As I read through our exchanges on tuition, the complex nature of this issue continues to resurface in everyone's comments. Some readers believe that limiting access in the name of improving quality is the answer. Others argue that broadening access has to be the primary concern above all else. Despite these opposing views, both sides seem to agree that our pending tuition proposal stymies their respective concerns.
The irony, as I see it, is that what we're trying to accomplish with the proposed increase is not about pursuing an "either/or" solution, but rather a long-term strategy for addressing both critical issues of quality and access. The additional reality is that we really don't have the "luxury" of choosing to advance in only one of these areas. If you haven't already reviewed the ASU's Pathway to 2020 presentation, it effectively illustrates the hand we've been dealt and how we're working through it. I've highlighted just a few pages below in response to some recent reader comments, but I still would encourage you to look at the document in its entirety.
I believe you'll see that the case we're making here is not about rhetoric, but about real numbers that aren't going to go away.
Our state is growing rapidly and our university system relies on three state universities. In keeping with the Regents assigned mission to enhance access, ASU currently assumes 95% of the net growth in the university system and it has absorbed 75% of all growth over the last few years. If we didn't have to accommodate growth, all the new dollars we receive could be dedicated to advancing the institution. However, in our current circumstance, it's only net increases above the growth rate that help. As an example, we're not unlike a rate-based public utility that has had to expand its service area without any new capital or operational investment to do so. ABOR requires that we accept all qualified students, but for many years, we received no rate increase to accommodate that expanded service.
In this context, our present proposal calls for a flat rate (at inflation) going forward at our growth campuses (West and Poly). This locks in tuition for the next net 35,000 students coming to ASU. The Tempe campus faces a unique and problematic circumstance - 10,000 students factor into the base of the institutional budget without any state support. We've seen a $1,250 reduction in state investment per student since 1996. This has resulted in ASU receiving 25 to 30% fewer dollars per student from state investment than UA and 5 to 10% fewer dollars per student than NAU. Subsequently, the calculation of tuition is very different for us at ASU.
Nevertheless, in spite of the challenge to educate more students with less money, I'm proud of the progress we've made so far in the areas that are of foremost concern to many of our proposal's critics. While the examples below are only a partial illustration of what we've accomplished overall, they substantiate the headway we're making in terms of expanding access, providing much needed financial aid (to the tune of $70M compared to $400,000 provided by the State), increasing attendance for lowest income students, and enhancing diversity. We have also made progress in enhancing retention, lowering average debt, expanding Pell grant eligible attendance, and setting new records in applications and attendance. We've used previous increases to add additional sections of critical courses, hire much needed faculty and retain quality ASU faculty, enhance campus resources, provide relief to graduate students, and, most importantly, to augment the amount of available financial aid by well over 100%.
All of these actions are meant to make ASU better and not sacrifice quality for access or vice versa. We have to do both in order to truly be responsive to the growing demand for high quality university education.
Thanks for posting about HB
Thanks for posting about HB 2764 and the ABOR comments, as a veteran who relocated to Arizona, I am especially interested in how this all plays out.
After completing nearly 90 college credits across various military bases and installations, I came back to school at ASU and re-started as a freshman with 12 credit hours. And, just like everyone else, I had to wait to qualify as a legal resident of Arizona for tuition purposes.
Both of these served to remind me that if I truly wanted any degree, there were other options available, i.e. University of Phoenix, Western International, or Ottawa University. (And yes, I can recall others attending other more "military-friendly" institutions.). But if I wanted an ASU degree (a highly desirable degree according to most of the local employers I asked), I had to endure ASU's "rules and regulations."
However, I do not believe these "rules" should just be blindly dropped or adjusted. Appeals to residency due to "military relocation" to allow students to pay residential tuition is a viable solution. This seperates out those who are returning to their home state of Arizona, those who are only presently here due to "military orders", and those military or previous military families simply relocating. (Yes, there is a legal federal difference.)
As to the credit hours and agreements, that all comes back to the issue of quality. I learned several of my credit hours were obtained from "accredited" but not the same "level of accredidation" as ASU. But, ASU shouldn't compromise on quality!
Note the article in today's
Note the article in today's State Press by Natalie Hayes titled "Bill would grant in-state tuition to military families".
The bill is House Bill 2764. As described in the article, I totally support this measure.
For the article, see http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2006/03/22/news/696287
I agree with Mr Wright's
I agree with Mr Wright's posts for the most part. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, and it is absolutely true that more resources does not necessarily equal better "quality". However, there is usually some correlation, because as you continue to throw money at an issue, it is bound to improve, however this is surely not the most efficient way of going about improvement.
I believe that the tuition increases that we have seen (and will likely continue to see), will improve the school, however it seems that the increases will primarily be used to adjust for the growth of the school. It appears that ABOR is only prepared to allow for minimal tuition increases which only target growth.
In this circumstance, the school needs to re-evaluate where its money is spent, and maximize efficiency. If at that point more money is needed and the school can present a case that more money is necessary despite the efficiency improvements, then I believe students and possibly ABOR will better understand why more money is necessary, above and beyond growth adjustments. Then again, as I am not directly involved in this arena, things such as this may have already been attempted.
An adjusted tuition for those who have contributed to the state tax base for a longer period of time may work, however there are some issues. Some of the people in the inner city and rural areas have likely paid as much in taxes in 10 years as some people in Scottsdale pay yearly. So if we are talking fairness due to amount of money paid in to the tax base, you may have a problem convincing some people of "fairness".
As for setting out of state tuition according to market conditions, I believe this may be a good idea, however I am unsure of what measures you would use to determine this (rankings and corresponding tuitions, I suspect). However, I would like to know where ASU currently ranks within the country, and the corresponding ranking of its out of state tuition to see if we are truly out of line with the market conditions.
Just my 2 cents...
Some thoughts on
Some thoughts on QUALITY.
The term "quality" means different things to different people.
To those assessing institutions, "performance" is the basis for comparison, via measurable indicators such as:
Instructional Service Levels
Undergraduate Degree Productivity
Doctoral Degree Productivity
Graduation Rates
Success in Acquiring Competitive Research Funds
For example, see http://www.higheredinfo.org/analyses/Executive%20Summary.pdf
This 2005 study notes that "...there is no evidence that higher levels of resources lead to greater performance..."
The study suggests "performance" also depends on other factors, some external to the institution, such as the state's economy; "...states that have more vibrant economies (those that have higher paying jobs for college graduates) have more productive public research institutions."
The study concludes "Not all institutions need more resources, some can perform better with what they have, and some can perform better with fewer resources."
This implies HOW resources are used is fundamentally important. For most of us, this is obvious. Less obvious are the factors that influence how money is used. For some, money is like time, the more they have, the more they waste; their priorities often are spend first, save second and give third, and budgets are for other people. Yet for others, their priorities are give first, save second and spend third, and a working budget is the key to their success. The quality of life and the level of "success" is very different for these two groups of people.
My point is, money is used according to the value system in place. To generalize, values and culture determine spending priorities which determine the quality of experience which determines performance.
I am interested to know what others think those values should be, what messages the culture of the institution should reinforce and how the institution can best promote a set of values and a culture that are conducive to our goals for the New American University.
Ultimately, with a solid foundation of quality, greater resources as requested by the administration can only be a good thing.
A modest proposal...Part
A modest proposal...Part 2
The current system does not distinguish between those residents who have lived in Arizona for a long time and those who live here just long enough to qualify for residency in order to avoid out-of-state tuition. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but we must not confuse their needs with the needs of low and middle income Arizona families who may never be able to afford in-state tuition, let alone send their children out of state. So, in recognition of the fact that long term residents have paid into the system over many years, I propose that in-state tuition be discounted according to length of residency, as determined by the number of years filing taxes in Arizona, either as a taxpayer or a dependent of one. I graduated from Buena High School in Sierra Vista, so I can relate to the needs of rural Arizonans. The economic circumstances in most rural communities warrant special consideration. Differences in cost of living and income between rural and urban areas is signficant, so I suggest that increases in tuition have a disproportionate affect on rural Arizonans, especially if they move to a city to attend college. I suggest the discount would begin at year 5 of residency, and be increased for each year of residency thereafter. I believe this would benefit low income rural and inner city residents most, as most of these are, I suspect, more likely to be long term residents. I rather like the idea of making the discount a half-life, e.g. for every 5 years residency, tuition is reduced by half.
I am interested to know what others think about this idea of providing a progressive discount to residents based on their time in state.
A modest proposal....Part
A modest proposal....Part 1
As I believe our primary responsibility is to serve the people of Arizona, I feel it is appropriate to regulate the costs of instruction to meet the needs of Arizona residents, who may or may not be in a position to consider out-of-state options. However, because out-of-state students select Arizona universities from a wide pool of options, it would be appropriate that out-of-state tuition be set by what the market will bear. This would have the effect of regulating out-of-state enrollment according to a competition more reflective of quality than cost, and allow the administration to proactively influence out-of-state enrollment by adjusting out-of-state tuition according to well considered strategies for enrollment growth. Furthermore, market driven out-of-state tuition rates would track with national demand for ASU and thus better reflect the "value" of an ASU degree. However, some circumstances, such as refugee status or military service, as were mentioned at the tuition hearing with the Regents, should be addressed separate from generic enrollment issues.
I am interested to know what others think of this idea of deregulating out-of-state tuition and setting it according to what the market will bear.
Post new comment