Regents: Consider No Tuition Increases Next Year
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
This year with no increase and declines the following two years would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Tuition cost at Iowa State is out of control and having 1/4 (sloppy math) of the people on campus not paying a dime is a travesty.
I for one would welcome this. I am definitely skewing the average student loans already. Two years in...
I'm sure the presidents would love not to ask for tuition increases. But the Regents are asking the wrong people. The state legislature needs to set the funding levels such that the presidents don't have to ask for tuition increases.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Looks to me like a clever way for the regents to shift the blame for an unpopular decision ahead of time. "We didn't want to do it; the school presidents forced our hand."
That's my first thought. Pure politics.
I agree and disagree. Their hands are going to be forced on the tuition set aside which is going to lower tuition substantially. Of course I'm sure Iowa State however will find places other expenses increased immensely and therefore can't give the full set aside percentage back.
I wouldn't have a problem with a 5% or 7% tuition set aside, but 22% is ridiculous. 1/4 of students not paying tuition should be about 1/10 by the time you factor in need based + academic scholarships. Once you do that, tuition will fall in line.
I'm assuming the term set aside refers to charging some students extra to pay for other students' tuition? If so, yes, reducing that horrible practice should help.
This was my exact thought as well. Put the tuition increases directly in the hands of the legislators.
Bingo. 22% of tuition this year is going to pay for scholarships for those "who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford going to college." I have no problem with TAs and graduate students getting paid to go to school as well as teach (hell, my girlfriend is one of those people). That's a competitive part of academia and getting the graduate students in here that you want.
The problem arises when 31,000 students are paying an extra 22% in tuition simply so others can go to college. Well others, welcome to the real world, where you didn't HAVE to start at Iowa State and could go to DMACC cheaper, then as the rest of us do, take out loans to cover the shortfall or (gasp) get a job.
In the end that 22% ends up being about $700/semester for an average undergraduate instater. Having spent 5 years in school it would've saved me about $8,800. There's a huge chunk of the reason Iowa State's average debt load upon graduation is one of the highest in the country. The majority of the student body is tacking on $6,000-$10,000 in loans (depending on which college you're a student in). Instead of $20,000-$24,000 in student loans they're graduating with $30,000.
I'm not a fan of it either. However, since you presented it as an option couldn't you have gone to DMACC as well for 2 or 3 semesters to avoid paying some of that which ended up adding to your debt?
I absolutely could have but I came out with a manageable level of debt and have a job where I can afford the payments with ease. I worked through college so debt wasn't that big of an issue to me. Heck, I might've been able to go through school loan free without the 22% hike. I won't have an ounce of debt attached to my name at 27 barring some type of catastrophe. Most of the people I graduated with won't be able to say anything close to the same.
Some of that is errors in judgment on taking out loans. Some of that also comes back to Iowa State for tuition set aside. Chances are people would still have overdrawn student loans, but they probably wouldn't have drawn more and by the time you factor in interest at graduation, they probably would easily knock off $10,000 in loans. That's a LOT more manageable in loan payments.
Last edited:
Hiding needs-based financial aid within the tuition bills of others is an immoral practice. If we, as a state, decide to provide financial aid to prospective students, it should be done openly, as part of our state budget.
Like I think I said earlier, I don't have a problem with a small percentage of tuition being used for scholarships. 22% on the other hand is ridiculous. I didn't come from a wealthy family by any stretch of the imagination and funded my own schooling. I wouldn't have a problem if it was 5% of tuition was set aside with strings attached. If you want that money and want to keep it, you must maintain a 3.25 (not asking all that much in 90% of the programs on campus). Heck, by taking out 17% of the tuition college becomes more affordable not only for less fortunate students, but every student on campus.
Iowa State could lower tuition a TON by just using common sense. There's no reason every student on campus should be paying $100 to the athletics department, another $60 to be wasted by the GSB for student organizations (fund yourselves), $115 for computer lab usage, etc. It's small amounts at the time but looking back that stuff adds up FAST.
Last edited:
The books are open at all state institutions. Nothing is hidden, but much is overlooked.
Fair enough but I don't think many people understand that some of those changes are going to change significantly the capabilities of all three schools. I don't think many people have really thought it through, but it's a handy excuse to voice some righteous indignation (and I'm not referring to you, but the folks in the statehouse).
