Although we all come from different backgrounds, are majoring in different subjects and have different goals and expectations for ourselves, every single UW-Madison student can agree with the following statement: Tuition hikes suck.
Unfortunately, these increases are inevitable, even in the midst of a recession. Chancellor Biddy Martin's Undergraduate Initiative proposal is yet another justification for an additional tuition increase. However, is it a practical and justified burden to place on students? The short answer is yes, but despite the many issues Martin's Undergraduate Initiative proposal addresses, it also unfortunately contains several flaws which need to be dealt with before the proposal itself actually takes effect.
Martin's proposal does address a very important problem currently facing the UW-Madison campus: faculty retention. In the 2007 report by the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits, the number of faculty leaving UW-Madison in pursuit of better opportunities over the past four years has doubled as compared to the four years prior to that. In addition, the same report also pointed out that UW-Madison professors earn, on average, 13 percent less than the average salary of 11 peer colleges to UW-Madison.
However, faculty retention is not the only problem the proposal is tackling—improving advising services and offering more courses to ensure that students can get the degrees they need are also addressed.
Unfortunately, this means that next year's seniors and juniors will likely see very little, if any, benefit from this proposal. Better faculty and more of the most popular courses will certainly help incoming freshmen and will probably aid at least a majority of next year's sophomores. Having completed a good portion of our academic work, juniors and seniors will not be seeing very many perks in exchange for the hundreds more many will have to pay.
So what can be done for next year's seniors and juniors, who see nothing of the predicted benefit, but still have to pay hundreds extra in tuition? Some may argue that it's not that much, and only those who come from moderately well-off families will actually have to pay it, but is this still fair? There are a large percent of students who come from families making $80,000 or more, but pay their own tuition and expenses. To those students who do have to pay their own tuition, that ""little bit"" really adds up quickly. This must be addressed by Martin before any final decision can really be reached.
Martin is correct in phasing in the tuition hikes slowly rather than just smacking us all at once, but phasing in who pays would also be a smart move. Adding the extra charges onto the bills of only those who will actually see any results —next year's freshmen and sophomores—would be the best choice for Martin. Then, after next year, have students at the junior level and below pay and finally, have all students pay the increased tuition in two years. This way, those who are most likely to see any benefit will be paying for it.
Lastly, is it really fair for families making $80,000 a year or more to pick up the tab on this initiative? It is true that more financially strapped families should not be expected to have to pay for these increased services, but more economically secure individuals be paying to better the education of students they don't even know? Would a smaller tuition hike, which would be applied to all students, be a better option? This is something Martin needs to discuss with students openly and bluntly. If the majority of students are on board with such a proposal, then there is no reason to back down from it. However, sticking students who come from well-off families with the bill may not be the best idea, either.
In the long run, I do applaud Martin's efforts and am glad to see the open dialogue she is keeping with students. Hopefully, when all is said and done, we can accomplish something that benefits students and faculty and, of course, keep tuition down.
Ryan Dashek is a junior majoring in biology. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
