Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Jan. 18, 2005, edition 1 / Page 15
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Soily Ear Hwl PRICE OF EDUCATION A small increase isn’t out of line A year ago, I ran on a policy of “fighting unreasonable tuition increases,” and I intend to —but as I hope to show here, there’s good reason to consid er the notion that not all hikes are unreasonable. I hope to prove that a small, judicious tuition increase is worth consideration, given UNC-CH’s situation, and might be an effective way to preserve afford ability while pursuing excellence. But how do we know that a tuition increase is judicious? To figure that out, we have to ask whether we can afford it and whether it’s necessary. By some indications, UNC- Chapel Hill is even more afford able than it was five years ago. Trustees were first authorized to use campus-based tuition increases in 2000. Since then, the average debt load among the students who borrowed anything at all actually dropped MATT CALABRIA STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT, UNC-CH from $13,700 to $11,519 in 2003 despite the national average’s continual rise to about $18,900. This is largely due to UNC-CH’s need-based aid program, serving about one-third of its students. The Carolina Covenant has strengthened efforts to keep Carolina affordable —and begin ning next fall, it will pay the entire cost of a Carolina education (down to the books) for about one-tenth of our new students. That covers every family of four making less than $37,000 a year. A pricing study by the highly regarded Art & Science Group LLC concluded that UNC-CH can increase tuition without harming its applicant pool as long as it stays competitive with peer institutions. Average tuition at private and public universities increases by 9 percent per year and 12 percent per year, respec tively. Statistically speaking, there is almost no chance that a small tuition increase would price undergraduates out of UNC-CH. Keep in mind that tuition doesn’t always reflect what fami lies actually pay. In 2003, four year public university students only ultimately absorbed 27 per cent of the tuition sticker price after grants and tax breaks. But we shouldn’t raise tuition just because we can. “Needs” are sometimes subjective, but UNC CH would make good use of additional funding. Thition dollars would be put first toward faculty salaries. Since July 2001, more than half of the College of Arts and Sciences faculty members who received outside offers took them. Why? This year the average offer was 50 percent more than what we were paying them. A full profes sor at UNC-CH makes $106,300 on average that’s $6,500 less than at the University of Virginia, $11,600 less than at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and almost $17,000 less than at the University of Califomia-Berkeley. If you had trouble getting the classes you wanted, if you’ve seen the sometimes 30 or more students “sitting in” on a certain class, if you’ve observed that some departmental course listings con tain classes not taught in years or if you’ve noticed that sometimes there aren’t seats open in even introductory courses, you’ve already felt the effects. For depart ments to hold down class sizes as the state mandates larger student populations, UNC-CH will require more professorships that would be funded by a tuition increase. In addition, teaching assistant stipends are significantly lower than those of our public peers. Increasing stipends would help attract graduate students and improve TA programs, which in turn help undergraduates. As the Board of Trustees prepares to discuss tuition once again, it’s important for students to consider both the price tag and the benefits of a potential tuition increase. It’s our money and our education —and both of those are worth taking seriously. Contact Matt Calabria at calabria@email.unc.edu. OFFICIALS DEBATE THE WORTH OF CAMPUS-BASED HIKES Railing against a national “financial arms race” between colleges, UNC-system Board of Governors chairman Brad Wilson spoke out in December against campus-based tuition increases in a memo to his fellow board members. By Jan. 31, the 16 UNC-system schools are likely to have come before the BOG with tuition increase proposals meant to fund their respective goals and fit their individual needs. It’s been argued that these increases are better for the schools and for the system because they ensure that the campuses have control over where the money goes. Some campus officials believe that campus-based increases give them more control over money, keeping the legislature from allocating tuition revenue as it so chooses. But Wilson’s recommendation against increases rings with an increasingly popular criticism of tuition hikes in the UNC system. The state constitution mandates in Article IX, Section 9 that “The General Assembly shall provide that VIEWPOINTS CARTOON Raising tuition mustn’t become an annual trend Since I came to UNC- Wilmington four years ago, I have seen four tuition increase proposals. The first increase was retro active the state legislature made us pay again mid-semes ter. The next year, I came out in favor of our campus-initiated increase. Since then, I have been opposed to both increase pro posals. Have I flip-flopped? Maybe so, but it almost seems that I am one of only a few people to thoroughly consider each proposal how it will help our university and how it might hurt those struggling to pay the bill. The main tenet of opposi tion is based on the principle of affordability outlined in Article IX, Section 9 of the N.C. Constitution. But each case is different and should be thoroughly consid ered there should never be blanket opposition (or support) for any increase. Increases shouldn’t become an annual event. In December, students have come to expect three things: finals, winter break and, now, a tuition increase. It seems that year after year, the same wording is used in each proposal: the need to restore faculty positions, to increase salaries and to use the remainder for financial aid to cover the cost of the increase. This has left me quite skeptical. I say this not because I lack faith in our administration. I say this because the extra money people have to pay is hard-earned. The proposed increase might be pocket change to some, but to many of the people in places I’ve lived in and visited across North Carolina, the cost is a sizable portion of their paycheck. It is these people that an increase is pushing further away from a quality education, and it is these people that need it the most. Viewpoints ZACH WYNNE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT, UNC-W Our universities’ leaders are seeing tuition increases as the only option in patching the holes in their budgets. This should not be the case. As citizens, we must send the message to the legislature that fully funding education at all levels is an investment in us and an investment in our state’s future. Having a highly skilled work force attracts the new industries we need in North Carolina to prosper. We, as citizens, must constantly be in contact with our legislators to ensure that the university is fully funded so that we can obtain the best educa tion possible. Two of our most respected leaders, Board of Governors Chairman Brad Wilson and Gov. Mike Easley, have taken the principled stance of opposing yet another tuition increase this year. They have seen that the con stant increases are getting out of hand and are becoming too much of a burden on those who need the education most— I commend them for that. The state constitution does not propose opposition to any and every increase. It promotes the idea of access and afford ability. It is our duty as leaders in the university to uphold those principles, especially during stagnant economic times. This means that whenever increases become as frequent and exces sive, we must fight to stop them. It is the right of all North Carolinians to have access to an affordable, quality higher educa tion. This means we must follow the lead of Chairman Wilson, Governor Easley and others. We must say no to another increase. Contact Zach Wynne at zaw!9B9@uncw. edu. the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” The Tuition Advisory Task Force at UNC-Chapel Hill released a report in November suggesting three possible campus-based increases, ranging from $250 to $350 for in-state students and from SBOO to $1,200 for out-of-state students. Chancellor James Moeser is lobbying for an in state hike of $250 and an out-of-state increase of $1,200 in order to raise $9.25 million. The needs that the task force presented are real fol lowing years of budget cuts, but the hikes of recent years are no less tangible. Campus trustees, the BOG and the legislature have yet to speak the final word. Contact editorial page associate editor Jeff Kim atjongdae@email.unc.edu. UNC’s trustees have focused on its affordability Accessibility and afford- ZA ability remain at the core XAof UNC-Chapel Hill’s commitment to our state’s young people and to their families. Access to UNC-CH should be based on merit, not on abil ity to pay. That tradition has characterized our approach to public higher education from the University’s beginnings. As trustees, we also aim to preserve the academic quality that makes UNC-CH a great public university. We’ve followed two principles in carrying out recent campus tuition increases. We have pledged to keep in state tuition rates in the lowest quartile of our national public peers. And we have met all demonstrated financial needs of students to hold them harmless from campus tuition increases. Carolina remains a peren nial “best value.” Kiplinger’s Personal Finance and The Princeton Review have singled out the University as a leader for quality and affordability. We were second among pub lic campuses in U.S. News & World Report’s list of “Great Schools, Great Prices.” N.C. students truly receive an excellent bargain. This fall, undergraduates paid $4,451 in tuition and fees at UNC-CH. That was the second-lowest rate among our 10 public peer campuses. We were more than SI,OOO below the 25th-percen tile threshold set by our Board of Thistees as a target not to exceed. The University has been inno vative in keeping accessibility and affordability at the forefront of its priorities. The Carolina Covenant promises admitted students from low-income fami lies that they can earn a UNC CH diploma debt-free. The covenant builds upon our board’s practice of reserving 35 percent of the revenue from cam pus tuition increases for need based financial aid. Every needy student has received a grant to cover the cost of those increases. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005 By Philip McFee; pip@email.unc.edu NELSON SCHWAB 111 MEMBER, UNC-CH BOARD OF TRUSTEES Carolina also meets the needs of middle-income students. Our board has made a philo sophical commitment to keep tuition affordable for North Carolinians. Last year we also took anew approach for out-of state students that is value- and market-driven, with a goal of aiming for but not exceeding the 75th percentile of our public peers. Carolina should remain a bargain for out-of-staters, but not by compromising the University’s quality. Further, our rates cover the cost of education for non residents. We are not subsidizing those students with state hinds. Now our campus is deliberat ing about next year’s tuition. I was among the trustees, stu dents, faculty members and administrators serving on the Hiition Advisory Task Force. At our trustees’ meeting later this month, we will consider a cam pus-based tuition increase. Chapel Hill is stronger because of this revenue source. Since we were authorized to use campus tuition increases in 2000-01, we have generated more than sl9 million to address the need of faculty support. Graduate teach ing assistant compensation also has emerged as an urgent need. One need the task force identi fied is improving the student-fac ulty ratio, which decreases class size which, in turn, improves the quality of our education. Campus tuition revenues are only one part of the University’s funding. Maintaining qual ity education requires finding adequate resources. We intend to sustain a world-class faculty, because that will serve our state’s students and economy well in the future. Carolina is commit ted to remaining accessible and affordable for North Carolinians. Contact Nelson Schwab at nschwab@carouselcap.com. Papers, officials support a freeze In the coming months, the UNC-system Board of Governors will once again face campus-initiated tuition increase proposals coming from almost every campus in the UNC system. As in previous years, the chancellors will present compel ling cases for the uses of tuition revenues, and the board will be forced to weigh the promise made to North Carolina citizens in Article IX, Section 9 of the N.C. Constitution. But what will happen to our great public university system if we continue this trend year after year? During last year’s tuition discussions, Gov. Mike Easley urged board members to vote against the tuition increase pro posals. He told BOG members that “I believe that we can ensure AMANDA DEVORE PRESIDENT, ASG academic quality without jeop ardizing access.” Clearly, Easley’s entrance into the tuition debate underscores the wide interest that exists across the state to ensure that our 16 UNC campuses remain “as far as practicable, free of expense.” Easley stated that the trend of tuition increases at the mag nitude proposed last year could not continue without jeopardiz ing access to higher education in North Carolina. Despite the plea from Gov. Easley last year, the board did pass tuition increases that ranged from 9 percent to 21 percent. This year, another promi nent state leader has made a courageous public statement opposing campus-based tuition increase proposals for the com ing academic year. In a recent letter to fellow board members, BOG Chairman Brad Wilson affirmed the importance of “keeping the cost to North Carolina students and their families as low as practi cable” while urging members to vote against any increases this year. The support North Carolina citizens have for Chairman Wilson’s stance was echoed in almost every newspaper in the state via editorials and op-ed columns. Through the higher educa tion bond referendum in 2000, North Carolina voters endorsed the largest bond initiative in the history of higher education for facilities. In the most democratic of ways, our citizens have indicat ed that the continued commit ment to developing our higher education system is a top prior ity worth billions. The N.C. Constitution makes clear that this burden should not fall to the young generation of North Carolinians seeking higher education. I hope that other state lead ers, particularly members of the N.C. General Assembly, will follow the lead of Easley and Wilson. Students are very grateful for the support given to the univer sity during the recent string of difficult budget years. As the budgetary picture for North Carolina continues to brighten, we hope that our state leaders will continue to see the importance of appropriately funding the university and the return their investment brings to the state of North Carolina. The legislature can do so with out placing an increased burden on the backs of students. We should be proud that we are the university of the people and that our people historically have valued education above all else. We must fight together, with leaders such as Gov. Easley and Chairman Wilson, to keep it this way. Contact Amanda Devore at amdevore@ ncsu.edu. 15
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Jan. 18, 2005, edition 1
15
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75