As we return to school for another year of classes, midterms and basketball games, 660 students will not be able to return to school. These students are not able to continue at the University because tuition has gone up 6.6 percent, and for every 1 percent increase in tuition, 100 students cannot afford to attend. As the ASUO reflects on how this will affect our campus, two main issues have become concerns for us: The use of surcharge fees to increase tuition and the growing lack of aid for low-income students dealing with the rising cost of higher education.
Last session, the Oregon Legislature considered revamping the system of aid allocation from need-based aid to merit-based aid, a trend that is spreading across the country. The ASUO and other members of Oregon Student Association opposed this move because of the vital importance of need-based aid in ensuring access to higher education. While there was no movement to change Oregon’s system, it brought to light many of the misconceptions surrounding need versus merit-based aid.
Need-based aid allows more people to access higher education, while merit-based aid mostly sponsors students who could afford to go to school without aid. This was seen in the 1994 examination of Georgia’s merit-based scholarship. Even when a significant number of students lost the scholarship, many were able to remain in school. Need-based aid addresses the growing gap of college attainment between lower and middle-class income families. While the overall number of students who attend higher education has increased since 1980, the gap between rich and poor in earning four-year degrees has widened. The inability of communities to access higher education just fuels the cycle of poverty.
Need-based aid also helps to alleviate the strain of high interest rate loans many low-income families must borrow in order to pay for college. In the early 1980s, grants made up approximately 55 percent of aid and loans 41 percent. Now 59 percent of aid comes from loans.
Need-based aid does not support students who should not be in college. The fact is that need-based aid funds students who have been accepted to college but can’t afford the cost. More than 30,000 students received need-based aid in 2000-2001. Without this assistance, many of these students likely would have not been able to attend school. To categorize students who receive need-based aid as undeserving to attend school or as bad students misses the fact that those students need financial assistance because they were admitted to school.
In this day and age, access to higher education is vital. Education is not privilege; it is a right. The Higher Education Act of 1965 stated that regardless of financial resources, anyone with academic ability should be able to attend college. We must all work together to ensure that that is granted to all.
***
Once again, the administration decides to send in a tuition increase through the back door. After all the hard work of students and legislators this past session to keep higher education affordable, the administration goes behind our backs and adds an energy surcharge. The Oregon University System board approved a policy this summer that allows OUS institutions to charge students a maximum fee of $30 per student per term for the next two years. The ASUO opposes these surcharges because they have three inherent flaws.
Students were not only unaware of this new policy, they were not even remotely involved in the process. Students were never given the choice of alternative conservation plans or a timeline to decrease energy consumption before this surcharge was put upon us. Another concern is that the administration is using this surcharge as well as the other fee increases to increase tuition beyond the 4 percent level allowed by the OUS board. Thanks to this new surcharge and other fee increases, we are actually looking at a 6.6 percent tuition increase this fall term. This back-door increase has affected the access to higher education for 260 students; they will not be able to attend the University this fall term.
Is this surcharge really necessary? Have energy costs gone up that high that we need to pay an additional $500,000 a term? The simple fact that we do not really know what costs are paid through this energy surcharge puts serious question on the need for it. This over-priced surcharge is unnecessary, and the rising cost of energy should not fall solely on the backs of students. The University should increase conservation efforts and use existing resources to pay for electricity and natural gas as it has in the past before it taxes students. Any new fees, such as the energy surcharge, should be proposed in a public process with broad student input and should take place during the regular school year. It is now time for the ASUO and the student body to take a stand and campaign against this energy surcharge.
The focus of the ASUO is on increasing access to higher education for all, and both of these issues are barriers to that access. Our office is not only committed to making sure that students are aware of these issues, but also what they can do to make change.
Nilda Brooklyn is the ASUO president and Joy Nair is the ASUO vice president.