Republican Party candidate for governor Vivek Ramaswamy of Ohio. (Photo: WEWS.)
Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said in March that consolidating Ohio’s public universities would make higher education better and more affordable.
The overwhelming consensus of economists polled on the topic this month said such a move would reduce Ohio’s graduate population and reduce economic output. They were divided on whether it would save money at all.
In the face of backlash, Ramaswamy is now backtracking on his call.
“I think we have too many duplicate programs in our universities,” Ramaswamy told an audience in Strongsville earlier this month, according to WEWS in Cleveland.
He later added: “I want every region to have the best higher education institutions available to the people of (each) region. But not every university has to offer every program“
Vivek Ramaswamy said Ohio should close “low-cost” universities. Then came the reaction.
Ramaswamy said something completely different in: March 27 column in The Columbus Dispatch. He cited Ohio’s aging population and degenerating student enrollment, and applauded the fact that Georgia eliminated nine public universities from 2011 to 2018.
He wrote that as governor, “he would bedetermine where missions overlap, where enrollment collapses have made independence impossible, and where administrative functions can be standardized without harming students.”
In effect, he said, “it would create a more competitive, increasingly affordable and rights-based higher education system for taxpayers and students.”
A panel of Ohio economists polled by Scioto Analysis was unconvinced by this argument. No one believed it would support Ohio’s economy in the long run.
When asked whether they agreed with the statement that “reducing the number of universities in Ohio would reduce Ohio’s long-term economic output,” 11 agreed and four were unsure.
None of them said they thought reducing the number of public universities would be a good solution raise economic result.
Most of them work at public universities, so some bias in their favor may be inherent. However, Kevin Egan of the University of Toledo made a uncomplicated argument for why reducing the number of public universities reduces economic output.
“On average, college graduates earn more, reflecting their additional value to the economy,” he wrote in comments to the survey. “Closing any local public universities will result in some local commuters not attending college, thereby reducing the number of valuable workers to the economy in the long run.”
On the other hand, Curtis Reynolds of Kent State University said the economic benefits of Ohio’s public colleges could be undermined because Ohio leaders are not doing a better job of making the state attractive to teenage professionals.
“I am less certain about this for one simple reason: Ohio is struggling to retain the college graduates we produce,” he wrote. “If a state is unable to retain college graduates, the education of college graduates may be less important (from the state’s perspective).”
Reynolds didn’t mention the issue, but when CNBC ranked Ohio earlier this month, that’s what it was The best state for businessplaced it 18th in terms of quality of life. And one thing this may have affected Ohio is: abortion ban passed by Republicans in a rigged state legislature. It was later overturned by voters, but legislative Republicans are still trying to get it done limit abortion rights.
“And with surveys showing that a significant percentage of younger workers would not live in a country that banned abortion, in this category we include reproductive rights as well,” CNBC said of its quality of life score.
Ohio economists overwhelmingly agreed that getting rid of public universities would reduce the number of Ohioans earning college degrees. Twelve said yes and two were unsure.
“This will reduce the number of bachelor’s degrees and ultimately the number of master’s degrees as well,” said Charles Kroncke of Mount St. Joseph University.
Before his earlier departure, Ramaswamy was a member of future President Donald Trump’s “Department of Government Effectiveness.”
Led by Elon Musk, another billionaire with no government experience, DOGE promised to reduce waste and save taxpayers $2 trillion.
It was a miserable effort general chaos and fired people who often had to be rehired. This saved much less than promised – and by some estimates, even that was achieved costing taxpayers billions.
Although Ramaswamy said his college consolidation plan would save Ohioans money, economists didn’t believe the case was so clear-cut.
Six said it would save money, six said it wouldn’t, and two weren’t sure.
Even some economists who said consolidation would save money questioned the wisdom of doing so.
“It would save the state money in the short run, but in the long run it would be wise and foolish,” said Bob Gitter of Ohio Wesleyan University. “Education is one of the main functions of government.”
