Last week's announced tuition hikes are only the most recent addition to a network of unjust policies affecting out-of-state students. Not only was the increase in out-of-state tuition “higher than expected,” but a close examination of the statistics reveals that out-of-state students are systematically not provided the same benefits as in-state students through programs their tuition money supports.
According to the April 14 U.Va. Today article “U.Va. Board of Visitors Approves 5 Percent Tuition Increase for In-State Students,” tuition increases for in-state were “lower than expected,” while tuition increases for out-of-state students were “higher than expected.” This temporary alleviation for in-state students was made possible due to an allocation of funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.
While not an instance of bias per se, the fact that the stimulus money went to fill a hole purposefully planned in the state budget is the first clue that something isn’t right here. Reminiscent of Virginia’s tuition freeze and reduction policies of the 1990’s, this stopgap measure from the General Assembly is only delaying inevitable tuition hikes with a budget whose expenditures are purposefully planned to outpace income. Needless to say, this plan is not exactly a paradigm of fiscal responsibility or sustainability.
Ignoring the fact that this measure won’t really help Virginians in the long run, even if tuition hikes are lower than expected for in-state students, shouldn’t out-of-state tuition have merely met expectations? If the lower increase in in-state tuition is fully covered by the federal stimulus package, what is the reason for raising out-of-state tuition?
Once again, as one can reasonably suspect when poor policy-making is involved, part of the blame rests on Virginia’s General Assembly. The General Assembly deemed it necessary to increase the out-of-state capital fee toward the Virginia College Building Authority Debt Service from $2 per credit hour to $10 per credit hour.
Furthermore, an e-mail from University spokesperson Carol Wood stated that non-resident students “help to subsidize our in-state students and pay 150 percent of their education.”
The only defensible justification for lower in-state tuition is that the parents and guardians of in-state students have been paying taxes that supposedly go toward institutions of higher education in Virginia; thus, the state is supposed to cover any gap between in-state tuition and the cost of education with these tax dollars. This is obviously not the case. Wood said that even with the infusion of stimulus money, the state has not made up for lost revenues in the series of budget cuts of the past few years.
Ultimately, out-of-state students bear the burden of Virginia’s fiscal irresponsibility.
Perhaps even more worrisome is the fact that the administration does not seem to have any qualms with this systematic injustice. Wood and others do not even seem troubled enough by this to create a typical public relations charade.
According to the U.Va. Today article, Leonard W. Sandridge, the University’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said the administration strives to keep the University “a good value for the students of the Commonwealth.” Apparently, instead of concerning themselves with all students of the University, the administration is content to ensure the University is a good value for “students of the Commonwealth” alone.
Sandridge said the primary recipients of the tuition increases “include the new Student Information System support organization; increased costs of employee fringe benefits; utilities; the operation and maintenance of newly constructed University buildings; core investments in the College of Arts and Sciences; and AccessUVa, the University’s financial aid program.”
Over a third of the incremental revenue from tuition hikes will go toward making the University affordable for students — a laudable goal, especially in light of the current financial crisis. The problem is only introduced when one carefully examines the statistics regarding AccessUVa disbursements. Ironically, while out-of-state students are paying much more to support AccessUVa, they receive far less access to its benefits.
According to U.Va. Today, three quarters of those receiving financial aid are from Virginia. Thus, the break-down of benefits from AccessUVa does not match the break-down of the in-state and out-of-state student populations: non-residents make up approximately a third of the University community and receive only a fourth of the financial aid for which they disproportionately pay.
Wood said the discrepancy might be because “the marketing and messaging in the first two years [of the program] was directed where we need it the most — in Virginia.”
Against the background of failed General Assembly House Bills 2475 and 1696, which aimed to further decrease the cap on out-of-state students to between 25 and 20 percent, the picture for out-of-state students only becomes worse.
The General Assembly and University administration should seriously reflect on the values these policies represent. The arbitrariness of where one is born is practically a fundamental concept in the canon of academic liberalism, and to discriminate on this basis is simply unacceptable.
In the Wood’s words, “the University is and will always be a state University with a public mandate to serve ... the citizens ... of the Commonwealth.” Nevertheless, the reality of the University’s status as a public school need not entail discrimination against any student, including a non-resident.
Matt Dickey’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.dickey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 14 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
RASHID: Noncitizen students are under attack, and the University must act
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 2 days agoNow is the time to act, proving our commitment by protecting and expanding programs that keep the University open and accessible to all.
