| mySPIN |
 Capping the Tuition Debate
by Tom Campbell
October 12, 2006
UNC President Erskine Bowles is caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. On the one hand he is forced to heed a vaguely worded provision in Article IX, Section 9 of our state constitution that says, “The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the state free of expense.” On the other hand he has to manage a system in which costs are escalating every year and funding is a perpetual problem.
The proposal to cap tuition increases at 6.5 percent follows a herky-jerky 30 year tradition in which tuitions increased, on average that same percentage. Some years there was no increase, others saw hikes as much as 24 percent.
Richard Bostic, of the Fiscal Research staff of the legislature, points out that the average cost to educate a student at our 16 campus system is $13,048. The average tuition is $2,713, demonstrating that taxpayers of our state are subsidizing each student $10,335 per year. In comparison with other flagship universities across the country, only 12 were lower in cost than UNC Chapel Hill. Insofar as the comprehensive universities (Appalachian, East Carolina, NCCU, Western Carolina, Winston-Salem State) only 4 in the U.S. were lower in cost than ours. Clearly in-state students are getting a bargain.
Nothing, in any of the debate over higher education, addresses cost containments that would match the tuition caps. To cap one side of the equation without some limits on increases on the other is to guarantee continued dissension over tuitions.
The heart of this debate revolves around our constitutional provision. More specifically, what does the phrase “as far as practicable” mean? Is it practicable for a student to pay 10 percent of the overall cost? 25 percent? 40 percent? Or what?
We have three basic options in deciding this question. The first is to continue doing what we are doing, a strategy that is sure to keep this issue on the front burner constantly. The second is to change the constitution, which would likely open Pandora’s Box, and isn’t likely to happen. The third, and most practical solution, is for our state to decide what amount is a fair and practicable percentage of the overall costs that should be borne by the taxpayers and what percentage should be paid by the students. Once resolved, tuition is a non-issue.
Let’s put a cap on the ongoing and unproductive discussion over tuition increases and instead spend our time on the ultimate goal of our universities – delivering the highest quality of education possible to our students.
|
|
