|
NEWS
| October 17, 2003
Tuition and Fees
Ward to review list of changes to
proposal
He’ll decide whether the
committee’s suggestions to decrease will be realistic.
By Amber
Tafoya
The Shorthorn news editor
The university may have to sacrifice some funding set aside for
financial aid, faculty raises and new hires to decrease the proposed
tuition increase under review now.
After more than two hours of debate, the Tuition Review Committee
created a list of changes to the tuition proposal drafted by administrators,
including a suggestion to lower the $15-per-credit-hour increase
proposed for the spring.
In the meeting, committee members discussed the proposal and campus
feedback and brainstormed ideas that incorporated their constituents’
comments, Chair Josh Warren said. Rusty Ward, interim vice president
for business affairs and controller, will receive a list of changes
and determine if straying from the original proposal is realistic.
Students are not prepared for the increase and need more time to
adjust, Warren said. Group members did not discuss what figure they
will suggest during the meeting, but Warren said he accepts that
some kind of increase must happen.
“The feedback made it clear there was a need for change,”
he said.
But the university’s growth may suffer from changes to the
proposed tuition increases, administrators said.
Administrators proposed a $15-per-credit-hour increase in the spring
and an additional $20 per-credit-hour increase in the fall. Nursing
students would see a tuition hike of $10 per credit hour for upper-level
and graduate courses in the spring. Engineering students would pay
an additional $10 per credit hour for upper-level courses and $20
per credit hour for graduate courses.
Changes may not be possible without stunting the university’s
growth, Ward said.
“If there is a decrease, then that momentum will be lost,”
he said.
While there is some flexibility in the proposal drafted by administrators,
cuts in tuition increase proposals mean cuts in expenditures, Ward
said.
“We tried to come up with our best proposal and not try to
play a game to price high,” he said. “Instead, we put
it out on the table, telling committee members how much is needed
to maintain the growth of the school.”
One of the factors to maintain the university’s momentum lies
in faculty. Officials plan to use tuition to fund faculty raises
and 15 new positions. This is needed because as people are losing
jobs in the commercial market, Ward said, they are coming back to
school as students to become more competitive. The university must
become more competitive, he added, and that cannot be done without
faculty.
Some faculty members have expressed interest in giving up their
2 percent mid-semester raise that would be implemented if the proposal
was approved as is. Warren said some faculty are willing to compromise
their raises if there is a better way to use it in the university.
“This really shows how they care about students and how people
are willing to work this out,” he said.
With the Nov. 1 deadline approaching to give the proposal to the
UT System Board of Regents, the committee has a little longer than
a week to finalize its recommendation to Charles Sorber. The interim
president said he needs about a week to evaluate the information
and make a decision.
“If the proposal comes in and the numbers make sense, then
we will move forward,” Dr. Sorber said.
|
|
