Illustration by Cody Angell
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday December 4, 2002
Tomorrow from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Modern Languages building auditorium, President Pete Likins, Provost George Davis and the Arizona Students Association will be holding a Campus Town Hall designed to let students speak out on the issue of tuition costs.
With the state Legislature drastically slashing UA's budget for the second year in a row, the Arizona Board of Regents has been discussing the possibility of substantial tuition increases for 2003 and beyond.
If you were in charge, what would you do? If you were to raise tuition, how large a hike would it be ÷ and who would be the hardest hit?
Don't let tuition hikes break the American dream
It's unrealistic to think that a tuition raise can be averted altogether this year given the budget crisis and the Legislature's ardent calls for further budget cuts for universities. The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of students is nauseating, but it seems to be our only option.
Given these dire circumstances, tuition must be raised on those who can most afford to pay it. In other words, I would support an entirely new tuition system, much like the graduated tax system. Those whose families earn the most money would pay the most, and those whose families earn the least would pay the least. Students who could show that their parents do not contribute to their education and do not help them pay tuition would pay tuition based solely on their own incomes.
In these tough economic times, all too many students who cling to scholarships will find themselves leaving college if they get one too many B's. What could be more un-American than a system that keeps hard working, committed people with great potential from getting an education? Only when tuition is no longer keeping people from attending college can the American dream be brought within reach.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Non-residents have got to pay the price
As painful as it is, a significant tuition increase is inevitable; so, it is critically important that the increases be targeted appropriately.
The largest increase should be $2,500 on non-resident undergraduates. This would adjust the tuition to a rate comparable to that of similar universities. The University of Iowa's tuition for non-residents is about $13,000. The UA's is about $11,000. The difference would help diminish the "need" to raise tuition again next year.
Increases should be tiered down in the following order: non-resident graduates, resident graduates and finally resident undergrads. Resident undergrads should see an increase of a few hundred dollars and resident graduates of less than $1,000. Grads may see a larger increase than undergrads simply because the education is beyond a basic education. Thus, it is reasonable ÷ to a degree ÷ to charge more.
This format best conforms to the mission of a public university, that being a quality education of the state's residents at an as-affordable-as-possible cost. Out of state students should absorb the greatest cost simply because they are using public resources for which they aren't now responsible ÷ and likely won't be in the future when they head home with an Arizona education.
No tuition increase is pleasant. For it to be tolerable, it must appropriately target its victims.
Jason Baran is a public policy and administration graduate student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Time to raise a lil' financial aid
If we have to raise tuition to increase financial aid, then let's do it!
Regent Chris Herstam has the right idea. Last year he voted to keep tuition low in response to the pathetic amount of financial aid available. But next year, things might be different.
With President Likins leaning toward a $1,000 increase in undergraduate in-state tuition and reducing UA's unmet financial need by $500,000, Regent Herstam will most likely support a vast tuition hike.
It is a must as long as financial aid increases as well.
With Arizona's ambiguous state clause that demands "education must remain as free as possible," UA could be considered a failure. In its last biennial report card, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education gave Arizona a D-minus in affordability.
As statistics show, 87 percent of last year's freshman class reported that their parents earned more than $65,000. These students can afford at least $750 more each year. Fourteen percent of this extra money could then be funneled into increasing financial aid.
Likins is a champion of helping the students, unlike the state Legislature. And raising tuition substantially will not only help more Arizona students attend the university, but it would be investing in the future of our state.
Jessica Lee is an environmental science senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
All should share in the responsibility proportionally
A big tuition hike would be support the long-term goals of the UA in many ways. First and most obviously, expanding the resources a university has at its disposal improves the quality of education it is able to offer its students. Raising tuition has the additional effect of improving the perceived status of a university. It will be hard to sell the UA as a prestigious option for state education as long as its tuition remains laughably low by national standards, regardless of the reason.
A big hike could also counter-intuitively make the UA more affordable. If a large chunk of the money it brings in ÷ 14 percent in Likins' plan ÷ is set aside for financial aid, it could reduce the school's unmet need by up to a half million dollars. That would facilitate the administration's other proclaimed goal ÷ increasing diversity ÷ by helping a minority segment of the UA population pay for school.
So who should have to pay more? Everyone. Sure, in-state students are the school's top priority, but out-of-state students already shoulder a very disproportionate amount of the school's budget. We all have a stake in improving the UA, and the tuition hike should reflect that.
Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Dig for gold in the food court
Why does it always have to be the students? Every time the university needs money, they stick it to students and hike up tuition. Where's the creativity in that? Can't the university number crunchers come up with something just a bit less obvious?
The UA is a petri dish for young, malleable minds. This university campus is a hot spot for corporate marketing. Let's capitalize on that.
How much is it worth to the big food chains in the union to stay on campus? Take McDonald's, for example. They profit every time someone sinks their teeth into one of their slippery burger-like substances. But they also get their money's worth in brainwashing. Having a franchise right smack in the middle of campus is better advertising than a 30-second commercial spot during the Super Bowl.
Let's make them pay for it. They already know what it's worth to be on campus, distributing waste products with their names all over it. They've already calculated the value of real estate in our arteries. Why shouldn't they pay through the teeth for it?
We should be sucking millions more yearly out of our on-campus corporate franchises. They want our souls. We want an education. It all works out beautifully.
Daniel Cucher is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Sell Superlative Mornoica
Well, it's been settled that tuition hikes are the method of fundraising for the UA ÷ which is the unwashed vagrant of the public universities and is often spit on and told to get a job by such hoity-toity institutions as USC. Now we're on damage control.
How do we raise tuition without brutally roguing the poor students? They'll already be selling plasma six times a week to pay for the parking hike by the Parking and Transportation Services toads, who serve no purpose other than to find new, creative ways to swindle us.
So, here's the game plan. We find several dozen narcissistic, wealthy Gomers ÷ Texas oil families are literally infested with them ÷ and offer them honorary doctorate degrees in some invented impressive-sounding phrase such as Superlative Mornoica. Catch: To get the degrees, they must sign a rambling, 1,346 page contract that they won't question if we tell them angrily: It's "because of the damn Democrats." The contract will specify in Section 834.23 that if they sign, they owe us $50 million and/or free harvest of their various organs and offspring to sell on the black market ÷ with the Kennedys (though their livers would be useless), Rockefellers and Bushes, we'll take both.
Brutal? Undoubtedly.
But who really cares with these bastards?
Tylor Brand is a philosophy sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
