Many years ago, the Association has discussed what the future of public Colleges in the US funding/annual budget will be based on.  Though, decision makers in certain states are hesitate to fully implement the model, it is just a matter of time before it got adopted.  PBFM is nothing, but a way to distribute more limited resources.  So long there is plenty for everyone, PBFM may not be needed.  Otherwise, it is a fair and one of the approaches which can be quantified to slice the pie.

Opponents of PBFM think this model works only in theory.  However, their opinion is not based on data or facts, rather theoretical personal’s view in nature.  If it is good in theory, there is a good chance that it is also good in realty.  For example, the axiom of 1+1=2.  It does not mean in reality this self-evident truth will not equal to 2, unless one can mathematically prove that the standard deviation is not equal to zero.  However, the axiom itself, and by definition is beyond proof.  Furthermore, the PBFM is a new concept and it has only been around in the last two years.  Are there enough observations to test the maintained hypothesis that PBFM does not work in reality without doing an empirical study/research?  We don’t think so.

The Model does not solely focus on students learning outcomes.  But these institutional metrics are the most measurable yardstick that can be used to slice the pie fairly.  It just happens that retention and graduation rate, among others can be quantified such that unnecessary arguments can be minimized.

These outcomes are affected by the core-competence of an institution, and it cannot be built in one academic year, but years.  Sadly. many higher ed in the US, big or small in particular Liberal Arts and smaller colleges may not know what their core competence is?.  Several contributing factors to such disadvantages are:

1. Leaderships & staff may lack of training, experience or vision.
2. Institutions are managed by BAU’s mindset i.e., follow what others are doing.
3. Failures of higher learning institutions in the US to imbed these concepts in their curricula that prepare “mature, critical and tactful” person who can be an agent of change and a true leader, instead of a faithful follower, a copycat.
4. Over confident that the future (demand for higher ed services) will not change, and that the state or federal money will always be available forever in the future, regardless of performances.
5. Management’s lack of interest on learning outcomes because it does not effect their compensation.
6. Colleges’ focus on other areas than students’ learning.