<p>Completely agree with wis75. It is not a UW student’s responsibility to subsidize others’ tuition any more than it is for the other state residents. Financial aid should be coming from the state and from private, charitable sources–even if this means higher state tax rates. </p>
<p>Increasing tuition essentially discourages middle (and maybe upper) class students from going to college, because they are paying more than their share (relative to other UW students–obviously all in state students are still subsidized). This could throw borderline high school graduates right out of college–whether that’s a good thing is very debatable. It could also encourage top students from the middle/upper SES to look outside Wisconsin–that’s certainly bad for us.</p>
<p>It’s very well known that college tuition hikes as a percentage surpass the CPI year after year, competing with insurance premiums for highest inflation rates. Adjusting UW’s tuition just to match other schools only fuels the fire. Many European schools have shown that you can be one of the best without charging obscene tuition rates or segregated fees.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt setting instate tuition at $10,000 for instate will send wealthier students rushing to pay $25,000-$35,000 to go to an OOS public os similar quality or to a private charging well over $30,000. It does not appear to do that in the many states with higher instate tuition than UW. There is no shortage of instate apps to PSU, UM, MSU and on down the line. The wealthier student benefits by having more high quality but less wealthy students in the student body. </p>
<p>Most European schools are lloking at massive funding cuts and large tuituion increases as we speak. The situation has gotten much worse just since this was written</p>
<p>Also you cannot ignore the benefits of more money. With a $1000/yr increase for all undergrads you would have over $25 Million in new money. Taking out 25% for fin aid gives you nearly $19 Million for new programs. That would buy over 100 new profs which could add 250 more undergrad classes per semester taught by teneure track people. That would do wonders for course access and improve many departments.</p>
<p>I still don’t get why exclusively college students and their families should fund financial aid programs at UW above and beyond what the state and its residents offer. Are UW students somehow more liable for offering affordable education? </p>
<p>Keep in mind that UW, at least as far as my experience shows, is much more stringent in financial aid offers than OOS privates. The FA a middle class wisconsin resident will get from UW is next to nothing; they could get quite a bit from a need-blind school–which are the type of schools the best wisconsin high school students will choose over UW.</p>
<p>These ridiculous tuition hikes can’t go on for much longer. I think it’s commendable that UW is setting a standard of fiscal conservatism. I’m sure there will be strong third party pressures on other schools to follow UW in the upcoming years, and not vice versa.</p>
<p>I think the State should fund ample fi aid programs too, but this doesn’t appear to be politically realistic. Doesn’t everyone consider themselves “middle class?” What does that mean? A family of 4 and a household income of $150k?</p>
<p>UW tuition is so low that high income out of and in state families consider the school a bargain compared to privates and some other public’s. Is it fair to provide a bargain to to wealthy families? Why not find a way for those who can, to pay more, while those who can’t get help? </p>
<p>Finding ways to fund needed programs (and additional aid) outside the difficult political process shows the UW excerising its independance and I applaud the moves. Remember the % of state $ to the UW has decreased consistently for the last forever.</p>
<p>Otherwise the university risks sitting in neutral.</p>
<p>As I said before, higher ranked and more prestigious public colleges – Virginia, Michigan, and the UC schools, to name some – all charge more tuition than UW (particularly out of state tuition), and still manage to attract and enroll students who, on the whole, are of higher quality than the average UW student. Each of these schools also provides more financial aid than UW and enrolls a greater percentage of under-represented minorities. If UW is truly as good of a school as its boosters claim that it is, and if UW truly belongs on the same list as these schools, then it should be able to charge higher tuition without hurting enrollment. Maybe UW administrators know something you don’t?</p>
<p>As for wis75, I stand by my post. You sound like one of those people who makes good, then wants to pull the ladder up.</p>
<p>Clearly I… gulp… agree with Nova on this one. For the most part. </p>
<p>I can empathize with others as this issue cuts more than one way. What also makes the UW special to so many is its relatively open access - at least in the past. This is the state that invented unemployment insurance, the U that wrote social security legislation, and where Fighting Bob LaFollette delivered rousing speeches. For better or worse there is a bias against real and perceived elitism which can be expressed in keeping tuition low.</p>
<p>UW Madison’s mission statement has no clause stating that one of its goals is to maximize tuition rates without hurting enrollment. </p>
<p>Even if the school could charge a higher tuition and still attract the same proportion of top students (which isn’t certain), that doesn’t mean it should. You’re saying that UW should charge more for classes, professors, and amenities that it may not need–and you want UW families to pay for it. </p>
<p>It is unfortunate that UVA, Cal, and UMich students pay more than UW students and have arguably similar college experiences in terms of classes, extracurricular opportunities and amenities. This inefficiency is not something that other schools should boast, and it is not something that UW should be trying to match.</p>
<p>You seem to think that a school should offer as much as it can at any price as long as it can retain top students. Maybe there’s some UW administrators who think cost is trade off, too.</p>
<p>Biddy Martin has clearly indicated her plans to increase tuition to enhance quality and help attract and retain the best students in state and elsewhere.</p>
<p>"As I have argued since I arrived at UW-Madison, keeping tuition near the bottom of our peer group is not the answer to those needs. Over the long term, balancing quality with affordability will mean marking out a path that puts tuition at the median of our peer group and provides much higher amounts of need-based aid. The desire to keep tuition at the low end is understandable, but it has a number of problematic and often unintended consequences: It ends up subsidizing those who can more easily afford an education at UW-Madison, and it threatens the university with a potential deterioration in quality, putting the value of our students degrees at risk over time.</p>
<p>I do not believe there is anything more important to our long-term success than the appropriate balance between affordability and quality. We will need to establish a new compact with the state of Wisconsin, one that recognizes our reliance on revenues from the private sector, from the federal government and from tuition, and one that, therefore, allows us the flexibility to use our funds in ways that will keep the university strong, for the good of the state, the nation and the world. The new compact with the state would provide us greater freedom to manage our resources and clearer forms of accountability to the state. I expect to spend a significant amount of time working with you, with business leaders, with political and government leaders, and with the general public to develop and promote change of this kind.</p>
<p>Who said “UW should charge more for classes, professors, and amenities that it may not need” and “UW families [should] pay for it?” Certainly not me? My point is that UW might want to consider raising tuition so it can afford more financial aid for lower income students and maybe even merit aid for the most deserving students. Every time I say anything on this board about UW’s low diversity, poor financial aid, and its inability to compete head-to-head with the top public and private schools the only response I get is “it’s demographics, stupid,” or that it doesn’t have enough money to compete. There are ways around this if UW truly aspires for greatness. Or it can settle for remaining where it is right now on the UNDERGRADUATE pecking order: a step below great. </p>
<p>Great universities offer great financial aid.</p>
<p>As a parent of a current student, I find it hard to swallow that a portion of the Madison Initiative surcharge that a family earning $80,001 may have to borrow to pay, goes to the family earning $79,999. Thus, I’m glad to see that there are other programs/campaigns to raise funds from outside sources for student financial aid.</p>
<p>“Every time I say anything on this board about UW’s low diversity, poor financial aid, and its inability to compete head-to-head with the top public and private schools the only response I get is “it’s demographics, stupid,” or that it doesn’t have enough money to compete. There are ways around this if UW truly aspires for greatness. Or it can settle for remaining where it is right now on the UNDERGRADUATE pecking order: a step below great.”</p>
<p>Take it easy! I don’t see anyone attacking anyone in this thread. </p>
<p>“Great universities offer great financial aid.”</p>
<p>Great U’s do a lot of things. They also have incredible teachers, perform groundbreaking research and have fabulous students. All of which UW has. There are issues - like at all U’s.</p>
<p>It’s much easier to offer better aid when only a relative few students need aid. The majority of students at UVa and to an extent at UM come from higher income families than at UW. With the same size pie you can satisfy all the need at one and only half at the other. It does not follow that financial aid is “poor”. It may just be limited due to other circumstances. At least improvements are being made. UVa met with pretty much epic failure trying to improve their research footprint and attract more top scientists. Things that UW has in spades. Nobody is perfect.</p>
<p>What’s going on Nova? There have been no less than three threads the last week regarding Virginia U’s - W and M, UVA, etc… But, not a single peep out of you. Nothing!</p>
<p>Then someone posts on the UW site and - BAM! - there you are tossing cups of wisdom, straightening people out. Like a super hero or something.</p>
<p>Yes, we have been over this before and there is a large difference in the spendable cash a family earning under $90,000 has versus one earning over $160,000. I have made both and can tell the difference quite easily.</p>