|
NEWS
| October 14, 2003
Tuition and Fees
Group member says campus should rely
on fee increases
A second increase proposal allows
for UTA to ignore rule dictating some money raised must go toward
financial aid.
By Brad
Rollins
The Shorthorn managing editor
A counter proposal to administrators’ tuition hike plans would
call for using student fees to fund the university’s financial
needs instead of tuition increases. The plan would allow the university
to circumvent a law requiring institutions to set aside 20 percent
of all new revenue gained through increases for financial aid.
The plan is being drafted by Bryan Shaner, a student member of the
Tuition Review Committee that will meet Thursday to begin deliberating
how large a tuition increase to recommend to the university’s
interim president.
“My main deal is that designated tuition should be used only
for [needs] that cannot be made up through student fees,”
said Shaner, who represents the business administration students.
“I think most students would understand having to pay more
if 20 percent of it wasn’t going for these financial aid programs.”
Under deregulation, 20 cents of every dollar raised through tuition
hikes must be funneled to need-based programs aimed at helping students
absorb the burden of the new rates. Most of the money is earmarked
for students already receiving financial aid. The Legislature authorized
universities to set part of their own tuition rates in May.
Administrators here have suggested a $15-per-semester-credit-hour
hike for the spring and an additional $20-per-semester-credit-hour
increase for the fall in most courses. Upper- and graduate-level
engineering and nursing courses would see additional jumps in a
pilot program to test charging more for degrees in higher-paying
fields.
The plan would raise an additional $21 million a year for the university,
$4.2 million of which would go toward the aid programs. The remainder
would be used to fill 50 new and vacant professorships and fund
faculty and staff pay and benefit increases, faculty start-up funds
and debt service critical to future construction.
Shaner, an accounting senior, said his proposal would fund most
needs through increases in student fees not subject to the Legislature’s
mandated set-asides.
“We need to get around having to tax students who pay for
their own school to pay for students who don’t,” he
said. “My idea is to make sure the university can grow and
improve without putting an extra burden on students.”
Shaner said he will meet with like-minded members of the committee
today to discuss the counterproposal. He said he does not know if
a complete plan will be ready in time for Thursday’s meeting,
but he encourages supporters to push the idea.
“It’s just going to depend on how much we can get done
and how much feedback we get,” he said.
Interim Provost Dana Dunn, who presented the adminstrators’
proposal at the committee’s Sept. 30 meeting, said she welcomed
alternatives to her plan.
“We were quite confident that there would be other ideas that
would be heard by the Tuition Review Committee,” Dr. Dunn
said. “We are quite sincere about the need for dialogue and
the need for input from all parties. I’m interested to see
what they come forward with.”
The review committee’s chair, Student Congress President Josh
Warren, said members approached him about writing a counterproposal.
He said he encouraged the effort but was not publicly taking a position.
“I told them I couldn’t really take a part but they
should do what they felt was needed,” he said. “By [the
committee’s] very nature, one of our jobs is to make a counterproposal
in the form of a recommendation to the administration.”
Warren has said the committee may make its decision by next week
for interim President Charles Sorber’s consideration. Sorber
must make a formal recommendation on behalf of the university to
Chancellor Mark Yudof by Nov. 1. The UT System Board of Regents
will make a final decision Nov. 18.
Monday’s developments
One of two faculty members on the Tuition Review Committee said
he would ask the chair to seat a stand-in at Thursday’s meeting.
Economics associate professor Bill Crowder, who represents the Undergraduate
Assembly, said he would be out of town and unable to attend the
panel’s first meeting to discuss how large a tuition increase
to recommend to interim President Charles Sorber.
Dr. Crowder said he would ask Craig Depken, also an economics associate
professor, to attend in his place.
The committee’s chair said he is hearing increased feedback
from students during the past week in the run-up to forums scheduled
today and Wednesday.
Josh Warren, who said a week ago he had received two e-mails on
the subject, said he thinks student interest is escalating.
“Based on what I’m hearing, I’m anticipating things
will be approaching a fervored pitch” by Wednesday’s
forum, he said. “It sounds like it will be interesting.”
— Brad Rollins
|
|
