A little over a week ago The Cavalier Daily’s editorial board wrote an article decrying the University of California’s policy of admitting out-of-state students less qualified than in-state students. Even if this were done to make up for budget woes resulting from cuts in funding, they write, the motives for the change should have been made clear to state residents. They are largely correct in this assessment; state universities have a commitment to the state, and in California it appears that commitment may not have been upheld. However, while the universities themselves may take the majority of the blame for this action, a large portion of the guilt should also be assigned to state governments, as cuts to funding in higher education have forced universities to make up the shortfalls with other revenue streams.
It’s easy to label this proportional rise in out-of-state students as a result of greed for increased funds on the part of these institutions, but that would ignore the roles the states themselves have played in this matter. The Delta Cost Project recently found that state and local funding per student at public universities was 28 percent lower in 2013 than in 2008. A large portion of this drop comes from the financial recession in 2008, a year in which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates state governments cut funding for higher education by 23 percent per student as a result of staggering budget deficits. As the financial commitments of state governments decrease, financial pressure forces universities to cut back on education services or find new sources of funds, usually either through unpopular tuition increases or increased acceptance of high-paying out-of-state students.
The concern over the admission of out-of-state students is certainly a reasonable one, especially at a prominent public university such as this one. The taxpayers of the state take on some of the financial burden of running their higher education system, and in return this system should be expected to serve them well. If states start reneging on their end of the deal to provide funding, however, it also becomes harder for universities to keep up their side of the bargain. This is exactly what happened in California; from 2009 to 2012 the state cut the budget for higher education by $2.5 billion, a move that resulted in schools in the system raising the proportion of out-of-state freshmen from 11.5 to 23 percent.
At the University, tuition for in-state students this year was $14,526, around a third what out-of-state students pay. State appropriations make up 10.2 percent of the budget for the Academic Division, dwarfed by the 32.4 percent recovered from tuition and fees. Despite this, the University has been able to keep the in-state population roughly constant at a bit over 60 percent of the student body. That said, the University has also had to implement tuition hikes to make up for state cuts in funding, a move that also works against its stated goal of being accessible to Virginians.
When confronted with declining state funding, universities are left to choose between raising tuition or accepting more out-of-state students who pay higher tuition and fill budget gaps (two similarly unpalatable routes that leave them bearing the brunt of public outrage). State universities absolutely have a duty to the residents of the state, but this duty is reliant on the financial support provided by local governments. When that source dries up, the goal of accepting in-state students who pay a lower rate conflicts with the amount of money it costs to provide that education. If state governments do not provide adequate funding for their higher education institutions, the failure is on their part, not that of the institutions themselves.
Alex Mink is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.mink@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 22 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
