Tag Archives: tuition

OK, so that’s not exactly what went down at tonight’s Town Hall on the guaranteed tuition plan. The Emerald’s Ryan Nguyen has a more nuanced report here.

As for the plan itself, it goes against what both the neoclassical *and* behavioral economic models predict about student enrollment decisions. So I’d give Roger Thompson a 50/50 chance of pulling it off.

As it happens there’s a good Economics undergrad honor’s thesis about guaranteed tuition here, by one of my former students.

From President Schill:

University of Oregon community members,

I have received recommendations from the students, faculty, and staff who comprise the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB) and am now ready to receive campus input on an innovative guaranteed tuition model for undergraduates that deserves serious consideration. This tuition plan is a change from past practices, and I encourage the campus community to look closely at the new tuition model proposed by TFAB. I am strongly inclined to support the guaranteed tuition concept because it addresses a persistent challenge within higher education and provides real benefits to both current and future University of Oregon students.

I am asking the campus to offer feedback on the details of this plan so that I can make an informed and thoughtful recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees, which will set tuition rates at its regular meeting on March 17. I will be hosting a student forum on the plan this Monday, February 24, at 6:00 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom. Pizza, salad, and refreshments will be provided. If you cannot make the forum, please take time to leave electronic feedback on this form by 5:00 p.m., Friday, February 28.

A tremendous amount of uncertainty is built into our current tuition-setting model and this new approach is about eliminating that uncertainty for students and families so that they can more easily navigate planning and paying for college. It is a noteworthy departure from the traditional system that has been around for decades. Every year at the UO we go through the same process—we analyze how much university operating expenses will increase, determine how much will be covered by state appropriations, and come up with a tuition rate that will generate enough revenue to cover all or most of the difference. Annual tuition jumps have ranged from nearly 20 percent in conjunction with state budget cuts during the height of the recession to under 3 percent in years when state funding has been more abundant. The one constant has been that tuition always goes up—an average of 5.4 percent annually for residents over the last decade, 4.4 percent for nonresidents during that same period. We have an opportunity now to end that cycle of tuition uncertainty for students who enroll at the UO.

The guaranteed tuition model recommended by TFAB locks in a tuition rate for incoming students that they can count on for five years. No increases. No surprises. Students will know the cost of their education at the UO—one guaranteed price for tuition and all administratively controlled fees that does not change from the time a student enrolls to the time they walk across the stage at commencement (assuming they graduate in five years or fewer). Higher education is one of the most important investments many people make in their lifetime, and this eliminates the guesswork of predicting how much tuition will cost. It is a model used at peer institutions such as the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Arizona. In fact, the ten-campus University of California System is also considering a similar proposal.

Here’s how it would work at the UO under this proposal. For the first year of the new program, TFAB is recommending a tuition increase of 10.75 percent for new resident undergraduate students and 7.5 percent increase for new nonresident students. After the rate is set for that cohort of students, tuition would not go up for five years—the per-credit-hour rate would be locked, frozen for half a decade. We would also lock all fees for the EMU, recreation center, health services, buildings, technology support, and international student fees (if applicable), as well as differential tuition for the Clark Honors College and Lundquist College of Business. The only fee not included in the model would be the incidental fee set by the student government. If this model is approved by our Board of Trustees, we would set a tuition rate for the incoming class each year and make the same five-year guaranteed tuition promise to every cohort of new students that enters the UO. We expect the increase for future cohorts to be similar to past annual increases, under 5 percent.

Transfer students would also benefit from the program, paying the same tuition rate as the freshman cohort in the year they enroll and that rate would be locked for the same five-year period. What about students who take longer to graduate than five years? In the sixth year, those students would pay the tuition rate of the class immediately behind them. If they were to take seven years, the rate would bump up to the class immediately behind that, and so on if it were to take longer. Students who are called away from school to serve active duty in the military would receive an exemption on their five-year guarantee window, meaning that they could return to the UO under the guaranteed tuition program the year after they end their military service.

Additionally, this would have no impact on the PathwayOregon scholarship program, which pays 100 percent of tuition and fees for qualifying Federal Pell Grant-eligible Oregonians. For students who receive other scholarships and grants, the guaranteed tuition plan would benefit them because the real value of their financial aid packages would stay consistent during their enrollment instead of diminishing every year in the face of tuition increases.

What about current students? TFAB has recommended that we provide a higher level of assurance and confidence around tuition rates for our continuing classes. For current students, both resident and nonresident undergraduates, the advisory board has recommended that we lock tuition increases at 3 percent per year for the next four years. I am comfortable with this proposal given that such increases are much lower annually than what students at the UO have seen on average over the last decade.

I want to be clear that this program is not without risk. The difference is that, in the past, students and families bore the brunt of that risk, particularly as it related to the strong correlation between state funding and in-state tuition. Under this new plan, the risk would shift to the institution, which must manage financial resources to account for year-over-year fluctuations in state support, potentially dramatic swings if, for instance, the state or nation were to experience a recession. For that reason, we are building a reserve of $20 million, mostly funded through philanthropy, which will be dedicated to hedging against potential state budget fluctuations and ensuring that we can continue the guaranteed tuition program for generations of future students.

I want to thank the entire TFAB for its hard work and dedication. This innovative new idea is the product of nearly a dozen open meetings and hours and hours of analysis and work by a group of volunteer students, faculty, and staff who care deeply about the UO and our ability to deliver quality, affordability, and accessibility. Please take time to review the TFAB recommendations and find out more about the proposal on a frequently asked questions page. That page also has information about the TFAB’s recommendations on graduate tuition rates and fee levels.

I look forward to hearing your feedback and insights.

Thank you.

Michael H. Schill, President and Professor of Law

Don’t bother clicking on this link. It’s not very informative, and where it tries, it’s wrong. For some solid info on these programs, read the 2015 story by former RG reporter Diane Dietz, here, on Thompson’s previous attempt to pitch this to the Trustees.

Just kidding, they’re actually talking about cuts to museums, OA’s and staff, and increasing in-state tuition. There is no sign that the Rob Mullens and the Ducks will even be asked to cut their bloated budget or the subsidies they take from the academic side. This recent report in Oregon Business, by Caleb Diehl, has an excellent story on the subsidies UO’s academic budget gives the Duck Athletic empire, here. Some snippets:

You can’t make this stuff up. Zack Demars has the story in the Daily Emerald on the “deliberations” of the Tuition Fee Advisory Board, here:

… One of the major considerations by the board was public perception: The board settled on 2.97 percent to keep the advertised increase slightly below $1,000 per year so as not to deter potential new students, who are needed to increase the tuition-paying population.

The proposal, which only impacts out-of-state undergraduate students, would increase the cost of a single credit by $22 next academic year. For a full-time student taking 15 credits a term, that shakes out to an increase of $990 a year, an increase slightly larger than last year’s 2.49 percent nonresident increase.

TFAB will consider and propose changes to resident tuition in the spring, after more data is available about how much the state legislature will contribute to the university, which of two revenue proposals the state will approve and how many new students enroll next year. …

Since I try to avoid meetings where the decision has already been made behind closed doors,  I skipped this. But there appears to have been no discussion of price elasticities, discount rates, differential tuition, or what the point is in spending money on out-of-state marketing, branding, recruiters, and subsidizing Rob Mullens’s big-time athletic enterprise if our tuition setting process boils down to this.

And since it apparently does, why not go to $999? That extra $9 would bring in about $90K, recurring – enough to pay for half a brander.

Hannah Karik has the report from last week in the Emerald here. A few students – presumably not from the Honors College – responded with brief chants of “fuck the Oregon Legislature” as they walked out. Or that’s what I think I heard.

Meanwhile the Law School is still offering tuition discounts of 50% for law students. No discussion from the trustees of that.

Meanwhile up at PSU, they’ve matched UO’s PathwayOregon with “Four Years Free” and now extended it to low SES transfers:

The gist: 2.84% in-state, 2.49% out-of state, nothing new on increasing the discount rate for low-SES and high-achieving students, and only the sketchiest data on where the money is going:

To University of Oregon Community Members,

Pursuant to university policy, I have received tuition and fee recommendations for the 2018–19 academic year from the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB), a campus body made up of students, administrators, and members of the faculty and staff. TFAB members conducted eight public meetings and participated in two student forums over a four-month period to arrive at this set of recommendations, which are based on detailed review and analysis of relevant university budget and financial data.

I want to express my deepest thanks to TFAB members for their hard work, transparent process, and commitment to both maintaining affordability and enhancing academic quality at the University of Oregon.

The committee’s recommendations include an increase in tuition of $6 per credit, or $270 per year, for in-state undergraduate students. Nonresident undergraduate students would see tuition rise by $18 per credit, or $810 annually. For the 2018–19 academic year, this equates to a 2.84 percent increase in undergraduate tuition for in-state students and a 2.49 percent increase for out-of-state students. The TFAB recommendations also include a $7 increase in the student health center service fee, which will help expand health and counseling services for students. 

I invite you to review TFAB’s full tuition proposal and to provide input using this online comment form by 8:00 p.m., Thursday, February 15. In addition, we will host a student forum at 5:30 p.m. this Thursday in the Alumni Lounge, Gerlinger Hall. I hope you can join me for the event.

After receiving input from the forum and online comments, I will provide that feedback to President Michael Schill, who will make a draft recommendation for additional public review. The president will then make a final tuition recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees for consideration at its next regular meeting on March 2.

Thank you.

Jayanth Banavar

Provost and Senior Vice President

Earlier this year the Oregon legislature agreed to increase spending on higher education, so long as universities agree to cut tuition increases. This latest working paper shows that it might have been better for our students – in terms of completion and time to degree – if UO had been free to spend the state money on improving advising and teaching instead:

The Impact of Price Caps and Spending Cuts on U.S. Postsecondary Attainment

David J. Deming, Christopher R. Walters

NBER Working Paper No. 23736
Issued in August 2017
NBER Program(s):ED, LS, PE, PR

Increasing the postsecondary attainment rate of college-age youth is an important economic priority in the U.S. and in other developed countries. Yet little is known about whether different forms of public subsidy can increase degree completion. In this paper, we compare the impact of the marginal taxpayer dollar on postsecondary attainment when it is spent on lowering tuition prices versus increasing the quality of the college experience. We do so by estimating the causal impact of changes in tuition and spending on enrollment and degree completion in U.S. public postsecondary institutions between 1990 and 2013. We estimate these impacts using a newly assembled data set of legislative tuition caps and freezes, combined with variation in exposure to state budget shocks that is driven by differences in historical reliance on state appropriations. We find large impacts of spending on enrollment and degree completion. In contrast, we find no impact of price changes. Our estimates suggest that spending increases are more effective per-dollar than price cuts as a means of increasing postsecondary attainment.

It’s official:

Dear University of Oregon community members,

Today the Higher Education Coordinating Commission reconsidered and approved the University of Oregon’s resident undergraduate tuition plan for the 2017-18 academic year. This decision allows the university to move forward with certainty and a well-thought-out plan for managing our finances.

I am extremely grateful to the commissioners for reversing their initial decision on our tuition plan. We appreciate that they were willing to reassess information about our tuition-setting process, our engagement with students and other campus stakeholders, and the untenable cuts to programs and student services we would have had to make without this source of funding. I am already actively working to improve these outreach and collaboration processes with various campus constituencies for next year, although we hope not to be faced with the same financial choices as this year.

As I have said many times, no one wants to increase tuition. The unfortunate fact is that decades of declining state support, coupled with increased expenses, has left us with very little choice. Even with the HECC’s approval of our plan, we have many difficult decisions ahead. The university has already identified $4.5 million in cuts, and an ad hoc advisory budget committee will be identifying another approximately $4 million in reductions or new revenue sources to close our funding gap.

I want to thank the many people who participated in this tuition setting process. These are challenging financial times for the university and the state. But we cannot be deterred. These constraints challenge us to find better ways to meet our educational mission and deliver outstanding student experiences. We must focus and think strategically about our priorities, and ensure that we efficiently and carefully spend every precious dollar we receive from students and their families, tax payers, and our donors.

We are up to the challenge, and I remain ever focused on making the University of Oregon the very best it can be.

Sincerely,

Michael Schill
President and Professor of Law

May 25 update: From the RG’s facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/registerguard

I think PSU passed unanimously, and UO was 7-1. The opposing HECC member seemed to be concerned about a perceived lack of racial and ethnic diversity at UO.

May 15 2017: OSU reveals UO’s next steps on OSA/HECC’s rejection of tuition increase

Here’s the latest from UO’s government and community relation’s office, courtesy of “Around the O”:

Cute, but not very informative and way out-of-date. If you’re looking for substance on what UO will do next, try OSU:

From: “Mills, Jock” <[email protected]>
Subject: [Government_Relations_Update] May Salem Update
Date: May 15, 2017 at 4:28:05 PM PDT
To: “‘[email protected]‘” <[email protected]>

… Last week, the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) approved requests for resident, undergraduate tuition increases above 5% for Western Oregon University, Oregon Tech, and Southern Oregon University. HECC did not approve requests from Portland State University and the University of Oregon. Those universities are in conversation with HECC staff and the Commission about reconsidering the votes by which HECC denied those requests. If at least five of the voting Commissioners agree to provide approval, the HECC will convene a meeting within the next two weeks to reconsider the votes. The Oregon Student Association (OSA) had a strong presence at the HECC meeting and disrupted the meeting briefly during Commission deliberations. OSA has signaled that it would continue to oppose requests for tuition increases but that their focus will generally shift to the Legislature and the need for increased revenue. To that end, OSA is planning on phone banking on May 17 and holding lobby days on May 24 and June 6 with SEIU and other partners. …

Full report below the break:

Continue reading →

An excerpt from Pres Schill’s letter:

As I have already noted, we will do everything we can to shield our most vulnerable
students from the impact of this proposed tuition increase. The PathwayOregon
program continues to provide full tuition and fees to about 2,000 Pell Grant–eligible
resident students on our campus, including more than a third of our first-year resident
students. [UOM: Thanks in part to the generosity of Trustee Connie Ballmer.]
We have also made significant progress toward achieving the goals set when
we announced the Oregon Commitment in 2015, which provides advising, planning,
and academic resources to help every student at the university graduate in a timely
fashion. To every extent possible, we intend to maintain the integrity of those important
efforts.

TFAB report here: http://ir.uoregon.edu/sites/ir.uoregon.edu/files/TFAB_Memo_2-9-17.pdf. They are reporting the following cost increases:

Despite that $11M salary increase – a good chunk of which goes to upper administrators – UO faculty pay is getting worse, relative to our comparators:

For 2015-16, UO Assistant profs averaged 94% of AAU public university salaries, Associates 95%, Fulls 87%. That’s down from 95%, 98%, and 89% the year before. So UO is not going to be able to maintain “excellence” without more money.

No differential tuition for B-School this year, and the in-state tuition increases will be bought down if the legislature coughs up more money:

Full text of the letter:

To University of Oregon community members,

Pursuant to university policy, the provost and I have received the recommendations of
the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB), a body containing students,
administrators, and members of the faculty and staff. Among the recommendations is an
increase in tuition of $21 per credit hour—or $945 per year—for in-state undergraduate
students. The TFAB recommends the same increase for out-of-state undergraduates
students of $21 per credit hour, or $945 annually. For the 2017–18 academic year, this
equates to a 10.6 percent increase in undergraduate tuition for in-state students and a 3
percent increase for out-of-state students. The TFAB also recommended various tuition
increases for graduate tuition and a new technology fee of $50 per term.

I regret that I have little choice but to accept the TFAB recommendations on tuition and
fees for next year. Pursuant to university policy, I am posting the TFAB
recommendations together with this memorandum for public comment. After receiving
public input, I will forward my final tuition recommendation to the UO Board of
Trustees for consideration at its next regular meeting on March 2–3.

I wish it were not necessary for us to increase tuition by these significant amounts.
Although the vast majority of our lowest-income students will be spared from this
increase by the PathwayOregon scholarship program, for some students a $945 increase
will make attending the UO difficult or impossible. Yet the state’s fiscal problems leave
us no choice. Oregon’s disinvestment in higher education over more than two decades
has shifted the burden of paying for college from the state to our students and families.
In 2015, the state made some positive moves toward addressing this trend with an
increase in funding, which was greatly appreciated. The governor’s recommended
budget, however, keeping funding flat over the next biennium in the face of rapidly
rising costs, returns us to the previous status quo of disinvestment.

Only four other states in the nation provide less funding per student for higher
education than Oregon. That is simply unacceptable. Public universities in Oregon have
calculated that it would take at least an additional $100 million in state support for
public higher education to preserve core student services and financial aid. If we
received this amount we would voluntarily limit tuition increases to about 5 percent.
Flat funding may not sound like a reduction, but the university is forecasting very large
cost increases over the next couple of years—largely created by salary increases from
collective bargaining agreements and unfunded retirement costs. These increased costs
amount to roughly $25 million.

Even with the substantial tuition increases recommended by the TFAB, the university
will still need to close an $8.8 million recurring gap in our budget for next year. We
have already begun a process, aided by faculty members, administrators, and students,
to identify how we can create new revenue streams and/or cut expenses. Roughly 80
percent of our educational budget pays the salaries of our faculty, staff, and
administrators. Therefore, any efforts to cut the budget will inevitably lead to a loss of
jobs and pain to our community.

As we move forward, we will strive to protect the academic and research programs of
the university. Our goal will be to continue and accelerate the progress we have seen
over the past couple of years in enhancing excellence in teaching and research,
including investments in faculty hiring, research infrastructure, and support for student
access and success programs. Budget challenges will make this harder and may require
difficult choices, but we cannot and will not take our eyes off the pursuit of excellence
in all that we do at the UO.

As I have already noted, we will do everything we can to shield our most vulnerable
students from the impact of this proposed tuition increase. The PathwayOregon
program continues to provide full tuition and fees to about 2,000 Pell Grant–eligible
resident students on our campus, including more than a third of our first-year resident
students. We have also made significant progress toward achieving the goals set when
we announced the Oregon Commitment in 2015, which provides advising, planning,
and academic resources to help every student at the university graduate in a timely
fashion. To every extent possible, we intend to maintain the integrity of those important
efforts.

It is my hope that we can still avoid raising tuition by more than 10 percent and
reducing our budget through layoffs and attrition. I call on all of our constituents—
students, faculty and staff members, alumni, and friends—to join me in requesting that
the legislature and governor prioritize higher education and stop shifting the cost of
educating our future workforce to our students and their families. Over the next several
months I will be in Salem urging our lawmakers to remember that the future of our state
is being shaped in places like Eugene, Corvallis, and Portland. Please join me in that
effort.

If, collectively, we are successful, we can reduce the tuition increase. The TFAB
recommendation estimates that each $20 million increment in increased state funding
for public higher education would allow the UO to reduce the proposed resident
undergraduate tuition increase by roughly 1 percentage point. The full $100 million in
state support for higher education would result in a 5.1 percent recommended tuition increase
at the UO. Increases of state support would also reduce the operating cuts that
would be needed in the coming year. This would significantly help our students, their
families, and our employees.

Ultimately, we likely will not know how state funding for higher education will shake
out until June or July of this year, which is when state lawmakers historically approve
the budget for the next biennium. I will continue to keep the UO campus community
abreast of changes to our budget situation and the potential impact on the UO campus
as information becomes available.

I invite you to comment on the tuition proposal prior to my making a final
recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees. Please provide input using this form by
5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 17, 2017.

Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law