IUP's Tuition Increase, Part 2

This post speculates about the possible effects of changes in tuition at IUP. Before reading it, please read Part 1.

You could argue that, were it not for the stealth tuition increase, charging students per credit is a good policy. It is fairer to students who for various reasons, such as needing to work part-time, can only take 12 credits per semester, since they will only be charged for courses they actually take. It also will discourage students from dropping courses. IUP allows students to withdraw from courses without penalty until two-thirds of the way through the semester. Students sometimes sign up for more courses than they expect to complete, knowing they can drop one or two of them if they are having difficulty or just don't like them. This is a poor use of the university's resources. However, assuming there is no refund for courses dropped late in the semester, students and their parents will come to see course withdrawals as a tangible waste of money.

On a less positive note, I can't help but wonder if accustoming students to paying by the credit and eroding the distinction between part- and full-time students isn't also intended to make it easier to shift courses out of the classroom and into what is optimistically called “distance learning.”

According to IUP spokesperson Michelle Fryling, they believe this package of changes will not harm enrollment or retention and could lead to more credit hours being taken. Until pigs master the art of flight, it's hard to see how these claims could possibly be true. In the real world, increasing the cost of an IUP degree by 25% seems almost certain to reduce enrollment.

He's pissed.

In addition, it would seem that charging students by the credit, while simultaneously increasing the cost per credit, will result in students taking fewer, not more, credits per semester. Students will only enroll in the number of courses they can afford. One of the consequences will be that it will take them longer to graduate. For IUP, this means that its four-year graduation rate—an important metric by which universities are compared and evaluated—will decline. For the student, a longer college career means higher room and board costs and lower lifetime earnings.

It is also likely that, when paying by the credit, more students will try to graduate with exactly the required 120 credits and no more. At present, many students finish with more than 120 credits for several reasons. They may change majors. The longer they wait to do this, the more additional credits they have to take. Students also accumulate excess credits if they try to improve their job prospects by taking a double major, or a single major and two minors. Finally, some students take more than 120 credits out of intellectual curiosity, since under the current system, they can take as many as 144 credits in eight semesters at no additional cost for tuition. The new system will make these deviations from the standard path more expensive.

Why are these drastic—and risky—changes being made right now? IUP faces a potential cumulative deficit of $12.2 million by 2015-16, $16.7 million by 2016-17, and $19.7 million by 2017-18. The official line is that enrollment is declining because fewer young people are graduating from western Pennsylvania high schools. This is true, although an “excellent” university might be able to overcome this handicap. However, there are two other problems.

When I came to IUP in 1971, faculty morale was high and there was considerable optimism about the future. We were led to believe that the mission of the state-owned universities was to bring higher education to middle and lower class young people who were usually the first generation in their family to attend college. To this end, the state paid approximately 70% of the cost of a student's education, with most of the remainder being covered by tuition.

In 2014-15, the State System of Higher Education (SSHE) received $412.8 million from the state, which covers only about 25% of its operating budget. Almost all the rest comes from tuition. The change has been gradual, with the exception of an 18% cut in state aid in 2011-12 after Tom Corbett was elected governor. Like the frog in the pan of water whose temperature is gradually increased, many of us failed to notice how these tuition increases were changing student demographics and causing the university to abandon the goal of reducing inequality. Most middle class students who attend IUP now graduate with crushing debt. Pennsylvania ranks 47th among the 50 states in support for higher education. Maybe our state's politicians and their corporate donors have concluded that it's not in their interest that Pennsylvania have an educated population.

The situation is complicated by financial mismanagement at IUP. The university owes $34 million that it borrowed in 2010 to complete the Kovalchick Convention and Athletic Complex, which was built even though insufficient funds had been raised. This is one of several recent projects in which IUP, like some of the other SSHE universities, seemed to place a higher priority on student recreation and entertainment than on education.

Will there be any organized resistance to these changes? The president of the IUP faculty union, Mark Staszkiewicz, is actually a former member of the administration. His comment, “If the state doesn't do something, there's not many options we have,” seems to indicate passive acceptance and little empathy with students. It has also proven frustratingly difficult in the past to overcome student apathy. Of course, the various “discounts” and offers of financial aid are intended to minimize student outrage. 

If both enrollment and the number of credits taken by each student decline, IUP could go into something resembling a death spiral. Program cuts and faculty layoffs could easily follow. Right now, IUP's future does not look particularly bright.   

You may also be interested in reading:

IUP's Tuition Increase, Part 1

Update (2/23/15)

A friend sent me this blog post on the same subject from Kevin Mahoney, a Kutztown University of Pennsylvania faculty member. Dr. Mahoney included the chart below, which I had looked for but couldn't locate, showing both the changes in SSHE's state appropriation and its tuition between 1983 and the present. You'll seldom find a more perfect negative correlation.

Update (4/19/13)

IUP has postponed its decision to charge for tuition by the credit, and the accompanying fee schedule, for one year.

Last week, the Board of Governors of the State System of Higher Education voted, 9-8, to freeze tuition at the 14 state-owned universities next year, provided they receive the $45.3 million (11%) increase in their state appropriation contained in Governor Tom Wolf's 2015 budget. The closeness of the vote reflects the fact that some board members objected to the way in which it seemed to enlist them, along with students and their parents, as supporters of the Governor's budget.

IUP's postponement is a tacit admission that the changes it had planned were a tuition increase, and therefore contrary to the board's new policy. Given the fact that Governor Wolf faces stiff opposition from the Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, it seems unlikely that he will be able to deliver the full $45.3 million. However, by the time that outcome is known, it will probably be too late for IUP to change its plans again.