|
NEWS
| October 17, 2003
Tuition and Fees
Dunn: Info in proposal ambiguous
Nursing and engineering will experience
additional increases in spring only.
By Rajal
Vashisht
The Shorthorn staff
Administrators said Thursday that the second part of their tuition
increase proposal was written ambiguously, leading some to interpret
the data incorrectly.
Interim Provost Dana Dunn said the proposal, which she presented
on behalf of the administration, should have clearly stated that
nursing students would see a tuition hike of $10 per semester 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
next semester.
Both colleges would only experience those increases in the spring.
Dr. Dunn said the proposal was “ambiguously written and could
be interpreted two ways.”
The confusion stemmed from data represented in Part II of the proposal,
which correctly showed that both departments would see the spring
increases but was unclear as to whether they would face another
increase in fall 2004.
This led some to interpret the data as showing another tuition increase.
The Shorthorn has also previously used the incorrect numbers in
articles about the proposal.
Josh Warren, Tuition Review Committee chair and Student Congress
president, said he interpreted the data incorrectly and subsequently
discussed the incorrect information with students and faculty in
committee and congress meetings until Tuesday.
The Tuition Review Committee is charged with analyzing all tuition
increase proposals and making recommendations to interim President
Charles Sorber. Congress held two open forums this week for students
to voice their concerns.
“I had also thought that tuition rates would be increased
again for engineering and nursing in the fall of 2004,” Warren
said. “It was the way the data was presented. It was hard
to understand, and it could have easily been interpreted either
way.”
Dr. Dunn said the confusion was brought to her attention late Wednesday
afternoon. She said she would ensure that committee members understood
how the proposal should be interpreted.
“This is a very complicated plan, as any good plan would be,”
she said. “We need to get this out on the table and dispel
all miscommunication.”
Engineering Dean Bill Carroll said he tried to clear up confusion
at his college’s forum Monday.
“At the dean’s forum, I had a lot of students ask me
about the tuition increases,” he said. “I had to explain
to them that tuition rates would not be raised again in the fall.”
Nursing Dean Elizabeth Poster was unaware of the misunderstanding
until Thursday afternoon.
“Maybe that’s why the students are so upset,”
Dr. Poster said.
Part I of the proposal calls for a $15-per-credit-hour increase
in designated tuition for the spring and an additional $20-per-credit-hour
increase in the fall for all students. The engineering and nursing
course hikes would be in addition to those increases.
|
|
|
| Dana
Dunn, interim provost, says the second part
of the proposal was vague and caused some misunderstandings.
|
|
|
