that we not simply survive, but flourish.  (Imagine having a degree from a school that no longer exists.)

Last January, I had the honor to teach the very first MBA course offered at Mount Olive.  Of course, the first class drew heavily from our Alumni.  Over the following semesters, I have seen graduates of other schools join our program, however, they were still local to Mount Olive’s region.  This result, of course, makes sense because people who aren’t all that familiar with the school won’t apply.  Then I noticed that our reach extended west of I-95 and into the Triangle Area.  And so I asked our program director, almost off-handed, when we would see students from Virginia and South Carolina.  It was then that I learned the awful truth: we were not allowed to compete for students in other states!  It is against the law.  (My jaw hit the floor.)

In 2010, the US Department of Education issued a regulation that stated colleges and universities could only offer online programs in states where they also had a physical presence.  In July 2011, the DC District Court struck down this regulation.  However, the Department of Education appealed and in 2013 it issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).  Simply, the DOE announced that it intends to make a rule on the topic of State Authorization.  And this is where we stand today.

So while there is technically no Federal Rule preventing a college from advertising online programs across state lines, individual states have their own individual laws that prevent competition.  In other words, in order for the University of Mount Olive to compete across the country, UMO would have to request special authorization from each and every state that has a State Authorization law, which apparently is every state except maybe Hawaii.  Furthermore, the state would have to specifically name the school that it allows to compete with its own local schools (that means we’d have to lobby other states’ legislators—which is never cheap and hardly a guaranteed result).  There are other loophole-ish ways around some state laws.  Apparently some state laws are fairly vague.  In fact, I was told that some of the schools that advertise across the country have, in some states, a single guy with a phone in an office that creates their “physical presence.”  I am not sure if this is truly the case, but as with all loophole strategies, a single court case or amendment to state legislation can crush that approach.  (If you are interested in reading legalese for yourself, you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 34, Section 600.9 State Authorization, http://www.ecfr.gov/.  Enjoy!)  The reality of these government restrictions is the creation of a chilling effect to new and innovative methods of delivering education; and it is a costly one as well, both in terms of schools lobbying for authorization and in terms of lost revenue. 

Diversifying how a school offers its courses is an act of entrepreneurship.  Reaching beyond the school’s natural regional limitation is also an act of entrepreneurship.  Both are necessary for a healthy and growing institution.  I teach entrepreneurship in my economics classes, and I see case after case of entrepreneurial ideas being squashed by the heavy hand of government.  In many cases, state legislators want to restrict online competition from “outside” educational institutions, especially if the competitor is a for-profit entity.  Regardless of the stated reason, it is the same protectionist argument that David Hume and Adam Smith fought against centuries ago.  It is the same argument made against bank branching in the early 20^th century.  In each and every case, the result is that cost of protection exceeds the benefits.

The greatest strength of US Higher Education is that there is free and open competition.  Unlike the failing public K-12 system, where students are assigned to schools, US colleges and universities must persuade customers to freely opt for one’s school.  This competition ensures higher standards and lower costs.  Increasingly, each decade the government erodes this market connection through tax subsidies, grants, and so forth, but nevertheless, the link still exists.  At UMO, we are very aware of the importance of each and every student.  These students consciously choose to enroll with us and not somewhere else.  It is difficult enough to compete with institutions that benefit from the taxes that come out of my paycheck.  And it is beyond enraging to learn that we are banned from competing across state lines.  Nevertheless, I am optimistic.  Technology seems to find interesting ways around bureaucratic obstacles. 

The best solution is to extricate government from the higher education market.  Although such a goal may be wildly optimistic, we can at least do away with these State Authorization laws.  When the crisis hit the financial markets in the early years of the Great Depression, the result was that more than 9,000 banks closed their doors forever.  It is no secret that today there is a bubble in Higher Education.  If schools are unable to properly diversify, I shudder to think about how many Alumni will have degrees from schools which will no longer exist?

Secondary Consequences--Blackmailing Batman

One of the most important concepts that we stress in economics is that of secondary consequences.  Too often, we simply focus on the immediate, on the short-term, on what happens to a particular group.  Economics teaches us that we need to go beyond a narrow focus.  In the movie "Batman: The Dark Knight," an employee discovers Batman's secret identity and thinks that he should be paid $10 million a year for the rest of his life to keep quiet.  Here is the scene:

The reason why this scene is funny is because the extortionist has not thought his proposition through.  He hasn't looked beyond the immediate.  What will Batman's reaction be to someone who wants to release his secret?  What will happen to him?  Will he ever be able to enjoy that money?

Earlier this week I attended my Town's Council Meeting.  There was a proposition to limit Electronic Gaming Businesses by saying that these businesses had to stay at least a quarter mile away from each other.  What they are failing to do is think about the secondary consequences.  Let's set aside the issue of whether such a rule will achieve its purpose--to frighten away such businesses from the Town of Garner.  (It won't.  It's like preventing Burger King from locating near a McDonald's because we fear that people are getting too fat.) 

The secondary consequences of creating these spacial regulations is that the town is carving out islands of monopoly.  Each business gets its own territory and all competitors are prevented from encroaching on your business.  The cost of enforcing this rule is picked up by the government.  It's a sweet deal for those already in business.  As an island of monopoly, the business doesn't have to compete as hard and so the product to the consumers is inferior and at a higher price.

So if the Town Council hates competition and wants to stick it to the consumers, then by all means let's pass this rule.  Or perhaps, we should think it through before we go up against Batman.

Voluntary Taxation

While I normally do not post articles to this blog, I was struck by the delicious irony that this article detailed.  It's entitled, "Will They Tax Themselves More?" by Donna Martinez.

In North Carolina, we are facing a large budget deficit and since we have a balanced budget amendment, we must either raise taxes (fat chance!) or cut spending (finally?).  As a result, the special interest groups are howling about the cuts to their largess.  Anyway, all of this is now solved by House Bill 887.  If passed, it will allow tax payers to redirect some or all of their refunds to special government accounts earmarked for specific spending.  For example, if you think that the arts are being cut too much, then you can waive your refund and send it to the special account for the arts.  The same goes for education and several other "priority" programs.

Will the special interest groups donate their refunds to these funds?  Will they convince others to do the same?  Time will tell, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. 

Special interests need and want your money.  They view the state as a parent making sure that the children share all that they have.  I view it the same way that Frederic Bastiat did over 160 years ago--it is legalized plunder.  (Or here for the pdf version.)