The Badger Herald: Opinion: Reprint the tuition bills

Opinion

Reprint the tuition bills

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Bryant Walker Smith:

Sitting Down and Shutting Up (November 25, 2002)
Seeking to blend polish and politics (December 2, 2002)
Post-penultimate (December 9, 2002)
Civility and responsibility: Sign here. (November 4, 2002)
Bush's environmental policy misguided (October 14, 2002)

Monday, November 11, 2002 12:00 a.m.

0 Vote 0 Votes

It isn’t working.

The numbers preclude any other conclusion. From 1991 to 2001, UW System revenue from tuition and fees increased six times faster than revenue from the state. Corrections revenue grew 40 times faster. Tuition is increasing at several times the rate of inflation.

These trends simply cannot continue.

So what if our state tried something new?

First, let’s introduce our freshman cast: Wes Konsin and Mary Lands. This year, Wes is paying $4,414 in in-state tuition and fees, while non-resident Mary is coughing up $18,376.

Second, let’s simplify. We’ll ignore student fees, and we’ll estimate tuition: $4,000 for Wes and $20,000 for Mary. Both of our students will take five years to graduate. Their tuition will not increase.

Third, let’s figure out the bills. Over the five years, Wes will pay $20,000 and Mary will pay $100,000. Ouch.

Now, let’s adjust tuition to $16,000 per year. But before Wes gets too angry, we’ll automatically provide both students with a loan of $15,000 per year. And as long as Wes and Mary are in college, we won’t charge them interest.

Upon graduation, both students will have paid $5,000 and will owe $75,000.

But that won’t be the end. Over the next decade, for every year that one of our graduates works in Wisconsin, the state will assume $10,000 of that graduate’s loans.

If Mary heads back to the East Coast, she will begin paying interest on her $75,000 loan. But if she works in Wisconsin for the next eight years, her debt will be erased.

Similarly, if Wes defects to Michigan, he will take his debt with him. This will provide incentive to one day return home — if Wes accepts a job in Wisconsin five years later, he will still be able to save $50,000.

If both students spend eight years in Wisconsin, each will have paid a mere $5,000 in tuition. When compared to our simplified current system, Wes will have saved $15,000, and Mary will have saved an astounding $95,000.

The results?

First, the UW System will be more accessible to all students — residents and non-residents alike. Graduates who choose to remain in Wisconsin will receive a tremendous education at a tremendous price. Those who leave will help spread the word that Wisconsin’s world-class education is a world-class bargain.

Second, all students will be more inclined to seek in-state employment. As these graduates establish roots in their adopted communities, they will be less likely to leave Wisconsin, regardless of where they grew up.

Third, as companies realize that Wisconsin is home to a highly educated pool of graduates who want to stay put, the state will become a more lucrative place to do business.

Fourth, the UW System will have the flexibility to aggressively recruit students from outside Wisconsin. For top high school seniors across the country, the UW could be more financially lucrative than its own public universities, and all students will benefit from the enhanced diversity that these out-of-staters will offer.

Fifth, the entire state of Wisconsin will benefit as the brain drain is halted — and perhaps reversed. Highly educated workers in newly created, high-paying jobs will fuel economic growth, which will in turn provide the tax revenue the state craves.

The participation of state government is critical to realizing this growth. Initially, it must provide funds to replace lost tuition revenue — about $570 million per year. Then, it must honor its commitment to assume the loans of graduates who remain in Wisconsin. The state could not simply forgive these loans; it would have to pay them down just as the graduates would be expected to do.

While these are large commitments, they would be partially offset by revenues from the resultant economic growth. The Commerce Department reports that, on average, a college graduate earns nearly twice as much as a person who has only graduated high school. For a state that ranks in the bottom half for its proportion of college graduates, this gap cannot be ignored: The economic benefits from increased higher education could be in the billions of dollars.

In this sense, this plan is not dissimilar to the principle behind tax increment financing. In a TIF district such as Capitol Square’s Block 89, new tax revenues that result from the area’s development are used to promote that development. Wisconsin’s investment in higher education would be a TIF district on a grand scale — directed at minds instead of buildings.

Such an ambitious plan can be realized. Wisconsin’s budget crisis may yet force a thorough examination of all of the state’s spending priorities.

And as the UW System lobbies for greater budget flexibility, it should embrace the state’s traditional role as a force of tremendous creativity by seeking to designate one of its campuses as a pilot for the revamped tuition structure. Resident and non-resident students alike would jump at the potential bargain, and the state could witness the power of effective education.

The need for a revenue revolution already exists. The UW System and state government must now provide the opportunity.

Bryant Walker Smith (bsmith@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering.