My last post about the effects of budget cuts at state universities, and how they would affect students who attend or hope to attend such institutions—really the last places where a person can afford a four-year college degree—drew an interesting reaction. Most of the comments were supportive, but off-site responses from officials at both the University of Washington and the University of Nevada questioned my numbers and felt that I was alarmist.
First, I’d like to emphasize that my real point was that any budget reductions will inevitably limit student access to higher education, because, invariably, the budget shortfalls are accompanied by increased tuition and fees. As it turns out, the more fact-checking I tried to do, the more confusing the situation at both institutions seems to me to be.
So for now, I’m just going to look at the case of the University of Washington. Norman Arkans, UW’s associate vice president of media relations and communications, wrote to me that “our legislature is in special session struggling to write a balanced budget absent new revenues (except, of course, for student tuition) and we face more cuts in our state appropriation.”
But for me, student tuition deserves more than a parenthetical aside. Ana Mari Cauce, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at UW, who pegs the actual reduction in state support at 4.2%, notes that student tuition is projected to increase at a rate of 11% in both 2011 and 2012, and that these will have “crippling effects” on the university. Between the state budget cuts and the increases in tuition, she estimates that in total, the cut to the UW is somewhere between 25 percent and 29 percent. If she’s right, she’s calling attention to the fact that the officially recorded budget figures understate the enormity of the impact to the UW, as well as the state’s other public universities such as WSU and Western Washington State University.
Mr. Arkans, in his e-mail to me, also emphatically states that “we have had zero faculty pay reductions—none at all. We have had no pay raises, of course, but not a single person’s salary has been reduced here because of any budget cuts.”
But Dean Cauce states that “there are a number of other indirect or hidden cuts to the University of Washington, including proposed pension and salary cutbacks or furloughs.” Mr. Arkans warned me, “I’m sure you can appreciate what such erroneous information might do to public perception.” But, though I was certainly incorrect on one claim (that faculty would suffer a 31% pay cut over a several-year period—a claim I will now retract), what am I to write when high-ranking officials from the University of Washington offer diametrically opposed accounts of the financial health of that institution? How confused must the public perception of the University of Washington be if the intramural perception of the university is so confusing?
I’ll refrain from making any claims at this point: I’d prefer to ask questions and draw general conclusions. Why does it seem to be so difficult for universities (and I’m by no means restricting this question to the University of Washington) to be consistent and transparent when it comes to characterizing their institutions’ financial situations? That’s my main question.
Secondly, I think it’s misleading to talk about reductions in state support independently of increases in tuition, because they’re both part of the same general inclination to privatize, and thus ultimately to corporatize public higher education. Some might argue, as Richard Vedder has done, that this would be a step in the right direction. But those of us who study higher education should find it easier to know how this is happening and at what pace.
