Illustration by Arnulfo Bermudez
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday February 5, 2003
On Monday, President Likins proposed implementing the largest tuition increase ever at the University of Arizona. After dealing for years with a state legislature that is consistently apathetic toward higher education, budget cuts have now crippled our university. Every student has been affected by larger and fewer classes, fewer top faculty, less out-of-classroom activities and students are still forced to dish out money for class materials. Complementing the cuts, last year UA was rated D- in money for class materials. In an attempt to inhibit a financial downward slide, Likins has proposed an approximate 40 percent tuition increase for both in-state and out-of-state students. It is time to hear what the students have to say.
Be wise to where the extra tuition ends up
In theory, raising tuition at the UA is an excellent idea. Compared to other public universities our school's tuition is highly affordable and the hike is to be coupled with an increase in financial aid, which is essential in retaining students who are on the financial fringes of affording post-secondary education in the first place.
These tuition and fee increases in lieu of recurring budget cuts by the Arizona state legislature are necessary, albeit well-intentioned, evils that are meant to lift the university out of fiscal turmoil. Then the concept is to become financially independent while continuing to elevate toward elite academic status.
An ambitious and admirable plan for success.
So where does the problem lie in all of this? Much like Anna Kournikova, well-intentioned plans look fantastic, but they have a habit of exiting quickly when it matters most. What guarantee is there that students will not have to pay for future financial windfalls? Students need to be wise to where this extra money will be going. Not just this year, but in every year. A tuition increase is only validated when specific financial goals are met.
Let's ensure this is exactly what happens.
Bill Wetzel is a creative writing and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Where is Ībenefit' of tuition increases?
Some students, particularly those who aren't paying their own way, may dismiss the proposed tuition hikes as a pittance. But $1,250 increases the financial burden on in-state graduate students by almost 50 percent. For these students ÷ many of whom already struggle to keep their heads above water ÷ the proposed increases will necessitate difficult choices between continuing their educations, shouldering even more debt, or piling more work hours onto already teetering schedules.
The proposed tuition hike has little to do with enhancing the value of a UA education. Rather, it is another desperate attempt to protect the university's financial base from the state's yawning budget crisis. And despite the burden it puts on some of Arizona's hardest-working but most vulnerable students, it's unlikely the tuition increase will do the job. Even the biggest boosters of the plan concede that increased tuition revenues will still be $4 million less than what the UA has already lost to the state.
The administration is once again working hard to put a happy face on a bad situation. But there appear to be few winners here. Arizona's shortsighted tax-cutting has struck again, once more sacrificing the state's future for the short-term benefits of a few extra dollars in voters' pockets.
Phil Leckman is an anthropology graduate student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Tuition hike issue not black and white
The proposed tuition increase at UA can't be classified as either good or bad. The issue is not that black and white. Some would look at the increase and see how it would benefit UA while others would view it negatively, simply because it is taking more money out of the students' pockets.
When looked at more objectively, it is clear that the tuition hike would benefit both the university and students while at the same time hurting them both.
With statewide budget cuts, UA will either need to find ways to pay for some of its programs or else eliminate them. The tuition increase will help keep some of them around. It will also keep some of the students, as the hike allows an eight percent increase in financial aid.
Unfortunately, with an increase in tuition, many students may decide to take their money, along with their creative minds, elsewhere. And what about foreign students who aren't eligible for financial aid? How do they make up for the additional costs?
So, if you're one of those who completely agree, or disagree with the tuition hike, you may want to take a look at the other side of the coin.
Steve Campbell is a senior majoring in Spanish. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Increase OK ÷ if we get what we pay for
The whole point of a universal education is to learn the principles we need to handle the responsibilities of our lives. And a university that has never grown up enough to pay its own bills is fundamentally unqualified to demonstrate those principles.
Having relied too liberally on ephemeral state subsidies, the UA is practically bankrupt. For now, a tuition increase of $1,000 would be a reasonable bailout measure ÷ if the increase were spent to benefit the students who pay it. But this is not at all what President Likins proposed. Likins would spend around just 40 percent of each student's increase to cover the cost of preserving services, while slating the remaining $600 to be redistributed to "needy" students as a kind of special use tax ÷ thereby re-taxing in-state residents already funding the state education subsidy.
Although this move will contribute precious little to UA academics, it will accomplish what Likins has been striving in vain to do for years: profile and penalize students according to their parents' social class.
If an equal tuition increase for all students is what the UA actually needs to move toward greater financial autonomy, then students who believe in getting what they pay for will find a way to scrape it together. But we cannot afford to waste our futures paying for Likins' social experiment.
Erik Flesch is a geosciences junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Tuition increase the best choice, but not a good choice
As frustrating as it should be for students, the legislature lacks the political will and values favoring higher education to save the UA from devastating budget cuts that would cause permanent damage. The only option that remains to keep the UA a respectable institution is increased tuition revenues.
Promises from the Arizona Board of Regents that financial aid will be dramatically increased as a result of the proposed $1,000 in-state tuition increase make it somewhat more palatable. The worst-case scenario would be students finding themselves unable to finish their degrees because of increased tuition.
The legislature is negligent in its responsibility to adequately subsidize the university with public funding. There are no excuses for the legislature's social irresponsibility and none of the legislators who support proposed cuts to university funding should be re-elected.
Sadly, in the real world, UA must deal with its current situation. Increased tuition is exactly what it has been labeled so many times by student activists: "balancing the budget on the backs of students." Nevertheless, leaving students with a university that cannot provide high quality education is worse.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Up with tuition hikes, down with budget cuts
It's no secret: The UA is in trouble. And the fact that student lobbyists who last year opposed any tuition hike at all are now about to jump on Likins' bandwagon is indication of just how desperate the situation is.
No doubt a $1,000 hike seems enormous when viewed in light of tuition now. However, it seems practically insignificant when compared to the huge budget cuts it has to make up for: $45 million in the past two years and another $35.2 million in the works. The $13 million or so in real revenues the hike would generate ÷ after half is fed back to students in the form of financial aid ÷ will probably barely be enough to maintain current services. We need a tuition hike this large just to stay afloat.
However, we can't lose sight of the real problem ÷ the dimwitted politicos in the state legislature who deny the universities the autonomy to aggressively seek other sources of funding, while at the same time slashing their budgets and demanding ridiculously low tuition. A tuition hike will only be effective if there's no compensatory cut.
We need to confront the state's budget crisis as aggressively as our own and make it clear that education should be a sink, not a source, for Arizona's budget flow.
Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
