|
Illustraton by Cody Angell
|
By Wildcat Perspectives Desk
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday Apr. 24, 2002
The countdown has begun. Within days, the Arizona Board of Regents will decide next year's university tuition at its Flagstaff meeting.
The past fiscal year has been nothing short of a roller-coaster ride for the University of Arizona. State budget cuts have slammed the Arizona universities from the front, not to mention the national recession that attacked from the back.
And now, it is once again time for tuition talk.
UA President Peter Likins has suggested a 12 percent increase for Arizona residents and a 9.7 percent increase for non-residents. This is roughly $300 for 'Zona kids and $1,000 for non-'Zona kids.
On the flip side, the statewide student lobbyists have put their foot down against any tuition hike. Refusing to aid the financial failures of the state, they support public education remaining affordable. In the April 9 Wildcat, Associated Students of the University of Arizona President Ray Quintero boldly announced, "It's not students' responsibility to be paying for downfalls of the state and the Legislature."
And then there is the third option - a slight tuition increase as an inflation adjustment. That hike is usually in the ballpark of around 4 percent. The Wildcat also reported that Regent Jack Jewett, known for opposing hefty tuition increases, wants "in-state tuition to increase to keep pace with inflation, but raising tuition more encourages the state Legislature to underfund the university."
Regardless of what our presidents, regents, governor or student lobbyists say, a tuition increase means more money will have to come from students' pockets. Yet, maybe it is time to be up front with our bucks and pay more in order to curb the decline in higher education quality.
Let's hear what dollar-dishing students have to say ·
A terrible last resort
The state of Arizona is once again punishing students for mistakes made by the Legislature. The alternative fuel fiasco was hardly the fault of Arizona's students, but they will end up having to pay the price, one way or another. K-12 education hasn't taken any budget cuts this year, but it has been underfunded for so many years that not seeing a dramatic increase in funding is the same in Arizona as drastic cuts would be in another state.
Higher education is facing a future that is even worse. Students will either have to pay higher tuition, or see the value of their education - both the academic value, and its marketability to employers - deteriorate. The Legislature and the governor have decided to balance the budget on the backs of students. While I cannot fathom supporting a tuition hike that would force many students out of college and into low paying jobs, if UA education would mean nothing without it, I see no other option.
Arizona needs a tax raise, but in lieu of that, a tuition hike is a terrible, but a necessary, last resort.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science freshman. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
0 percent, 4 percent, haypenny, a dollar
This is sounding like a numbers game, a gambling tool, a maverick approach, if you will. Let's get this straight: The state budget is in the hole, and state leaders want to fix it by charging students out the wazoo. President Likins offers that they do that by raising our tuition by 12 percent. ASUA, supposedly representing all of us students, is miffed and has a counter offer of zero percent.
ASUA is playing hardball. By offering zero percent, we are saying that we are tired of Arizona politics affecting our education costs and standards. That's great. However, our student representative, Regent Myrina Robinson, should go about things a little differently. A strong vote of zero percent will send a message to the board, but wouldn't a more intelligent and organized approach get us a little further?
Our student regent should approach the board and discuss inflation and the inevitable downturn in the economy and then offer a 4 percent or 5 percent increase in tuition. This can be done while also stating firmly that the raise should be no higher and that the students do not wish to be the bank through which Hull fixes her personal problems.
Laura Winsky is a senior majoring in Spanish and political science. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Can't beg for it
The university needs money. It's not likely to collect funds by winning the lottery (although it should be buying tickets every week), and money trees don't grow well in dry, hot climates. So there are two options: Get money from the state, or get it from the students.
I think an ideal solution would weigh both possibilities in reasonable proportion. Clearly, the state has gotten away with murder by underfunding education. But students at UA have it pretty sweet, as well. Both sources need to kick it up a notch.
By suggesting a zero-percent increase, ASUA demonstrates that it has no concept of either economics or negotiation. The student organization should have suggested a slight increase instead of an unrealistic lack of one. The state Legislature is more likely to laugh at the proposal than feel the sudden inclination to change its education policy.
Making out-of-state students pay more than in-state students is reasonable because the university's first responsibility is to in-state students. But, both groups of students will need to pay more. Hopefully, the state will kick in enough so that students won't be unnecessarily stressed for money.
Good professors and facilities are expensive. I think most students are willing to pay more for a quality education. We can't depend on the state.
Daniel Cucher is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Quit whining
Some of you may have noticed that my column last week was on the tuition hike. I endorsed it, which I thought would be a pretty controversial opinion given college students' customary reluctance to part with their money. When I went to the tuition hearing, I expected a strong presence of people opposed to the hike.
Oh, how naive I was.
It must have slipped my mind that students at the UA don't demonstrate a strong presence on ANYTHING. By the time I left, 45 minutes into the hearing, something like a dozen students had shown up. That's 12 out of, what, 40,000? That's a whopping .03 percent. With turnout like that, it's a wonder tuition isn't getting raised more. I'm sure no one would put up a fuss.
For what it's worth, ASUA is doing a good job of getting ASA's message out. But that does nothing when students are so unreceptive to both viewpoints. Not that I mind that much - in the absence of a dissenting viewpoint, the tuition hike will breeze through. I'm sure that not everyone shares that stance, though, and it's a shame there won't be any debate.
In the land of tuition hikes, activism, not apathy, rules.
Caitlin Hall is a freshman majoring in biochemistry and philosophy. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Just like any government program
At last Tuesday's tuition hearing, NAU Student Body President Michael Johnson reflected exactly what I was thinking.
Johnson pointed out that not raising tuition at all is unrealistic since, at the very least, we have to adjust for inflation. His recommendation of a 4.3 percent increase is more practical than zero and less absurd than 12.
He also observed that economic times are obviously bad right now, and naturally, the Board of Regents wants to raise our tuition more than usual. However, when economic times are good, we never hear of a proposal for a tuition freeze or a decrease for the following year.
Our tuition rates are just like any federal or state government program: It's never temporary. Even when programs are unsuccessful or obsolete, funding always increases but never, ever gets cut (in Congress, a program "cut" is a 5 percent increase instead of the initially proposed 7 percent).
Likewise, whether or not our tuition is increased by 12 percent this year, the chances of us seeing a cut or freeze in our tuition in the future are slim to none - and slim just left the building.
That's why I'm against the 12 percent hike. It's not about the cost; our tuition would still be relatively inexpensive. It's about putting a halt to even more over-inflated spending.
Shane Dale is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Respect : a two way street.
"R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Find out what it means to me!"
Aretha Franklin's famous song should be the embodiment of the relationship between the Arizona state Legislature and its education system. Respect. The state's budgeters should acknowledge obligation to the straightforward Arizona state constitutional mandate that says, "The cost of instruction should be as nearly free as possible."
But, respect is a two-way street. It is difficult to respect our state Legislature when it doesn't respect us - hence, the extremely critical attacks from students shouting the injustice and uncaring nature of our statesmen.
The proposed increases for in-state students are within reach. I realize it is an inconvenience, but being an Arizona resident, I can imagine pulling together $300 somehow from summer work, etc.
However, $1,000 for out-of-state residents is completely unreasonable. In this way, non-residents end up paying $649 more than the actual cost of educating them. Sometimes, these students end up working more hours a week than they spend in the classroom, defeating the purpose of coming so far to college. For international students, the tuition increase is even worse. They are paying for an education here that would be considered a fortune in their home countries.
The state Legislature should realize the impact of its decision as it affects all students on this campus. We all deserve respect.
Mariam Durrani is a systems engineering junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
