
Artes, Scientia, Veritas, Money
Earlier this month the University of Michigan Board of Regents voted to raise our tuition 5.6%, which amounts to over $600 additional dollars in cost for in-state students. At a time when the State of Michigan has been gutted by the current economic crisis our University has decided to dig deeper into the pockets of an already hurting student body. At a certain point this is no longer and economic issue, but a moral issue.
The fact stands that the University of Michigan is morally wrong in raising tuition this year.
I would like to take on some of the common arguments from the Administration on the legitimacy and necessity of this increase:
1) We Must Emerge Stronger – The Administration has argued that during the recession it is important for U of M to compete with other high performing universities for the best professors in the world. Many universities are hurting, which means this is, strategically, the best time to pay professors more and grab additional ones.
I understand that this may be appealing, but in an economic recession where everyone in this state is forced to tighten belts and make do with less – than so should the University. The Administration says it has “three interests groups to deal with: the professors, the students and the donors.” This argument would work, but the University is a school, and an University is not University without students. If we direct school-wide policy to appease professors then we are merely a think-tank with interns who pay to live and work there.
We are a school, not a think-tank. Stop treating the students of Michigan, whose parents pay tax dollars to fund U of M, as if they are merely granted the pleasure of studying there. Our students worked hard and studied hard to get into U of M in order to study – not to be taken advantage of.
The Detroit Free Press weighed in on this thinking by saying:
But there’s a simple lesson our public universities have not yet learned. You can’t just keep going to the well to raise revenues. You can’t always decide to do more with more, while everyone else is resigned to doing more with less.
2) We Are Increasing Aid – The Administration’s announcement on the rate increase was actually buried within an article about an increase in student financial aid. The University if trumpeting an increase of over 11% in need-based financial aid in order to assist students in attending the University.
Unfortunately, this is a wolf in sheep’s clothes. First, a large amount of this increase is coming from federal stimulus funds. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included large increases to the Pell Grants and the federal work-study program. Additionally, the University is diverting some donor money over to scholarships. These increases go to help the poorest students entering the University, but many middle-class students are left out of the complex financial aid equations. Additionally, there is a difference between receiving grants and receiving work-study. One is free money that goes towards tuition and another is predicated on taking time to find and work a job on campus.
The University is benefiting from ARRA funds going to the state to cover appropriations (as mandated by law) and benefiting from an investment into federal financial aid, but it still demands more from its students.
Additionally, it is perverse to demand more from students, but, conversely, also put them on financial aid. Instead of making college affordable for all the University perpetuates a donor/receiver system that intrinsically links the poorest to the rich, while ignoring the plight of the middle class.
3) We Cut Our Merit Pay – The Administration cut merit pay for this year for the President, Executive Officers, and Deans in order to help slash the budget.
Some would laud this as sacrifice on behalf of the Administration. In reality, merit pay is based on performance of executives on top of their normal salaries. These executives are some of the highest paid in the nation, but they expect us applaud the reductions in their bonuses. At a time when entire families are losing income and jobs – we are are expected to thank them for not taking bonuses.
No executive of an University ought to even consider a bonus in this economic environment if they raise tuition as much as the University of Michigan has done.
4) At Least It Was Not 12% – Anyone who argues the “it could have been worse” argument is severely delusional. Our State is slashing budgets items left and right, but the University has the fortunate place of being protected by federal law. Instead of taking this as a blessing the Administration takes this as cover to arrogantly forge ahead.
At some point the University, as we all have, must learn to be less arrogant. The United States is adapting to being a lesser global power – Michigan is adapting to no longer being an industrial giant – the University must also learn to adapt.
In the end, I feel no kindness towards an Administration that so adamantly refuses to stop increasing tuition. The State Legislature is keeping appropriations constant with 2006 and students have been prepared to take out more loans/financial in order to continue paying for the University of Michigan.
We the People are weathering the recession, but the University refuses to acknowledge that commitment and acknowledge our realities.
6 Responses
Zach
29|Jun|2009 1Totally Disagree. Professors here are already making less than they make at comparable universities, class sizes are larger, etc. The University isn’t dripping with fat. Funding didn’t decrease this year, but over the course of time it has — drastically. The question is: what would you cut?
Fundamentally, this is an issue of priorities. When state funding declines over decades as it has, either educational quality declines or tuition increases. Neither choice is morally superior. Both are unfortunate. I would prefer to see UM remain one of the world’s foremost universities, cost that what it may. I think that in the long term that is better for the state of Michigan and for UM students.
Furthermore, as a progressive, I fundamentally support the idea of increased tuition and increased financial aid. Those who can afford to pay more should it it helps to take the burden off of students who can less afford it, and who have already overcome huge challenges to be here.
Do I know that this tuition increase was the right thing to do? No. I haven’t studied the books enough to say. But I don’t think the issue is all black and white.
Nathaniel Eli Coats Styer
29|Jun|2009 2Just to give you some facts… According to the Chronicle of Higher Education here are the average professor salaries with some schools ranked higher (USN) than U of M.
University of Michigan – 142,100
UCLA – 143,500
Notre Dame – 136,700
Georgetown – 155,900
U of Virginia – 133,400
Brown – 146,400
Cal Berkeley – 143,500
They, according to the statistics, pay their professors less but are ranked higher overall. I don’t think the professor Armageddon you fear would actually happen if we cut back a bit on out reach in this sector.
When you are faced with a situation like the one we are in right now economically the argument with appropriations diminishing means we should pay more to stay top notch diminishes. In good times that argument is justified because students can handle the costs, but right now that argument is viciously unfair to low/middle income students.
Furthermore, you are talking about one of the most regressive ways of funding education. Calling it progressive is an affront to everything progressive.
Raising tuition prices middle-income students out of schooling while financial aid only makes it accessible to the very lowest of low income students. So, you end up in a situation where the very rich can attend and the very poor can attend. It is much like our current healthcare system. The middle gets completely priced out. This middle block of people grow ever larger in a recession where money is short all around.
At some point the entitlement of the University must be cut loose, especially in such a bad recession. It is a fundamental question of access and to blindly ignore this is wrong.
Fred Posner
29|Jun|2009 3Fantastic post, and extremely well worded. Personally, I think you went very easy on UM and cannot believe the response about professor’s making less. Cal Berkeley makes 143,500 a year… and the cost of living in Berkeley, CA compared to Ann Arbor, MI is astronomical. How astronomical? How about 27%? Basically, factoring in cost of living, a salary of 143k in Ann Arbor equates to 100k in Berkeley. Or think of it this way, if the professor living off of 143k in Berkeley moved to Ann Arbor, they would be feel as if they were making 196k. UM can have no problem keeping staff at this rate. And should positions open, extremely talented professors from other Universities would JUMP at the chance of making the salary offered. The University of Florida for example is closer to 100k. Yale is 130k. And those are pre-cost of living adjustments.
The University of Michigan should lead by example. Just today, an article discussed a new taxing authority to pretty downtown Ann Arbor. Michigan is the current leader in unemployment. Basic math tells you if fewer people are employed then there will be less sales and income tax coming in. As more businesses close, additional state revenue will crumble. Raising taxes will only cause those who still are employed to seek employment elsewhere. The state’s flagship university should lead by example, tighten the belt, and show exactly why the public schools who shine the brightest, often spend the least amount of money per student.
Lenny
30|Jun|2009 4The excessive cost of education is directly related to the large number of administrators. The schools need to get back to educating, as opposed to engineering society. The students, their parents and taxpayers are being treated poorly.
Aaron
01|Jul|2009 5I’m very glad to see someone call out that noxious piece of PR fluff from UM News. I’m also glad to see you call bs on that sanctimonious “we’re forgoing our merit pay” statement from grossly-overpaid UM executives.
However, the situation with the UM exec salaries may be even worse than you state– they (and some professors) often get huge bonuses that are not listed in the public salary survey. Unfortunately, neither students nor the public have any way of knowing whether Coleman et al are getting these bonuses this year. There is an UM IT system called M-Reports that shows these bonuses, but– surprise!– it’s locked down tight so that very few people can see it.
Also, although some profs are very highly paid, especially in medicine and the sciences, I would imagine that the variance around that average you posted is quite large. From a brief glance at the salary survey, some humanities professors appear to be paid less than barely-educated IT staff, and some adjunct faculty at UM appear to get paid under $35,000 (thus the need for LEO).
JoJo
19|Jul|2009 6I guess one thing about professor’s is that even though cost of living in Ann Arbor is less expensive, it’s a lot harder to get people to live here then most places where other big schools are located. If a professor has a spouse who isn’t employed by the university, unfortunately chances are their career is going to be a lot less high-powered and high-earning in Michigan than somewhere on the coasts. I don’t think it totally justifies it, but I think it is a relevant point.
Leave a reply
Search
Vote Counter
Menu:
Contact Information
Contact our blog masters:
dcronyn [at] umich [dot] edu
jmlevass [at] umich [dot] edu
campbren [at] umich [dot] edu
Meta
Obama Tracker
Check out our Podcast!
Dems Discuss!
Tag Cloud
Twitter...
Powered by Twitter Tools
Blogs
Campaigns
College Democrat Blogs
Democratic Organizations
Michigan Blogs
Press
University of Michigan
Categories
Archives
Michigan Lefty Blogs
State and North U – Live
A design creation of Design Disease
Copyright © 2008 - Kicking Ass Ann Arbor - is proudly powered by WordPress
InSense 1.0 Theme by Design Disease brought to you by HostGator Web Hosting.