The SUNY system is the most recent in a long
line of state institutions moving towards off-setting budget cuts. A brief published by the University ofWashington cites figures showing public institutions
charging varying rates based on degree programs has jumped from five in 1988 to
45% by 2008. In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle indicates that as of March of
this year, 57% of U.S. public research universities utilize this practice.
Even at the University of Northern Colorado,
non-liberal arts core classes are charged differently, with Nursing courses
rated the most expensive at $64. UNC’s policy is that this still allows
students to afford liberal arts core courses while creating revenue that helps
keep quality programs afloat, budget wise. This is similar in argument to anarticle from inside higher ed as early as 2007 that proposed more public
institutions would adopt this attitude as state support declined, program
specific tuition policies increased.
I understand the need to make certain public
institutions as well as academic programs can move towards being more self
sufficient, particularly during times of state budget cuts. My undergraduate
program was quite costly in that the College of Art had higher student fees to
maintain facilities such as the kiln and printing press and provide materials
to students, such as computer labs. However, the question remains for me: are
some students being priced out of their desired degree? Are students being considered when these policies are implemented?
It seems some of the students at theseinstitutions have opinions on this question and agree with Petry that these
polices are unfair. At least some
schools are taking into account what the students have to say by attempting toget student input and, as the
University of Wisconsin guidelines show,some schools are putting a great deal of thought
into how to provide access and assistance to resident students. Perhaps with
this sort of thoughtful principles in place, and with students taking an active
role in the debate, alumni such as Petry will not need to be on the front of the differential
tuition issue.
Janella, as financing college is such a high-profile concern among every constituency in higher ed. today, I appreciate your raising this topic.
ReplyDeleteDifferential tuition fees seems like one of many possible solutions to addressing major budgetary shortfalls in higher ed., as long as it equitably/fairly operates on a "pay as you go" basis. That is to say, the more a given major costs a campus to operate, correlationally more tuition the school can charge to cover costs within, say, a reasonable limit of perhaps 10-20% per major, after receiving ample input from students and other stakeholders. Research should be coordinated with other campuses to determine if a given major in consideration for a differential fee increase also results in employment that typically pays concomitantly more as well. If this is not the case (although for many majors that utilize expensive technology aids in heavy doses like engineering, chemistry and biology, I can see it being the case), then perhaps that particular high cost/low income yield major should be given an exception in order to preserve educational integrity and balance on campus.
For the financially challenged/underprivileged student who would be hard-pressed to afford higher fees, a creative solution would be applying for and accepting a student "micro loan" (see: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/microloans_for_education_finan.php ) that would lend to the given student financing in proportion to their particular major's projected income, based on regional averages. And then, upon graduation, this student would pay a small, fixed percentage of income over several years based on that career field's average income stream. If the student happens to change career fields to a lower-paying field, that is ok, as the student would still pay the same small fixed percentage of income based on the lower salary received (which means the government and of course all of us taxpayers would in fact be subsidizing the difference in adjusted lower income loan repayments if the loan term would remain the same, but as a society subsidizing to some extent the underprivileged so that they can earn college-level income as taxpayers themselves, seems like a fair and just bargain that we as citizens of the commonwealth would make).
I appreciate your post! Although I've been aware of some of these incidences, I was unaware of the inconsistencies among undergraduate tuition fees.
ReplyDeleteAs the Washington brief noted, differences in tuition rates have been around for a long time in terms of undergraduate vs. graduate degrees, in-state vs. out-of-state eligibility, etc. I felt the wrath of the latter of these last fall. I moved to CO from MN in the summer of 2009, and began my doc program at UNC in the fall of 2010. However, I missed the in-state cut off requirements by 15 days...and paid over $1,000/credit my first semester. Yikes!
What is apparently new in the last few decades is the differential tuition rates for undergraduate programs. As the link to the UNC site displayed, this has been implemented to supply facility funding for "high quality" programs in high demand. I have mixed opinions here. Are students (or parents) adaquately notified about these differential costs prior to enrollment in the university or declaring a major? I see a huge ethical problem with this if this is a "back door" approach to increasing funding without honest and proactive notification regarding the reasoning behind this charge. Perhaps each department has a detailed outline or hand-out for students/parents showing exactly how much the campus facilities cost to maintain year-round, and how the tuition increases are warranted. If not, that could be an idea.
Also, I see the alternative view--these programs DO cost more to run. Medical labs, studios, theaters, high end software, etc. are inevitably going to cost the university more than other programs that simply require a classroom, transparencies/power points, and access to copy machine. That isn't to say the quality of education is higher, but the environment needed for the speciality areas is vastly more intricate.
As we've seen, differential tuition in undergraduate programs is steadily becoming the "norm" across the country. Although I can see the potential financial problems for families of students in these programs, I don't view this as any more of an issue than increases in overall tuition rates, higher costs of books/supplies, higher student fees, etc.
The fairness aspect seems to be the component under fire here. As I mentioned previously, I believe much of this can be avoided with proactive and thoroughly explained cause when students first enter such programs. Dare I say majority, but I believe that a large portion of undergraduate students entering universities for the first time are unclear about what majors they wish to pursue. During this decision-making process, a simple discussion of differential tuition could be highly beneficial in avoiding conflict and ethical concerns.
Important topic! As Michael stated in his comments, the impact of such differential pricing plans on lower income students must be considered. This is particularly pertinent if the majors that are more costly are the ones with higher likely earnings (as the case seems to be in the examples given). Although the micro loans, or other creative lending options, may be helpful, a lot of research that indicates that regardless of loan availability/eligibility, students from lower income background are less willing to take on educational debt than their middle income peers and students of color may also be less willing to incur debt to finance higher education (Cunningham & Santiago, 2008). Additional studies support the findings summarized in that report (Perna, 2008) and also begin to address why some of this may be the case (hint: in the case of traditional undergraduates, parental influence and values often have a lot to do with it...). In short, my concern is that regardless of financial aid availability, students from lower income backgrounds, first gen. students, and students of color may be less likely to pursue a more expensive degree. Given that the programs with high price tags are often gateways into careers which already struggle to employ a diverse workforce which is representative of the population (i.e. medicine), I'm not a fan of the differential pricing for undergraduate degrees.
ReplyDeleteReferences
Cunningham, A.F. & Santiago, D.A. (2008). Student aversion to borrowing. Who borrows and who doesn’t. Report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy and Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from the Institute for Higher Education Policy website: www.ihep.org
Perna, L.W. (2008). Understanding high school students’ willingness to borrow to pay
college prices. Research in Higher Education, 49 (7), 589-606. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9095-6
Another cost differential for certain academic programs is the difference in faculty salaries compared to less specialized programs. Faculty in the social sciences, humanities and arts typically earn significantly less than faculty in engineering and business. Add in the difficulties with recruiting faculty in fields where practitioners make significantly more than academics, and colleges and universities occasionally find themselves in bidding wars with industry.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that graduates in these high demand areas will typically earn higher salaries once they graduate. However, as Braelin said, certain student demographics shy away from accumulating debt to fund their education even if the salary outlook would appear to justify it. Unfortunately, I do not know what it would take to convince debt-averse students that the difference between a history degree and a nursing degree would most likely (although there are no guarantees, of course) make up for the $64 per credit tuition differential within the first few years of employment.