The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Thursday, February 26, 2015 — 3A
unanimously agreed to increase
this year’s tuition by 1.6 percent
for in-state undergraduate stu-
dents and 3.4 percent for out-of-
state undergraduate students.
Before casting her vote, Regent
Andrea Fischer Newman (R)
asked if there was a point when
the University could stop increas-
ing its price tag.
“It concerns me that many peo-
ple have asked for a higher appropri-
ation from the state every year, and
the state is starting to respond, and
I appreciate that,” Newman said.
“But, I think we need to be respon-
sible stewards of that increase. So
I wonder why we have to have an
increase in tuition when the state is
stepping up to the plate.”
University
Provost
Martha
Pollack responded at the meeting,
saying that though the University
is invested in keeping costs low
for students, it must raise revenue
to continue hiring top faculty and
updating campus infrastructure.
“We do work extremely hard …
but we also really need to protect
the excellence of the University,”
Pollack said.
This year’s tuition increase fol-
lows the regents’ 2013 decision to
bump tuition by 1.1 percent, the
lowest hike in 29 years.
According to financial reports
from Tim Slottow, the former
University chief financial offi-
cer, the University’s tuition hikes
have been among the lowest in the
state and in the Big Ten over the
past several years.
“Tuition and state appropria-
tions are the primary sources
of funding for the University’s
academic programs. There is a
direct relationship between the
growth or reduction in state sup-
port and the University’s ability
to restrain tuition fee increases,”
Slottow stated in the 2006 finan-
cial report, while still in the role
of chief financial officer.
In response to the University’s
effort to keep tuition percent
changes low, Snyder awarded the
campus an additional $1.1 million
in state funding, the third-largest
state grant in 2012.
Regardless of efforts in recent
years, however, the University
has increased its tuition by at least
1 percent, and sometimes more,
each year since 2002.
A decade ago, the Board of
Regents approved a 12.3-percent
hike in tuition for in-state stu-
dents and a 6.9-percent raise for
out-of-state students — the largest
percentage increase since the turn
of the century at the University.
“This is unprecedented in the
history of the University,” then-
Provost Paul Courant told the Daily.
Though
each
subsequent
increase in tuition was 5 per-
centage points or less, overall
the University’s base tuition for
those enrolled in the College of Lit-
erature, Science and the Arts has
increased 60 percent for in-state
students and 55 percent for out-of-
state students from 2005 to 2014.
In an interview with the Daily,
Cynthia
Wilbanks,
University
vice president of government
relations, said tuition rates have
a direct relationship with state
funding. Rising tuition, she said,
can be explained by dwindling
state funding.
Over the past decade, state
appropriations to the University
have declined by 40 percent on a
per-student basis, when adjusted
for inflation.
“I think the state had a much
greater role in funding high-
er education prior to this last
decade,” Wilbanks said.
According
to
information
provided by the office of the
University’s vice president for
global communications and stra-
tegic initiatives, tuition rates vary
somewhat between different col-
leges within the University, cred-
it-hour loads and class standing.
Tuition money goes to the
general fund and helps pay for
instruction, financial aid, advis-
ing and libraries. It does not pay
for athletics, the health system,
construction or housing.
In an interview last week,
University Regent Denise Ilitch
(D), who has voted against most
tuition increases over her tenure
on the board, said she believes it
is extremely important to keep
higher education affordable for
all Michigan residents.
“I think that it’s extremely
important that we make higher
education accessible to our Mich-
igan residents and to make sure
that it’s affordable to all, and not
just people of means,” Ilitch said.
Though pleased at the slowing
rate of tuition increases, Ilitch
said there are many facets in
keeping tuition down, including
controlling costs and being more
efficient when spending.
“I would love to see that, just
one year, not to increase tuition,”
she added.
Keeping the University
affordable
As tuition costs go up, how-
ever, the University has explored
affordability efforts in other
areas. This year, the board also
agreed to a $19.5 million increase
in financial aid — part of a general
trend of increasing financial aid
faster than the rate of tuition.
“What (the increase) will allow
us to do is ensure that students
with need, as we have done in
the last few years, will not see
an increase in the cost of atten-
dance,” Pollack said in a 2013
interview with the Daily.
This tuition increases occur
as state-funded opportunities for
financial aid have grown scarcer.
Along with decreasing fund-
ing for higher education, the state
of Michigan has cut initiatives to
help low- to middle-income stu-
dents pay for college such as the
Michigan Promise Scholarship
program in 2009, a merit-based
scholarship for students with
exceptional
Michigan
Educa-
tional Assessment Program, or
MEAP, standardized test scores.
State Rep. Amanda Price (R–Hol-
land), chair of the state’s Education
Committee, said cutting scholarships
like the MEAP scholarship was, in
some senses, unavoidable.
“I think that’s impacted some
folks, I’m sure it has, even low-
to middle-income students have
been impacted by that cut,” Price
said. “But that was driven by the
budget realities that the state had
been facing and continues to face.”
According to figures from the
U.S. Department of Education,
listed in the most recent Office of
Budget Planning almanac, the aver-
age state grant has decreased by
$2,608 per student. However, the
University has increased the aver-
age need-based grant it provides to
undergraduate students by $4,774
through its own fund since 2002.
Though the University’s aver-
age state grant per need-based
student is the second lowest
among all public institutions in
the Association of American Uni-
versities after MSU, it provides the
second-highest amount of aid to
students from its own resources at
an average of $12,233 per student.
The number of need-based grants
generally varies based on several fac-
tors, chiefly the income distribution
among students at an institution.
Wilbanks said when it comes
to deciding where to protect Uni-
versity funding while setting the
budget and enacting cuts, aca-
demics and the student experi-
ence are a key focus.
“Here a very, very important
decision was made that the aca-
demic quality of the institution
had to be the number one prior-
ity, and in making it a number one
priority you make decisions along
the way to support your being able
to invest in those high priorities —
student experience, faculty excel-
lence and the overall academic
excellence of the University,” Wil-
banks said.
In November 2013, partially
in continuation of that push, the
University launched the Victors
for Michigan campaign — the
largest fundraising drive for a
public University in history.
The campaign, chaired by Ste-
phen Ross, set its goal to $4 bil-
lion, with $1 billion earmarked for
financial support for students.
“We believe that by judiciously
controlling our costs and tuition
increases, while also committing
University funds for financial aid,
we can join with donors to make it
possible for the best students, from
any socioeconomic background,
to afford to get a Michigan edu-
cation,” Newman, the University
regent, said in a 2013 statement.
Changing student body
However, despite maintaining
support for low-income students,
the University student body has
grown wealthier in recent years.
Since 2003, the number of
University
out-of-state
under-
graduates who did not apply for
financial aid or are from families
making $150,000 or more annu-
ally has increased by 12 percent,
according to the almanac.
In 2013, for both graduates and
undergraduates, in-state students
made up about 50.2 percent of the
student body — 49.8 percent were
either out-of-state or internation-
al students. This number of out-
of-state students has increased by
7.2 percent since 2005.
In
comparison,
out-of-state
students comprise around 10
percent of Michigan State Uni-
versity’s student body, a school
generally considered the Univer-
sity’s closest peer among public
universities in the state.
Though the typical student
with a family income at $80,000 or
below pays less today to attend the
University as they did in 2003, also
according to the almanac, the num-
ber of those students is decreasing.
In contrast, the increase in
non-resident students and their
subsequent rise in tuition money
amounted to an added $88 mil-
lion to the University’s general
fund by 2013.
In an interview with The Mich-
igan Daily last week, E. Royster
Harper, vice president for student
life, said though low income stu-
dents are provided for from the
school’s financial aid, students in
the “middle,” socioeconomically,
who don’t qualify for Pell Grants
yet find the tuition too high, are
still struggling financially.
“It really are the kids in the
middle that get squeezed,” she
said.
“That’s
where
tuition
becomes really critical.”
The University’s affordability
efforts in comparison
Though the University has
taken strides toward keeping col-
lege affordable for its students, it
still falls behind in several key met-
rics, and in some cases, struggles
to build a climate attractive to stu-
dents of low socioeconomic status.
According to Mark Burnham,
vice president for governmen-
tal affairs at MSU, 54 percent of
their students graduate without
debt, compared to 46 percent of
in-state University students. MSU
is closest to the University in size,
rank and athletics among public
schools in the state.
The average amount of debt
faced by students at MSU is
$24,000. At the University of
Michigan, that number is $25,575
— a $1,575 difference — though
it is worth noting that tuition at
MSU is about $4,500 lower for in-
state freshman, and about $11,100
lower for out-of-state freshmen.
Burnham said similar to the Uni-
versity, MSU has stayed affordable
by increasing financial aid opportu-
nities for all students. He said MSU
has increased financial aid by 45
percent in the last five years.
“We certainly work very hard to
make sure we have maximized finan-
cial aid as best we have,” he said.
Rachel Osmer, college adviser
to Ypsilanti Community High
School through the Michigan
College Advising Corps, works
primarily with students in Ypsi-
lanti who come from working-
and middle-class backgrounds.
She said even though the Uni-
versity has a larger tuition sticker
price, because of its endowment
and large financial aid resources,
many of Osmer’s students have
the option of attending the school.
“Schools like U of M and
MSU because they’re such large
schools and such a large alumni
network than newer schools, they
have more money to offer from
the school themselves than from
the federal government,” she said.
However, Osmer said many of
her students from low socioeco-
nomic backgrounds tend to apply
to Central Michigan University,
Eastern
Michigan
University,
Western Michigan University or
community colleges.
“For a lot of our students here
in Ypsilanti, U of M, even though
it’s right down the road, it’s still
out of reach for them,” she said.
“There is this stigma attached to
the idea that U of M is an elitist,
expensive school.”
Schools like CMU or EMU, she
said, are more in her students’
comfort zones because other stu-
dents from similar backgrounds
populate them.
“The people they see in that
school are usually upper-middle-
class white men and women,” she
said. “They’re not people that look
like our students, so it’s not repre-
sentative of a school they would
want to go to.”
Overall, Harper said state sup-
port is important, but doesn’t
entirely address some of the socio-
economic issues students face.
“(Nothing) makes the cur-
rent price tag possible if you’re
middle-class and out of state, so I
think any support we get from the
state is really important because
it allows us to ask for less, but it
won’t change sort of who comes to
campus,” Harper said.
What an incredible honor.”
As the recipient of this year’s
award, Strobbe will deliver the
Golden Apple lecture on March
31 at Rackham Auditorium. Each
year, the winner is instructed to
choose a lecture topic as if it is
the last lecture he or she will ever
give.
Business junior Jacob Berman,
co-chair of the Golden Apple
award committee, said there
were 750 nominees since Jan.
16, when this year’s nominations
began, with well over 100 profes-
sors nominated.
“First of all, he got a ton of
nominations,”
Berman
said,
referring to Strobbe. “Clearly, he
is someone who is beloved and
just the way that so many stu-
dents said he has helped them
personally, he is so inspiring in
class and he’s helped them out
of class, with what he’s done on
campus. All that just made him
such an obvious choice.”
Strobbe is the first director
of the University’s Addiction
Treatment Services, a clinic that
provides treatment for those
recovering from alcohol and
drug addictions. In 2007, he was
the recipient of the Administra-
tion Management Award by the
International Nursing Society on
Addictions for his work.
On his Nursing School web-
page, Strobbe notes that his main
areas of academic interest are
addiction,
Alcoholics
Anony-
mous, mental health and sub-
stance-use disorders, prevention,
treatment and recovery, as well as
spirituality.
After receiving the award,
Strobbe informed his students
that their scheduled midterm was
still going to take place that day,
though he admitted that this was
the “best diversionary tactic” he
had ever seen.
Nursing junior Kristina Bal-
lough, one of Strobbe’s students,
said she nominated Strobbe.
“He is honestly the best teach-
er I’ve ever had,” she said. “He is
just so passionate and enthusi-
astic about everything, and just
makes it fun to learn and keeps
your attention for a three-hour
class, which is ridiculous. He
does a great job.”
TUITION
From Page 1A
GOLDEN APPLE
From Page 1A