Chris KempWith all of the debate surrounding the issue of university tuition over the past few years, I think it might be instructive for us to step back and apply a more rational, analytical framework to the debate.
Setting tuition levels for state universities is a matter of public policy and can be analyzed using traditional methods of public policy analysis. The simplest yet often most informative method of doing this is to look at the impacts, both positive and negative, of such a policy. In other words, who (or what) will benefit from a tuition freeze and what will the costs be of such a policy proposal.
So who will benefit from a tuition freeze? If we examine the proposed language from the UW Board of Regents, it is clear that a tuition freeze will not benefit lower-income families.
In its proposal, the Regents include additional funding to provide dollar-for-dollar financial aid increases for those students from families in the two lowest income quintiles. The Regents’ proposal would give such students enough additional aid in grants to cover the entire cost of the tuition increase. Even families with substantially greater incomes would receive additional aid to cover at least part of the cost of a tuition increase through a combination of grants and loans.
So, if a tuition freeze does not benefit lower income families, where do the benefits go?
The students who would see the greatest benefit from a tuition freeze are those that come from upper-middle and upper class economic backgrounds.
Why would they benefit?
Since these students do not generally qualify for financial aid, the tuition increase would not be mitigated for them by additional financial aid. That said, these are students from families with much higher income levels, so a tuition increase should have a relatively limited impact on their families’ lifestyles.
Thus, the students who would most likely see the net impact of a tuition increase would come from families that are financially most able to afford it, while students from low-income backgrounds would see the impact mitigated through increased financial assistance.
What does this mean to the effective cost of attendance at a UW campus? It means that a tuition freeze would have little or no impact on lower-income families but would be a substantial benefit to families with higher levels of income.
I am curious why all of the discussion about the tuition freeze has not mentioned who would actually benefit from it. Perhaps it is because discussing the tuition freeze as a benefit for the rich would not sell very well to the general public.
The second aspect of this discussion must include an examination of the impact if a tuition freeze were to be implemented.
According to the university, the governor’s proposed budget already includes roughly $3 million in cuts for UW-Eau Claire over the next two years AFTER including the tuition increases.
If those tuition increases vanish and no additional state funds appear in their place, Eau Claire would have to implement additional cuts ranging from $3 million and $4.5 million over the same period. A tuition freeze would, in effect, more than double the cuts we would face on campus for the 2005-07 biennium.
How would we manage additional budget cuts of such magnitude? Up to this point, the university has done a remarkable job of insulating students from previous budget cuts. It would be folly to believe that could continue.
While I am in no way privy to the discussions on addressing the additional cuts that would be caused by a tuition freeze, it would seem at a minimum that cuts in student services, such as library hours, career counseling and other areas would have to be on the table.
We already have seen how previous cuts have challenged course availability in some majors, and the inability to hire additional faculty as a result of a tuition freeze would likely exacerbate this problem.
This does not even address the fact a tuition freeze would likely also result in a salary freeze for most non-unionized university employees. If that were to occur, faculty and staff on campus will go four years with a grand total of a 1 percent pay increase.
There is little question this will continue to make it difficult to hire new personnel at competitive salaries and will likely encourage many current employees to begin looking for greener pastures in other university systems or the private sector. The long-term impact of this on the quality of education at Eau Claire cannot and should not be underestimated.
So, when all is said and done, what does this analysis show? It shows that a tuition freeze primarily benefits students from upper-middle and upper class families while simultaneously running the risk of doing significant long-term damage to the university as a whole and to the quality of education all students receive.
Rather than focusing on tuition rates, maybe we should be asking why the state continues to abandon its obligation to higher education. Perhaps all of our efforts would be better spent convincing the legislature to restore UW funding and renewing the system as a whole.
Peterson is a political science professor and a columnist for The Spectator.
