The political utility of a resident undergraduate tuition freeze at both the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) is on frequent display this fall, as DFL legislators and Gov. Mark Dayton cite it prominently among the 2013-14 accomplishments they hope will persuade voters that they are worthy of re-election.
The tuition freeze deal struck with the 2013 Legislature is evidently working well for the state's two public higher education systems, too. Were it otherwise, their two governing boards would not be considering asking the 2015 Legislature to extend the freeze for two more years — for a price.
But we'd advise Minnesotans to hold their applause for the prospect of flat tuition through 2017, and urge university regents, MnSCU trustees and legislators to examine the proposed freeze extensions with a critical eye.
The proposals from U President Eric Kaler and MnSCU Chancellor Steve Rosenstone last week invite a larger role for legislators — and for politics — in setting tuition than they've played to date in these institutions' long histories. That's something that this state's founders hoped to avoid when they created a Board of Regents and wrote autonomy for the University of Minnesota into the state Constitution. MnSCU is only 20 years old and does not function with the same constitutional footing that the U enjoys. But its board of trustees is testament to a founding notion that operating higher education institutions ought not be the business of re-election-minded politicians.
Governing boards are in the best position to balance all the factors and forces that deserve consideration when setting tuition. Their eyes are on accessibility, institutional quality and reputation in the higher ed marketplace, not just until the next election, but over the long haul.
But our concern about the tuition freeze proposal goes beyond niceties of governance to practicalities of dollars and cents. The two systems' opening bids to extend the freeze through 2017 are steep — $65.2 million for the U and $72 million for MnSCU. That's what it would take to substitute state dollars for undergrad tuition increases of 3 percent per year in the two years of the state's fiscal 2016-17 biennium. The U's proposal also incorporates a freeze of grad and professional school tuition, offsetting anticipated 3.5 percent annual increases.
In many recent state budget cycles, those sums would have consumed all — and then some — of the appropriation increase available for higher education. The Kaler and Rosenstone proposals appear to anticipate that the hefty $250 million increase enacted in 2013 — a catch-up year after the cuts of the Great Recession — will be duplicated in 2015. In addition to requesting the tuition freeze offset, the proposals seek increased funding for other operations — $70 million at MnSCU, $65 million at the U, with an emphasis on initiatives to train more health care professionals and accelerate medical, mining and environmental research.
Their big requests for more state support are understandable, given how deep state funding cuts went between 2008 and 2011. Kaler notes that his request would merely restore state support for the university to its 2008 levels. Rosenstone emphasizes state funding per full-time-equivalent MnSCU student this academic year is still 32 percent down from its 2002 level after adjusting for inflation.
