I'm attending University of Houston Law Center (UHLC) as an evening student, since the Fall 2009 semester. The proposed tuition increases at the University of Houston in general and at the Law Center in particular are a big concern to me. As you can see on page 4 of these materials presented to the Finance Committee of the UH Board of Regents at their meeting on 10 February 2010, the Law Center is proposing a 40% increase in resident tuition for students who joined in Fall 2009 and Fall 2008. The increase for the class entering in Fall 2010 is even greater; for residents, the increase is 65%, and for non-residents, 132%. Yes, if I am reading it correctly, that's the increase, not the resulting tuition as a percent of the current rate.
I understand the need to increase tuition as state funding drops and expenses go up. The campus-wide rise seems to be pegged at a little less than 4%, which seems reasonable, especially as it's paired with an increase in student aid, and a rise in the maximum income a family can earn while still qualifying for the Cougar Promise of free tuition. The Regents and the administration have a duty as stewards of our tuition to spend that wisely on education: to fund research and programs to enhance learning, and to attract and retain great faculty. I wouldn't have any objection to an increase of that magnitude.
I do, however, object to the purpose stated in the Justification for the increase at the Law Center: Support for advancement to top 30 school status including faculty salaries and new facilities. Let me address each element separately:
- Advancement to top 30 status. The Law Center administration may argue, much as Dr. Rupp did at Rice University almost 20 years ago, that a top tier university should be charging top tier tuition rates. I won't address the merit of that decision; it seems to have worked out more or less well at Rice, and it would be possible to gather data on how that increase affected the demographics there. Assuming arguendo that raising tuition for incoming students is acceptable because they've not yet decided to turn down offers elsewhere, I submit that incorporating such a "prestige premium" for current students is unconscionable. Students currently attending UHLC relied on the Fall 2008/2009 tuition scale when they made their decisions (in many cases) to move to Houston and turn down offers from other schools. The time and money these current students have already invested in a career at UHLC were made relying, perhaps in large part, on the cost of that education. It's not enough to offer to offset the increase with expanded access to student loans; that merely pushes the problem to after graduation, when it becomes even more difficult (for example) to decide to enter a public interest position, or to go into practice for one's self (perhaps in one's small home town). And it certainly doesn't do anything for those who may be paying for their education themselves.
-
New facilities. Heaven knows UH needs to rebuild the Law Center; just last week, during the heavy rains, we had water leaking in, and some ceiling tiles soak through and drop to the floor. This sounds dramatic, but it's not surprising for a building its age. Nevertheless, new buildings should be built with funds from a capital campaign which solicits contributions from alumni (and even current students). Even after such fund raising there will be a significant amount which will need to be financed; however, that should reasonably be added to the tuition of the students who will be enjoying the new facilities. It makes no sense to force current students to start paying for a building we'll never see or use.
One could argue that a new Law Center campus would add to the school's reputation and prestige, and that such improvements would be to our benefit in our careers. However that benefit would also accrue to alumni and to the future students using the facilities. We current students would be in the strange position of being compelled to pay for the new facilities (unlike alumni) while never receiving the benefit of the new building (as would future students).
The Board of Regents meets on Tuesday 16 February 2010 to vote on the proposed tuition increases. Law Center alumni on the board include Jarvis V. Hollingsworth of Bracewell Giuliani; Nandita V. Berry of Locke Lorde Bissell and Lidell; Nelda Luce Blair of The Blair Firm; Jacob M. Monty of Monty Partners; and Carroll Robertson Ray of Andrews and Kurth. I hope they take all these considerations into account and choose to vote against increasing tuition for current students at their alma mater.
0 comments:
Post a Comment