Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Fri 03-29-2024 3:47AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Senate bill 389 - Tuition locked to inflation
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 9:50AM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Sun 05-01-2005 4:29PM
Posts: 501

Source: Off Campus
I've heard this this in the news, but recently I was surprised to receive an email from students *against* this bill. I don't understand why tuition has increased so much faster than inflation, and it seems tuition locked to inflation is how it should be. I suppose it could be that this a ploy to allow the state to give less money to universities, and it could mean that tuition goes up dramatically to make up the shortfall. Either way, something has got to happen, whether it's more financial aid paid by the government to counter rising tuition, tuition locked to inflation, or parents going into indentured servitude to pay for their children to go to college, because tuition costs are rising ridiculously fast.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 11:19AM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: Fidelity
Because of bullshit like the Havener center, tuition climbs like crazy. It isn't enough anymore to have a nice functional, reasonable cost building. It now must be big and gaudy and fancy and, most of all, insanely overpriced.

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Senate bill 389 - Tuition locked to inflation
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 11:49AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09-12-2004 8:22PM
Posts: 657
Location: somewhere

Source: Fidelity
squishypickle wrote:
I've heard this this in the news, but recently I was surprised to receive an email from students *against* this bill. I don't understand why tuition has increased so much faster than inflation, and it seems tuition locked to inflation is how it should be. I suppose it could be that this a ploy to allow the state to give less money to universities, and it could mean that tuition goes up dramatically to make up the shortfall. Either way, something has got to happen, whether it's more financial aid paid by the government to counter rising tuition, tuition locked to inflation, or parents going into indentured servitude to pay for their children to go to college, because tuition costs are rising ridiculously fast.


Lets do a little thought experiment here:
Lets say inflation is 3% a year. That means that in order for us to maintain our current quality of education, without the state giving us any more money, tuition has to go up by 3% to maintain current levels of services. (which it would)
If the state cuts funding by another 3%, then tuition has to go up by 6% just to be able to maintain the current service levels. (again, this will happen)
The tuition cap part of Senate Bill 389 says that if a university raises tuition by more than inflation the state takes back 5% of the university's budget, but does not guarantee that the state will not cut funding.
So in our little experiment, if 389 passes as is, then the university is likely to raise tuition by 11% to make up for the money the state is going to take from it or they'll cut "less essential" things from the budget like new buildings and labs/lab equipment, maintainance, and if possible scholarships.

For those of you interested, the text of the bill can be found here
Additionally, a resolution was passed unamiously by Student Council two weeks ago opposing just the part of the bill that regarded tuition caps, and it can be found here. A very similarly worded resoultion was also passed by every other UM campus recently.

_________________
if you woke up as me everyday, you'd hate yourself too.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 12:01PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09-06-2004 7:51PM
Posts: 1916
Location: The B Barn

Source: ERL Building
yeah, i saw the e-mail from ASUM asking us to write our local senators/reps. I will do this if someone tells me exactly what I need to say.

ASUM wrote:
Presidents,

If you care about the cost of tuition and state funding, please urge your constituents to write to their legislator. All the instructions and information can be found online. We are talking about millions of dollars of funding and the raising of tuition. This is a HUGE deal.

The information for your constituents is below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASUM URGES YOU TO:

Take control of your money before it's too late!

URGENT: EMAIL YOUR LEGISLATOR

Senate Bill 389 will:

Take away our ability to set our own tuition (more info on website below)
be NEEDED to fund the completion of the construction of Toomey Hall
This is a huge deal. Millions of dollars and the cost of tuition are riding on this bill. Legislators are deciding our future without hearing from us. We need to change that.

All information for this bill and the instructions for emails can be found at: asum.umr.edu

This is your university.

Your money.

Your voice.



Any questions direct to: Tara Banaszek tnb9rb@umr.edu, Alex Dempsey alex.dempsey@umr.edu , Renny Dillinger reddkd@umr.edu, or Dianna Meyers djmmr6@umr.edu



Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 1:57PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08-26-2003 12:08AM
Posts: 499
Location: Off-Campus

Source: Kelly Hall
1. Dangit Shed...you stole my exact argument that i used when we passed that resolution. I will hunt you down :).

2. For those who are willing but would like a basic form letter or what to say I will post that here later tonight (got meetings and class till late...but I will).

3. If anyone has any questions relating to this that need answered in more detail or sooner please contact me via email...I may be able to respond quicker to that then posting here tonight. My email is :
alex.dempsey@umr.edu

Guess my identity on seek is now compromised :P. But at least it is for an extremely important issue.

_________________
"We're not gonna die. We can't die. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die. "


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 2:04PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09-06-2004 7:51PM
Posts: 1916
Location: The B Barn

Source: Fidelity
lordofstars wrote:
2. For those who are willing but would like a basic form letter or what to say I will post that here later tonight (got meetings and class till late...but I will).


Thanks in advance for posting that.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Senate bill 389 - Tuition locked to inflation
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 3:16PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Sun 05-01-2005 4:29PM
Posts: 501

Source: Off Campus
Quote:
Lets do a little thought experiment here:
Lets say inflation is 3% a year. That means that in order for us to maintain our current quality of education, without the state giving us any more money, tuition has to go up by 3% to maintain current levels of services. (which it would)
If the state cuts funding by another 3%, then tuition has to go up by 6% just to be able to maintain the current service levels. (again, this will happen)


So what if the school is allowed to increase tuition with inflation, plus any state tax cuts? That would be fair would it not?


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 3:22PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM
Posts: 2954
Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs

Source: Fidelity
I sent off a few of these. Normally I don't feel strongly about these sorts of things, but this one hits pretty close to home for me.

Mine looks like this. Keep in mind you don't have to be nearly this detailed but, maybe it helps. Also, in this one I'm writing Senator Chuck Graham, who serves my home district. Also, please don't just cut and paste this.
Quote:
Senator Graham,

My name is Bradley Grant, and I'm one of your constituents in the 19th district. I grew up in Moberly, MO and am currently attending the University of Missouri--Rolla, where I am a junior in mechanical engineering.

I wanted to write to you concerning Senate Bill 389, which modifies several provisions regarding the state's higher education system. There are two components to the bill that I want to address--one which I support wholeheartedly, and one which I disapprove of greatly.

I want to voice my support for Section 173.475 of the bill, the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative, which provides funds for capital projects at the state institutions. One of these capital projects is the completion of Toomey Hall on the UMR campus, which houses the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering programs. This new building, currently under construction, will house many new classrooms and laboratory rooms and provide for equipment which will enrich and enhance the educational environment at the University. And I can tell you, if you've spent any time at all on the UMR campus, you'd realize the need for these improvements. As a mechanical engineering major, nearly all of my classes are held in the current Mechanical Engineering building. The classrooms are cramped, the roof leaks into nearly every second-floor classroom, and there is no space for offices for graduate student teaching assistants, so they're located in offices off-campus where they are as good as inaccessible to students. UMR has an excellent mechanical engineering program which can be made even better by having updated facilities, and the funds earmarked by the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative will provide for the completion of Toomey Hall and the renovation of the existing Mechanical Engineering Building. These resources are needed at this university, and I urge you to provide your support.

However, I must take issue with a portion of this bill, Sections 173.1000 to 173.1006, the Higher Education Student Funding Act. This act puts a yearly cap on tuition raises at 4-year universities like UMR, and sets that cap at the rate of inflation as determined by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index. A university can raise its tuition higher than the tuition cap, but suffers a 5% cut in state appropriations if it does. HOWEVER, the bill does NOT guarantee that the state will increase its appropriations in kind with the increase in the Consumer Price Index! The State of Missouri generally has a poor record of increasing support for the state institutions, so in the (likely) event that Missouri does not increase its yearly appropriations to the universities, the University must make up that shortfall somewhere--in tuition. But if the university must increase tuition beyond the adjustment for inflation because the state doesn't adjust appropriations for inflation, then they will be penalized from the state appropriations--and so must increase tuition even MORE to make up the difference! What happens is the students--your constituents--end up paying MUCH more for tuition than they would if there were no cap.

I wholeheartedly oppose a tuition cap for these reasons. I understand that students and their families need tuition security and a sense of security in the price of a 4-year education--but this isn't the way to do it! It is my opinion that the State must back up this requirement with a promise or guarantee that the school appropriations budget will increase in kind with the increase in the Consumer Price Index. If this can't be done, then the tuition cap needs to go. If you need more persuasion, take a look at the official resolution on the matter as passed by UMR Student Council, which can be found here:

http://stuco.umr.edu/page.php?page=0607 ... e-business

Please keep this in mind as SB 389 comes to the floor. I urge you to propose an amendment to the Higher Education Student Funding Act which either guarantees minimum yearly budget increases for secondary schools that fall under the Act, or else removes the tuition cap. We need this bill to pass but we don't want the cap!

Respectfully,

Bradley Grant

_________________
It's still UMR to me, dammit.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Senate bill 389 - Tuition locked to inflation
PostPosted: Tue 03-20-2007 10:26PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09-12-2004 8:22PM
Posts: 657
Location: somewhere

Source: Fidelity
squishypickle wrote:
So what if the school is allowed to increase tuition with inflation, plus any state tax cuts? That would be fair would it not?

It would be more fair, but that is not the point of the example.
The point of the example is that if the Higher Education Student Funding sections are left in 389 as is, and the state does not increase the amount of funding it gives higher education (which is likely), then tuition will increase far more than it would if that portion of 389 were to change.

_________________
if you woke up as me everyday, you'd hate yourself too.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 03-21-2007 2:10AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 08-26-2003 12:08AM
Posts: 499
Location: Off-Campus

Source: Kelly Hall
{Insert personal statement. Name…year in school…where you are from…that kind of stuff}


I have always been impressed by the quality of education at UMR and because of this quality I chose to attend UMR over my other higher education options. In the time I have been here the one thing I have noticed is that the facilities are the largest weakness of our university. For a university that provides such a great deal of research to the State and the UM-System it is hard to see why our facilities are of such poor quality and why many are outdated. If this situation continued to receive the financial support that it deserves from the great State of Missouri there is no reason to believe that UMR could not reach its goal of becoming one of the top 5 engineering research universities in the nation.

The students at UMR need the sale of MOHELA to allow for the completion of the construction of Toomey Hall, our new Mechanical Engineering building. The facilities that we currently use are simply not of the caliber required for the work and education that could be occurring. As such I would most humbly request the expedient passage of legislation that provides the University of Missouri - Rolla with funds from the plan to sell portions of MOHELA's assets.

However, in the same bill that is currently carrying the Lewis and Clark Initiative there is also a section that will place caps on the increase of tuition. While this is something that sounds good in theory, the ramifications of this section of the bill are extreme for those of us here at UMR. If the legislators decide to place such caps on tuition increases and do not guarantee that cuts will not continue to be made in the future to higher education, there will be little that we can do aside from reducing the quality of the education offered.

I hope that you will consider these points in your vote on Senate Bill 389. While this bill could be a great boon to the students of UMR it contains portions that are extremely dangerous to the well being of our university. As such, I urge you to not support SB 389 with the sections regarding the tuition cap included. However, if the two are able to be separated I do wholeheartedly believe that the sale of MOHELA assets will help better the quality of education here at UMR.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my concerns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is something that I believe can be pretty easily adapted and sent in to a legislator. It is based on a letter that I sent in and the main difference would be the beginning...because you need to explain who you are so they read the letter. If you have anymore questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask.

_________________
"We're not gonna die. We can't die. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die. "


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 10:09PM 
Offline
Major

Joined: Mon 10-11-2004 8:58AM
Posts: 209
Location: Rolla, MO

Source: Off Campus
lordofstars wrote:

...The students at UMR need the sale of MOHELA to allow for the completion of the construction of Toomey Hall, our new Mechanical Engineering building. The facilities that we currently use are simply not of the caliber required for the work and education that could be occurring. As such I would most humbly request the expedient passage of legislation that provides the University of Missouri - Rolla with funds from the plan to sell portions of MOHELA's assets.


Yes, because selling off our non-profit loan companies is a good long term investment for our school system. If MOHELA is sold, it will be to a "for-profit" company, which will cost students more in the long run for higher loan rates.
Sacrificing long term investments/incomes for an upfront cash payout only puts the burden on later generations.
What is much better plan is to use the money accumulating from the loans to make a continual money to flow to Missouri schools, creating SUSTAINABLE income.
Look at it this way, a public company is not going to buy MOHELA unless they are certain they can make a significant monetary return on their investment.
Sorry, but I like to look at things long term.

_________________
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 10:35PM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: Fidelity
While we are reviving dead threads, how much are they short on Toomey anyhow?

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 10:55PM 
Offline
Brigadier General

Joined: Wed 04-02-2003 11:25PM
Posts: 1299

Source: TJ North
The last I heard (a while ago I guess :? ), it was still short by half, so 14M.

_________________
X = 0.999999...
10x = 9.999999999...
10x - x = 9.99999... - x
x(10-1) = 9.9999... - x
9x = 9.9999... -x
9x = 9 (since x = 0.999...)
x = 1 = 0.99999


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 10:59PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Sun 05-01-2005 4:29PM
Posts: 501

Source: Off Campus
350s10 wrote:
Yes, because selling off our non-profit loan companies is a good long term investment for our school system. If MOHELA is sold, it will be to a "for-profit" company, which will cost students more in the long run for higher loan rates.

I'm not very informed about this - but it could be that the private sector is generally better at managing money than the public sector, and they could make money and save students money at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 04-23-2007 10:41AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 02-03-2006 12:00PM
Posts: 477

Source: HSS Building
So, wait, what's stopping the school from charging over the inflation rate for tuition and then adding another 5% to tuition to make up for the funds they know they will have to pay as a result?

Good thinking.

_________________
Visit my handmade jewelry blog!

http://designsbykathryn.blogspot.com/

Feel free to leave me a comment or send me a message!


Top
 Profile  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group