AT FIRST glance, there seems to be an amazing silence on the issue of higher education in ongoing gubernatorial campaigns. Politics prof.Larry Sabato noted in an interview that the candidates simply do not talk about it or do not want to talk about it. Yet look more closely: Neither candidate does a superb job in addressing the issue, but nonetheless there are key differences that put Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore on top.
Both Kilgore and Democratic candidate Tim Kaine devote space on their Web sites to higher education, but overall there just has not been a lot of talk about the issue. The only time it has really come up was in a debate at Virginia Commonwealth University between Kilgore, Kaine and Independent candidate Russell Potts. But as Sabato described it, the debate was really more of a joint press conference.
Perhaps this is because the candidates seem the same on higher education. Indeed, last Wednesday the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that "there is no controversy among them about the need to close a spending gap." Yet although they may share the general goal of raising funding for higher education or establishing a new college in Southside, they in fact differ greatly on a number of other issues -- for example how to actually pay for the aforementioned spending gap.
To begin with, Kilgore and Kaine differ greatly on how to ease the pressures of an increasing population of college applicants in a system with fairly static capacity. In the long term, Kilgore, Kaine and Potts all agree on the need to establish a new four-year public college in Southside, Virginia. However, this will naturally take time to be developed and to achieve comparable status to Virginia's other public colleges. It is in their short term goals then that the divergence is most apparent: Kaine is pushing immediate expansion in existing public colleges while Kilgore wants to increase state grants for students to attend private colleges.
From this it seems that Kaine may have the better plan, but that is not at all the case. Kilgore's plan in fact does nothing to change the overall funding going to the University, and as noted on his campaign site will save the University money "because the average state cost to support students at public colleges is higher." Kaine's proposal, on the other hand, will hurt the University by crowding more and more students into the existing space.
Though the added funding the University will receive under either candidate could be used for new buildings and professors, again this takes time to implement. Kilgore's campaign promises to ease immediate pressure and provide for future expansion, while Kaine unrealistically wants immediate expansion and assumes simply adding more students will work itself out.
On top of this, Kilgore and Kaine have completely different approaches to providing access for higher education. According to his Web site, Kaine wants to offer scholarships to jobs "that serve the community" in order to provide nurses, doctors, teachers and other needed professionals to Virginia. This goal is all well and good, but Kaine says very little about how to actually achieve it, much less how to keep these professionals in the state after they graduate. Kilgore on the other hand proposes to expand scholarships through a focus on real world experience. His Employment Access for Scholars, or EASE, Program will work through local businesses to provide internships to Virginia students. This will give students vital work experience and will create ties to keep graduates within the Virginia and University communities.
Finally, the biggest difference between the candidates and how they will impact the University comes in how they intend to pay for higher education improvements. Kaine throughout his campaign has drawn attention to his support for Gov. Mark R. Warner's $1.4 billion tax increase and derides Kilgore's opposition to it. This means an immediate increase in funding to the University, but at the expense of a greater burden on Virginia taxpayers -- many of whom are University students, parents of students, or alumni and who already make payments or contributions to the University.
Kilgore plans to offer the same funding increase, but through expansions of the tax base as the economy grows under his other initiatives. This is by far the more reasonable plan, because it provides for growth and foresight rather than a tax increase that could actual dampen the Virginia economy.
Admittedly, neither candidate has conducted his campaign brilliantly in regards to higher education. From what they have said, however, it is pretty clear that Kilgore wants to help the University both now and in the long run while Kaine wants to arbitrarily increase capacity and will simply add taxes to solve any problems. If this is not enough to prove Kilgore is the better choice for the University, well, as Sabato noted "Kaine roots for Tech."
Allan Cruickshanks' column usually appears on Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached atacruickshanks@cavalierdailly.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 4 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
