Tuition increases. Where’s the money?

5/3/2013: UO tuition increases. Diane Dietz reports in the RG on UO’s proposed 6% tuition and fee increase. That’s at least $15M in new tuition revenue on top of the the $29M or so from last year. The union wage proposal costs about $25M, but not until 2014-15. From OUS:

And on strange increases in the operating budget, 5/2/2013: I don’t understand this. UO’s reports to OUS show our operating revenue has doubled in 4 years, from $438M in 2008-09, to an estimated $866M for the year ending June 2013. The year over year is even stranger. Numbers from UO’s January report to OUS, here. UO’s estimated operating revenues increased from $735M last year to an estimated $866M this year. That’s an 18% increase:

  • $3M in new state funds.
  • $29M in new E and G, which seems to be mostly new tuition. More than enough to fund the union’s raise proposals, which don’t even fully kick in until 2014-15.
  • $100M in “Other Funds”, on a base of $336M. That’s huge. OSU has an even bigger increase. PSU has a decrease.

Any ideas about where that new Other Funds money is coming from, where it’s going, and if it’s recurring? I assume the answer is hidden somewhere in the redacted parts of Jamie Moffitt’s secret budget slides, but that’s not much help. Helpful reviews can help you decide if the service is right for you and your financial profile.



And compare that $866M to the $560M in operating revenues for 2010-11. Or the $438M for 2008-09, from p 54, here:



Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Tuition increases. Where’s the money?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Dog says

    one tactic of investigation might be to look
    at the OSU financial web pages as they are
    far more transparent – this might help to identify what categories of funds go into this
    “Other Funds” may be private donor dollars that
    can be counted in many different ways.

    It also might be useful to find out what the actual total instructional salaries are here at the UO.

    A rough estimate – 2000 teaching faculty (according to the Union)

    so let’s say 700 TTF at 75K each = 52.5 Mill
    OPE on that @ 45% = 75 Mill in round numbers

    1300 instructors @ 40K average = 52 Mill
    OPE on that @ 55% average = 80 Mill

    so my round number guess is that the UO spends
    150 Mill a year to process/teach students.

    a 5% ATB is then just 7.5 Mill or less than 1%
    of the operating budget as listed above –
    but of course we have no money …

    and of course, real math doesn’t matter

    • Three-Toed Sloth says:

      Now now, Dog. As Moffitt very carefully explained, Admin has several dozen budgetary priorities that come before raising faculty salaries up from the gutter. How dare you snark so!

  2. Anonymous says:

    You’ve obviously hacked the OUS servers and manufactured these increases to serve your own purpose. That’s the only reasonable explanation for why it might otherwise appear that our administrators are either incompetent or completely self-serving boobs.

  3. Anonymous says:

    ANOTHER tuition raise? WHAT FOR? 6%? My wife and I just decided that even though our children qualify for the decreased faculty tuition rates in the OUS, it is STILL going to be easier for us to send our children to Europe. They can have a world class education for less than an 8th of these tuition rates. On average, European Universities ask 200 Euros per term ‘administrative fees’. In addition, they will have a full immersion in another culture and language – valuable skills/experience they wouldn’t have here. Bottom line: IT IS NOT WORTH IT! Make sure your children get an IB at IHS and send them abroad! The best is: your children enter their professional lives without ANY dept.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know who is determining tuition levels for the UO now? Larry Singell was heavily involved before his departure. Is anyone minding the anticipated market responses to these price hikes?

  5. Leporello says:

    Questioned about high administration costs, Jamie opined “But Moffitt said the administration consists of 1,100 people, including librarians and Internet technology specialists, and sometimes people don’t understand that when they look at administrative costs.”

    Really Jamie…librarians? Somehow all the librariansI know got overlooked when Johnson Hall was handing out the 15-20% raises last year.

    Didn’t she have anybody else to throw under the bus? People dont understand admin costs??? Does Jamie think they’re just too stupid?

    • Anonymous says:

      The library dean and AULs all made over $100,000 before their last year’s raises of 5-8%. I might call them Administrators. I would not in general call a librarian below their rank an administrator, nor the many other lesser-paid OAs and “internet tech specialists” who don’t actually administer policy like presidents, VPs for this and that, and provosts for thus and so do….

  6. Anonymous says:

    Jamie, librarians are classified as faculty.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Now how can librarians be classified as faculty after the multicultural brouhaha in the 90s? Do they get rank? I thought that after that event, no one but a TTF would be known as faculty with rank. And I thought that no one but persons who actually teach in the classroom would be known as faculty. I have a letter from Lorraine Davis stating that. So the library got a big pass on this?

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s in the OAR’s:

      Forget what some administrator said or wrote around here – they have been known to be completely full of shit.

    • Frank Stahl says:

      Not the first time Lorraine is unaware. As I was approaching retirement, I served (with Lorraine) on the Emeritus Committee. My motive was to understand what I was heading toward. I asked Lorraine about opportunities for Emeriti to participate in UO governance. She assured me that Emeriti were members of the Assembly. However, according to the governing document of the time (Senate Charter) they were not (despite the occasion when DF said they were, perhaps to make it more difficult for the Assembly to meet a fictitious quorum).

  8. Anonymous says:

    to the anonymous stating that they were sending their kids to college in Europe, because it was oh so much cheaper — what do you think makes the difference in your tuition cost? HMMMM…. could it be the fact that in Europe they actually pay taxes to support higher education? Their universities might get more than 5% of their operating costs covered by the state?

    So your complaints are in the wrong direction. The state of Oregon has willfully unfunded higher ed so that now they only cover 5% of our costs. So I guess by sending your kids to college in Europe you are the worst kind of moocher. You didn’t pay the taxes to support that system.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ha! Please make no assumptions without knowing who you are talking about. – I worked 9 years in Europe and paid taxes there and here. I am occasionally also supporting projects for the elderly and special-needs programs at Universities in Europe and the States. I honestly don’t think I need have a bad conscience.

      The State of Oregon has obviously lost its perspective on priorities, and the UO aims at becoming a “business” a la Nike. Personally, I do not believe education should be a business, and it is not something one should sell or buy. But since the State and the UO want it this way, then I (my children) will act as a ‘customer’ and take my bucks where I get the most bang for them.

      And of course you are correct – it is a shame that the UO Administration places the burden of lower and lower state support squarely on students (or uses it as an excuse for having to do so), or that the admins fill their own pockets with obscene salaries, while short-changing TTF/NTTFs AND raising tuition.
      There are multiple ways to counteract the trend. One of them is voicing our opinions here. Another is to act like the ‘customers’ they want us to be. SO – I will take my hard earned $$ where my twins get the most for them. This decision is in addition consistent with me not receiving COLA since what, 2009?