Running head: CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES

1 !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cutting Tuition Costs Using Fewer Resources: Decreasing Spending at the University Level Samantha Sayles Oakland University

This paper was prepared for WRT160, Section 064, taught by Professor Marilyn Borner.!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Author Note !

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES Abstract

!2

In preliminary research conducted by the author via a survey at Oakland University, the majority of students felt that college tuition costs were too high. Using this primary research, the author researched these responses to formulate ways that Oakland University might cut tuition costs at the university level. A review of the literature indicated that increasing college tuition is often the result of a universitys efforts to satisfy the competitive market for students and faculty through unneeded construction and program planning, increase its prestige as a research facility, and fail to administer budget cuts in times of economic downturn because of its nonprofit status and availability of student financial aid. Using these factors, the author presents a variety of possible solutions and methods to prevent, or at least temper, yearly tuition increases at Oakland University, as well as at other facilities of higher learning across the country. By decreasing spending on unproductive faculty research, eliminating unnecessary construction and academic programs that do not add to the quality of education, and working within the confines of state budget cuts in higher education, universities can keep tuition costs and increases to a minimum.

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES Cutting Tuition Costs Using Fewer Resources: Decreasing Spending at the University Level Benjamin Franklin once said, An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. However, in recent years, college costs have skyrocketed to unimaginable heights, making an investment in higher education unaffordable to many individuals. Recently, the Oakland University Board of Trustees approved a 3.75% tuition increase for in-state graduates for the 2013-14 school year. According to her article in The Oakland Press, Semeraz (2013) reported that this decision equates to an increase of approximately $12.75 more per credit hour for freshmen and sophomores, with more of an increase for upperclassmen and graduate students. All colleges and universities, including Oakland University, need to curb their tuition

"3

increases at the university level by instituting a decrease in unproductive faculty research, a stop to spending on facilities and programs to solely please faculty, students, and alumni, and working within the confines of cuts in state spending for higher education without exploiting student financial aid. Literature Review College faculty are the heart and soul of a university. It is undeniable that the quality of teaching directly enhances a universitys standing in the academic community. Although quality comes with cost, colleges can decrease spending by eliminating unproductive faculty research. Generally, faculty members are paid for their output in three areas: teaching, research, and service, such as committee work or student advising. As pointed out by Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the former president of George Washington University, in 2011:

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES For many years, at schools where serious research was frequent and prolific, faculty members were granted reduced teaching loads in order to free up

"4

additional time for writing, lab work or creative endeavors. Over time, what was once a normative classroom load of 3 classes each semester (3 & 3) was reduced for scholars to 3 & 2, then 2 & 2, then 2 & 1-to the ultimate extreme. Soon this reduction became normative, regardless of the amount of research produced. Good schools had lower teaching loads than others. Moreover, students were increasingly losing the benefit of directly learning from these talented professors, and additional instructors were hired, at additional cost, to actually teach classes at these universities. Soon other colleges, interested in enhancing their own academic prestige, adopted this model of enticing talented faculty by promising lower teaching loads and more time for individual research. Today, almost across the board at 4-year colleges and universities, the teaching load of 40 years ago has been reduced almost by half. Salaries have increased, and classroom contact has been reduced. This is a difficult fiscal model (Trachtenberg, 2011). In addition, colleges and universities, in the desire for the prestige of being labeled a research institution, are putting a premium value on research, over teaching, yet the value of the research is questionable. Quantity seems to be valued over quality. Zmirak (2009) stated that at research oriented universities, thousands of professors, lecturers and graduate students are busy producing dissertations, books, essays and reviews. Over the past five decades, their collective productivity has risen from 13,000 to 72,000 publications per year. This publish or perish mentality, a term coined by Emory University professor Mark Bauerlain, drives up faculty costs and often produces odd interpretations of known literary works and research for the sole reason

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES

"5

of publishing something original, with debatable academic merit. In John Zmiraks article, The Ugly Secret Why Tuition Costs a Fortune, [Bauerlain commented that] most professors are paid based not on the quality (or even quantity) of their teaching, but rather on the volume of scholarly articles and books they can produce (as cited in Zmirak, 2009). Unproductive faculty research, driven by the publish or perish mentality, is driving college tuition costs upward, even though much of the research is arcane and of little interest outside of the academy (Zmirak, 2009). By cutting out this often worthless research, universities can bring professors back to the classrooms, and lower their tuition costs to students by paying instructors to do what they were hired to do: teach. Secondly, colleges and universities need to stop spending on facilities and programs to solely please faculty, students, and alumni. As Mack (2013) stated, schools across the country are in a competitive race to have the newest, the biggest, and the best- all to impress potential students who are deciding where they will spend their college years and their money. Colleges are enhancing their campuses with luxurious dining halls, recreation centers, and country club type amenities to appeal to the most students. Moreover, in the college market, consumers or potential college students, often make their decisions based on how much a university spends as an indicator of quality education. Universities spend great deals of money on new technology, laboratory facilities, or off-campus experiences to appeal to more students, and faculty, even if its not a measure of instructional or overall educational quality. Michael OKeefe, in his 1986 journal article, College Costs: Have they Gone Too High Too Fast? contended, Something we need is restraint. We must resist the temptation to take excessive advantage of the tendency of parents and students to equate higher prices with higher quality (p. 8). Also part of the problem

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES is how universities manage their money to appeal to their consumers. Economist Howard Bowen, in his book Costs of Higher Education, formulates a theory called the Bowen Effect,

"6

which describes how universities often reward those who spend money, not save it, as quoted in Matthews (2013). Universities tend to spend all of the money they can possibly raise. If more money is raised than is needed for an educational goal, the university will often put the extra funds toward non-educational things like better recreation centers or pools. However, in times of financial strain, cuts are avoided at all costs and efforts are made to increase revenue, often through tuition hikes. Matthews (2013) asserted that there is no concept of saving money for any unexpected, but likely, downturn in the economy, and maximum spending is positively reinforced because non-profit institutions, like most colleges and universities, must refund unused monies. This spending mentality keeps tuition increases constant, no matter what the economic circumstance. Until higher learning institutions change their budgeting strategies, change is not likely. Colleges need to focus on what is needed for quality instruction, not on luxurious amenities. Howard Freedmans 2011 article, Reducing College Costs Starts From Within, in the journal Diverse Issues in Higher Education, suggested the use of focus groups for feedback regarding needs and services, and strong project leadership in setting realistic financial goals (p. 23). These tools make meaningful process improvements that literally save millions in operating costs (Freedman, 2011). Universities that can internally operate more efficiently save students from unnecessary tuition increases. Lastly, one of the key points in controlling tuition hikes is that universities and colleges need to cut spending to reflect cuts in state subsidies for higher education without exploiting student resources, particularly financial aid. Simply stated, Michigan used to pay for roughly

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES

"7

two-thirds of higher education costs and now pays roughly 27% of those costs, as stated in Mack ( 2013). Those uncovered costs are most often financed by student tuition. When universities refuse to reduce costs, students absorb the difference by paying higher tuition. To make matters even more complicated, the wide availability of federal loans seems to be fueling this trend. As claimed in Stainburn (2013), the Bennett hypothesis, named for former Education Secretary William Bennett, is a controversial argument suggesting that federal financial aid allows schools to raise tuition because it shifts costs from schools to the government and the families who are borrowing. Easy availability of loans gives colleges little reason to decrease tuition costs, or control spending, if students can pay by borrowing the funds. As a result, more students everywhere are taking out loans. Last year, cumulative student loan debt surpassed $1 trillion for the first time more than is owed on credit cards or car loans (Paulson, 2013). Method In order to conduct primary research on students feelings about tuition costs and how the university could decrease these costs in its own operations, the author created a short list of questions. On February 13, 2014, the author conducted a verbal survey at the Oakland University student center, located in Rochester, MI. All responses were collected over the course of an hour at midday. Ten Oakland University student participants answered a series of five short-answer questions regarding tuition costs, and where they felt cuts in these costs could be instituted at the university level. The author recorded these responses as they were spoken in conversation. All participant responses were kept anonymous, so no informed consent was deemed necessary for this survey. The responses then were manually tallied and reported.

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES Results

"8

In the recent survey the author conducted at the Oakland University student center , 90% of participants believed that tuition is too high at Oakland University; in addition, 80% of this group believed the university could make strategic budget cuts to control these increases without sacrificing a quality education. When asked about specific areas where the university budget should be cut , 40% of the participants in the authors recent survey indicated colleges could decrease spending by eliminating unproductive faculty research; 20% noted that cuts could be made in the facilities and programs that do not directly affect quality of learning; 30% of respondents questioned the need for the overabundance of administration at Oakland University; and only 10% answered that cuts should be made in instructors salaries. No respondent suggested other areas of the budget to be cut. Discussion The majority of students at Oakland University felt that increasing tuition rates could be lessened by cuts that could be made at the university level. In addition, the research indicated that students felt that these cuts did not have to sacrifice the quality of their educational experience. Most felt cuts needed to start with unproductive research by faculty and eliminating unnecessary administration: two areas that do little to benefit actual quality of instruction. Unnecessary construction and programs, which do not directly affect learning. were also listed as a cut that should be prioritized. Given the fact that the nations economy has been quite troubled over the past decade, yet college tuition rates have continued to climb higher and higher, the sentiments of the participants were as the author predicted. In addition, the government, popular media, and the academic community have been addressing the issue of uncontrolled tuition

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES increases quite extensively over the same time period, so these results are consistent with the current review of literature.

"9

Limitations of the study would include the small sample of participants surveyed, and the specific wording of the questions on the survey. As the primary research was being conducted with the purpose of discussing university spending cuts, some questions could be considered leading, or rather designed to elicit a specific response. With a larger sample, and a greater number of questions, these limitations could possibly be eliminated. Oakland University, as well as many universities and colleges across the country, need to curb their tuition increases by eliminating any unproductive faculty research, putting a stop to spending on facilities and programs to solely please faculty, students, and alumni, and working within the confines of the cuts in state spending for higher education without exploiting student financial aid. Tuition hikes place the reward of higher education out of the reach of many. Certainly, it is time for higher education to take the lead in removing the barriers for those who are willing to strive for the benefits of a college degree.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CUTTING TUITION COSTS USING FEWER RESOURCES References Freedman, H. (2011). Reducing college costs from within. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 28(13), 23. Retrieved from http://www.diverseeducation.com/article/ 16241/ Mack, J. (2012, January 27). 8 theories on why college costs are so high. mlive.com. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/

1 " 0

Matthews, D. (2012, September 2). The tuition is too damn high, part vi: Why there's no reason for big universities to rein in spending. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http:// www.washingtonpost.com/ O'Keefe, M. (1986). College costs: Have they gone too high too fast? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 18(3), 6-8. doi:10.1080/00091383.1986.9937060 Paulson, A. (2012, June 6). Student debt: What's been driving college costs so high anyway? The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/ Semeraz, M. (2013, September 3). Oakland University approves 3.75 percent tuition increase. The Oakland Press. Retrieved from http://www.theoaklandpress.com/ Stainburn, S. (2013, November 1) Catching up on the Bennett hypothesis. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ Trachtenberg, S. J. (2011, September 28). Why is college so expensive? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/ Zmirak, J. (2009, August 24). The ugly secret why tuition costs a fortune. The AtlantaJournal Constitution. Retrieved from http:// www.ajc.com/