The current Oregon University System fee structure is in the midst of a revamp. The OUS fee committee presented its research and suggestions on the issue, which affects every student at this university, to the Oregon State Board of Higher Education on Nov. 2.
The committee’s presentation was well-received by six of the seven OUS institution presidents. But the exception was University President Dave Frohnmayer, who presented a clear opposition in the form of a memo with five issues “for further discussion” among members.
Frohnmayer essentially said that while the University is committed to universal access to higher education, the current scenarios on the table will impede the University’s ability to carry out its business in a way unique to the institution’s mission.
The ultimate goal of the fee committee is to create “fee transparency” so students are aware of the full cost of University attendance. Under the current system, financial aid packages do not cover resource fees. Additionally, programmatic resource fees, which are tacked onto a student’s bill at the end of the term, are charged separate from tuition.
The committee would have OUS institutions eliminate all resource fees in one of two ways; the choice will be left to each individual institution. The first option is to adopt a differential tuition model, which would charge students different tuition based on their major. The second is to roll fees into tuition, charging each student a flat rate.
Although Frohnmayer was not available for an interview last week, his two-page memo thoroughly described why he does not support a system-wide approach to this issue.
Frohnmayer doesn’t think rolling those fees into tuition – one of the options on the table – would be wise. He said the move would actually make what students pay less transparent because it would spread costs among all students, many of whom are not directly tied to the programs for which the highest fees are assessed.
“President Frohnmayer talked about the idea of transparency and how it’s counterintuitive to what we’re working toward,” said ASUO President Emily McLain. “I just think that’s wrong. We disagree on a very fundamental level.
“Students want transparency for the people who pay. Frohnmayer is talking about transparency for the administration and for Oregon Hall,” McLain continued. “They say rolling fees into tuition will create some confusion or difficulty in making sure fees are handed to the right departments and money is given out to the right people. I don’t think that’s going to happen at all.”
As OUS goes about eliminating resource fees, each institution will decide whether to roll those fees into tuition or create differential tuition. Some board members also expressed concern over “sticker shock.” Frohnmayer noted the idea in his memo; it suggests students may be deterred from enrolling in an institution because the cost of tuition will appear much higher.
Rolling the fees into tuition would in fact appear to drive up the cost of attendance. But really, because the transition will be revenue-neutral, students will be paying the same amount they paid before.
“At this point it would just be a transfer,” said Portland State University Interim President Michael Reardon. “The sticker price is not a concern. (Students) are paying it anyway.”
Not only will the fees be visible, they will be covered by financial aid, which McLain said is the “whole point.”
“Instead of fees getting tacked on as back-door tuition, they will be subsumed and actually accounted for in (students’) financial aid,” she said.
Institutional autonomy in setting tuition and fee policies is also important to Frohnmayer. He said the University is supportive of certain fee elimination, but each institution should be able to select how many fees to consolidate.
“One size does not fit all either with regard to the types of tuition and fees charged or to the manner in which financial aid is awarded,” Frohnmayer wrote in the memo.
Frohnmayer also argued in favor of the University’s independence in formulating a financial aid system.
“… rote standardization of processes across institutions with widely varying program characteristics and student populations is counterproductive if the true goal is to make high quality education accessible to Oregon students,” wrote Frohnmayer.
The president is referring to the required financial aid plan to accompany a differential tuition proposal. Universities must allocate a minimum of 10 percent of revenue generated through differential tuition toward fee remissions for needy students – a point that Frohnmayer specifically addressed in the memo. The fee remissions, a form of financial aid, would be distributed to low-income students.
McLain said the board received the prospect of increasing fee remissions, one of the most important issues to students, very well. She said the current remissions in Oregon are “unacceptably low” compared to those at the national level. Heightening fee remissions would be another way to ensure students are not choosing a major based on high programmatic resource fees.
“My hope is that we’ll get on board and make a choice that helps students and prioritizes students and families and good financial planning,” McLain said. “Because I can tell you the current system is not transparent, is not easily understood, and it puts students into a situation where they cannot afford the term … or forces them to take out emergency loans.”
Fee remissions wasn’t the only topic on which the board reached a general consensus.
“I really heard nothing but agreement that the fee structure and the burden that it placed on students and families was unacceptable, and a structure that needs to be fixed and changed,” McLain said.
Oregon State University President Ed Ray, a long-time proponent of fee transparency, said the fee committee is moving in the right direction.
“I appreciate the suggestion that each campus should decide whether to roll fees into a new, revenue neutral, tuition level or adopt revenue-neutral differential tuition rates,” Ray said. But, Ray added, he wants to discuss the options with faculty, students and staff on campus before making a decision.
McLain said there will be “major consultation” with students on this campus before determining whether differential tuition or rolling fees will be implemented.
[email protected]