Focusing on the disparity in tuition costs between UW-Madison and other Big Ten universities, Chancellor Martin's Madison Initiative for Undergraduates proposes a yearly progressive hike in tuition. This proposed increase would support greater financial aid, expanded student service and improved faculty retention.
Although the intention of this proposal is on track in many ways, there are a few inherent flaws. For one, the choice of $80,000 as the cutoff that determines whether students will pay the cumulative increase seems to be one of convenience rather than logic. Second, although it seeks to provide aid for students who demonstrate financial need, raising tuition is generally not an ideal process to make the cost of a college education more affordable. Third, as a soon-to-be alumnus of the university, I would much rather see any monetary donation used to retain faculty and be a lure for newer faculty instead of providing financial aid.
To address the first two issues, we should use the Estimated Family Contribution (EFC) of the FAFSA instead of the $80,000 threshold. A counter argument would be that there is generally a low percentage of students who actually fill out the FAFSA. However, in order to be exempt from paying the tuition hike, students whose parents make less than $80,000 will still have to submit documentation proving these circumstances. This only makes the financial aid process more complicated; students whose parents make less than $80,000 will undoubtedly fill out the FAFSA as well. Therefore, the proposed initiative merely increases the paperwork of the financial aid process instead of streamlining it. This works in opposition to the overarching goal of the initiative to make financial aid and a college education ""more accessible.""
In addition, the EFC is far more indicative of the true need of students. It accounts for the number of students attending college from a common household in addition to the household finances. The circumstance of a family earning $70,000 and supporting one student in college is not comparable to a family with a net income of $102,000 and three children in college. In the first case, a single individual's college expenses are supported by an income of $70,000, but the second case is equivalent to each child's expenses being supported by an income of $34,000 apiece. Chancellor Martin's response to this circumstance was to have each individual seek out consultation with the university's financial aid office. If this were done for every case, there should be an allocation of tuition funds from this initiative to hire new staff to aid with the influx of petitions.
Funds raised through the tuition hike would also go to slow the exodus of faculty from the university and to entice potential faculty to join the ranks of educators.
Faculty are the heart and soul of a university; they are the constant ones in the continuous cycle of students passing through every four to five years. Therefore, it is of great interest to the students, alumni and administration that high caliber faculty are sought and retained. I would like to see a greater percentage of the funds from this initiative applied to the pursuit of faculty rather than financial aid. In addition, if the UW Foundation were to match all initiative funds used in the maintenance of faculty, then I am sure alumni and students would be far more supportive of this cause.
The Chancellor earnestly wants student feedback. I encourage all students to visit the initiative's website: http://madisoninitiative.wisc.edu to gather more information. Although some students say the initiative will not impact them (particularly since half of the current undergraduate populace may be graduating within the next year), it is still the duty of all UW-Madison students to ensure that UW-Madison is enacting a policy that is beneficial to current and future students. We all will become alumni one day and will be ambassadors for the school. We have witnessed apathy on financial issues from campus topics like the funding for Union South to national events such as bonuses to AIG. Do not let this initiative go unexamined or unquestioned. Only through questioning can we truly strengthen that which we hold true.
Sean McMaster is a junior majoring in biochemistry and mathematics. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
