OCR Text |
Show www.dailyutahchronicle.com 5 OPINION Wednesday November 9, 2011 Petition is right to fight tuition hikes CHLOE NGUYEN -:.-...-_\ ii,......._ _.:1...... Sta ff Writer p ublic and higher education in Utah should be the state's first priority. Putting education first puts our economy first, and students should not have to cover the expenses that the Legislature refused to allocate. Students should not have to keep increasing the amount they pay toward education—it's still the same education they were paying for four years ago. Since 2008, state tax funding for higher education in Utah has been cut 14 percent, or $106 million, according to ASUU's Government Relations Board. The student movement Education First has united ASUU with the student governments of other colleges and universities around the state to petition against further gouging of higher education budgets. By cutting funding, Utah legislators are directly inhibiting our generation's economic success, said Tianna Tu, a sophomore in English and political science, and chair of the committee that created the petition. "Nearly every student we have approached has been very interested to hear more about Education First," she said. "Legislators are directly inhibiting our generation's economic success." TIANNA Tu SOPHOMORE IN ENGLISH By 2018, it is expected that two-thirds of jobs nationwide, about r million jobs in Utah, will require postsecondary certificates or degrees in order to be economically stable, according to a study by Georgetown University. Less than 4o percent of Utahns hold at least a two-year degree, according to the Lumina Foundation. How can we become the future leaders of the state if the Legislature won't support us in achieving a university education? Tony Passey, a U Master of Finance, said the petition was "a poor use of power by our current student body presidency" launched to "scare [the student body] into pressuring the Legislature into acting in higher education's best interest." The lack of funding, for Passey, might be because of faculty on the U's payroll getting too much for what they do. Superficially, salaries do seem high. The highest earned salary at the U is $1.2 million, according to Utahrights.com , but that is for football head coach Kyle Whittingham. Almost all of the next 300 highest salaries are doctors, surgeons or other medical professionals not your average professor. Even if students cannot say how much a faculty member should earn, we can voice our opinions about why our tuition keeps increasing. From a student's perspective, the petition is not a poor use of power. Every time the Legislature cuts funding for higher education, students either pay more in tuition or lose services. In 2011 alone, tuition increased roughly $400. Since 2006, tuition has increased by more than $1,000. Don Willie, a senior in public administration and ASUU's Government Relations director, said many students are unaware of the ramifications aside from tuition increases, and some are apathetic to the issue. "Some students have commented that they don't care about it because their parents pay," Willie said. "My response would be, 'say that in 20 years when your tuition is up to $15,000 a year and you have four kids to put through college." Willie also said the U has several buildings without heat, a failing power grid, some buildings that are literally falling apart alongside a water system that leaks. Funding higher education should be a concern for every student on campus, but we don't give it nearly the attention it needs. The petition asks for at least 20,000 signatures from Utah's eight campuses combined, with the U's goal being 4,000— we currently have 2,000. The Legislature will take this issue seriously if we take it seriously. letters@chronicle.utah.edu 1.. .611ER.S1 2,0 It LUIGI GHERSI/The Daily Utah Chronicle Project info left in limbo Facilities Management hides construction details I t's hard to focus in the Business Classroom Building when loud jack-hammering echoes through the room during a lecture. Remodeling, combined with construction of the new business building, has made it difficult to study, but officials don't seem to want to talk about the disruptions. The Business Classroom Building isn't the only one affected by construction. Milton Bennion Hall had to suddenly close the College of Education's departments, the Urban Institute for Teacher Education, and the Dean's Office because of the heat and water being shut down in preparation for demolition of the building's east-to-west wing. Construction projects are popping up all over campus. Students have had to detour around the Union, Park Building and Fletcher Building because of massive machines and pipes taking over the walkways. Understandably, construction has to be done on a campus founded in 1850. However, some projects, like the stairs and ramp in front of the Union being torn down just to re-build the same sidewalk, just don't make sense. Once again, the U has failed SAVANNAH TURK Staff Writer to transparently express the situation to students. There are six major projects under construction, and three are being designed, Michael Perez, associate vice president of Facilities Management, said. Yet these projects were never advertised and the purpose is unknown to most students. Furthermore, Facilities Management was uncooperative in providing information on current construction on campus. Robert Norwood, carpenter shop supervisor, who was in charge of the construction in front of the Union, refused to comment on that project. All employees referred to the Campus Design and Construction's Spokeswoman Megan McFarlane. McFarlane did not reply to multiple requests for comments on campus construction. Perez said via email, "I don't like your pushy attitude. I ap- preciate your assignment and time constraints, but not you're [sic] threat," in response to being told that a lack of response would be mentioned in this column. Even with that attitude, Perez was the only employee that could be reached for comment. "It is hoped that our campus community will understand and appreciate that the disruptions they incur during the project, hopefully kept to a minimum, results in magnificent facilities for their use," he said. Building and remodeling to make the campus a better place is great, but when an entire department refuses to comment on the actions it's taking, one has to ask why. It appears Facilities Management finds students incapable of understanding the projects they do. Funding for projects is as equally quiet as the proposal. The Facilities Management website says, "With the exception of requests for state funding, the University entity that will benefit from a project is generally responsible for seeking and obtaining funds for the project. "Departmental funds are any funds provided by the depart- ment for a project. This might include donor funds regardless of whether the donation is restricted to that project. Many projects are funded entirely through departmental funds." Because donor funds can be used outside of their restrictions, there should be some clarity of what those funds are paying for. If donors are playing such a big part in funding these projects and students have to live with the construction, an open, public explanation from Facilities Management about each project would be a worthy investment. The U is growing, and the campus should grow and update along with it. However, releasing little information about construction projects is frustrating to students, especially when projects are impeding access to facilities and disrupting class time. Facilities Management and Campus Design and Construction's inability to work with the public is something that will hurt them in the future. Being able to communicate with the students they serve should be the No. r priority. As of now, these departments are failing. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Obama's loan plan only slows quicksand s the national student loan debt will exceed $1 trillion this year, President Obama put into action the "Pay As You Earn" plan, a positive step for many borrowers in a meager market. Nevertheless, it is a temporary fix that is inherently wrong in a long-term sense. Its deepest faults lie within the "bailout" mentality and its extension of the larger issue: America's egregious student loan debt. Although the expression "bailout" as it relates to policymaking has often been annoying, it applies quite sufficiently in this instance. Anyone with half a brain should absolutely commend Obama on his willingness to make some kind of positive change, no matter how small. Yet this same group must also have the willingness to recognize that there is something fundamentally wrong with the student loan process as a whole, and actions like this are moving it further into the abyss. In short, Obama's plan restructures an already rolling motion passed by Congress, in which students will pay back their loans based on their income. This is known as Income-Based Repayment. The plan restricts the amount borrowers repay based on their pay and household size. A Staff Writer Congress and Obama's plan for it was initially to cap student loan payments at ro percent of the borrower's income, starting in July 2014. Instead, this has been sped up so that repayment will reflect borrower's income starting in 2012. The change is expected to lower the once-a-month payment for about 1.6 million borrowers, according to The White House. This change builds on measures already taken to ease the burden of monthly payments on student loan debt. There are other practices borrowers can negotiate with their lenders to help ease loan struggles. Such exercises include forbearance, consolidation or modified repayment plans. I understand that it is necessary to attempt to stay the course in the struggle to find a solution for the loan problem. However, the gangrene that is student loans will not heal with more time. At some point, there has to be some kind of amputation of this useless extremity. Borrowers should not be continually forgiven for their error in judgment. Obama's action is not a reason to become irate, yet it highlights a trend that cannot be ignored. People borrow irresponsibly, feel as if they have been somehow deceived by the student loan system and beg for help. In 2010, the average undergraduate student debt level exceeded $25,000, not including for-profit colleges. This is beyond bare needs. Flaky students talk of whatever helps them let go of some responsibility and sleep at night, and rightly so. Yet in exaggerating dramatic fashion, they blame a poor financial aid system and complain about raised tuition and the overall poor economy run by corporate scum. By this point, most get lost and fail to identify who the "scum" is, and how exactly they've been wronged. This kind of reasoning leaves us in a pit of quicksand. For students, the idea of taking more money than they can realistically pay back will continue. The change just lets us watch ourselves sink below the surface a little more slowly. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |