Key Takeaways
- • Lane Glenn, president of Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts, proposes capturing a small share of elite university endowment gains to fund community college endowments.
- • The author's illustrative model: diverting $1 billion from a single year of University of Pennsylvania endowment growth (up 28 percent to about $31 billion) across the state's 15 community colleges would yield roughly $67 million per college.
- • At a 5 percent payout rate, each college would gain about $3.3 million annually, an 8 to 9 percent increase over a $38 million operating budget at the author's institution.
- • The author argues that predictable, endowment-based funding would replace reactive budgeting with multi-year planning, though the proposal remains a hypothetical reflection rather than a policy.
Summary
Lane Glenn, president of Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts, has asked what would happen if community colleges captured a small share of last year's endowment gains from wealthy, highly selective institutions and used them to build endowments of their own. The question is framed in an Inside Higher Ed opinion piece by a writer who describes Glenn as a former colleague and characterizes the idea as worth trying. The author argues that private universities benefit substantially from tax exemptions on property, investments and donations, which amount to a form of public subsidy, and that this subsidy can reasonably carry an expectation of public support.
The article offers illustrative figures. According to Glenn's math, Harvard spends a substantially higher amount per student than the roughly $14,000 spent at Northern Essex, with Westmoreland spending about $9,500. The author applies the principle of declining marginal utility to argue that an additional $1,000 per student would have far greater impact at a community college than the equivalent reduction at Harvard.
Turning to Pennsylvania, the article notes that the University of Pennsylvania's endowment grew 28 percent last year to around $31 billion, implying roughly $7 billion in gains. The author's hypothetical would divert $1 billion of that for a single year to the state's 15 community colleges, or about $67 million each if divided evenly. At a 5 percent payout rate, that would add about $3.3 million per year to each college's operating budget, which the author estimates would represent an 8 to 9 percent increase for a college with a $38 million operating budget. The author notes that, because the funds would be an endowment, the increase would establish a new recurring baseline, and that it could eliminate an operating deficit and support faculty and staff hiring. The author cautions that state or county governments could respond by reducing their own support.
The piece also addresses a proposal from Glenn that elite institutions accept a set percentage of community college transfer students. The author is more skeptical of this element because geographic access would vary considerably across a state. The core appeal, according to the author, is stable funding that is insulated from political cycles, enabling long-term planning, routine replacement of departing staff and possible debt reduction. The article closes by extending the principle to wealthy individuals and suggesting it as a reflection for the current election season. It is an opinion column and presents these scenarios as hypotheticals rather than proposed legislation.
The article offers illustrative figures. According to Glenn's math, Harvard spends a substantially higher amount per student than the roughly $14,000 spent at Northern Essex, with Westmoreland spending about $9,500. The author applies the principle of declining marginal utility to argue that an additional $1,000 per student would have far greater impact at a community college than the equivalent reduction at Harvard.
Turning to Pennsylvania, the article notes that the University of Pennsylvania's endowment grew 28 percent last year to around $31 billion, implying roughly $7 billion in gains. The author's hypothetical would divert $1 billion of that for a single year to the state's 15 community colleges, or about $67 million each if divided evenly. At a 5 percent payout rate, that would add about $3.3 million per year to each college's operating budget, which the author estimates would represent an 8 to 9 percent increase for a college with a $38 million operating budget. The author notes that, because the funds would be an endowment, the increase would establish a new recurring baseline, and that it could eliminate an operating deficit and support faculty and staff hiring. The author cautions that state or county governments could respond by reducing their own support.
The piece also addresses a proposal from Glenn that elite institutions accept a set percentage of community college transfer students. The author is more skeptical of this element because geographic access would vary considerably across a state. The core appeal, according to the author, is stable funding that is insulated from political cycles, enabling long-term planning, routine replacement of departing staff and possible debt reduction. The article closes by extending the principle to wealthy individuals and suggesting it as a reflection for the current election season. It is an opinion column and presents these scenarios as hypotheticals rather than proposed legislation.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.