GET READY, out-of-staters, here it comes again. Assuming they go along with the General Assembly, the administration will be going to the Board of Visitors April 5 to ask for a 5 percent increase in in-state tuition and an 8 percent increase in out-of-state tuition. The Board should not approve an undergraduate tuition increase that unfairly places the brunt of the University's financial burden squarely on the shoulders of out-of-state students.
While the whole University has been bemoaning the up-and-coming tuition hike, it's nothing new for out-of-state students - they've been getting the shaft for the past decade. In 1996, in-state tuition was capped and eventually was cut 20 percent in 1999. On the other hand, in these times of a robust economy, out-of-state students have seen their tuition rise 29.3 percent since 1996. With this proposed increase, it'll be up almost 40 percent over the past eight years.
If the Commonwealth had been contributing more over the past few years, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Out-of-state students would owe the University more, because in-state students would already have contributed more through their tax dollars.
But this is not the case. In fact, in the past decade, the Commonwealth's funding of the University dropped from 34.6 percent to 22.1 percent. While less and less tax money from the Commonwealth went toward the University, out-of-state students have been expected to shoulder more and more of the financial burden. This is illogical.
While a 3 percent difference might not seem so big, the actual monetary discrepancy between the out-of-state hike and the in-state hike is huge. The proposal will cost an in-stater an additional $218, while the out-of-stater is hit with a $1,474 hike - almost seven times more. And even though there are twice as many in-state students, the amount raised by the in-state hike - about $1.9 million - still is less than a third of the $6.2 million extra the out-of-state students will bring in.
These numbers speak for themselves. When economic times are good for the Commonwealth, in-state students are rewarded with tuition freezes and cuts. At the same time, out-of-state students still get stuck with rising tuition rates.
But now, when times are tough, it's the out-of-staters that are expected to shoulder this financial burden. It makes wonderful political sense to Virginia legislators, but it hurts the University as a whole.
Simple economics tells us that the higher out-of-state tuition goes - both overall and in relation to other universities - the less likely out-of-state students are to come to the University. This puts admissions officers in a bind; they either can accept less out-of-state students or let in a lower caliber out-of-state class.
The former would put the University into even direr financial straits. Every in-state student the University accepts past the 67 percent minimum mandated by the out-of-state admissions cap is a $14,000 sacrifice. On the other hand, the latter option would cause the University to lose some of its most qualified applicants.
To downplay these effects, whenever out-of-state tuition is increased, state politicians and University administrators have made the claim that the University still is a bargain for out-of-state students. It is true that they pay lower rates than most top-tier private institutions, but we don't have the endowment to match the financial aid services of Princeton or Yale.
Likewise, the University's out-of-state tuition fails to compare with other public universities of our stature. Berkeley, our September rival in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, has an out-of-state tuition that is $3,600 lower than ours - hardly making the University a good deal.
We can't expect legislators to fix this problem. They failed this school by freezing in-state tuition rates in 1996, putting politics ahead of the University. And when they calculated the proposed tuition increase, they did so with Virginia voters - and not the best interests of the University - in mind.
But for the first time in several years, the budget gives the Board the freedom to set both out-of-state and in-state tuition. For all its political leanings, the Board is not an elected body, and it should act in the best interests of the University. The Board should ignore the political recommendation of the General Assembly and make the move that's right for the University: increasing in-state tuition just as much as, if not more than out-of-state tuition.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily opinion editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | 2 days agoIn reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
QUILLEN: Online asynchronous courses are pointless for full-time students
By George Quillen | 4 days agoThe University's reliance on online classes as an equally effective alternative to in-person classes ignores the sheer disparity in learning experience between the two.
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | May 16, 2024Retirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
