The Daily of the University of Washington

Tuition increase hits hard


Share

Keala Richardson works four days a week. He’s also a full-time student and a freshman who is new to the UW and new to student loans.


Photo by John McLellan.

Tuition Increase


Comparable institutions

Funding per student in 2004-2005

Rutgers University: $27,608

UCLA: $24,067

University of Connecticut: $23,704

UC Davis: $21,803

University of Maryland: $21,134

University of Massachusetts: $20,648

UC San Diego: $18,563

University of Virginia: $18,044

University of Washington: $17,709

UC Irvine: $16,554

University of Colorado: $13,287

Source: Washington Learns Steering Committee.


“I’m paying for my education on my own,” Richardson said. “So far this year, I am $17,000 in debt.”

The proposed 7 percent tuition increase for resident undergraduates surprised Richardson.

Even though tuition has doubled during the last 10 years, he and others feel the proposed tuition cap is still too high.

“We think this is a good step,” said Bryce McKibben, ASUW director of government relations. “But we would like it to be less, or we would like some demonstrated improvement for students.”

McKibben is the former president of the Washington Student Lobby, an organization that helps student governments fight against tuition hikes. He wants students to ask where their tuition is going and how much support they are getting from the state.

In the 2009 UW Core Education Budget proposal, the state general fund should increase by about $11 million. The funds available from collected tuition are set to increase by $23 million. This means that funding by students has increased more than funding from the state.

“We normally say our majors and our faculty are our responsibilities,” McKibben said. “The state’s responsibility is financial aid, living expenses [and] enrollment costs.”

Catherine Bergeron, an out-of-state freshman from Lake Oswego, Ore., feels that tuition should improve the quality of her education. She said the place to start is in the classroom.

“It’s crazy that I am paying $30,000 a year and learn everything out of a textbook,” she said. “Tuition should provide intellectually stimulating classes and professors.”

The $409 annual increase for in-state undergraduates and the $1,079 increase for out-of-state students is set to increase financial aid, enrollment, access to faculty, high demand majors and opportunities outside of the classroom. There are also plans to improve teaching faculty, educational technology and facilities for learning and living.

McKibben said there is room to improve the undergraduate experience.

“We pay more,” he said. “We should get more.”

UW President Mark Emmert wrote in an e-mail that the tuition increase would improve the UW’s ability to compete with other prestigious state schools. Comparable universities spend on average $4,000 more per student than the UW.

“This is a very significant gap and is a measure of how underfunded we are as a university,” Emmert wrote.

But for Richardson, the extra $400 increase is just another expense that will not raise the status or competiveness of the UW.

Richardson, a middle-class citizen, has a paid marketing internship at Boeing Employee Credit Union. This summer he plans to work full time to pay off his loans and offset future school-related costs.

He qualified for little financial aid and had to take out student loans, which he pays for with $200 of every paycheck. During the summer, he plans to use about 50 percent of every paycheck to pay off his debt.

Richardson isn’t the only student facing the burden of having to pay for his college education.

Bergeron also pays for a third of her out-of-state tuition and living expenses. She will have to work during the summer and school year as tuition continues to increase.

If the proposal to increase tuition passes, the University will continue to increase tuition by 7 percent until the 2016-2017 school year.


9 Comments

#1 Cliff
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 8:29 a.m.
Report this comment

When I saw that image, I knew it was you, John. You definitely have your "money"-style shots down to a science ;-)

#2 Could you cite a source?
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 9:11 a.m.
Report this comment

"If the proposal to increase tuition passes, the University will continue to increase tuition by 7 percent until the 2016-2017 school year."

I haven't read this anywhere else and I'm pretty sure that isn't true. The BOR has to approve tuition rates every year, they can't approve them for the next 10 years all at once.

#3 Bryce McKibben
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 9:31 a.m.
Report this comment

The 7 percent cap was given a 10 year time horizon. Ask any administrator and they'll tell you that the 10 year plan is true.

#4 Still not convinced
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.
Report this comment

Did the state legislature give it a 10 year time horizon? And even so, it does not necessarily mean that a 7 percent increase will be approved every year, it just means that it could. Unless the administration/BOR is preemptively planning a 7 percent increase every year for 10 years without regard to future state budgets or university fiscal situations, in which case that needs to be a front page story of its own.

#5 Convinced now?
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 3:54 p.m.
Report this comment

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3...

"It has gone up at least every year since 1982. The UW has raised tuition 6 percent or more every year for six years."

#6 Charles
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 4 p.m.
Report this comment

Excellent article. I pay my way through college as well, and next year I'm going to have to take out significant loans at 9-10% interest rates because of this bu**sh**, meanwhile I feel the quality of education I'm getting is decreasing.

This is something everyone should be livid pissed about.

#7 Nope
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 7:11 p.m.
Report this comment

The point is that approving this budget should not guarantee a 7 percent increase every year for the next 8 years. Will they? Probably. But the article implies that this vote locks in our tuition increases for a decade.

#8 Irrelevant
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)

on June 5, 2008 at 11:07 p.m.
Report this comment

Sort of missing the point here, ya?

7% is ridiculous. Tax the rich pricks and make them pay to educate our society.

#9 You'll be better prepared if you believe
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)

on June 6, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.
Report this comment

The Board of Regents DOES have the choice not to enact the full 7% which has been Legislatively-authorized.

The question is...why wouldn't they go all the way? All the documentation the administration presented to the Legislature on the "funding gap per student" implied that it would take 10 years of 7% increased to close that gap.

The article does phrase the "plan" as a sure thing. Procedurally, you are right...but the end result is the same: tuition will DOUBLE in the next ten years. The Daily should certainly highlight this in another story.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: