After two months of discussions, a committee of students, faculty and staff Monday endorsed a proposal that would almost double tuition at Kansas University over five years.
In a split vote, the committee said KU’s $50 million funding gap compared to its peer schools should be made up solely with tuition.
“We decided to address the entire gap as a student body instead of looking at parts of it,” said Dallas Rakestraw, the committee’s student co-chairman.
KU administrators said in presentations last fall that KU’s budget was about $50 million less per year than its state-selected peers the universities of Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The committee’s plan would increase tuition and fees from $2,884 per year for an average student to $5,123 by 2006. The plan makes up the $50 million gap and provides an additional $10 million per year in financial aid.
KU student senators formed the committee in January after protesting that the KU administration wasn’t seeking input on the tuition issue.
Administrators have said they will consider the committee’s work when deciding which proposal to present to the Kansas Board of Regents next month. Regents will vote in May.
The committee will meet Thursday to discuss how the money should be spent.
The biggest remaining issue will be whether to fund faculty salaries with the tuition increase. Some committee members have said funding salaries with tuition would send the wrong message to the Legislature, which approved a measure Senate Bill 345 in 1999 that promised to increase faculty salaries to peer levels.
“It’s part of the gap,” said committee member Chuck Krider, a business professor. “I don’t see how the university can go forward without addressing faculty salaries. They ought to fund (Senate Bill 345). But what if they don’t?”
Matt Steppe, a junior and one of two students who opposed the committee’s proposal, said he thought the group should have devised its wish-list, then approved a corresponding tuition increase.
Instead, he said, the committee followed the administration’s reasoning behind tuition increases.
“We definitely looked at the same types of numbers,” he said. “We did little thinking outside the box. There’s lower numbers I would’ve been inclined to accept.”
After two months of discussions, a committee of students, faculty and staff Monday endorsed a proposal that would almost double tuition at Kansas University over five years.
In a split vote, the committee said KU’s $50 million funding gap compared to its peer schools should be made up solely with tuition.
“We decided to address the entire gap as a student body instead of looking at parts of it,” said Dallas Rakestraw, the committee’s student co-chairman.
KU administrators said in presentations last fall that KU’s budget was about $50 million less per year than its state-selected peers the universities of Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The committee’s plan would increase tuition and fees from $2,884 per year for an average student to $5,123 by 2006. The plan makes up the $50 million gap and provides an additional $10 million per year in financial aid.
KU student senators formed the committee in January after protesting that the KU administration wasn’t seeking input on the tuition issue.
Administrators have said they will consider the committee’s work when deciding which proposal to present to the Kansas Board of Regents next month. Regents will vote in May.
The committee will meet Thursday to discuss how the money should be spent.
The biggest remaining issue will be whether to fund faculty salaries with the tuition increase. Some committee members have said funding salaries with tuition would send the wrong message to the Legislature, which approved a measure Senate Bill 345 in 1999 that promised to increase faculty salaries to peer levels.
“It’s part of the gap,” said committee member Chuck Krider, a business professor. “I don’t see how the university can go forward without addressing faculty salaries. They ought to fund (Senate Bill 345). But what if they don’t?”
Matt Steppe, a junior and one of two students who opposed the committee’s proposal, said he thought the group should have devised its wish-list, then approved a corresponding tuition increase.
Instead, he said, the committee followed the administration’s reasoning behind tuition increases.
“We definitely looked at the same types of numbers,” he said. “We did little thinking outside the box. There’s lower numbers I would’ve been inclined to accept.”
After two months of discussions, a committee of students, faculty and staff Monday endorsed a proposal that would almost double tuition at Kansas University over five years.
In a split vote, the committee said KU’s $50 million funding gap compared to its peer schools should be made up solely with tuition.
“We decided to address the entire gap as a student body instead of looking at parts of it,” said Dallas Rakestraw, the committee’s student co-chairman.
KU administrators said in presentations last fall that KU’s budget was about $50 million less per year than its state-selected peers the universities of Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The committee’s plan would increase tuition and fees from $2,884 per year for an average student to $5,123 by 2006. The plan makes up the $50 million gap and provides an additional $10 million per year in financial aid.
KU student senators formed the committee in January after protesting that the KU administration wasn’t seeking input on the tuition issue.
Administrators have said they will consider the committee’s work when deciding which proposal to present to the Kansas Board of Regents next month. Regents will vote in May.
The committee will meet Thursday to discuss how the money should be spent.
The biggest remaining issue will be whether to fund faculty salaries with the tuition increase. Some committee members have said funding salaries with tuition would send the wrong message to the Legislature, which approved a measure Senate Bill 345 in 1999 that promised to increase faculty salaries to peer levels.
“It’s part of the gap,” said committee member Chuck Krider, a business professor. “I don’t see how the university can go forward without addressing faculty salaries. They ought to fund (Senate Bill 345). But what if they don’t?”
Matt Steppe, a junior and one of two students who opposed the committee’s proposal, said he thought the group should have devised its wish-list, then approved a corresponding tuition increase.
Instead, he said, the committee followed the administration’s reasoning behind tuition increases.
“We definitely looked at the same types of numbers,” he said. “We did little thinking outside the box. There’s lower numbers I would’ve been inclined to accept.”
After two months of discussions, a committee of students, faculty and staff Monday endorsed a proposal that would almost double tuition at Kansas University over five years.
In a split vote, the committee said KU’s $50 million funding gap compared to its peer schools should be made up solely with tuition.
“We decided to address the entire gap as a student body instead of looking at parts of it,” said Dallas Rakestraw, the committee’s student co-chairman.
KU administrators said in presentations last fall that KU’s budget was about $50 million less per year than its state-selected peers the universities of Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The committee’s plan would increase tuition and fees from $2,884 per year for an average student to $5,123 by 2006. The plan makes up the $50 million gap and provides an additional $10 million per year in financial aid.
KU student senators formed the committee in January after protesting that the KU administration wasn’t seeking input on the tuition issue.
Administrators have said they will consider the committee’s work when deciding which proposal to present to the Kansas Board of Regents next month. Regents will vote in May.
The committee will meet Thursday to discuss how the money should be spent.
The biggest remaining issue will be whether to fund faculty salaries with the tuition increase. Some committee members have said funding salaries with tuition would send the wrong message to the Legislature, which approved a measure Senate Bill 345 in 1999 that promised to increase faculty salaries to peer levels.
“It’s part of the gap,” said committee member Chuck Krider, a business professor. “I don’t see how the university can go forward without addressing faculty salaries. They ought to fund (Senate Bill 345). But what if they don’t?”
Matt Steppe, a junior and one of two students who opposed the committee’s proposal, said he thought the group should have devised its wish-list, then approved a corresponding tuition increase.
Instead, he said, the committee followed the administration’s reasoning behind tuition increases.
“We definitely looked at the same types of numbers,” he said. “We did little thinking outside the box. There’s lower numbers I would’ve been inclined to accept.”
