Opinion piece from the Fredericksburg paper, "The Free Lance Star".


Virginia House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox wants the state's colleges to consider putting less emphasis on athletics. He's concerned that universities spend too much on all kinds of "auxiliary enterprises" that could go toward making student debt a little less onerous.

He's right. Student athletics fees amount to 12 percent of tuition and fees at state schools. According to figures from earlier this year, the average athletics fee per student is $1,185. And it was much higher at a smaller school without a lot of TV money, gate receipts and donations coming in. In 2013, Virginia Tech's average was $267 a year while Longwood's was $2,044. When Old Dominion went to the top tier in football, its athletics fees went up more than 80 percent in seven years.

However, Cox is a little off the mark when he disputed the claim that cuts in state appropriations are part of the problem. He said that "even in good times" tuition rates rose.

Yes, tuition rates have risen, no matter what, and there needs to be more accountability. But the rates at which tuition has risen are inextricably tied to economic downturns and the ensuing state budget cuts.

The 2001 recession caused the state to reduce funding to public institutions by 22 percent in 2002-2004. Institutions raised tuition and fees 19.3 percent to compensate. When the state's economy improved and more support was forthcoming to colleges, tuition and fees rose by 5.1 percent in 2009-2010. When the Great Recession hit and the legislature had to really tighten belts, state support fell by 27 percent, and tuition and fees rose 13.1 percent for 2010-2011. Now, with at least a nominal recovery in the works, the increase was 4.5 percent in 2012-2013 and 5.1 percent for the following fiscal year.

Despite what Cox says, state money to state institutions is a big part of the problem. In 1976, Virginia introduced a 70/30 policy. The state would provide 70 percent of the cost of education at a state university and the students would pay 30 percent. (For community colleges, it was 80/20.) In the 2002-2004 biennium, the students' share rose to 36 percent. For the last fiscal year, the student share rose to 51 percent. For the first time, the state contributed less than half.

Yes, universities could be more mindful of the massive debts so many young people are carrying away from campus, to be borne like an adult version of their student backpacks for many years. Yes, it's wrong to soak students for thousands of dollars over four years for athletics fees. Yes, the community college system offers relief for many.

The real bottom line, though, is this: A state that once valued education enough to pay 70 percent of in-state tuition and fees (our tax dollars at work) now pays 49 percent.

We are shortchanging a generation of students.

(10-23-2014 10:23 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  does anybody think that part of the issue of student debt today is that this generation of college students did not have families who prepared years in advance for college like parents today.

529 plans, prepaid tuition plans, etc, just weren't prevalent in 1995. that forces a parent to foot the bill, or the student to take loans. Now, many more families are investing in such plans, and the plans have gotten better and more flexible. when those kids are college age, they will have a solid nest egg from which to pull from to pay for college, which will in turn lower the debt burden on students.

And the next generation is not likely to change despite the use of such plans. Pensions used to be a part of retirement in large corporations, but those have been gone for some 20-25 years now. The effect is a smaller nest egg for most middle-income families for retirement. Housing costs, food prices, health care and other costs which are often not accounted for in inflation are stifling the ability for young families to save for retirement and their children's education.

I suppose a cynic can say, "Well, just forego the $150+ cable bill and the cell phone packages that rake up monthly charges." Yes, some expenses can be cut and I believe this generation is much more a live for now generation than a save for later generation that evolved from the depression era. However, the limited areas that can be cut do not sigfnificantly make up for the enormous growth of costs that are burdening this generation.

We have sort of peaked as a country in its development. We can continue to grow, but it won't be at the post WWII rates or benefit from developing countries exponential growth in the same way the US benefited from the surging Information Age that emerged in the 90s.

At the end of the day, something's gotta give. I have a freshman in HS, and both my wife and I still have student debt. We also have over $250K left on a mortgage and we have 3 other kids. Yes, we made a decision for family over wealth by having more children. But the reality for the next generation is that the wealth spill-over effect from generations past will have to balance out the increased cost of attaining the basic necessities (i.e., higher education) to continue creating wealth-generating career opportunities for their families. It's a tough world with a lot of conveniences. But those conveniences mask the reality of financial sustainability among most American families.

Sorry for the rant. I just know that I am among those fortunate ones with enough to live comfortably, but others have far less. And at that, I still stress about how we will always pay our bills and have enough for retirement and inheritance for my family.

To the OP - Athletics indeed inspire more applications and higher quality students. Just ask VT or VCU after their success in football and basketball respectively.

Here we go again!
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/...0a529.html

(11-11-2014 08:16 AM)HMK Wrote:  Here we go again!
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/...0a529.html

And again, my favorite part of the report is that the is State absolved of responsibility for their share, and then the report offers NO response to that issue, only saying that there is no additional funding available. BS

"State funding per student declined from $8,666 in 1998 to $5,835 in 2012, and the report concludes little or no additional funding will be available"

I really hope that is an inflation adjusted number....but I'm sure it isn't. In 14 years, the state has cut 33% of higher ed spending on a pure dollar by dollar basis. That % is much higher when you consider inflation.

I do agree that college costs need to be reigned in, but athletics aren't the primary reason for the cost increases. It is the UREC's, the dining facilities, the new dorms, etc... Kids in school these days live BETTER than recent graduates. Think about that for a second...

Without the student fees, we have no football program. There are those who want to do away with the student fees. We are in perilous times. We damned sight aren't going to raise student fees to fund a move to 1A football.

Did ODU, Charlotte, and App State raise student fees for 1A football?

(11-11-2014 09:58 AM)Dukeman Wrote:  Did ODU, Charlotte, and App State raise student fees for 1A football?

ODU said they never would, but my sleight of hand, they did.

We're at a state were public schools are halfway between the former public and private. When less and less is paid for by the state, the student has to pick up the tab through fees or raised tuition.
I do agree that we want to oooh and Ahhh people with all these facilities at colleges, but is it really necessary? We feel they're required to compete with other colleges.

Meanwhile, I watched a last week tonight segment about state lotteries and how they supposedly help to fund public education. I think it was Florida that started a lottery campaign in 2005. Since then, dollar for dollar funding for education has decreased in the last decade.
Their lottery marketing was blatantly lying. They sit there and say we're sending this amount this year, failing to mention accounting technicalities that move other money out, resulting in no funding increase.

(11-04-2014 11:10 PM)HMK Wrote:  Opinion piece from the Fredericksburg paper, "The Free Lance Star".


Virginia House Majority Leader M. Kirkland Cox wants the state's colleges to consider putting less emphasis on athletics. He's concerned that universities spend too much on all kinds of "auxiliary enterprises" that could go toward making student debt a little less onerous.

He's right. Student athletics fees amount to 12 percent of tuition and fees at state schools. According to figures from earlier this year, the average athletics fee per student is $1,185. And it was much higher at a smaller school without a lot of TV money, gate receipts and donations coming in. In 2013, Virginia Tech's average was $267 a year while Longwood's was $2,044. When Old Dominion went to the top tier in football, its athletics fees went up more than 80 percent in seven years.

However, Cox is a little off the mark when he disputed the claim that cuts in state appropriations are part of the problem. He said that "even in good times" tuition rates rose.

Yes, tuition rates have risen, no matter what, and there needs to be more accountability. But the rates at which tuition has risen are inextricably tied to economic downturns and the ensuing state budget cuts.

The 2001 recession caused the state to reduce funding to public institutions by 22 percent in 2002-2004. Institutions raised tuition and fees 19.3 percent to compensate. When the state's economy improved and more support was forthcoming to colleges, tuition and fees rose by 5.1 percent in 2009-2010. When the Great Recession hit and the legislature had to really tighten belts, state support fell by 27 percent, and tuition and fees rose 13.1 percent for 2010-2011. Now, with at least a nominal recovery in the works, the increase was 4.5 percent in 2012-2013 and 5.1 percent for the following fiscal year.

Despite what Cox says, state money to state institutions is a big part of the problem. In 1976, Virginia introduced a 70/30 policy. The state would provide 70 percent of the cost of education at a state university and the students would pay 30 percent. (For community colleges, it was 80/20.) In the 2002-2004 biennium, the students' share rose to 36 percent. For the last fiscal year, the student share rose to 51 percent. For the first time, the state contributed less than half.

Yes, universities could be more mindful of the massive debts so many young people are carrying away from campus, to be borne like an adult version of their student backpacks for many years. Yes, it's wrong to soak students for thousands of dollars over four years for athletics fees. Yes, the community college system offers relief for many.

The real bottom line, though, is this: A state that once valued education enough to pay 70 percent of in-state tuition and fees (our tax dollars at work) now pays 49 percent.

We are shortchanging a generation of students.

Per pupil spending has been outpacing inflation for a long time. That is a big culprit. If the schools had been keeping their per pupil spending to the rate of inflation the last several decades, the amount the state pays would constitute a much higher percentage than that 49% now.

(11-11-2014 09:43 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  Without the student fees, we have no football program. There are those who want to do away with the student fees. We are in perilous times. We damned sight aren't going to raise student fees to fund a move to 1A football.

You are right, we missed the boat. ODU was the last team on board. Politicians are going to continue to cut funding while telling colleges to cut student fees.

(11-11-2014 10:17 PM)HMK Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 09:43 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  Without the student fees, we have no football program. There are those who want to do away with the student fees. We are in perilous times. We damned sight aren't going to raise student fees to fund a move to 1A football.

You are right, we missed the boat. ODU was the last team on board. Politicians are going to continue to cut funding while telling colleges to cut student fees.

Even in G-5 without student fees we have no football program. Almost all G-5 football programs operate in the red.

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Colle...0.facebook

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/delegate...ports-cuts

Enjoy reading the comments.

(01-13-2015 07:01 PM)HMK Wrote:  http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Colle...0.facebook

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/delegate...ports-cuts

Enjoy reading the comments.

I find it hard to believe there are only 3 schools that charge less than JMU once fees are subtracted. We all rec'd top notch instruction while at JMU and my 2 kids are currently receiving a great education there now. How can the other state schools get away with charging so much more than JMU? I briefly asked Jon Alger at a FB game this fall why can't JMU increase tuition to match what other schools are charging and he basically said it's too much of a sensitive subject with the General Assembly.
Longhorn, you're tuned in to this subject, any thoughts?

(01-14-2015 08:47 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:01 PM)HMK Wrote:  http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Colle...0.facebook

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/delegate...ports-cuts

Enjoy reading the comments.

I find it hard to believe there are only 3 schools that charge less than JMU once fees are subtracted. We all rec'd top notch instruction while at JMU and my 2 kids are currently receiving a great education there now. How can the other state schools get away with charging so much more than JMU? I briefly asked Jon Alger at a FB game this fall why can't JMU increase tuition to match what other schools are charging and he basically said it's too much of a sensitive subject with the General Assembly.
Longhorn, you're tuned in to this subject, any thoughts?

Its my understanding that not as many students receive aid as at many other universities (see endowment), therefore, holding the tuition as low as possible, helps keep some candidates who otherwise may opt for the higher tuition school but receive help to pay for it. But, really, I'm only assuming that to be a factor.

(10-24-2014 11:12 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:59 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:47 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  http://www.schev.edu/Reportstats/Tuition....pdf?from=

check out page 21----out of 15 public schools, JMU charges more for tuition and mandatory fees than RADFORD, VSU, NSU, UVA-WISE AND ODU

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at, but JMU is a better school (in some cases, a MUCH better school) than those you mentioned so doesn't it stand to reason that they'd charge more for everything from faculty to brick and mortar?

Exactly, it gets tiresome to always hear about JMU's money woes when, for a school of our reputation, we are among the cheapest in state. Don't mean to sound elitist, but I don't feel college costs, especially at JMU has skyrocketed. If parents plan properly and college is a priority for the parent and student, it's affordable.
JMU's costs would even come in low for several private high schools in the Richmond area. And BTW, I have 2 at JMU.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page, except student fees should be lower, and tuition increased in proportion to the amount fees are reduced.

I'm too lazy to look up specifics for a ill thought OP. JMU is consistently ranked as a top 5 best value regional school in the south by US News and the Jan issue of Kiplingers listed JMU as the #21 best value public school in the country. Move along.

(01-14-2015 10:45 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:12 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:59 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:47 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  http://www.schev.edu/Reportstats/Tuition....pdf?from=

check out page 21----out of 15 public schools, JMU charges more for tuition and mandatory fees than RADFORD, VSU, NSU, UVA-WISE AND ODU

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at, but JMU is a better school (in some cases, a MUCH better school) than those you mentioned so doesn't it stand to reason that they'd charge more for everything from faculty to brick and mortar?

Exactly, it gets tiresome to always hear about JMU's money woes when, for a school of our reputation, we are among the cheapest in state. Don't mean to sound elitist, but I don't feel college costs, especially at JMU has skyrocketed. If parents plan properly and college is a priority for the parent and student, it's affordable.
JMU's costs would even come in low for several private high schools in the Richmond area. And BTW, I have 2 at JMU.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page, except student fees should be lower, and tuition increased in proportion to the amount fees are reduced.

I'm too lazy to look up specifics for a ill thought OP. JMU is consistently ranked as a top 5 best value regional school in the south by US News and the Jan issue of Kiplingers listed JMU as the #21 best value public school in the country. Move along.

That's just great. Let's be known as the Wal-Mart of universities.

(01-14-2015 08:47 AM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:01 PM)HMK Wrote:  http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Colle...0.facebook

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/delegate...ports-cuts

Enjoy reading the comments.

I find it hard to believe there are only 3 schools that charge less than JMU once fees are subtracted. We all rec'd top notch instruction while at JMU and my 2 kids are currently receiving a great education there now. How can the other state schools get away with charging so much more than JMU? I briefly asked Jon Alger at a FB game this fall why can't JMU increase tuition to match what other schools are charging and he basically said it's too much of a sensitive subject with the General Assembly.
Longhorn, you're tuned in to this subject, any thoughts?

Alger is being truthful (tuition is an extremely sensitive subject in Richmond...fees too now), yet JMU is so popular because our rep of providing a superior academic experience at a reasonable price point.

Raising tuition to help pay for academic related items (such as faculty and staff salaries) can be done (and probably must be done) if JMU is to maintain its current rep, but where is that "happy middle ground" before JMU is seen as charging too much for what it is delivering? I'm not sure anyone knows, hence the caution in raising tuition or fees.

(01-14-2015 12:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:45 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:12 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:59 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at, but JMU is a better school (in some cases, a MUCH better school) than those you mentioned so doesn't it stand to reason that they'd charge more for everything from faculty to brick and mortar?

Exactly, it gets tiresome to always hear about JMU's money woes when, for a school of our reputation, we are among the cheapest in state. Don't mean to sound elitist, but I don't feel college costs, especially at JMU has skyrocketed. If parents plan properly and college is a priority for the parent and student, it's affordable.
JMU's costs would even come in low for several private high schools in the Richmond area. And BTW, I have 2 at JMU.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page, except student fees should be lower, and tuition increased in proportion to the amount fees are reduced.

I'm too lazy to look up specifics for a ill thought OP. JMU is consistently ranked as a top 5 best value regional school in the south by US News and the Jan issue of Kiplingers listed JMU as the #21 best value public school in the country. Move along.

That's just great. Let's be known as the Wal-Mart of universities.

My mistake, I misunderstood/misread you. While not Wal-Mart I have no problem with JMU being known has a superior education for a discount price.

Looking at the chart it appears that JMU could raise their tuition and mandatory fees $2k. A fairly sweet spot of less than UVA/VT but more than LU/CNU. The key here would be to ensure that the higher cost lead to a higher quality education as well. I would think an extra $40M ($2k x 20k students) a year could help build a few different programs.

(01-14-2015 03:25 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 12:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:45 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:12 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  Exactly, it gets tiresome to always hear about JMU's money woes when, for a school of our reputation, we are among the cheapest in state. Don't mean to sound elitist, but I don't feel college costs, especially at JMU has skyrocketed. If parents plan properly and college is a priority for the parent and student, it's affordable.
JMU's costs would even come in low for several private high schools in the Richmond area. And BTW, I have 2 at JMU.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page, except student fees should be lower, and tuition increased in proportion to the amount fees are reduced.

I'm too lazy to look up specifics for a ill thought OP. JMU is consistently ranked as a top 5 best value regional school in the south by US News and the Jan issue of Kiplingers listed JMU as the #21 best value public school in the country. Move along.

That's just great. Let's be known as the Wal-Mart of universities.

My mistake, I misunderstood/misread you. While not Wal-Mart I have no problem with JMU being known has a superior education for a discount price.

Looking at the chart it appears that JMU could raise their tuition and mandatory fees $2k. A fairly sweet spot of less than UVA/VT but more than LU/CNU. The key here would be to ensure that the higher cost lead to a higher quality education as well. I would think an extra $40M ($2k x 20k students) a year could help build a few different programs.

EXACTLY! The point I was trying to make.

(01-14-2015 03:25 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 12:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:45 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 11:12 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 09:46 PM)JMU83 Wrote:  Exactly, it gets tiresome to always hear about JMU's money woes when, for a school of our reputation, we are among the cheapest in state. Don't mean to sound elitist, but I don't feel college costs, especially at JMU has skyrocketed. If parents plan properly and college is a priority for the parent and student, it's affordable.
JMU's costs would even come in low for several private high schools in the Richmond area. And BTW, I have 2 at JMU.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page, except student fees should be lower, and tuition increased in proportion to the amount fees are reduced.

I'm too lazy to look up specifics for a ill thought OP. JMU is consistently ranked as a top 5 best value regional school in the south by US News and the Jan issue of Kiplingers listed JMU as the #21 best value public school in the country. Move along.

That's just great. Let's be known as the Wal-Mart of universities.

My mistake, I misunderstood/misread you. While not Wal-Mart I have no problem with JMU being known has a superior education for a discount price.

Looking at the chart it appears that JMU could raise their tuition and mandatory fees $2k. A fairly sweet spot of less than UVA/VT but more than LU/CNU. The key here would be to ensure that the higher cost lead to a higher quality education as well. I would think an extra $40M ($2k x 20k students) a year could help build a few different programs.

You wouldn't get 2k more from 20k students. You'd get it from those who weren't on financial aid and could afford to pay 2k more.