AS THE University community is all too aware, recent state budget crises have drastically reduced funding to public colleges and universities nationwide. The University has generally embraced tuition hikes as a necessary evil to prevent a tragic decline in the quality of education and prestige. In a rare and politically unpopular move, the Board of Visitors raised in-state tuition by 11.2 percent as compared to the 6.9 percent hike for out-of-state students. The BOV -- unlike the General Assembly of the Commonwealth -- was able to realize in-state students were not paying the cost of their education due to declining funds from Richmond. As a result, The Cavalier Daily, Student Council and I have since embraced the BOV's actions.
At Miami University of Ohio, however, President James Garland has moved to eliminate in-state tuition breaks altogether. In effect, Garland's plan will double in-state tuition to match the market price of out-of-state tuition. The increase, which takes effect in the 2004-2005 school year, sounds like a dangerous and draconian step toward the privatization of higher education. But Garland's decision poses an important question to all the "public Ivies," including the University, regarding what to do in the face of falling state support. Currently, Miami's actions seem outrageous and ridiculously ill-suited to a University like ours. But if state support continues to decline, we must at least consider the unpalatable quasi-privatization that Miami University already has embraced. By making people face this prospect, Miami's tuition quandary brings attention to the tragic decline of state funding for higher education. And if state funding sees increased support as a result of its newfound attention, then Garland's actions deserve praise from us all.
Truth be told, Garland did not completely eliminate in-state tuition breaks. Garland's proposal instead is based on a form of price discrimination. Although the sticker price of in-state tuition will in fact skyrocket, Miami will guarantee a new $5,000 scholarship to almost all Ohio students. Moreover, a special merit/need based scholarship will be exclusively available to Ohio students. For those who can afford to pay the market price to go to college, Garland wants them to do so. He argues the higher sticker price will not keep wealthy families away because they are more concerned about the quality of the education rather than the cost.
But critics rightfully argue the tuition hike will have the opposite effect -- lower income prospective students will be more deterred by a higher sticker price, despite claims of higher financial aid. As Joni E. Finney, a Vice-President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, an independent research group, claims "I can't find enough bad words for this. This plan will scare people away."
Finney is right. The plan will keep lower income Ohio residents away from a good public school, especially when the change is first enacted. A doubling in sticker price will ultimately confuse people and deter them from Miami. When a student glances at college costs, a footnoted discount looks meaningless next to a double-digit in-state tuition figure.
The dangerous consequences of Garland's proposal make a similar measure at the University a bad idea -- for now. The University, as a public institution in Thomas Jefferson's image, must remain as accessible as possible to all students. A higher sticker price would make the University more elitist and more crowded with only the upper class. These problems will probably manifest themselves in Ohio. As much as the University's coffers need cash, this end does not justify the means. This form of price discrimination does not belong at the University.
Nevertheless, Garland's proposal does benefit higher education. At the expense of Ohio residents, Miami's decision will spur debate among states and universities about the widespread disgraceful decline in public support for higher education. Garland took the whining and complaining of public institutions and took serious action -- he sent a message to legislatures across the country that if public support doesn't increase, then tuition will -- drastically.
In other words, Garland's proposal has the potential to do a lot of good, not in its actual practice, but in its resounding message to state legislatures. As it stands now, these legislatures maintain that educational quality cannot be sacrificed, yet they seem very willing to make drastic cuts in education funding. Higher education undeniably entails high short-term costs, but it also ultimately leads to a much stronger economy in the long run. If nothing else, perhaps Garland's actions will let America know that the costs of public education must be paid.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | 10 hours agoI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
PARTING SHOT: Failure does define you
By Grace Duregger | 10 hours agoFour years at the University have taught me what it means to make an impact despite setbacks.
PARTING SHOT: On fighting imposter syndrome and being cool
By Mary Kurbanov | YesterdayUltimately, though, I now know that success in a role is possible if deep-seated passion is the main source of motivation.
