The power of semantics is amazing. Last week, the University let it out that tuition will likely be increasing by 3.5 percent in the fall of 2010.
This increase is on the heels of the 3.5 percent levied on students this spring. Semantics (“the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases and sentences”) came into play in the article in the Feb. 15 BG News article on the increase proposed for the fall term.
In the article, there were several comments by those in the administration and at the state level that were very telling in the precision of their words. My favorite was the comment by University CFO Sheri Stoll: “I am sure students are going to be very disappointed,” which ranks as a major understatement.
The students are going to be a little more than “disappointed.” A better word might be “outraged” and that probably would be the nicest word used by students about another increase. Stoll’s comment shows just how out of touch the residents of McFall are with the student body. The fall increase will hit students right when many other prices will be adjusting upward on food, clothes, and rent: the essentials of life.
President Cartwright was quoted as saying, “We want to give the students a good strong signal. That’s the fair thing to do,” and that an increase is an option to get costs back in line. This is admirable of President Cartwright and she is right in that it is the fair thing to do.
The comments I found most distressing were by the Governor’s Education Czar, Eric Fingerhut, especially when he said Ohio universities and colleges are doing far better than others in the nation, citing a report that said Ohio had the one year lowest increases in 2008. He said, “making education as affordable as possible is always the goal, even if tuition has to increase every once in a while.” He went on to say, “Tuition does not cover the cost of an education. We all have to work together to keep expense down.”
Someone should remind Fingerhut that although tuition does not cover the cost of education, it represents more than 70 percent of the revenue the University relies on to make the bills each month. What he fails to point out is that public higher education tuition increases in Ohio had already outpaced the rest of the nation in the previous 16 years with the state share of instruction (SSI) plunging, and students are now paying the lion’s share of the cost of higher education in Ohio.
This is a radical change from the days when the SSI was 70 percent of the revenue to keep the University doors open. He went on to remind us of how multi-faceted a university is and the number of courses and degrees available to the student. Those of us who teach are aware of the complexity of the institution and also how adjuncts and grad students are now the indentured servants of 21st century higher education that keeps the house of cards from tumbling down.
The students at the University and Firelands are in the position of having no input on whether this tuition raise will happen. USG will most likely rubberstamp it, if they are even asked for their input at all. The decision is up to the Board of Trustees, a group composed of mainly those folks who inhabit the top 1 percent of Ohio’s economic stratum. For them an increase of 3.5 percent is a small thing; the last one amounted to around $178 on main campus and about $78 at Firelands. That probably amounts to lunch or a night on the town for them, so I am sure they will authorize this increase.
I am sure the nontraditional student interviewed in the article who cashed in his 401(k) to go back to school at 48 appreciates Fingerhut’s thoughts on why students should pay more, because once his money that was to be his retirement nest egg is gone, there are always the other “financial aid” loans.
Just like price increases at the gas pump, whatever happens, the students will have to pay for it.
Respond to Pat at [email protected]
