Saturday was a day of mourning for Sun Devil football fans.
I strolled along Mill Avenue with some friends in the twilight hours that followed, the bitter angst palpable in the air as Wildcat fans browsed the crowded bars and dimly lit street corners eager to drunkenly gloat their victory to passersby.
As we stood on the sidewalk, casually observing a police officer spray mace into the eyes of a particularly rowdy red-and-blue clad student across the street, I could not help admire the excitable resentment that Sun Devil and Wildcat fans hold for each other.
It is a rivalry that many other universities could only hope to feign in animosity. However, while football is just a game, many are unaware of the serious methods in which the Arizona-Arizona State rivalry has endured over the years since the establishment of both schools in 1885, including in Arizona’s allocation of state university funding.
State universities depend primarily on two major sources of funding for academic programs: student tuition and state-appropriated funding.
According to the ASU Finance Department, Arizona State University received $6,000 in state support per full-time equivalent student, while the University of Arizona received $7,200 per student for the 2009-2010 academic year.
That’s right, Arizona values you $1,200 less as an ASU student than if you were a Wildcat.
It’s a huge slap in the face from state government and one well worthy of a resounding “WTF” expletive or two, but perhaps it is important to first explore why this discrepancy exists before grabbing the torches and pitchforks.
“This issue has been around for a long time, decades in fact,” said University President Michael Crow, who kindly took the time to meet with me at his office earlier this month. “The discrepancy exists in part because the growth of Arizona State University has not been supported by [the] Legislature.”
Regent and Former Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini mirrored Crow’s frustration regarding the Arizona State Legislature’s consistent ambivalence to higher education, expressing a personal desire to adopt a funding model that would evenly distribute the state’s general fund per full time equivalent student.
Previous attempts to introduce a more equitable system have been made in the past, by Democratic Rep. Ed Ableser and Republican Rep. Warde Nichols, however both failed due to lack of legislative support.
In light of these fiscal disappointments, Crow’s focus has remained on his dream of shaping ASU into the “New American University” model for tomorrow.
“We are growing to provide access to a great university to every qualified student. That has meant that we have had to make harder decisions,” he said.
Although UA’s funding has been reduced in the wake of the recession, ASU also suffered horrible losses across the board, compounded by the dramatic gap in funding per full-time equivalent student.
It is arguable that if the students at ASU were valued at the same level as UA and therefore received an additional $80 million in state support, we would not have been forced to endure the staff and faculty furloughs and layoffs or program discontinuations that have plagued us in the 2009 fiscal year.
Knowing this, I asked Crow whether he would recommend that the Board of Regents take resources away from UA in order to bridge the gap in state funding.
“I don’t want to argue for or against how to fund the other universities,” he said. “All I want to argue for is what we need. So, we need $17,000 per student [from tuition and state funding], and we have $12,000 per student.”
To reach this figure, Crow has proposed a 50-50 fund allocation.
“We believe that [in-state] tuition will have to rise to $8,500, and then we want the state to invest $8,500 per student per year. We’re a long way from either of those numbers, so I’m talking about over the next several years,” Crow said.
While the prospect of higher tuition fees alone has probably caused many of you to rip this paper to shreds in primal rage, it is perhaps important for students and parents to first take a deep breath and consider the costs with a pinch of perspective.
“One of our biggest frustrations as administrators has been people arguing with no basis,” Crow said. “At that funding level, $17,000 per year per student, we are at about half of the level of funding as most of our peer schools, but we don’t need that much money. As a student at Arizona State University you are receiving an astounding education at a fraction of the cost at an institution struggling to justify a below-average tuition and dramatically below-average state investment. Yet most students who look at these issues only see that one price, no relative price.”
Additionally, the Board of Regents and university presidents are looking into ways to “phase in” less-costly colleges within the universities as part of a long-term strategic plan to maximize educational excellence and accessibility in light of the Legislature’s noncooperation. However, this plan will not fully take effect until 2020, long after we have all graduated.
But there is one question that should make us panic as current tuition-paying students: What happens if the state Legislature continues to place higher education as a minor priority and doesn’t provide adequate state support at the requested level of funding?
Yep, once again students get stuck paying the bill.
So get good and mad, Sun Devils — not just for the Saturday victory that should have been, but for that extra money in your bank accounts that will soon be handed over as tuition without legislative action.
School pride aside, even-handed treatment of students seeking an education at the state’s public universities is a crucial element of any state support mechanism.
This fundamental fairness can be expressed in terms of state expenditures per full-time equivalent student.
Ask yourself if you can afford to remain silent.
Send Hal your fundamentally fair thoughts at hscohen@asu.edu.
