Should a university be a business?
By madisone, New West Unfiltered 3-07-05
Not that it’s anything new – the university hasn’t gone a single year since 1993, and probably even before that, without increasing tuition.
A Montana resident paid $644 in 1993 for a semester at the U. Now tuition is $1,484.40 a semester. That’s an increase of more than 130 percent.
Next year administrators want to raise in-state tuition by 7.75 percent, which would tack an additional $125 a semester onto a student’s bill. Out-of-state would go up by 8.75 percent; meaning non-residents could plan to pay an extra $346 a semester.
The increasing tuition would make up for a state employee pay raise and rising utility costs, UM Vice President for Administration and Finance Robert Duringer explained.
Administrators, however, have a plan. The university will be treated more and more like a business.
“We’re always looking for entrepreneurial ideas,� Duringer said.
The University of Montana already has a contract with Coca-Cola, which is a highly contentious subject. It’s hard to walk across the campus without seeing a sign about banning coke or how coke has murdered union member in Colombia.
Duringer has defended the contract many times on the basis of the millions of dollars it brings to the school.
The University of Montana also has a contract with the cell phone store in the University Center. Duringer originally predicted the cell phone contract would bring in about $200,000 a year.
Now, UM is looking into another entrepreneurial endeavor – a retirement community on or near its golf course.
So far, the university has been extremely vague with its plans, saying the golf course could possibly not be affected at all or could be taken out completely.
How many units will be built? What will the cost of them be? How much will the development cost overall? – All questions that remain unanswered.
The sealed lips opened slightly when asked how much money the community would bring into the university.
“It’ll be a substantial amount of money,� Duringer said.
But where will this money go?
“The only reason we’re doing this is to help the financial health of the University,� he said.
Obviously all these corporate sponsorships aren’t decreasing tuition. But are they helping to keep the rate of increase lower? It’d be hard to say.
State funding is down to 12 percent, so maybe it’s making up for that.
Either way, it’s getting harder and harder for Montanans to afford an education.
“When you see the kind of tuition increases that we’ve seen, students in Montana can’t afford to go to school,� said Gale Price, the president of the associated students of the University of Montana.
Tuition is becoming a larger chunk of Montanans’ income.
“We’re quickly pricing students out of an education,� Price said.
And hence the reason UM is starting to operate more like a business and less like a university.
“We’re being as creative as we can about it,� Price said. “Some of those things are the way of the future.� [End of article]
The increasing of tuition at the University is outrageous. One would think with the university selling its soul to corporate dependency through Coke and now the proposed retirement commmunity, that the tuition would not be increasing at all. You would think that if the University is making millions of dollars off of Coke that maybe the students would benifit from the contract. But, my tuition is still going up and the quality of education is going down. Bigger classes and less diverse offerings of course work leaves a student not only short in the pocketbook, but also short mentally. If the state doesn't begin to address the problems associated with declining in-state enrollment then continued increases will surely be on the horizon. I for one want to see the students protesting the tuition increases and the retirement community. I can see it now, public service ticketing people for being loud passed 8:30pm because...ssshhh...the old people are sleeping.
Comment By Cathie Burkland, 3-08-05What amazes me - and I can't believe not one person has said this - is that the recent proposal to do 'retirement' housing is a big old fat load of crap.
'Housing for UM alumni' translates to me a whole bunch of UNaffordable housing to add to an already expensive housing market. What the community is going to end up with is a whole bunch of expensive condo's, sold to a handful of alumni, who will rent them at high prices and turn around and sell them to ANYONE (read: NOT alumni, but people willing to pay a fortune) who will then rent them for more money, and so on and so on and so on.
The idea that the University is going to be so shortsighted as to building alumni housing instead of looking to the long term future of the University, and its land needs way on down the pike shows the stupidity of the administration behind this proposal boondoggle. Tell me - where will the University be able to grow if they do this? Push more residents out of the University district as they buy up land? Or would it be wiser to KEEP the open land that you have and 'bank' it?
My bet is that the only thing they're interested in here is staying in the back pocket of the developer who is behind the whole proposal, in hopes that they'll get first dibs on the housing and it goes up for sale and pick it up at a real nice price.
I find it interesting that so many people are critical of the increasing tuition at the University of Montana, and equally critical of UM's attempts to mitigate the problem in non-traditional ways.
It's clear that state support of the University isn't at a level that will sustain the programs, and probably won't get there any time soon. The U would be foolish to continue on assuming that the financial concerns will be fixed that way.
What isn't clear is what UM plans to do with the retirement plan, if anything. This isn't because UM is being secretive, it's because the plans aren't made. UM has public meetings with the nearby neighborhoods in an attempt to find a plan that benefits everyone involved. Will the plan do that? Will the plan make UM money? Will the plan ever be more than just a plan? Time will tell.
It's my understanding that the retirement property would be, and would always remain, UM property. Residents would pay the University to live there, and when they no longer need the residence, the University will find a new tenant. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I'm sure more detailed information will become available soon (public meetings are scheduled for April 6-7) so I'll be able to refine my opinions as the facts come out. Maybe I'll decide I like the plan, maybe I won't. It's just too early to tell.
Perhaps it's time to stop assuming that UM is out to get the neighbors, and the students, and whatever else. Instead of seeing the worst possible outcome and lamenting, perhaps being proactive and participating in the process would be a good idea. Then, you'll know first-hand what's going on, and if nothing else you'll be well-informed and better prepared to fight if the worst-case scenario is indeed coming.
The University is partnering here, with this 'retirement community' proposal, with a private developer. This means that a private developer will be making $ off of state (translate here to TAXPAYER) land. Please tell me why a private developer should make any money off of state lands?
I don't have anything against developers, but I do have a chip on my shoulder about an out-of-state developer coming into my town, profiting off of land owned by the taxpayers of the State of Montana, and, as an added bonus, contributing to the already high cost of housing. They way I look at it, this guy ran out of cheap land down in Colorado, and decided to come up here and drive up prices.
Also, please explain to me how the University can meet the goals of their very own master plan which says that 'Land Acquisition' is an ongoing goal, and then turn around and partner with a private developer to building high-priced condos in land that they promised as open space in their very own master plan?!
They've put plenty out there for consumption, and if you think they don't have the plans made, you are being very naive. Developers don't just sit down and sketch out pretty pictures of full-scale neighborhoods and not have any full-scale plans that tell them what kind of money its going to take to DO it and what kind of money they are going to make OFF of it. By the time ANYONE (be in a private developer, be it your government) comes to the public and says "Hey, we've got an idea, what do you think?" what they really mean is "This is what we are going to do and screw you."
I'm with you Cathie, the University will sell its soul before it does something truly in the interest of the students. But I think I have a plan that would make up for the exploitation of our lands. Since they are touting this "retirement" community as a place for "active" seniors and alums, I say we make all possible residents go throught the Missoula Geriatric Aptitude Test.
This way we can test if the residents actually are active and can thus be qualified to live in the housing. My master plan includes a week long festival where perspective residents compete in the long-jump, the sit and reach, arm wrestling and the wheelchair incline race. Kind of an Elder-Olympics.
Then we as residents of Missoula, sell tickets to watch moderatley out of shape, older people compete to live in Missoula's own "active" retirement community. The details can be worked out later, but I am hopefull that this idea will catch some support around the community. After all it is about as good an idea as a retirement community on campus.