TABLE OF CONTENTS  |  FRONT PAGE  |  NEXT ARTICLE |  PREVIOUS ARTICLE  |  UNC HOMEPAGE

Moeser: Time is right to examine tuition principle


University trustees will decide Jan. 24 whether tuition here should be increased to help Carolina better compete with its peers, and that was the question the Faculty Council wrestled with on Jan. 18.

Nearly everybody agrees that Carolina faculty pay is low compared to the salaries offered at competing universities. And they see that situation as a problem that needs fixing.

Nearly everyone agrees that student tuition at Carolina is far lower than at comparable universities.

The low tuition is no accident, and in the eyes of many, no problem, either. Rather, it reflects the longstanding legislative practice, codified in the state Constitution, to keep attendance as "free of expense" as "far as practicable."

But what exactly "practicable" means, in a time of tough economics and shrinking state revenues, is a question of open debate.

And that is as it should be, Chancellor James Moeser said during his remarks before the Faculty Council.

"Now is the time to responsibly interpret that concept using today's standards and ever mindful of our stellar track record for keeping the doors of the University open to those who are qualified academically, without regard to cost," Moeser said.

Moeser concluded by saying he endorsed the principles and approach laid out by the Tuition Task Force that completed its work Jan. 15 by recommending a $400 increase for next year. (See related story above.)

Moeser said the salaries for full professors at Carolina now are within 9 percent of the mean for its peers. Without the added revenue from the past two years of campus-based tuition increases, Moeser said, "we know those gaps would have grown substantially larger."

And that gap is something the campus must focus on as it expects 30 percent of the faculty to retire over the next decade, he said. "Our overriding concern should be whether that and similar gaps in areas like class size and faculty-student ratios ultimately threaten the future overall value and quality of the Carolina diploma earned by our students and their children."

But Student Body President Justin Young, who served with Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton as co-chair of the tuition study group, did not concur. He appeared before the Faculty Council to say why he rejected the group's recommendation for a one-time increase of $400.

The task force did not take enough time to study the issue or involve enough students or faculty members in the discussion, he said. Young also charged that not enough attention was given to alternative solutions and said he would appear before trustees on Jan. 24 with a different proposal.

Faculty Chair Sue Estroff said the University community has to "have a public conversation about what is a fair share -- for legislators, for students and for private funding.

"We've begun to have that discussion."

Toward that end, Estroff said she found it striking that students attending Carolina today pay in tuition almost exactly what she paid as a student at Duke University 30 years ago. "There are bargains and then there are bargains," she said.

Estroff repeated her view that tuition increases should be used to enhance the educational experience, which would include higher pay for faculty. That being said, though, Estroff likened the recommendation to raise tuition by $400 to close the salary gap to "trying to clean the streets of Chapel Hill with a toothbrush."

Shelton, in his introductory remarks, talked at length about how the task force struggled to develop a proposal that, in essence, committed the University to doing its fair share without letting the state off the hook of maintaining a high level of support for higher education. One of the task force's biggest worries was that the state would let up on funding after students started paying more, thus supplanting state dollars with student dollars.

But Shelton said it was important to remember from where the legislature draws its resources, too.

"We often say the legislature [should do more]," Shelton said, "but let's face it: We're talking about taxpayers and some taxpayers are more affluent than others."

The task force reviewed statistics showing that most Carolina students come from families that are more affluent than the typical family in the state. And need-based aid is now offered and will continue to be offered to offset any tuition increases that would be imposed.

Joseph Ferrell, the secretary of the faculty, said the governor and the legislature have limited options and no good ones.

They could do nothing.

They could raise taxes.

They could take money from other state departments and agencies.

Moeser, too, cautioned against thinking that the state could be expected to shoulder the entire burden alone.

Moeser said that UNC President Molly Corbett Broad already has estimated it will take about $70 million just to cover enrollment growth for next year and the portion that was not covered this year because of enrollment levels that exceeded expectations.

What's worse is that this year's budget was calculated based on revenues that would be generated from a growing state economy. And the economy has been slowing instead. "Let's not kid ourselves that there is a silver bullet out there that we are avoiding," Moeser said.


TABLE OF CONTENTS  |  FRONT PAGE  |  NEXT ARTICLE |  PREVIOUS ARTICLE  |  UNC HOMEPAGE