When the Board of Visitors approved an across-the-board 8.9 percent tuition and fees increase for undergraduates last week, it was the latest blow to University students and their parents who are struggling to cope with the rising costs of higher education. In just the past two months, the University announced a $3,000 tuition differential for those attending the Commerce School, a $1-per-month jump in the price of a parking permit and now what amounts to a $948 baseline tuition hike for in-state students and a $2,996 increase for out-of-state students.
These costs should not be viewed in isolation, however. As with the other announced price hikes, the tuition proposal agreed upon by the Board is a painful but necessary step for dealing with the state government's decision to scale back its financial support of the University while also asking it to increase enrollment in the coming years.
The University's tuition increase, though sizeable, is in line with those imposed by peer institutions. The Regents of the University of California, for example, passed an 8 percent in-state tuition hike in November to help alleviate a $1 billion budget deficit. The plan will raise baseline tuition at the state's public colleges and universities to $11,124, which is slightly less than the $11,576 that will be charged to in-state University students in 2011-12. The University of North Carolina system, meanwhile, enacted a 6.8 percent tuition increase for its in-state students. Although baseline tuition at North Carolina public universities remains much lower than at the University - $6,839.96 at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and $6,874.20 at North Carolina State University - this is largely because schools in the North Carolina system receive about three times as much state funding per student as does the University.
It also is worth noting that the University has been more consistent in its tuition hikes. Whereas prior to the 2010-11 academic year the California system raised tuition by 32 percent and some schools in the North Carolina system faced tuition increases of 18 percent, the University has been able to keep tuition hikes below 10 percent annually for the past eight years. This has allowed families to adapt more gradually to rising costs, and it has spread them more equitably across graduating classes.
Moreover, the University continues to charge relatively little in student fees. During the 2010-11 academic year, required auxiliary fees at the University were $1,848 per student compared to an average of $3,160 across the state. These fees are expected to remain low given a promise by the University to avoid raising its athletics fee - which is the largest single component of auxiliary fees - for at least the next five years.
Of course, this provides little solace to the students whose families make more than double the poverty line and will not receive any financial aid grants from AccessUVa. For these families, the only recourse will be to add to the nation's almost $1 trillion debt burden from student loans. Unfortunately, there is little that University administrators and Board members can do to solve this problem given the constraints imposed by state higher education policy.
In a particularly galling case of an institution being asked to do more with less, the University must find a way to work toward Gov. Bob McDonnell's goal of conferring an additional 100,000 degrees statewide during the next 15 years while simultaneously adjusting to a $15 million cut in state funding that was included in the recently passed budget. Unless the state renews its commitment to fully funding the University, tuition increases remain the primary option for administrators seeking to pay for new technology, infrastructure and financial aid. Students will find this increasingly difficult to bear in the future, but they must recognize that blame rests not with those in Madison Hall but with those in the state capitol.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days 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 | 4 days agoInstead 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.
