The Problem With Calling UMBC a Cinderella

Last week college-basketball fans witnessed a historic event. For the first time ever during March Madness, a No. 16 seed upset a No. 1 seed. The University of Maryland-Baltimore County Retrievers not only beat the University of Virginia Cavaliers — they beat them by 20 points. As often happens with upsets, the story of UMBC’s victory went viral on social media. UMBC was quickly branded this year’s “Cinderella story.”

UMBC is an excellent university with a strong reputation, particularly in the mid-Atlantic region. This reputation developed largely separate from athletics. Yet it took playing in the most competitive tournament in college basketball, and pulling off an almost miraculous feat, for people to suddenly notice the institution. In the words of Jerry Brewer of The Washington Post, “After a 74-54 win over Virginia, UMBC has America’s attention. It is ready to listen to every remarkable thing about the university.”

This is wonderful for the university’s players, students, faculty, staff, and leadership. However, it reveals a major problem in this country: our long-term, systematic neglect of public regional universities. Although UMBC got its moment in the spotlight, hundreds of institutions will never get a shot at the big dance. And this big-time oversight has big-time consequences.

I have spent the last four years working at a public regional university, and I also happen to study them. Incidentally, my university’s basketball team fell to Virginia in the first round of last year’s tournament. So I know a few things about public regional universities and being the underdog. Let me tell you a few reasons why we should not only pay attention to public regional universities but also better fund and reward them for their unique contributions to American higher education, irrespective of what happens during March Madness.

First, public regional universities educate a significant number of Americans. One estimate shows that public regional universities enroll two-thirds of people attending public four-year institutions. Some people might understandably ask, “So what?” After all, bigger and more elite institutions also educate many students. The difference is that public regional universities educate a much larger proportion of low-income, minority, and first-generation students than bigger and more elite institutions do. Among all public four-year institutions, public regionals educate an astounding 85 percent of African-American students, 74 percent of Hispanics and Latinos, and 70 percent of Native Americans.

Second, public regional universities are affordable and efficient. Many Americans are worried about the price of college and how public institutions are stewarding taxpayer money. Public regionals have had to figure out how to keep their prices low for a long time because of the types of students they serve. Raising tuition too much can have disastrous consequences for enrollment, retention, and persistence. All public institutions have been affected by reductions in per-pupil state funding, but unlike bigger and more elite institutions, public regional universities can’t frequently rely on alternative revenue sources like major private gifts or overhead from federal grants to offset budget cuts. Instead, they have to figure out how to pursue excellence with insufficient resources. It shouldn’t be too surprising that research shows that many public regional universities are cost efficient.

Third, public regional universities are committed to high-quality teaching and student success. One persistent myth is that, based on metrics like retention and graduation rates, public regional universities are lower-quality compared with bigger and more elite institutions. But it makes little sense to compare public regional universities with institutions that enjoy phenomenally more resources and educate very different students. Public regional universities are home to scholar-teachers who devote significant time to teaching and provide an unparalleled level of care to students. This type of personal attention is particularly important for minority and low-income students.

It is worth noting that, as many other institutions figure out how to attract and educate the growing population of nontraditional students, public regional universities have been helping these student succeed for decades. We should start seeing public regional universities as thought leaders in student success.

Lastly, public regional universities are regionally oriented anchor institutions, many of which serve economically depressed and rural areas. If we were to remove public regional universities from the regions they serve, we would effectively eliminate a major employer, a major producer of well-educated employees, a major cultural institution, and a major source of hope in one fell swoop. A public regional university is sometimes one of a few sites of opportunity in areas struggling with poverty and unemployment.

Here are a few things we can do to reverse the pattern of underappreciation and underinvestment in public regionals:

Scrutinize our language. Many people refer to public regional universities as “non-elite,” “non-selective,” or “non-flagship.” These labels often position public regional universities in negative relation to something we see as more valuable. We should throw the label “flagship” out the window. It wrongly suggests that there is one important institution in a state and a whole bunch of supporting institutions that don’t merit notice.

Donate money to public regionals. As an employee of a public regional university, I’m biased, but I think donations go farther at our institutions. My undergraduate alma mater is a wealthy private college. I have the fondest memories of my time there, but they are financially in good shape. My donation makes more of a difference at a place like the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

Get over our infatuation with bigger and more elite institutions. Research on public regional universities is not nearly as developed as it should be, given the importance of these institutions. And much of it is quantitative in nature, which can be helpful, but doesn’t always tell the story of these institutions in a nuanced way. Researchers almost always discuss public regional universities from a deficit perspective, recycling a narrative of institutions in crisis, struggling to stay open, on the brink of extinction. Stop that. Take the enthusiasm that emerged from the UMBC victory and apply that appreciative lens to public regional universities broadly.

Ask big questions about state funding formulas. A disproportionate share of resources flows to bigger, more research-oriented universities. Performance-based funding can exacerbate these inequities. I struggle to argue for cutting funding to any public institution, but public regional universities are not being funded at levels commensurate with their contributions.

Like Cinderella, many public regional universities are cast out, mistreated, and unloved unless they are given the chance to be viewed as something higher-status. UMBC got that chance, but it is just one institution among many. My hope is that we can view public regional universities as national treasures without having to rely on the magic of a major sports victory.

Kevin R. McClure is an assistant professor of higher education at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. A version of this essay originally appeared on his blog, Red Bricks and Mortar Boards.