I have long been a supporter of funded tuition freezes. As with any meaningful policy, students range in perspective on the issue of tuition freezes. Hard-line affordability advocates have long cried that colleges waste student tuition dollars on frivolous expenditures, and that holding the line on revenues would force universities to cut the fat. Other students have criticized tuition freezes as "political" policy, at the expense of educational quality. In other words, politicians sacrifice the quality of education for students in exchange for votes.
The sound bite of "tuition freeze" does not do justice to the full policy. It describes the tuition revenues with out the accompanying state revenues. Some tuition freezes are really tuition subsidies, in which the state covers the bill for increased tuition for in-state, undergraduate students. Others are true caps on tuition without state subsidy support, decreasing the real revenue for the university (adjusted for inflation). So,a funded tuition freeze is like an across-the-board scholarship for students from the state. An unfunded tuition freeze is like the BGE cap on electricity rates. The result in the latter scenario is large increases when the cap comes off.
In Maryland, we have experienced three tuition freezes and are expecting a fourth. The first, under the Ehrlich Administration, is characterized as an "unfunded" tuition freeze. The latter two and proposed fourth, under the O'Malley Administration, are considered funded tuition freezes. I support funded tuition freezes, and don't support unfunded freezes. In response to critics who describe the waste in higher education, I highlight the Effectiveness and Efficiency Initiative , which has derived cost savings for the USM of 1 to 2 % of the budget. The tuition subsidy proposed in the FY2010 budget amounts to $16.9 million. The USM Board of Regents has established an arrangement with the Governor that he must "buy" tuition freezes up and above the proposed operating budget allocations.
I had the opportunity to talk with a reporter from The State News, the Michigan State University independent newspaper regarding the tuition freeze policy in Maryland. I described the policy in Maryland, and also cautioned about the possible negative impacts of suffering quality that can derive from artificial revenue caps. Check out the article to see for yourself.
I am often found defending the policy under its current merits, and rarely explain the caveats of which I include in my position. I support funded tuition freezes, but only if not at the cost of decreasing quality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
great post Josh, seems like the devil is in the details when it comes to tuition freezes. I tend to agree with your position on supporting funded and not unfunded freezes. however, i think a good safeguard to ensure that we are not seeking to sustain unwanted services would be by having more student representatives at the table in budget discussions and referendums that revisit existing policies.
there's a difficult balance to find between the fact that the state is making an investment in these students by subsidizing their tuition and therefore want to influence the models of these schools; and that students have a wide range of needs and may prefer a more bare bones approach to higher ed if it means lower tuition.
thanks for all of the good work you are doing as studen regent.
thanks for the comments john. To your discussion on the models of schools: I've often been concerned with the very question you raised. After surveying USM schools, the answer more comes in which school you choose. The change at an institution during a four year span for students pales in comparison to the differences between institutions. My point is that students choose the type of university they want and how much they pay for it when they enter college. Of course, that's assuming students pass courses and graduate in a reasonable time frame...
Post a Comment