If the old saying that "money talks" is true, then what is the University using its cash to tell us? Students should never rely on official statements to determine whether University officials are looking out for their best interests. Rather, we must begin to read between the lines and evaluate what our school's leadership is communicating through their policies. Judging from the recent tuition hikes, the University is banking on student financial apathy to help them stay out of the red.
According to the University of Virginia Magazine, the Board of Visitors approved an undergraduate tuition increase of $956 for in-state students and $1,902 for out-of-state students for the 2010-11 academic year. Although this may not seem like a lot, in-state students are now paying approximately 9.9 percent more for the same education. That means over the course of the four-year undergraduate program each in-state student will dish out an additional $3,824 dollars and the added cost for out-of-state students will be roughly $8,000. To put it in real terms, the amount of additional money paid by a single in-state student over the course of four years could provide 16,000 meals for children in Africa. And that doesn't even begin to factor in the increasing costs associated with on-Grounds housing and University dining plans.
University officials like to blame the increase in tuition on rising costs and a decrease in state support for education. While both of those factors certainly play a role, the University is not doing everything it should to keep education affordable for the middle class. Instead, the University is endeavoring to cover its expenses by passing the buck to students rather than really searching for methods to cut expenditures.
Faculty salaries are a key area where this oversight is displayed. During the tumultuous early years of the economic crisis, it was former Gov. Tim Kaine's freeze on salary increases for state employees that kept faculty paychecks from expanding. Former President John T. Casteen, III should be commended for choosing not to seek a pay raise independently of Kaine's announcement. Casteen's decision proved a sign of good will towards the students and families that patron the University.
Unfortunately, Casteen's decision loses some of its luster considering that as of January 2010 Casteen was still pulling down compensation that totaled $797,048 according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. So, the same year that the stock market lost almost half of its value and took many college saving funds down with it, forgoing a pay increase on a salary that is more than three-quarters of a million dollars doesn't seem like such a bad deal. That proves especially true when contrasting University salaries to the financial realities of the typical American family during 2008 and 2009.
The University has historically had salaries for administrators and faculty that rank among the highest in the nation. Previously, UVa Today noted that "Casteen said Gov. Kaine's proposal to delay a 3 percent salary increase for state employees until July 1, 2009 would be a problem for the University because of competition from other top-tier institutions." Casteen raised a valid point in his statement regarding the need for high salaries to attract the most qualified faulty. If the University wants to compete with the best universities in the nation - the majority of which are private - maybe University leadership should consider relinquishing its status as a state-supported institution entirely. That way the institution will be able to "charge what the market will bear" and will no longer be reliant on the funding whims of state government.
Instead, our quasi-public institution is continuing to operate less efficiently as a partially public, partially private institution. Since the University is technically public, it shouldn't raise tuition during the recession because that acts as another tax on already cash-strapped students. If the University prefers to operate as if it were private, then it should still use the recession as an opportunity to cut budgetary fat rather than simply deferring the question by passing on costs to those paying tuition. After all, it is typically considered bad business practice to raise prices as customers' income declines.
The issues at stake are not only academic, but ethical. The American system of higher education cannot continue to pretend that it operates outside the reach of market forces. Many of the students who attend the University have been negatively impacted by the financial crisis. It is therefore irrational to think that the promises of financial aid made through the Access UVa program are enough. What the student body really needs is an administration that is willing to make the tough budgetary decisions necessary to keep tuition costs in line with real world salaries. The University is supposed to be staffed by the best minds in the nation and yet, when the state government fails to provide the resources the school needs, the University simply passes the financial burden to its students. If that is the caliber of innovation this institution produces, then maybe we should all ask for a refund.
Ginny Robinson is an opinion editor for the Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at grobinson@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Risk and reward
By Charlie Healy | 17 hours agoThe college newspaper was nowhere on my radar, and I had no previous experience with journalism.
PARTING SHOT: You are your own limit
By Wardah Kamran | 22 hours agoMe, my staffers, we were there. And it happened. And I think that is important enough.
PARTING SHOT: When it comes to art, it pays to pay attention
By Delaney Hammond | 2 days agoEven among people who value the arts, carving out space for critical engagement with — rather than just passive consumption of — art has been an endeavor I have treasured.
