The news from the Freep.com and from EMU itself (and from AnnArbor.com– see below) announce that the Board of Regents has decided on no increases in tuition, room and board, or fees for the 2010-11 season. It’s an interesting move, and one I have to say I greet with a certain amount of…trepidation.
Don’t get me wrong– I’m all for not ripping off students and keeping the costs down, and no doubt that the move will sell at least some students who were on the fence about coming to EMU. And it occurs to me that the EMU powers that be must believe that we can afford to do this, probably because the “forecast” of a surplus of money that Lumm et al were talking about last year are coming to pass (see this post from December 2009), and/or there has been some clearer indication about what sort of cut we can expect from the state.
But I guess I’m a little worried about this for three reasons. First, as the Freep post says, it’s a “bold move.” I mean, we don’t really know what the state is going to do, right? The current proposal is 3.1%; what if something happens and it goes to 5 or 6%? Suddenly that “bold move” is either one we have to retract or one that is going to cause a lot of problems.
Second, I am worried– again, just a little– that EMU is once again trying to make a pitch as being the cheapest er, least expensive public university in Michigan. It’s a tough balancing act here, for sure. On the one hand, we of course want to remain affordable; on the other hand, if we are always presenting ourselves to the state and our students as a good school simply because we don’t cost much, well, what happens to quality?
And third, I’m worried a bit about just exactly how we’re going to save the money to afford 0/0/0. The EMU press release says that we’re able to do this through cost savings, efficiencies, and “sustainability efforts from new windows to boilers on campus.” Really. Really? I mean, I don’t want to be a doubter here about this, but….
Slight Update:
Former EMU student and now AnnArbor.com staffer Nathan Bomey has a nice piece that was posted earlier this morning, “Tuition decision shows how President Susan Martin is rebranding Eastern Michigan University.” I agree with him that I think that Martin has done a really good job of putting the past truly in the past; I think time will tell whether or not this was a gimmick or not.
By the way, someone in the comments for this AnnArbor.com story points out that the cost difference between EMU and U of M and MSU is (broadly speaking) about $3200-$3000 a year. That’s not an insignificant amount of money for sure, but is it enough for someone to choose EMU over MSU or U of M? I honestly don’t know.
I agree… very bold move. You realize however, that the cost savings from sustainability efforts (using less energy = lower energy costs) is a result more so of lower energy costs rather than using less energy.
Do you suppose this will impact the faculty contract negotiations (contract expires on Sept 1)?
Regardless, it is what it is and hats off to Roy Wilbanks, Sue Martin and John Lum for holding the line on tuition/fees/room & board (I think?).
I don’t know if it will impact the faculty negotiations or not, but it worries me. I don’t think the administration is doing this as a “tactical” move– that is, I don’t think the closed-door discussion between the BoR and the suits was “if we hold everything at zero, then there’s no way the faculty can ask for a raise.” At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the discussion.
And hopefully, the suits/BoR know what they’re doing. Again, I don’t want to be a complete downer about this, because it is very true that holding the line at 0% for everything is good for our students, our community, and our state. But it is also the poker equivalent of “all in.” If something happens and EMU has to back away from this 0% promise, then I would presume people will be a lot more pissed off than they would have been if we had announced a modest raise in tuition and fees.
I like the idea, like the message it sends to the community, so long as it doesn’t establish Eastern as the “bargain” brand. But on a personal level, I hope this decision doesn’t mean the Board assumes I’ll be happy to forgo a raise for the second year in a row.
You’re right that it’s a bold move, though I think it’s not quite “all in”. Apparently the last time ANY public university in Michigan held tuition flat was 1986 (Source: http://detnews.com/article/20100421/SCHOOLS/4210365/EMU-won-t-raise-rates-for-tuition–room-and-board ). But Eastern needs this kind of bold leadership.
To a certain extent, it is a tactical move, though I doubt it’s really related to faculty contract negotiations. By holding tuition flat and announcing it early, EMU got a bunch of immediate coverage, but it’s also likely that over the next several months, every time a Michigan school announces tuition rates, the news coverage will also mention EMU.
I suspect that EMU is operating at least somewhat under capacity; based on what I’ve found they had more students 15 years ago than today. That means that while repairs may be needed, the university can accommodate more students without significant new construction.
And frankly, more students should also mean a need for more faculty, staff, lecturers, administrators, etc. Higher demand should lead (gradually) to higher pay.
I think you’re right about the under capacity issue, cmadler. EMU was a couple thousand students larger when I came here in 1998. What is less clear is what it means for hiring, especially hiring faculty. Generally, the solution suits offer for growing enrollment is first increasing class size and second hiring part-timers. But again, maybe Martin et al really are ushering in a new “golden age” at EMU where we are able to hold costs down to zero and hire more faculty….
Well, my point is that (and I’m just going to make up some numbers here), if you increase enrollment by 4.3%, that’s 1,000 more students. At $8,377/student (in-state), that’s a revenue increase of $8,377,000. Suppose that each student enrolls in four classes/term, with an average class size of 20, that’s 200 additional classes taught. If EMU hires new full-time faculty/lecturers who teach 4 classes per term, they need to hire 50 people. I don’t know what the average total cost/teacher is, but let’s say $75,000/year. The additional cost is $3.75 million, leaving more than $4.6 million. Obviously there are other administrative costs per student, but my point is that if you don’t have to do much (or any) construction/facilities work to expand, you can take on more students at a lower cost per student and still come out ahead. If my numbers are way off, say so, but I think the point will stand.
Of course, once enrollment rises to a certain capacity (I have no idea what that capacity is, but I’m guessing that Dr. Martin and some of the other top administrators know EXACTLY what it is – she doesn’t strike me as someone who likes to guess at such things or leave matters to chance) new construction would become necessary, and then the math changes.
The numbers can get complicated, and I don’t want to go into it too much right now, mainly because I too would be speculating I need to do some of that faculty/finals week grading sorta work. But there are at least three problems with at least some of these numbers:
* “Average class size” varies a lot– I mean A LOT– across not only departments but also levels of class. We still teach a fair number of introductory classes in lecture-hall format, meaning 1 professor and a couple of GAs for 150-200 students. In my department, the base size for a literature class is 40 students, while the base size for a writing class is 25. I’m sure there are other numbers for other departments. And teaching loads vary a lot too, but I don’t even want to go there right now.
* What counts as a “teacher” varies a lot. You’ve got tenure-track faculty, who are the ones coming close that $75K average (though that is a lot like class size average– there’s a lot of people who have been here a long time who are making less than that), and I believe the administration is indeed committed to hiring more faculty. But then you’ve also got lecturers, who basically are paid about half as much as tenure-track faculty and who tend to teach more, and you’ve got part-timers, who are paid very poorly and with no benefits. So, what do you think is most likely to happen in the next year or so as enrollment increases, especially if we want to emphasize EMU as a “bargain?” Will the administration commit to hiring as many faculty as possible, or will they instead keep things “inexpensive” and hire as many part-timers as possible?
* I don’t know what the “administrative costs” are per student, but they are definitely not inconsequential. Which is okay, actually– EMU should be a “break-even” not-for-profit entity and not a “business” per se. But I don’t think there’s going to be $4.6 million just left over.
I do agree with the general premise you are suggesting though, cmadler: EMU could probably get up to about 25,000 students without straining facilities too much, and that increase bring down the costs for everyone. I’m just not sure it’s a given that the suits are going to pass along those savings in the form of more faculty and smaller classes.
The Zero increase was the correct decision, and one that would have been correct last year, or two years ago. it puts students’ eduction and access to education first, and that is the appropriate stance for EMU.
I serve on the University Budget Council – a purely advisory body, made up of faculty appointed by the Faculty Senate and of administrators from all divisions appointed by leaders of those divisons, along with 2 Student Government representatives. Last year, on the budget council, I advocated that for 2009-1-, EMU adopt a zero increase budget. That idea was not embraced by the Administration then, but it helped get us to the low rate of last year, 3.8% if I recall correctly.
Zero increase in tuition is the right place for EMU to be, because it’s good for our students, good for the people of Michigan, and it also represents good public policy: higher education is a public good, not a mere or mainly individual consumer choice, and so it should not be funded by endless increases in costs of attending college.
So, much credit to the Regents and the Administration for embracing the Zero increase idea. A year ago, it was advocated by a near majority of the University Budget Council – the student reps and the faculty. It is still an idea that’s timely!
It is a bold idea and good policy.
Regarding “By the way, someone in the comments for this AnnArbor.com story points out that the cost difference between EMU and U of M and MSU is (broadly speaking) about $3200-$3000 a year. ”
Will someone check that comment on AnnArbor.com for confusion about one semester vs. one year? The commenter said: “Per the UM website, tuition/semester for an incoming freshman would be $11659 per year. EMU tuition for 15 credits would be $8377, or about $3282/year cheaper. MSU is $11434.”
They seem to be saying that EMU is $8377 for a half-year, but the press release from EMU said it was for 30 credits. And I’m not sure what to make of “tuition/semester would be $11659/year”–are we talking a semester or a year?
@cmadler: if they take 4 courses/semester (supposing 3 credits/course), that wouldn’t match the 30 credits/year that is behind the $8377.
Full-year tuition for UM for 2010-11 is estimated at $11,659 for freshmen/sophomores and $13,141 for juniors/seniors. Full time is 12-18 credit hours per semester (24-36 per year). So yes, UM is “only” $3282/year more, but only for the first half of your degree. After that it’s $4764 more. At these prices, over four years, UM ($49,600) is 48% more expensive than EMU ($33,508).
Also, room and board at UM is estimated at $8,924 for the 2010-11 year, while at EMU it will be $7,786. For a 4-year degree, on campus the entire time, the cost at EMU would be $66,840. The cost at UM would be $85,296, nearly 28% more.
Definitely all good food for thought. The Echo’s new editor in chief, Josh Coudret, also has a story on the original announcement at http://www.easternecho.com. I’m told they’ll be following it up with related stories on enrollment, fees, faculty negotiations, etc. in the spring issues and in the fall. Feel free to post comments on the Echo site, too.
On a side note, Sitedad, Nathan Bomey is not only an alum of EMU, he’s an Echo alum — one we’re quite proud of, to be sure.
–Kevin Devine
Student Median/The Eastern Echo