Wisconsinites are feeling like they help others and
others help them when they're in need.
>> The cost of attending University of Wisconsin
schools is going up in the fall. This month, the UW
Board of Regents approved a 2% tuition hike for
in-state undergraduate students, plus roughly
commensurate increases in fees and room and board
that will put UW-Madison at $12,416 on the high end,
and UW Parkside at 8851 at the lowest price point.
It's the fourth tuition increase in a row after a
ten year freeze. In the midst of increasing cost
pressures on families, how reasonable is the tuition
hike? We're joined by professor in the UW-Madison
Department of Education Policy, Taylor Odle, and
thanks for being here. >> Thanks for having me.
>> So a 2% tuition hike on paper seems really modest,
but at a time, as we said, when people questioned the
value of a college degree, does it turn some people
away? >> I think it's very
important to acknowledge that a 2% increase is very
real money for students and families. I think at the
same time, we also have to acknowledge that costs are
going up for all of us, including organizations and
businesses like the Universities of Wisconsin.
2% is relatively modest and predictable, and below the
rate of inflation right now doesn't mean it doesn't,
you know, have important conversations about dollars
and cents at the end of the day. But what students and
families should really care about is the net price of
college. So when you quote that $12,000 or that $8,000,
that's what we call the sticker price, what you see
on the website. But from that, we know people get
grants and scholarships, and that pulls it down to
what we call the net price, the check that you have to
write at the end of the day to be able to enroll. And
that number has actually been relatively flat over
the last several years because UW is taking money
from these tuition back into financial aid.
>> With a 30% decline in highest paying
international students and volatile federal research
funding. What is a university to do except use
that tuition lever? >> That's a great question.
UW the universities of Wisconsin have three
primary revenue sources, right? Federal grants,
which we are among the top in the nation at securing.
We enroll students who pay tuition and fees, and we
receive funding from the state. State support has
long stagnated, with the exception of a recent
increase. And so tuition dollars are a primary way
of raising funds. With a tuition freeze for many,
many years, our ability to do that was hamstrung. And
so it quite literally strangled some of the
campuses. We benefit from having international
students and even students from out of state who pay
higher tuition rates because they can afford it.
They are mobile geographic for colleges with a decline
in international student enrollment. There aren't
many other students that we can look to except for our
in-state students, especially now because the
state has begun to increasingly regulate our
ability to even draw students from Minnesota and
Iowa and other out-of-state partners.
>> So how kind of in jeopardy are the finances
of the Universities of Wisconsin given all of
these factors? >> It's a very serious
position, right? We've already seen campus
closures of many regional campuses. We've seen cuts
to academic programs. We've seen staff and faculty
restructurings. And so no one wants to raise prices.
If you're a business owner, you don't want to walk out
and show your customers raising prices. The
university doesn't want to do that either. We want
more people to access and have access to a college
education. Like you said, for upper social and
economic mobility. But when the state is no longer a
primary funding partner, federal research and grants
landscape is certainly uncertain. Tuition is one
of the only lovers left. >> So some Republican state
policymakers are super angry about this tuition
increase, saying it's, you know, the fourth in a row
after a state budget gave the system $256 million.
What about that persuasion? >> Yeah, I think the
average Wisconsinite should also be super angry about
that characterization. So 256 million is a big number
and it's a very important investment. It's however, a
biennial increase. So we have to divide that by two
because it's going to be the 120 something million
every year. And just to put that in context, the
university leverages its the state's largest public
employer, and its operating budget is around $7 billion.
And so that increase is less than almost 1.5%, so
substantially below inflation. And more
importantly, that $256 million came with a lot of
important caveats. Most importantly, an unfunded
tuition or salary raise for faculty and staff across
the institution. So no other piece of state
government has unfunded mandates in that same way.
So we're required to raise salaries by 2% for all
faculty and staff. But the state didn't put in the
money to fully fund that raise. And so the Regents
have said that the tuition increase will predominantly
fund faculty and staff salary increases mandated.
>> Well, that's another piece that some
policymakers are unhappy about, because they say the
number of staff has gone up, whereas the number of
students has not. >> So many people, when
they think about staff increases on cross campus.
We use this federal survey where we report people in
these huge buckets. Do they teach? Do they work? Are
they administrative in different ways? It doesn't
capture the granularity of what those staff are
actually doing. So if we hire more students to
provide career exploration or oversee internships for
students or help them get placements with employers,
those are staff members and those are very valuable
staff members. I'd be happy to double or triple those
numbers. And so it's a really nuanced conversation,
right? Are there efficiencies to be had? Of
course, but we need to have better data and a more
frank conversation around frank conversation around