Recent tuition costs have been decided
by budget deficits, not philosophy
By Debbie Howlett
04 th« Emarald
Tuition always has been someone’s
idea of what a student's share in the cost
of an education should be
Some people will say tuition is too
high; others find it too low But how
tuition is determined and why it is set at a
certain level are not such cut-and-dried
philosophical issues
Part of the money students pay each
term — fees — go for purposes other than
the direct education of the student.
The other part of what a student pays
— tuition — is the student's share of the
“cost of instruction," an amount of
money used to show what it costs to
provide a student with an education.
What the students do not cover
through tuition comes from other
sources, namely the state Legislature's
general fund
Traditionally the student's share of the
instruction cost has been kept to a min
imum In 1955 tuition and fees for a
University student were $55 a term and a
minimal percent of instruction cost
The amount students pay toward the
cost of instruction is determined by a
number of factors One of the biggest
factors generally has been the
philosophy of the State Board of Higher
Education, the legislative body of the
state's public colleges and universities.
But in the past few years, the board has
had less to say about the student's share
and has had to adapt their philosophy to
fit with the amount of money appropriat
ed by the Legislature
Because the Legislature came up
short several times in the last biennium,
says board president Robert Ingalls, the
board had to decide whether to keep
programs or raise tuition So they
implemented a $49 ' surcharge'’ and
raised the student's share tor the cost of
instruction to about 35 percent, accord
ing to Oregon Education Coordinating
Commission figures
"The only reason for high tuition is to
keep programs," Ingalls says
"The state board hoped to keep (the
student's share of the cost of instruction)
at 25 percent, says Ed Harms, a board
member and past president "It's at 31
(percent) now and the board is not
pleased with that hopefully it’s better
for students than not having a place to
90 "
The percentages — 25. 31, 35 — are
what nearly every official in higher
education will call ' arbitrary." The only
philosophy involved, most will say, is that
students should either pay everything or
pay nothing.
"Setting a percentage can not be
based on theory, unless it’s 0 or 100.”
says Roy Lieuallen, former chancellor
and currently an adviser to the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher
Education
"Anytime you move between those
points it is arbitrary," Lieuallen says.
"You can't quantify in between "
And if most other higher education
officials agree that a percent is merely an
arbitrary choice, most can't pinpoint a
figure that, however arbitrary, would be
perceived as fair by everybody
The general argument of whether tui
tion should be low or high revolves
around the "chief beneficiary,” idea
That idea basically argues who is the
"chief beneficiary" — the student or the
society — of the education and who
should, as chief beneficiary, pay more of
the cost
Most people agree the student's share
should be less than the state's share But
finding the exact mix is difficult
What the state system's vice
chancellor for administration. Bill
Lemman, says he tries to do is submit the
student's share as a fraction rather than
a percentage so that less of an argument
can be made over one or two percentage
points and the process will move more
quickly
But whether the percent, translated
into a fraction, is one-quarter as it has
been in the past or one-third as it is now.
makes a susbstantial difference
"The general trend line, of course, has
been up,” Lieuallen says
It was estimated at 23 percent for a
while As money became more scarce, it
went up to 30 percent or more,"
Lieuallen says
And it appears as though the general
trend line" will keep increasing
The percentage increase, from 23- to
time, a high of 25
percent, says Barbara Mitchell, ass
ant director of OECC it tottered th<
for a few years and then increased
as state funding was cut. she says
There is an agreement that J
there should be a lower student
share, about 25 percent,"
says Daid Young, fiscal and
policy analyst for the OECC
“It has been interrupted
the last couple of years be
cause of the budget crisis "
But while the state's
funds have been drying up,
so too has the number
of students, Harms says
"Access has been
partly limited by ability
to pay, we need to look for
other solutions," he
says. But Harms is
emphatic about looking for
alternative to tuition increases
as revenue raising
measures
"We cannot
raise tuition fur
ther Period
,.Jk>
ti:»S
IS
Paying
price
Graphic by Betsy Chariton
Oregon’s higher ed funding doesn t match-up
The budget crisis that has plagued
Oregon's public colleges and universi
ties for the past two years is showing up
in national data and surveys.
According to survey results published
in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
Oregon's general fund support for
higher education fell by $10 million, or 4
percent for 1982-83 — compared with an
average 16-percent increase nationwide.
South Dakota was the only other state
to report a decline — 04 percent — for
the same time period.
The survey, which was conducted by
M.M Chambers, a professor at Illinois
State University, also found Oregon low
by comparison in the amount of personal
income spent on higher education. Ore
gon is in the bottom third of the nation in
that category.
"I’m not suprised,” said Bud Davis,
state system chancellor. "Being last is
like being the worst football team. The
Legislature has got to determine which
league it wants to play in.”
EWEB increase due to BPA price jump
By David Brown
Of m« Emerald
This is the first of a two-part
look at the Eugene Water and
Electric Board and their
current rate trends.
EWEB customers will soon
be getting a little something in
the mail from the company — a
16 percent rate increase for
the energy burned as of Oct. 1.
EWEB mails the first bills
charging its new rate today.
Before Oct. 1, most Eugene
residents paid 48.5 cents per
month to burn a 60-watt porch
light for 12 hours each night of
the month As of Oct. 1, the
cost increased to 56.5 cents
for a standard 60-watt bulb
That increase reflects a rate
hike in wholesale electricity
bought by the Eugene utility
from the Bonneville Power
Administration, a federal
generating facility, says Dick
Helgeson, EWEB energy
analyst
Paying
for
power
EWEB, formed in in 1911,
began buying power from BPA
in 1940 when it no longer
could generate enough power
to meet demand.
The utility still generates as
much as 30 percent of its own
power through its hydro
electric plants, which help
keep the utility’s cost of power
down, Helgeson says.
The average EWEB residen
tial customer who paid $36.09
per month for electricity in
1981 will now pay $5 78 more,
or about $41.87 per month
The residential class
represents the lowest percent
increase in EWEB retail rates.
Therefore, those residents
who already pay most in
service costs pay the least of
the increase.
Single family residents, for
example, pay fixed rates for
monthly meter readings and
distribution equipment but
consume relatively small
amounts of energy. High
voltage consumers provide
their own distribution
equipment, eliminating
EWEB's maintenance char
ges, Helgeson says.
Rates have increased by 17
percent for the General
Service class — public buil
dings, schools, churches,
multi-family housing, hospitals
and irrigation operations.
Rates increased by 27.5
percent for the High Voltage
Power class — industries and
businesses contracting for a
minimum amount of electricity
and supplying their own
transformer and distribution
equipment and by 30.5
percent for the Customer
owned Street Lighting class.
The new rates are tailored to
allow the customer the option
to conserve by keeping the
fixed monthly service charge
low.
Although the rate includes a
residential service charge
increase from a $4 50 to $5,
that charge still equals less
than one half the actual cost of
service maintenance, accor
ding to EWEB figures.
"To put more weight on the
(service) charge would
remove much of the cus
tomer’s incentive to use the
(electricity) more efficiently
because the customer’s
efforts would not be nearly as
apparent in the form of a
reduced bill,” reads an EWEB
staff report
The new rates represent the
third wholesale cost increase
from Bonneville in four years.
Previous Bonneville
increases were 100 percent on
Dec. 20, 1979, and 67 percent
on July 1, 1981, according to
EWEB figures.
EWEB’s last two increases
“resulted primarily from
substantially increased BPA
power costs,” an EWEB staff
report reads. The utility’s
residential rates increased by
roughly 150 percent between
1971 and 1981.
During the same period,
EWEB’s operating costs
increased by 224 percent. The
only “markedly” dispropor
tionate increases in the utility’s
operating costs have been the
purchase of wholesale power,
depreciation of capital assets,
Continued on Page 10