Oct. 21, 2003, 11:26PM College costs walloping wallets Tuition, fees at Texas' universities more than double '93 level By TODD ACKERMAN Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle The cost of college has skyrocketed in the past decade, increasing most at public universities and in the Southwest, which includes Texas, according to a study the College Board released Tuesday. The study found tuition and fees at four-year public schools in 2003-2004 was 14 percent more than a year ago and 47 percent more than a decade ago. The increases were significantly higher in the Southwest than the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, the regions with the highest tuition and fees historically. "We are in the middle of a very difficult period in financing higher education," David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, said in a statement. "I remain greatly concerned about the long-term viability of the social compact that has served students and families so well for more than 50 years." The study did not break down tuition and fees by state, but Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board officials said Tuesday the cost at Texas public four-year universities has more than doubled in the past decade -- it's risen 103.5 percent when adjusted for inflation. And the greatest increase will come next year, when Texas universities begin exercising the carte blanche the 2003 Legislature gave them to set tuition. Already, in the past decade, the University of Texas-Austin's tuition and fees are up 130 percent, Texas A&M's 111 percent, Texas Southern University's 132 percent and the University of Houston's 96 percent. Texas officials downplayed the increase, saying it's a reflection of the state's historically low tuition. "Our percentage is high, but we haven't gone up any more dollarwise," said Teri Flack, deputy commissioner for the Coordinating Board. "That just says other states were higher to begin with. We're just now in the middle of pack compared to other states where tuition is concerned." But at UH, that seemed little solace to many students interviewed. They said the increases are causing them to work longer hours and take out loans. Some worried that they might have to drop out. "My parents are paying my tuition and they're pretty much stretched to the max, with my tuition and my books," said Andrew Gafford, a sophomore who estimated his tuition and fees have gone from $1,500 to $2,400 since he started. "If it keeps going up, I'm not going to be able to afford it." The College Board annual report attributed much of the cost increase at public universities to less support from state government. Almost every state legislature gave higher education less funding in the past two years. But the cost of college rose significantly at private schools, too. Average tuition and fees at private college and universities grew by 42 percent between 1993 and 2003. (Both private and public school tuition increase figures reflect inflation-adjusted dollars.) Rice's tuition and fees, for instance, went up 60.4 percent in the past decade, from $4,825 a semester to $9,835. Sandy Baum, an economics professor at New York's Skidmore College and a co-author of the report, said a second factor driving up tuition among both public and private schools is increasing costs of college beyond inflation -- mostly, new technology and health insurance for faculty and staff. Ann Wright, Rice's vice president for enrollment, said the stock market's decline also has been a factor, shrinking university endowments. She emphasized that Rice's average rate of increase per year -- 4.8 percent -- is "very cost-conscious." In addition, the report said the picture is not as bad as it might look because of financial aid. A record amount was distributed in 2002-2003 -- $105 billion, or $13 billion more than the previous year. Sixty percent of undergraduates are using financial aid packages to help pay for college. Total aid per full-time equivalent student averages about $9,100. But student aid is more likely to take the form of loans rather than grants, and the aid is increasingly going to wealthier students, the report said. Poorer families pay up to 71 percent of their income for higher education. National experts gave the same reason as Texas officials did for why tuition in the Southwest increased more than other regions: its historically low base. For a full year, tuition and fees for four-year public schools in the West, Southwest and South average between $3,737 and $3,758 in 2003, whereas the averages are $5,507 in the Midwest, $6,035 in New England and $6,350 in the Mid-Atlantic states. The College Board, a nonprofit that owns the SAT, reported that for a full year, tuition and fees this fall average $4,694, up $578, at public four-year schools; $1,905, up $231, or 13.9 percent from last year, at public two-year colleges; and $19,710, up $1,114, or 6 percent, at private four-year colleges. While some students at UH worried that tuition hardships ultimately might prove too onerous, one resolved that she'd find a way to stay in school. "It's getting outrageous," said Chelsea Curtley, a second-year freshman. "I had to drop some classes because I couldn't afford them. But no amount of money will keep me out of school. Nowadays, you must have a college degree to get anywhere." Robert Lopez of the Chronicle staff contributed to this story. I gotta say that if the cost of tuition and fees doubled when adjusted for inflation, then the Legislature must've really, really cut funding for higher education. Of course, tuition and fees at the UT-System make up roughly 10% of the revenues the System takes in (for FY2004 anyway). In 1993, tuition and fees made up roughly 10% of the revenues the System took in. So maybe the problem isn't cuts in spending at the state level (since the percentage a student pays toward the total budget isn't really changing). Maybe the System is just spending too much money. Of course, only 28.5% of UT System expenditures went to Instruction and Academic Support. It's unclear to me why the cost of providing an education would have doubled irrespective of inflation in the past ten years System-wide. Other than maybe Health Care, I don't know of any industry where the costs increased so significantly over the past decade. Makes me think that, perhaps, the higher education system is poorly run. And it is one of those areas where throwing more money at it won't help. The UT System will gladly find use for whatever money is passed their way, even if it means finding new ways to spend it. And, if that level of revenue doesn't keep up with their desires, they'll cry poverty and find a way to charge somebody more.
Here is a little background to what's behind a huge jump in tuition this spring and next fall. Just want to be sure everyone knows where it came from... Leaders seek end to limits on tuition Craddick demands deregulation; both chambers to vote today By Dave Harmon and Michele Kay AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Sunday, June 1, 2003 State universities would have free rein to set their own tuition next spring under an agreement reached by lawmakers on Saturday. And the price universities charge for individual classes could vary depending on the subjects and the day and time they are offered. Although both the House and Senate have opposed the move, saying universities would increase tuition beyond the reach of most Texans, House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, and Gov. Rick Perry pushed to make it happen. Craddick refused to sign off on the budget without complete deregulation. So the chambers voted Saturday to suspend their rules so they could consider the last-minute change. The bill needs the approval of the full House and Senate today before Gov. Rick Perry can consider it. Some House Democrats unsuccessfully argued against suspending House rules so a conference committee could make major last-minute changes. They said deregulation would hurt middle-income families who earn too much for financial aid, pushing many students toward cheaper schools or classes. A similar fight happened in the Senate, with similar results. Tuition deregulation is not a new idea, but it took on renewed life this session after University of Texas System Chancellor Mark Yudof lobbied legislators to give universities more freedom. Both Craddick and Perry have said it is the right move. "I have no fear that regents are going to price themselves out of the marketplace," Perry said. "They are going to be reasonable, but they are also going to be able to recoup costs and be able to pay salaries and generate, I think, the type of tuition that makes our schools competitive across the board." Craddick said lawmakers did not have a choice. He said universities already are laying off staff members and cutting back classes. "Our senior colleges and junior colleges are bursting at the seams. Classes are full, and they are not teaching as many sections," Craddick said. "They need more resources, but the state does not have the money." Although Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has been lukewarm on the issue, he agreed to support it after Craddick put it on the bargaining table during budget negotiations. Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, chairwoman of the House Higher Education Committee and author of House Bill 3015 said a House-Senate committee on higher education would study operations and financing of universities starting this year. She wants the study to coincide with deregulation. "It makes sense to do it when we are studying their finances," Morrison said. She said lawmakers could revisit the issue next session. Opponents of the move had wanted to postpone deregulation for two years and in the meantime let universities increase tuition. Morrison said the deal calls for 20 percent of tuition increases to be set aside for scholarships and other programs. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University will set aside $2 million for every $10 per credit hour increase in tuition. "This will go to help the middle-income families," Morrison said. mkay@statesman.com; 445-3635
When Perry and the legislature told us (I work for a community college) that we would take a 19% hit in state funding for this fiscal year, the first thing that we did was raise tuition and fees. Because of it, our enrollment is down nearly 15% this semester. I guess educating our people isn't as much of a priority as I thought. I was under the impression that we should have the most educated workforce in the world in order to compete with workers from other countries.
I was interning as a network admin at a community college, and we couldnt hire anyone to fill the positions that became vacant because their budget had been cut by something like 10 mil over the next two years. So, not only could we not upgrade for a while, when someone left for whatever reason, we couldnt hire anyone to replace them. One of the ways they are trying to make up for the cut in state funding is to raise tuition. Evidently, those raises will be substantial. This is going to be tough, I am transferring to UH next semester to finsih my bachelors. I dont see how I am going to be able to afford it.
Unfortunately, these are the realities of a budget. The UT system is already dirt cheap compared to most state systems and certainly private schools. While it would be nice to have the state fund our educations, at some point, tough decisions have to be made. The actual costs of education are spiralling as universities focus on increasing quality of service - state resources are not growing. Unless you're a proponent of endlessly raising taxes, this issue was going to come up eventually. I'd much rather the state focus its resources on funding for K-12 education than university education.
This is gonna sound like a snide remark, but as someone who advises college students, I can safely say there are some people that don't need to be in college, at least not right out of high school. College is a privilege, not a right. Get the kids who really need to be here and weed out the ones that don't and there will be more financial aid and grant money. Harsh but true.
Unfortunately, in my experience, many of the people who do not need to be there are the ones who do not need financial aid or grant money. People who get grants and financial aid have a vested interest in attending class, getting good grades, and moving on because they typically need to maintain a minimum GPA to continue getting that money. In genteral, the people who are disruptive, don't attend class, and negatively impact the class tend to be middle to upper class punks who have been provided a free ride by their parents. In addition, I will be unable to go to school at UHCL next semester because the cost has gotten too high for me to afford. As a full time worker, I do not qualify for grants (Pell, etc.) or any financial aid that I am aware of. I believe that everyone in this country should have the opportunity to have some higher education. Unfortunately, the tax cuts for the rich have precluded that in favor of giving money to the people who can already afford to send their kids to college. There is a reason that our education system is moving down the ladder compared to the rest of the world: we do not properly fund education in this country any more. We will not be able to afford to fund education as long as we continue reducing taxes on the rich while leaving the tax burden on the middle and lower classes the same. People who are seeking education but are unable to afford it are the people who "who really need to be here."
Unfortunately, the tax cuts for the rich have precluded that in favor of giving money to the people who can already afford to send their kids to college. Andy, careful. You are getting perilous close to class envy and class warfare.
Of course if the state don't keep up with inflation--let alone cut back direct support--for colleges and universities they are going to raise tuition. Government (state, fed, local) funding of secondary and higher education is pitiful in America compared to most industrial nations. For most industrial nations, if you can qualify for higher education the state picks up all or most of the tab.
Costs are rising well above the rate of inflation. The State could spend with the rate of inflation and tuition would still have to rise to make up for those increased costs. I mean, if it costs 100% more to attend college AFTER adjusting for inflation, then simply keeping up with inflation isn't going to solve the problem. Eventually, you start having to cut other services in order to keep up with the massive increases in spending at colleges and universities.
No MOST people don't NEED a college degree to live. Less than 16% of the US population has a Bachelors or higher. The Census data, based on estimates from the long form sent to one in six households, showed that among people 25 and older: 21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000, compared with 18.7% 10 years earlier. 15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher, compared with 13.1% in 1990. 8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees, compared with 7.2% earlier. These stats coupled with the fact that presently, 63% of high school graduates go to college immediatelyafter graduation, the highest rate ever. link to article Bottom line is MOST people will not make it through college even though more and more are attending.
I don't. I'm sorry if that sounds elitist. I believe that a lot of people have no business attending college.
I agree with Mulder and would take it a step further. There are some people who will eventually get a college degree, but who shouldn't go straight out of high school. There are a lot of people who go to college just to go, not having any idea of what they want to do and not really wanting to dive in to the life of being a good student after finishing up high school. Taking a year or two off to decompress, find some things you like to do, maybe find some direction, etc. can be beneficial, and when you then go to college, you're more focused and have a better chance of finishing and succeeding. If these people go straight out of high school, they may end up being burned out and doing worse in classes than they would have. Or they fumble around, taking classes for a while, then changing their mind and taking different classes, never really making a lot of headway toward a degree. And so on. My sister is one of these people. She had no idea what she wanted to do and didn't have any real desire to start college, but thanks to parental pressure, she started immediately. So she'd take some classes, but without any motivation, she'd eventually drop the classes. After a couple of years of that, she went to my Dad and told him she wanted to take some time off before trying college, so he helped her get a job at the day surgery center that also houses his clinic. She's worked there about a year, and she seems to be liking it just fine. I expect that she will, eventually, go back to college and get a degree. But she'll do it when she's ready. And that will end up being advantageous. Heck, I did something similar. I went to college the day after my HS graduation. Picked a major at random and hated nearly every minute of it. The difference is that I just put my head down and forced my way through it as quickly as possible (3 years) before I had a chance to really think about it. Of course, the second I graduated, I knew I didn't like accounting and didn't want to do it. So my degree was virtually worthless. I don't know that my life would be any different if I didn't have a BBA in Accounting. Of course, I now have a BA in Advertising, as well, and I don't think that's going to make any difference, either. But I did that more for fun and for my own edification.
I agree with Mulder and would take it a step further. There are some people who will eventually get a college degree, but who shouldn't go straight out of high school. That should say "I agree with Mulder to an extent". I don't think anyone should be prevented from going to college. I just think there should be better guidance to determine who is a candidate for college now, who should probably take some time off, who should maybe go some other route, etc. But if they still insist on going to college, I don't think they should be stopped from doing so.
What's your point. You think this is a good thing? Texas is in the middle of a financial crisis. The current leadership has done nothing to address it, except brag about not raising taxes. They raised fees out the kazoo, but they don't call them taxes. Ask our Republican Comptroller about it. She raised it as an issue and just got hammered by the last special session for having the nerve. Listen, I have two extremely bright kids. Both are in the GT program, my 7th grader is in the Junior National Honor society, my 2nd grader reads at a 5th grade plus level... and I have their tuition paid for through the Texas Tomorrow Fund. We signed up the first year. Their tuition is paid for regardless of how high it goes up. (and it's not through rising) That option is now shut down. The state has closed new admissions to the program from lack of funds. Much of the reason is the stock market, but the state also chose not to budget money to keep it available. So we're lucky. But what about the vast majority who dream of their children going to a good college or university? Shouldn't it be within their reach to do it? Shouldn't those adults who want to further their education be able to afford it? Doesn't that increase the wealth of the state?? (Andy, UH at Clear Lake is an excellent school. I hope you're able to figure out a way to go)
Yes tuition is raising higher than inflation, I was talking about separate state level support. If state legislatures don't at least keep up their support levels per student (let alone decrease support as mosts states have over the last 2 years as pointed out by the article) is it a surprise college and univ. look for other sources of revenue? These other sources are namely tuition, grants and gifts, of which tuition is the most stable and the most under their control? I may not like it (raising tuition) but compared with students not being able to get their needed classes to graduate and having the best researchers (many of them revenue generating in patents and grants) leave our state systems it is the reality of what is going to happen when states drop or even maintain (but not adjust for inflation) support levels per student. Preferrably to all these outcomes the state picks up a higher percentage of costs for qualified students than it does now, especially those in need of support--but that is opposite of where most states are going right now (Federal student aid has dropped too). As a nation we are pretty weak in funding of all levels of education relative to GNP--not a good sign as the economy gets more global.
I don't think people should be prevented from going. I just think there needs to be more information available to people so that they can find out if college is right for them without taking necessary funding away from people who need it. College is NO JOKE, it is serious business. It is also not an entitlement. That's why I am big fan of the community college system. If you are unsure of what you want to do or were not a superstar in High School, go to a CC and figure it out. If you can't cut it there, don't bother with a four year school. I feel for Andymoon because he probably knows what he wants to do in school and the funding is scarce because some kid is farting around and getting Financial Aid to do it. I get Financial Aid appeals all the time. It makes me nuts when someone doesn't know what they want to do and is flunking everything they take and still wants the government to pay for it until we kick them out.
