North Dakota Legislators Considering A Tuition Freeze

Because government price controls always work so well.

(BISMARCK) Students would receive a break from rising tuition under bipartisan, bicameral legislation introduced in the North Dakota Legislature Thursday. The bill, SB 2238, would provide for “tuition freeze” at North Dakota’s public universities during the next two years while appropriating $26.5 million from the state general fund to ensure that the state’s campuses remain fully funded.
The cost of obtaining a college education in North Dakota has risen dramatically in the last several years. For example, tuition and mandatory fees at the University of North Dakota have increased from $3,261 during the 2001-2002 school year to $6,513 today – a rise of 99.7%.
This increase in the price of higher education is taking its toll on students. As noted by the Project on Student Debt, North Dakota ranks second in the country in the percentage of students who are forced to finance their education through student loans. The average debt held by these students is $21,648, which ranks 15th nationally.
In 2007, the Montana Legislature took action to maintain college affordability in that state by implementing a two-year tuition freeze. Partially as a result, in-state tuition and mandatory fees at the University of Montana are nearly $1,400 less per year than at the University of North Dakota.

Price caps are rarely good policy, because price caps don’t address the reason why prices are going up in the first place. All they are is a government mandate made by arrogant policymakers who think they can control markets through, well, mandates.
They can’t.
If we want to solve tuition problems we must address what’s causing them. And what’s causing run-away tuition costs in North Dakota is a university system spoiled rotten with endless funding and tuition subsidy from political leaders. After all, why should the universities charge less for tuition when no matter what they charge policy makers will raise subsidies to make it affordable?
Plus, all a tuition cap does is give the university system another excuse to demand more funding. These policymakers signed on to this effort to cap tuition may think they’re holding higher education prices down, but there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. In this instance, we’ll pay for that lower tuition through increased general fund spending on higher education in general.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    But hockey makes money in ND, but since we’re a strong #2 in attendence every year you’d expect that. (Wisconsin averages more than us, but doesn’t sell out.)

  • andophiroxia

    Note: This is what true debate is like.
    ;)

  • jimmypop

    first, this is stupid. we have too many schools servicing too few students… thats the problem.

    but if they are going to do anything like this, they need to tie reduced tuition to requiring students to live in ND for a period of years after graduation. id be willing to LOOK AT giving kids free school if they lived here ten plus years after their degree. as school is so cheap im not sure this would motivate people to stay thou…. thus it might make little sense.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    but if they are going to do anything like this, they need to tie reduced tuition to requiring students to live in ND for a period of years after graduation. id be willing to LOOK AT giving kids free school if they lived here ten plus years after their degree.

    So you're going to restrict the movement of free citizens for a decade?

    I think that's even worse than the tuition cap.

    How about government gets out of the higher education racket altogether and lets it be run like a business?

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    The state would lose in court. The supreme court said there is a "right to travel."
    Tuition is high because it is shielded from market forces.
    <img src='http://i39.tinypic.com/34sla9f.jpg'&gt;

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Well these are state owned and run institutions so it's not like freezing prices in a free market.

    However…this is fatally flawed because it just substitutes the taxpayer getting gouged for the students. Real reforms have to happen in ND higher education before they get any more money.

    Right now they shouldn't get a penny more money than they got last session. They got a 20% increase last year and they're getting more than that this year.

    This is insane.

  • jimmypop

    So you're going to restrict the movement of free citizens for a decade?

    I think that's even worse than the tuition cap.

    How about government gets out of the higher education racket altogether and lets it be run like a business?

    to your point; they dont have to stay unless they wanted to get free school. and as is said, i dont think the math works on this concept anyway. i really dont think school cost here enough to make someone stay here. face it, if we are going to subsidize tuition (which we already do right now) EVEN MORE we tax payers should have a chance at getting our money back via taxes. we need to make it a win/ win for our state. whereas right now we fund kids to get thru school (and now we want to make it cheaper for them) and then move to somewhere warm.

    and yes, school should cost whatever it costs. if you cant afford it, go to a tech school or take out loans.

  • jimmypop

    The state would lose in court. The supreme court said there is a "right to travel."
    Tuition is high because it is shielded from market forces.

    if you were talking to me; there are programs that exist right now that do this same thing. my wife can get 80% her masters paid for if she works in a rural area for two years.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Price caps are rarely good policy, because price caps don't address the reason why prices are going up in the first place. All they are is a government mandate made by arrogant policymakers who think they can control markets through, well, mandates.

    I'm with Whistler, this isn't the government intruding on the free market, it's teh government telling government entities what to charge.

  • Brent

    Well these are state owned and run institutions so it's not like freezing prices in a free market.

    Exactly. They aren't really talking about price controls. They are trying to keep the price low enough to keep students and their parents happy and attending… in order to continue to get and increase the amount of subsidies.

    In a strict case of price controls, the firms having their prices controlled aren't cheering for the legislation.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Exactly. They aren't really talking about price controls. They are trying to keep the price low enough to keep students and their parents happy and attending… in order to continue to get and increase the amount of subsidies.

    That's the point I made when I said that this doesn't address the root cause of the problem.

  • Brent

    That's the point I made when I said that this doesn't address the root cause of the problem.

    The Higher Ed cabal has so many problems, you can't really list them all. One of the major ones is the ridiculous emphasis on college education, which leads to all of these various subsidies, which leads to more students attending college, which leads to lower academic standards and students gaining "skills" that are unhelpful in the marketplace, which leads to employers requiring a college education for no other reason than "everyone else has one". What a waste!

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    How about marketing degrees with unmarketable majors?<img src='http://i44.tinypic.com/3484w8y.jpg'&gt;

  • Brent

    How about marketing degrees with unmarketable majors?

    Put that under "gaining 'skills' that are unhelpful in the marketplace".

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    There are two reasons to have public support for higher ed. One is to help the students get a start in life with an affordable education. The other is to have graduates in socially valuable professions (engineering, medicine.)

    Those are both good things. However the money we're spending now isn't going for those two areas. Tuition has been raised to as high as the traffic will bear. Much of the support goes for areas that aren't related to the socially valuable skills.

    What we're spending now is giving money to people that aren't productive and in other wasteful things.

    And still they get more. And they demand even more.

  • ec99

    Relatively speaking, $6,000+ a year is pretty reasonable when you compare it to private universities which charge 5-10 times that. My question would be, though, are students at places like UND actually getting their moneysworth as tuition goes up. If you look at the UND schedule you'll see more and more the instructor designated as "staff." This means non-faculty adjuncts and grad student teaching assistants. In some depts a student doesn't even see a faculty member in the classroom until his senior year.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I don't agree that it's fair to compare UND tuition with highfalutin private schools.

    I do think it's fair to look at the Universities' cost structure and apply it to a smell test.

    When you have professors making $100,000 who are probably productive about 1000/year it shows we've got big problems. We also need to look at the vast overhead of Deans and Assistant deans.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    One of the major ones is the ridiculous emphasis on college education, which leads to all of these various subsidies, which leads to more students attending college, which leads to lower academic standards and students gaining "skills" that are unhelpful in the marketplace, which leads to employers requiring a college education for no other reason than "everyone else has one". What a waste!

    I absolutely agree. The focus should be on kids choosing their career path, and then getting the specific training necessary for that.

    I saw a lot of my high school classmates go off to college (because your counselors said we were bums if we didn't) and waste thousands and thousands of dollars on "generals" and "university studies" only to end up with some BA degree that everyone else has and really gives you no edge in the job market.

    Subsidizing higher education has turned colleges into diploma mills.

  • ec99

    "I don't agree that it's fair to compare UND tuition with highfalutin private schools."

    Sure it is; all universities are recruiting students, in many cases the same students. Why do you think UND sends reps out to CA, AZ, NV? Why do you think a larger percentage of students each year at UND are from out of state?

    As for faculty salaries, I don't begrudge them what they make. Inside ND they may seem excessive. Problem is, UND has to recruit on a national basis, against schools offering as much as 35% more. If you want to attract and retain faculty you have to pay them a competitive rate, whether that reflects ND incomes or not. Or you end up with the people no other university wants.

    I agree as regards the bureaucrats. Under Kupchella, the number of empty suits grew enormously. This is borne out if you compare a catalog from 10 years ago with one today.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    As for faculty salaries, I don't begrudge them what they make. Inside ND they may seem excessive. Problem is, UND has to recruit on a national basis, against schools offering as much as 35% more. If you want to attract and retain faculty you have to pay them a competitive rate, whether that reflects ND incomes or not. Or you end up with the people no other university wants.

    This is the same nonsense we hear with public school pay.

    Frankly, I don't know why the taxpayers should be on the hook to pay what it costs to get qualified faculty regardless of what they're paid in other parts of the country. The criteria should be what can be negotiated with individual faculty members, not based on what some professor in New York or Chicago is making.

  • ec99

    "This is the same nonsense we hear with public school pay.

    Frankly, I don't know why the taxpayers should be on the hook to pay what it costs to get qualified faculty regardless of what they're paid in other parts of the country. The criteria should be what can be negotiated with individual faculty members, not based on what some professor in New York or Chicago is making."

    I used to believe the same thing. Then my son started attending UND, and I started paying the escalating tuition, which I thought would be over in 4 years. Then my son started telling me required courses were full and he couldn't get in, and would have to wait a full year. Then I called dept chairmen inquiring as to why extra sections weren't open since there was a demand. Three different chairs told me they had 2-3 open faculty slots which hadn't been filled in 3 years because they could not offer a competitive salary to applicants, so the applicants went elsewhere. So, that 4-year degree will now be a 6-year degree. In other words, I have to pay 2 extra years of tuition because UND doesn't have the the wherewithall to hire faculty.

    So go ahead and speak in theory. Then, when your kids head to the university, taste the reality.

    And, btw, the taxpayers aren't solely on the hook. State appropriations only account for 23% of UND's budget.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    So go ahead and speak in theory. Then, when your kids head to the university, taste the reality.

    Perhaps I will, but rather than calling for more money spent on faculty I'll be asking why the ridiculous amounts of money the university system is already getting isn't being spent correctly.

    And, btw, the taxpayers aren't solely on the hook. State appropriations only account for 23% of UND's budget.

    That doesn't count tuition subsidies, and it makes no difference. They are publicly-owned institutions.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    And you looked at the course catelog and noticed these same teachers were in the classroom for 10 hours a week or less?

    The universities have gotten massive amounts of new funding in the last several years. First as they jacked up tuition like there was no tomorrow. Secondly in the last session they got a 20% increase in state funding (and raised tuition).

    Now it sounds like things are as dire as ever.

    Something's not right.

  • ec99

    " I'll be asking why the ridiculous amounts of money the university system is already getting isn't being spent correctly."

    Maybe you'd like to start with the tens of millions which will be going to DI athletics.

    "And you looked at the course catelog and noticed these same teachers were in the classroom for 10 hours a week or less?"

    In some departments it's 6. Did I ever say I was in agreement with that sort of system? I'm just saying that's the way it is all over the country. You'd have to change the rules of the game nation-wide. Until then, UND has to play the way all other universities do.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    It was my impression that D1 money wasn't going to come from the taxpayer. If I'm wrong please inform me. (I think the coaching salaries are the only thing that are appropriated and even some of that money comes in from contributors.)

    Obviously you know that the system is messed up. Throwing more money at it isn't going to help.

  • ec99

    "It was my impression that D1 money wasn't going to come from the taxpayer. If I'm wrong please inform me. (I think the coaching salaries are the only thing that are appropriated and even some of that money comes in from contributors.)"

    Speaking about DI programs in general, despite the myth to the contrary, they lose money. In an NCAA report a couple of years ago, only 5 of the 300+ DI programs in the country operated minimally in the black. All the others had to have some way to make up the literally millions of dollars lost. Some schools charge students an athletic fee, whether they ever go to game or not. Booster and alumni donations do not make up a significant percentage of the cost. So the bulk of the debt comes off the general budget, as well as such things as facilities cost, security, and the like.

    As for UND, it's true that in one case, Dean Blais, Ralph E. ponied up a $500k annuity in addition to his regular salary. But that was an exception. The fact is, sending 80 football players to Central Washington and having 4000 paying fans, is hardly going to offset the expense. Even hockey, which is supposed to a cash cow, loses money. People look at sold out REA and Mariucci, they don't look at the 3000 who show up at Anchorage or the 1500 who went to the Darmouth tournament 2 years ago.

    It was interesting that UND declared DI, not knowing where the money would come from. Now they're stuck. Athletics says it'll cost $18 million a year. But Athletics Departments are notorious for low-balling their costs. UND can't even find a decent conference to play in, with the exception of the already established WCHA. Break even funds will come from the general fund. And, I bet, much of that will be rerouted from taxpayers.

  • ec99

    A high average home attendance does not mean a profit. The U of Mich averaged 106,000 for each football game a couple years ago, and lost $3 million. The cost of travel, lodging, food, equipment, recruiting, is not covered when your away games draw a few thousand fans, and your cut of the gate is nil. Look at the numbers for most of the WCHA teams UND plays, never mind their non-conference opponents.

  • ec99

    I might also add, in regard to attendance, UND does not keep the gate. A percentage goes to the visiting team, and a percentage to the WCHA.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    It'd be interesting to see the exact deal. However, with the various other revenue they get, suites, advertising, concessions I would think that UND is making money on hockeyball.

    Way back when Gino said that every wcha team made money. Of course a lot has changed since then.

  • ec99

    "It'd be interesting to see the exact deal. However, with the various other revenue they get, suites, advertising, concessions I would think that UND is making money on hockeyball."

    Don't know where that info is…whether UND gets that, the REA, or it's split. I do know that last year UND paid REA $1 million for use of the Ralph for hockey, it was in the budget.

    btw, Whistler, nice chatting with you. It's refreshing not being called a whacko, a knucklehead, or to be told to shutup or if I don't like it, leave. ;)

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Nice talking to you as well. Funny how things go nice until the liberals show up.
    ;)

    I imagine that the deal with the REA is something more than complicated. UND may pay REA for the use of the building, but then doesn't REA pay or donate as well?

    And I'm sure that no way no how do you get to see the books of the REA.

  • ec99

    "Note: This is what true debate is like."

    Which may be why other GF blogs are so dead.

  • jimmypop

    Frankly, I don't know why the taxpayers should be on the hook to pay what it costs to get qualified faculty regardless of what they're paid in other parts of the country. The criteria should be what can be negotiated with individual faculty members, not based on what some professor in New York or Chicago is making.

    unless you can prove that teacher will draw more students or teach THAT much better (and thus eventually draw more students). and im not convinced either of those scenarios would ever be the case.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development