Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

Last week, President Peter Likins and student lobbyists released similar proposals for a tuition hike next year. They would raise resident tuition by $490 and $400, respectively, and both would raise tuition for out-of-state students by $700. Such a hike, if enacted, would come on the heels of last year's record-setting raise. With that in mind, we asked our columnists, "Which of the tuition proposals on the table do you support - if any - and why?"

Sara Warzecka Columnist

Oh, to be the top of the bottom one-third

Resident students' bank accounts first endured a $1,000 raise, and now it's going to be a $490 raise. It doesn't matter what exactly this money is supposed to be used for. Don't try to justify the financial agony, don't even give the details - it's completely acceptable to be narrow-minded on the subject. Two tuition hikes within a year is two too many. As far as using money from the tuition increase for financial aid, I'd really like to just pay for myself. Alumni are supposed to be donating money that will go toward financial aid funds. If tuition keeps increasing, it'll be understandable when our class graduates refuse to give money as alumni.

The money going into the tuition increase is what I and many I know use to pay for hookers. You can afford 62 hours with an $8 per hour prostitute for the cost of this tuition increase. Do you really want to tell Buttercup and her 15 children they won't be able to afford medicine for hereditary herpes this year?

Ask any in-state students, and they'll tell you a great factor in choosing to stay in deathly hot Arizona is the low resident tuition. The out-of-state tuition here is nearly the same as nonresident tuition for California universities. So with tuition rising and construction expanding, I always ask out-of-staters, "So why did you say you chose the UA?"

Sara Warzecka is a biochemistry and journalism freshman. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

Good intuition says bad tuition

The tuition process used to be fun to watch, with administrators and student lobbyists arguing back and forth.

And the lobbyists made some relatively fruitful attempts in the pre-Doug Hartz era to keep tuition low and flow the money into needed change.

Now both sides agree on everything, and that's a bit disturbing. Although most students were out of touch with and apathetic to the tuition process, our paid student lobbyists were there to politically counter the administration's high tuition hopes and keep this state institution affordable, even if their proposals were extreme.

Eventually the regents will give the green light to one of this year's proposals. Since they are nearly identical, it doesn't really matter which one they choose.

It would be inspiring if lobbyists and administrators sat down and figured out how to keep tuition from going up at such a high rate. Despite what they say, it's possible.

See, your tuition is jumping by double-digit numbers - 39 percent last year, 13 percent this year.

Tuition supporters would say it's going for long-term change and that students are too self-interested and dumb with numbers to see its benefits.

But until administrators and lobbyists can ensure the financial aid process does not shaft middle-class students and the university can't be more economical about how it spends money, both the proposals are illegitimate.

Daniel Scarpinato is a journalism and political science senior and can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Sabrina Noble Columnist

Residents, stop whining

As an out-of-state undergraduate, I don't think Arizona residents are aware how lucky they are. Even with a $490 resident tuition increase, next year's tuition would be only $3,998. That's a four-year college degree for less than $16,000. Do residents recognize that's little more than UA nonresidents pay for a single year, and far less than at any university outside their home state?

If that's not as nearly free as possible, I don't know what is. Unless, that is, we make a practice of handing out degrees on the Mall, charging a $35 fee per frame. Even then residents would dispute the costs, despite the fact the frames would be a tasteful oak.

If Likins' increase is approved, the undergraduate resident tuition rate will have been raised about $1,500 in the last two years. That's more than the last 16 years' worth of increases combined, and residents claim this is evidence of educational tyranny.

They fail to admit that this fact could also mean that the UA has been letting residents off easy for 16 years, and that it's finally time to claim its dues. It takes money to run a major state university.

Nonresidents seem to understand this; we are quiet, even though the Arizona Students Association hasn't offered a proposal to lessen the $700 increase we'll have to foot.

It's in residents' best interests to support the $490 proposal. It's imperative that they keep their finest state university in good condition. After all, since they whine loudly over an incredibly reasonable $4,000 bill, it seems impossible they'd go anywhere else.

Sabrina Noble is a senior majoring in English and creative writing. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Jason Poreda Opinions Assistant

UA to students: Show me the money

Professors leave, buildings crumble (just ask NAU), departments are cut and ultimately students start looking for a better education elsewhere. This is what Arizona as a whole, not just the UA, is facing. Any who don't recognize that these are crucial times for the UA are naive. The stingy Arizona Legislature has forced drastic changes on the state university system and one of these changes is a higher price for education.

It would be great if everything stayed status quo. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Everything changes, hopefully for the better, and the Arizona university system is no different. That being said, there is only one question people have on their minds: Is it fair?

Yes.

Higher education has always demanded a price. To add $490 to one of the lowest tuitions in the country is not much to pay for a luxury that will ultimately help the UA and lead to a better way of life. Everyone can agree that it would be preferable if a college education were free, but it's not. Whether it's student's pocketbooks, taxpayer dollars or scholarships of some sort, the money has to come from someplace.

Jason Poreda is a political science and communication senior and can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Tim Belshe Columnist

Maybe they should think about this some more

Kudos to student lobbyists for standing up and taking a hard-line position for the good of the student population. It must have taken a lot of courage to stand up to the administration and say in a loud, authoritative voice, "We're not going to put up with a $490 gouging! We're only going to give you $400. Take that!" In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.

Speaking of gouging, why aren't we raising the out-of-state students' tuition more? If the in-state students have been paying taxes all these years, shouldn't more of our costs be covered by the state? You wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion based on either of the proposed increases. With both proposals, the gap between in-state and out-of-state tuition decreases.

One more thing. This is a suggestion to the administration with regards to its PR approach: It may not be the best idea to let the alumni spend a bunch of money, which they could have contributed to the university's operation, on improvements to the Administration building, where no classes are taught, right before you announce that you want to take even more money from students. We all know that tuition increases are a fact of life, but there are certainly more tactful ways to go about it.

Tim Belshe is a systems engineering junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Susan Bonicillo Columnist

UA better off with Likins' tuition plan

In March, two proposals, one created by ASA and the other by President Likins, will be brought before the Board of Regents.

Each proposes an increase of $700 for out-of-state students. However, their plans differ in that the ASA plan would increase in-state tuition by $400, compared to the $490 rate supported by Likins.

Student lobbyists defend their lower plan on the basis that it would help students cover grocery expenses or rent.

However, the benefit of this lesser fee is miniscule at best when you put the added expense in the perspective of the campus community. Under the Likins' plan, pooling this extra amount will generate approximately $1 million more than the ASA plan. This added revenue would prove invaluable to the university.

ASA's lobbying for this lower tuition is just a token gesture, designed to placate and shield in-state residents from the harsh reality that higher education requires some sacrifice. Though many complain about the hiked-up rates, consider the plight of others across the country. In-state students in the New England and mid-Atlantic regions pay an average of $5,507 and $6,035, respectively, and also have to contend with a higher cost of living. Given these facts, the UA remains a bargain buy.

Like it or not, tuition has to be raised in order for the UA to remain competitive with other institutions. The ASA proposal of leaving students with a measly $90 in their pocket is just a short-term reprieve from tuition hikes. Between the two proposals, students will see more benefits in the longterm under Likins' plan.

Susan Bonicillo is a journalism sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.