On one hand, senior Ashley Anthony doesn’t really mind that she no longer has to complete a capstone project for her Spanish education degree. But at the same time, she wishes she could have that experience to wrap up everything she’s learned.

“It’s important to have those practical experiences,” Anthony said.

If the Blugold Commitment survives Student Senate and UW System Board of Regent approval, UW-Eau Claire students would be involved in almost every level of differential tuition decision-making on this campus.

No other UW System institution is proposing a process like this that allows students to help decide who gets differential tuition and how much, at least not that Provost Patricia Kleine and System Spokesman David Giroux said they are aware of.

“It makes me feel a bit more comfortable because it’s about us,” Anthony said, adding that she has sometimes been skeptical about whether the Blugold Commitment was genuinely designed in students’ best interest. “Knowing that they’re trying to involve students and get their perspective, I think that changes my perspective a bit.”

Students like Anthony would have the opportunity to work with administrators and student senators on behalf of their peers to decide which programs Blugold Commitment revenue would fund. One committee would focus specifically on capstone projects, and with a strong proposal, Anthony and other language students might be able to get their capstones back.

“An important part of the Blugold Commitment is to show that just as much as we’re asking students for that differential tuition to trust that we will make solid decisions for this institution,” Kleine said. “It’s my way of showing we’re putting trust in the students also.”

For the first time, students would be consistently involved with differential tuition allocation and would be able to set criteria and evaluate programs with those.

Under the administrator-senator negotiated proposal, students could put a program on “probation.” Then if the program continues to fall short of expectations, students could reduce its funding partially, if not completely, said Adam Sorelle, Student Senate Chief of Staff. Sorelle is also the Director of Academic Affairs, which requires him to negotiate differential tuition with the provost.

“We have almost complete control over this,” Sorelle said. “I really hope that students know that this is one of the strongest pieces, I feel, in the Blugold Commitment.”

Differential tuition at UW-Eau Claire supports programs that go beyond standard academics, such as service learning, first year experience, internships, capstone and faculty-student research.

This year, full-time students paid $81.50 in differential tuition for the fall 2009 semester for a total $1.5 million differential tuition budget, said David Gessner, assistant chancellor for budget and finance.

In the first year of the Blugold Commitment, students would help allocate an additional $3.75 million to project proposals submitted from various corners of the campus. By the end of the four-year phase-in period, they would have about $15 million to allocate.

If an undergraduate student were to attend for the full four years during phase-in, he or she would pay an additional $187.50 each semester, which amounts to $3,750 over four years, in additional tuition. After four years, each student would pay an additional, even $750 per semester.

Kleine has already made the differential tuition allocation process more student-friendly this year. For the first time ever, students (Sorelle and student body president and vice president Michael Umhoefer and Amber Bretl) reviewed all proposals with the provost staff, not just the ones administrators had already screened and ranked.

That’s something Kleine said she wants to continue, regardless of whether the Blugold Commitment passes.

“I would have done it either way because if this is differential tuition, and the students are committing that they would be paying this,” Kleine said, “then they should have a say in where the money is going.”

If Anthony had her way, she’d allocate more differential tuition for diversity proposals and immersion because studying abroad in Valladolid, Spain, was such a meaningful part of her education.

“When it’s just administrators making decisions,” Anthony said, “they don’t always know how it directly affects students.”

Why we need a better model
The current model for student involvement with differential tuition isn’t perfect, Sorelle and Kleine said.

Because the Student Senate set funding ranges for programs without seeing proposals beforehand, if a weak proposal came through, the administration would have to fund a program by at least the Senate’s suggested minimum.

“In some programs, the proposals were quite weak, and we all agreed they were,” Kleine said. “But because of the ranges, we had to fund them.”

Sorelle and Kleine said the new model of allowing students to review all proposals with the administration allows more flexibility in allocating more money to a strong proposal and less to a weak one.

“We want to be funding and perpetuating those things we know are successful, and an important aspect of how successful they are is how successful were they from a student’s point of view,” Kleine said.

A big responsibility
“We have so much power, and this is such a great opportunity for students to get involved, for student senators to get involved,” Sorelle said. “I can’t believe how lucky we are to be at an institution where they’re willing to give us this much responsibility.”

However, granting that much responsibility to individual students is risky, Sorelle said. It would require thoughtful feedback on complicated proposals and campus procedures, not to mention a significant time commitment.

One solution could be to offer class credit or service learning fulfillment to student committee members, Sorelle said.

“I hope this is a sustainable model,” Sorelle said, “but in five years down the road, we may need to change something. We may need to add more students or add another process in here.”

What about the regents?
Student Regent Aaron Wingad had been the academic affairs director for two years, before Sorelle. Wingad said student opinion on the Blugold Commitment itself will determine his vote when UW-Eau Claire presents it to regents at their February meeting, he said.

“Whether or not the differential tuition increase goes through,” Wingad said, “that kind of involvement . is a great step forward.”

Wingad said he “could even speak for the entire board” that student input and involvement in overall differential tuition is “absolutely essential.”

“It’s one from the things I’ve heard over and over again in my five months on the board,” Wingad said.

Giroux said such a high level of involvement in the differential tuition process is “something we’d look on favorably,” though he added that student input is only one factor in regent review of the Blugold Commitment. Whether the model would reasonably be able to meet UW-Eau Claire’s goals will be just as important, if not more, he said.

“Again,” Giroux said, “(student involvement and input) is one of many, many criteria.”