«f?z/74. -*-••-•? UF THE Uiit, - -OtS tH UReAfcMNCMAMPAIOet UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Fifty-Seventh Report 1972-74 UNIVERSITY ...»
Report on the Chicago Circle and Medical Center Referenda on Selection of Nonvoting Student Members of the Board of Trustees President Corbally reported on the results of the recent referenda at the Chicago campuses with regard to the selection of nonvoting student members of the Board of Trustees.
At the Chicago Circle campus, Proposition One: "Elected through an at-large election following the usual student election procedures in effect on the Chicago Circle campus" received the largest number of votes — 142.
Proposition Two: "Elected through an at-large election in which candidates will be nominated by a committee consisting of two representatives from the Student Advisory Committee, Senate Coordinating Council, and Chicago Circle Center Board" received 123 votes. Proposition Three: "Appointed by the Executive Committee of Student Government with the concurrence of the Graduate Student Advisory Committee" received 24 votes. Proposition Four: "Appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the chairmen of the Student Advisory Committee, Student Government, Graduate Student Advisory Committee, Senate Coordinating Council, and The Chicago Circle Center Board" received ten votes.
At the Medical Center campus, Proposition Two: "Appointed by the Executive Student Council following the usual appointment procedures in effect at the Medical Center campus" received the largest number of votes — 805.
Proposition One: "Elected through an at-large election administered by the Executive Student Council" received 301 votes. Proposition Three: "Neither of the above. A more detailed list of alternatives should be made available" received 123 votes.
Accordingly, the student member at the Chicago Circle campus will be elected through an at-large election and the student member at the Medical Center will be appointed by the Executive Student Council.
REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE
O F WEST EUROPEAN STUDIESThe Chancellor at Urbana-Champaign has approved the establishment of an Office of West European Studies. Its purpose is to assist the campus community to focus its research and teaching capabilities on those aspects of modern Europe that are of specific interest to national, state, and local policy formation.
The initial effort of the Office will be to stimulate and aid faculty research and closely related teaching bearing on problems common to advanced industrial societies and relevant to domestic or foreign policy issues facing the United States.
A principal function will be to serve as a source of information concerning research and research-related teaching on societal problems of contemporary western Europe taking place within the University and as a source of current and specific information on external funding possibilities for such research and teaching.
The Office will cooperate with faculty and students in interested departments to sponsor interdepartmental conferences and seminars as the need for them becomes clear. Other activities, including those of a public service nature, will be added as determined by experience and faculty and student interest. Donald R.
Hodgman, Professor of Economics, has been appointed as the first Director.
TUITION POLICY A N D TUITION FOR 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 President Corbally presented the following report and recommendations.
1973] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 397 (1) Discussions concerning tuition policies and tuition levels have reached a new peak of volume during the past year. This phenomenon is by no means only a local happening, but is a matter of national concern. Both the public press and professional journals contain an increasing number of tuition proposals, counter proposals, and rebuttals to both. There are only two tuition positions which are based on sound, understandable, philosophical positions. The first is that there should be no tuition charges levied in public higher education. The other is that students in public higher education should pay tuition equal to the full costs of their instruction. All in-between positions are compromises which are based upon practical and judgmental considerations rather than upon any real philosophical framework.
Unfortunately, many tuition discussions today represent efforts to construct a philosophical base for compromise positions for which no such base exists. These discussions are interesting, but cloud the current basic issues which are practical, financial resource issues.
For us, the time has come when tuition policy in general and specific tuition rates for 1974-75 must be determined. I had hoped that the position of the Illinois Board of Higher Education concerning tuition policy for public higher education in Illinois would have been determined by this time, but no such determination will be made until at least December 4, 1973. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to provide our students with information concerning changes in tuition as early as possible before changes are made. I also believe that to the extent possible our policy should reflect BHE suggestions.
In an effort to meet the requirements of both of those beliefs, I am recommending that the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois adopt a provisional position on tuition for 1974-75 at the November 21 meeting with the understanding that this position will be reviewed and made final following action of the BHE in December on tuition policy. The adoption of a provisional position will provide our students with an understanding of probable tuition levels for 1974-75 while at the same time not foreclosing change if the provisional position should vary greatly from BHE suggestions.
*** The current position of the BHE is that tuitions in public universities in Illinois should approximate one-third of undergraduate instructional costs. As stated above, there is no real support in theory or in philosophy for such a position. In my view, the theory and philosophy of public higher education support the concept that no tuition should be charged those who attend public universities. This concept, however, has eroded over the years under the pressures of financial needs and the inability and/or unwillingness of society to provide financial support to meet those needs. Tuition at public universities is, thus, a concept which has been born of necessity rather than of theory. What we are discussing is a means of providing some portion of the financial support requirement of a public university through a price charged the students.
At the present time, tuition charges at the University of Illinois are $495 per year for full-time students who are residents of the State of Illinois except for students in Dentistry ($261 per quarter) or in Medicine ($294 per quarter). For nonresidents, these charges are $1,485 except in Dentistry ($591 per quarter) and in Medicine ($624 per quarter). These tuition levels equal something less than 30 per cent of undergraduate instructional costs. This tuition level was established for 1972-73 in an effort to achieve the BHE standard. However, at that time, the BHE cost data were for 1970-71 so that the tuition assessed did not actually achieve the standard in spite of this Board's intent to do so.
*** Two facts must be clear as we review the financial resources of the University. First, the resources available to the University are not keeping pace with the costs of inflation. Second, increases in State tax support of higher education will not, in and of themselves, keep pace with the increased need for resources.
I will not review here the financial picture with which you are all familiar. We are losing ground in meeting the costs of quality. We can either revise downward our goals for the University of Illinois or find resources to permit us to meet those goals. I believe that we must choose the latter course. One financial resource is 398 BOARD OF TRUSTEES [November 21 tuition income. As reluctant as we are to consider increasing tuition charges on the basis of our theory and philosophy of public higher education, that reluctance must give way to reality.
The budget requests for the University for 1974-75 envisioned the need for $7 million to continue the health professions expansion program and $11.7 million (6 per cent of the 1973-74 base of $196 million) to meet current salary and price increase needs. In addition, budgetary deficiencies accumulated over the past several years in the amount of $30.9 million were detailed and the need for some funds to begin dealing with those deficiencies was stressed. It was hoped that the restoration of $4.1 million reduced from our 1973-74 appropriation would provide funds to begin reducing deficiencies, but that hope was not realized.
It now seems clear that realistic expectations for increased State tax support in 1974-75 should include a 6 per cent increase in the tax portion of our appropriations ($171 million) plus the $7 million for health professions expansion. In order to realize a 6 per cent increase over our total appropriations (tax or general revenue plus income fund or tuition), we shall have to impose a 6 per cent increase in tuition or $30 per year for all except tuition for Medicine and Dentistry students to which a 6 per cent increase will also be applied. No tax sources seem available to even begin to deal with our accumulated budget deficiencies — deficiencies with which we must begin to deal. As you know, to restore the $4.1 million to our base would require an additional tuition increase of $90 per year. Many believe that this restoration is so essential that that additional tuition should be levied. I find this argument persuasive.
Based upon our budget requests for 1974-75, average undergraduate instructional costs, exclusive of the health professions for 1974-75, will be $2,048.16. If tuition for 1974-75 were to be assessed at the suggested level of one-third of undergraduate instructional costs, the charge would be $682 or an increase of $186 over current tuition. In spite of the fact that current BHE policy would support such an increase, an increase of that magnitude seems inappropriale.
It is difficult to determine what increase is appropriate, but a rationale can be developed in support of adding $60 per year to the $30 per year mentioned above.
Our costs have been increasing due to inflation by at least 6 per cent per year.
The "price" we charge students through tuition has remained the same last year and this year in the hope that the State would provide sufficient additional tax support (o meet the inflationary pressures upon both salary and other costs. The State has not done so with resulting budgetary deficiencies for the University. It seems clear that the State is operating on a "tuition as price" concept and that tuition in the future will need to reflect inflationary pressures. These pressures during the last two years would have resulted in annual increases in tuition of about $30 per year and one can argue that we must now at least restore our tuition level for 1974-75 to the 1972-73 level by adding the cost of inflation which has occurred during this year and last.
This decision would provide approximately $2.75 million in 1974-75 to begin to deal with budgetary deficiencies. Obviously some continuing reallocation to attempt to provide another $1.35 million for this purpose would be necessary. It is clear, however, that five years of reallocation have left us with little room to create major sources of funds through this method. This total increase of $90 per year in tuition would still leave the level of tuition about $100 below the "onethird" standard in 1974-75. After reviewing all alternatives, I find myself in support of an increase in the amount of $90 per year and it is this increase which I recommend.
It is further recommended that the same percentage increases be applied to tuition in Dentistry and Medicine which would result in increases of $47 per quarter in Dentistry and $53 per quarter in Medicine. Nonresident tuition would also be increased proportionately to $1,752 per academic year except for Dentistry ($697 per quarter) and Medicine ($736 per quarter).
The proposed tuition charges are well within the award ceiling of the Illinois State Scholarship Commission and students eligible for awards would not be penalized by these increases. However, a special problem exists at the Chicago Circle campus in which entering students have not appeared to avail themselves of ISSC aid for which they are eligible. The Planning Committee recommends that tuition levels for freshmen students at Chicago Circle remain at the 1973-74 1973] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 399 level while efforts are made to overcome this apparent communication problem, and the Chancellors and I concur with this recommendation.
It is understood that tuition levels for less than full-time students will reflect these increases so as to continue the same relationship as now exists between tuition for full-time and part-time students.
In summary, then, I recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt the following
position with regard to tuition policy and tuition levels for Fiscal 1975:
1. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois reaffirms its support of the budget requests submitted by the Board to the Illinois Board of Higher Education for 1974-75;
2. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois expresses its strong feeling that the financial needs of the University for 1974-75 can and should be met through State appropriations without increases in tuition for 1974-75;
3. If deemed necessary in the light of recommendations of the Board of Higher Education concerning 1974-75 budget levels and concerning 1974-75 tuition levels, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois expresses its intention to support the financial needs of the University by adopting tuition levels up to those tuition levels outlined above. In thus expressing itself, the Board is alerting all those concerned that such tuition levels may be required for 1974-75 and is suggesting that the financial planning of students include consideration of this possibility.
A discussion followed. M r. H o w a r d then requested that each recommendation be considered separately.
On motion of M r. H a h n, Recommendation No. 1 was unanimously approved.
On motion of Mr. H a h n, Recommendation No. 2 was approved. Mr.
Livingston asked to be recorded as voting no.
President pro tern Swain requested a roll call vote on Recommendation No. 3.