Regents: Consider No Tuition Increases Next Year

**cigaretteman** · 09-12-2012, 04:14 PM

State Board of Regents leaders are urging the presidents at Iowa’s three public universities to consider no tuition increase for resident undergraduate students next year, if state funding requests are met.
Regents President Craig Lang, at Wednesday’s board meeting in Ames, said the board is asking the presidents to craft 2013-14 budgets that include tuition unchanged from this year for in-state students. The readiness on the part of the universities to sacrifice millions of dollars in additional tuition revenue shows a “sincere commitment” to Iowa’s students, Lang, of Brooklyn, said.
The board will not discuss next year’s tuition rates until its October meeting, when the three university presidents bring their proposals, but Lang made a statement at today’s meeting about the financial picture because the board today voted on its 2013-14 state funding request, to go to the Legislature in the spring.
Record fall enrollments this year at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University will help those universities if the plan is for no increase to resident undergraduate tuition, Lang said. Projected inflation rates also are expected to be low, he said.
The University of Northern Iowa saw an enrollment decline this year and will have a tougher time with no tuition increase, Lang said, but UNI President Ben Allen has stated his commitment to the idea.
The board today approved its request for a state funding increase of 2.6 percent for next year, as well as the extension for another year of an additional $4 million in state funding to help UNI with its budget challenges.
“If this is achievable, I would like the university presidents” to keep tuition rates unchanged, Lang said. “We will do our utmost to make this work with the support of the Legislature.”

Regents: Universities will consider no tuition increase next year | TheGazette

**IcSyU** · 09-12-2012, 04:31 PM

This year with no increase and declines the following two years would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Tuition cost at Iowa State is out of control and having 1/4 (sloppy math) of the people on campus not paying a dime is a travesty.

**ISUCyclones2015** · 09-12-2012, 04:32 PM

I for one would welcome this. I am definitely skewing the average student loans already. Two years in...

**Judoka** · 09-12-2012, 04:40 PM

I'm sure the presidents would love not to ask for tuition increases. But the Regents are asking the wrong people. The state legislature needs to set the funding levels such that the presidents don't have to ask for tuition increases.

**Cyclonepride** · 09-12-2012, 04:41 PM

If demand keeps increasing as they rise, prices will continue to rise.

**CycloneErik** · 09-12-2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Judoka

I'm sure the presidents would love not to ask for tuition increases. But the Regents are asking the wrong people. The state legislature needs to set the funding levels such that the presidents don't have to ask for tuition increases.

Looks to me like a clever way for the regents to shift the blame for an unpopular decision ahead of time. "We didn't want to do it; the school presidents forced our hand."

That's my first thought. Pure politics.

**Rabbuk** · 09-12-2012, 04:49 PM

The year after I graduate muhfuggas.

**IcSyU** · 09-12-2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

If demand keeps increasing as they rise, prices will continue to rise.

I agree and disagree. Their hands are going to be forced on the tuition set aside which is going to lower tuition substantially. Of course I'm sure Iowa State however will find places other expenses increased immensely and therefore can't give the full set aside percentage back.

I wouldn't have a problem with a 5% or 7% tuition set aside, but 22% is ridiculous. 1/4 of students not paying tuition should be about 1/10 by the time you factor in need based + academic scholarships. Once you do that, tuition will fall in line.

**Cyclonepride** · 09-12-2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

I agree and disagree. Their hands are going to be forced on the tuition set aside which is going to lower tuition substantially. Of course I'm sure Iowa State however will find places other expenses increased immensely and therefore can't give the full set aside percentage back.

I wouldn't have a problem with a 5% or 7% tuition set aside, but 22% is ridiculous. 1/4 of students not paying tuition should be about 1/10 by the time you factor in need based + academic scholarships. Once you do that, tuition will fall in line.

I'm assuming the term set aside refers to charging some students extra to pay for other students' tuition? If so, yes, reducing that horrible practice should help.

**alarson** · 09-12-2012, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

Looks to me like a clever way for the regents to shift the blame for an unpopular decision ahead of time. "We didn't want to do it; the school presidents forced our hand."

That's my first thought. Pure politics.

This was my exact thought as well. Put the tuition increases directly in the hands of the legislators.

**cigaretteman** · 09-13-2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by alarson

This was my exact thought as well. Put the tuition increases directly in the hands of the legislators.

Which is exactly where it belongs.

**IcSyU** · 09-13-2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

I'm assuming the term set aside refers to charging some students extra to pay for other students' tuition? If so, yes, reducing that horrible practice should help.

Bingo. 22% of tuition this year is going to pay for scholarships for those "who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford going to college." I have no problem with TAs and graduate students getting paid to go to school as well as teach (hell, my girlfriend is one of those people). That's a competitive part of academia and getting the graduate students in here that you want.

The problem arises when 31,000 students are paying an extra 22% in tuition simply so others can go to college. Well others, welcome to the real world, where you didn't HAVE to start at Iowa State and could go to DMACC cheaper, then as the rest of us do, take out loans to cover the shortfall or (gasp) get a job.

In the end that 22% ends up being about $700/semester for an average undergraduate instater. Having spent 5 years in school it would've saved me about $8,800. There's a huge chunk of the reason Iowa State's average debt load upon graduation is one of the highest in the country. The majority of the student body is tacking on $6,000-$10,000 in loans (depending on which college you're a student in). Instead of $20,000-$24,000 in student loans they're graduating with $30,000.

**VeloClone** · 09-13-2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

In the end that 22% ends up being about $700/semester for an average undergraduate instater. Having spent 5 years in school it would've saved me about $8,800.

I'm not a fan of it either. However, since you presented it as an option couldn't you have gone to DMACC as well for 2 or 3 semesters to avoid paying some of that which ended up adding to your debt?

**IcSyU** · 09-13-2012, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by VeloClone

I'm not a fan of it either. However, since you presented it as an option couldn't you have gone to DMACC as well for 2 or 3 semesters to avoid paying some of that which ended up adding to your debt?

I absolutely could have but I came out with a manageable level of debt and have a job where I can afford the payments with ease. I worked through college so debt wasn't that big of an issue to me. Heck, I might've been able to go through school loan free without the 22% hike. I won't have an ounce of debt attached to my name at 27 barring some type of catastrophe. Most of the people I graduated with won't be able to say anything close to the same.

Some of that is errors in judgment on taking out loans. Some of that also comes back to Iowa State for tuition set aside. Chances are people would still have overdrawn student loans, but they probably wouldn't have drawn more and by the time you factor in interest at graduation, they probably would easily knock off $10,000 in loans. That's a LOT more manageable in loan payments.

**LutherBlue** · 09-13-2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

Bingo. 22% of tuition this year is going to pay for scholarships for those "who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford going to college." I have no problem with TAs and graduate students getting paid to go to school as well as teach (hell, my girlfriend is one of those people). That's a competitive part of academia and getting the graduate students in here that you want.

The problem arises when 31,000 students are paying an extra 22% in tuition simply so others can go to college. Well others, welcome to the real world, where you didn't HAVE to start at Iowa State and could go to DMACC cheaper, then as the rest of us do, take out loans to cover the shortfall or (gasp) get a job.

In the end that 22% ends up being about $700/semester for an average undergraduate instater. Having spent 5 years in school it would've saved me about $8,800. There's a huge chunk of the reason Iowa State's average debt load upon graduation is one of the highest in the country. The majority of the student body is tacking on $6,000-$10,000 in loans (depending on which college you're a student in). Instead of $20,000-$24,000 in student loans they're graduating with $30,000.

Are you opposed to all forms of need-based financial aid? Or just this one?