Oh, my!! There **must be** something terribly wrong with this graphic. Obviously, I will be doing some fact-checking, but, in general, Missouri has gone back to the range of 2001-2002 levels for my particular university/system. In a sub-operation where prices rise, in general, at 5-10 percent each year, I was under the impression that Missouri is "hurting."

IMHO, for Missouri, the only other possible explanation for the large percentage increase is the exceptionally LOW starting point...

A more interesting graphic would be to show state by state the changes in funding per FTE student over the past 10 years adjusted for the dollar's year 2000 value. As clwilsonlib points out, the graphic does not seem to capture reality.

Follow-up to Comment 1.
The _Chronicle_ used the data from Grapevine (http://www.grapevine.ilstu.edu/)(there are PDF and Excel versions available) for this graphic. The amounts INCLUDE Federal Stimulus money (both Stabilization funds and Government Services funds sub-categories). Assuming Grapevine started with the correct numbers (still to be verified for Missouri...), these percentages are correct.
Stay tuned??

cwinton:
Thanks. It's possible my grasp of Missouri's relative/comparative funding is incorrect!
The Grapevine data is derived from the same survey which the State Higher Education Executive Officers conduct; there's some constant-dollar data available here: http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef/shef_data09.htm This site might be even **more comprehensive,** although I haven't delved into it beyond this link. This has what you mentioned: One chart shows state-by-state (along with composite U. S.) data for public FTE enrollment, state educational appropriations and net tuition revenue (both on a per-FTE basis) (fiscal years 1984 to 2009).

Keep fighting the good fight...



There's ALSO one big footnote on the Grapevine data: "FY2010 figures represent initial allocations or estimates as of December 15, 2009 and are subject to change."