It seems that once again the Texas State University-San Marcos Texas, Texas State Board of Regents are seriously considering a ten percent tuition increase (view article here).
In 1986 tuition and fees for twelve credit hours was $486.00 for the fall of 2006 combined tuition and fees are now $2,349.00. According to the student handbook for Texas State Normal School 1903 states that tuition, fees, and books ran $38.00. Now I am not saying that Tuition Deregulation impacted the 1986 and 1903 tuition rates but I only add those figures for comparison. Tuition Deregulation was passed by the Legislature in 2003. H.B. 3015 allowed for the various boards of regents for each university system to determine their own tuition rather than each system having to go to the Legislature for increases in funding.
The only problem with the deregulation of tuition was that university systems were now under less scrutiny. They could increase tuition as they sought the need required. Now instead of the Legislature having pressure being put upon them; to provide adequate funding for our higher educational system, the legislators shifted the liability away from themselves to each university system.
Why did I start with all of the numbers? Consider this, the last time I paid for twelve credit hours at TSU was right before deregulation took effect, and also before the university changed is name. At that time, I paid just over one thousand dollars, and now its more than twice the amount in only three years.
It's time for the Legislature to resume its responsibility and adequately fund education across the board. If education is the gateway to higher income potential then it is important that it be made accessible and affordable.
Gratias Tibi Ago Deus
Wonko's Bud
5 comments:
I didn't go to Texas State. I graduated from Southwest Texas. HA HA!
You're right, I never went to Texas State University(TSU)either but you know it still hurts.
I disagree. By deregulating Higher Education (granted, i'm speaking generally and don't know the specifics of this instance)the schools can pass the costs directly on to the students. Now, this may seem unfair to burden students with such costs, right? Nobody likes to pay the piper. But I would argue that the students are the ones who will be directly benefiting from the education, so why shouldn't they pay? The average taxpayer will not directly benefit. Why should your taxes go toward my son's degree? Hardly seems fair, especially when you could be using that money to put your own son through college. Therefore, it makes sense to shift the payment from the taxpayers to the students. Additionally, when the student sees the REAL cost of his education, he can act it his own best interest and choose a college that will give him the best education for his money. No legislation could act as effectively as the market in this instance.
I generally don't like anonymous comments but your's seems very sincere and most respectful. Thank you. But to answer you questions.
You are right, in the short term the tax payer does not see a direct benefit, but over the long term there is a direct benefit.
The benefit lays in the fact that a more educated society generates and sustains a viable middle class. Our American society is hurt when the middle class is shrunk. In other words our particular form of Democracy cannot be protected with out a strong and vibrant middle class.
You may disagree with me and I respect that but my premise is based on fact and not a hypothesis. I direct you to the very successful G. I. Bill. Few historians and economists of any repute would disagree that this government program did not grow the middle class in the United States after World War II.
I really should read my comments more carefully. Sorry about the double negative. What I meant to say in the last sentence was that, most economist and historians would agree that the G.I. Bill was successful in growing the middle class after WWII.
Post a Comment