More

U-M's Mary Sue Coleman Writes Obama On College Affordability, Occupy Protests U-M Costs

Occupy Student Debt Campaign

The Huffington Post   Posted: 12/16/11 12:42 PM ET

When University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman made a Christmas wish, she didn't write a letter to Santa; she addressed one to President Obama instead.

In Ian open letter, Coleman commended Obama for calling attention to the "thorny issue" of higher education affordability, but wrote that as a country the United States "absolutely must find ways to provide a college education at a cost that is sustainable." But while Coleman is pressing for reforms on the national stage, some students say she isn't doing enough at her own university.

Coleman's letter made four recommendations for reducing costs at colleges and universities across the country based on her experience at U-M: States should reinvest in public higher education; business leaders should advocate for funding; private donations should be considered a necessary support; and universities should continue to cut costs across the board -- except for financial aid.

Coleman called Michigan's public four-year institutions "ground zero for funding cuts," noting they took a 15 percent cut in the last year and 30 percent over the last decade. U-M has cut $235 million in operational costs in the last eight years.

A group of students brought their own concerns about U-M's affordability not to President Obama, but to Coleman and U-M's board.

On Thursday, the day before Coleman's letter was posted, Occupy U-M protesters spoke out at a Board of Regents meeting against the school's tuition increases. Approximately 20 people took over the meeting and left shortly after reading a speech.

Protesters said the school is run like a business that sells education to those who can afford it, the Free Press reports.

Occupy U-M pointed out that tuition has increased 233 percent since 1990, to about $12,000 a year for in-state undergraduates, and asked regents to be more accountable to the public, the Detroit News reports.

A recent report from the College Board showed that college costs rose much more quickly than cost-of-living inflation for the 2011-2012 school year. As has been the case for several years, public school costs are increasing more rapidly than those of private four-year schools.

The difficulties of student loan debt and the cost of higher education are two of the issues that the Occupy movement has continually protested. Last month, the national Occupy Student Debt campaign intitated a million-person pledge drive for student borrowers to default on their loans.

Obama recently held a conference with university presidents about college affordability, but Coleman, who is also chairwoman of the Association of American Universities, did not attend due to a scheduling conflict, according to the Free Press.

Coleman's entire letter, first posted on the University of Michigan website, appears below.

"Dear Mr. President,

Your recent meeting with college presidents is the best Christmas present I could have hoped for.

By bringing together higher education leaders to discuss college affordability, you have elevated a thorny issue that demands a national conversation because of its impact on all sectors of society. The cost of attending college is one of the most serious matters facing a country that seeks to strengthen its global competitiveness. How we resolve this dilemma requires collaboration, sacrifice and hard choices.

American higher education – particularly public higher education – is one of the monumental achievements of our country. No other nation can rival the innovation, creativity and intellectual fervor of our universities. Our institutions are responsible for America’s knowledge security – an intellectual wellbeing that advances health and medicine, business, social science, the arts, public policy and national defense.

And yet college is costly – too costly for some families. To meet the myriad needs of students and society, we absolutely must find ways to provide a college education at a cost that is sustainable. President Thomas Jefferson was rightfully adamant that a cornerstone of democracy is education for all, “from the richest to the poorest.”

Higher education is a public good currently lacking public support. There is no stronger trigger for rising costs at public universities and colleges than declining state support. The University of Michigan and our state’s 14 other public institutions have been ground zero for funding cuts. The state’s significant disinvestment in higher education has been challenging: a 15 percent cut in the last year alone, and a reduction of more than 30 percent over the last decade.

We have worked extremely hard to mitigate the impact of these cuts on students and families. We must and will do more, but also offer recommendations that may benefit all of higher education.

First and foremost, it is essential that states reinvest in their public colleges and universities. Not doing so is shortsighted and threatens to cripple remarkable institutions of learning. The University of California system is admired worldwide, yet its rapid dismantling because of underfunding is distressing; this is just the most dramatic example of starved higher education budgets nationwide.

Second, American business, to remain globally competitive, has a vested interest in the talent and research embodied in higher education. As employers of our graduates, business leaders must advocate for strong, consistent funding of higher education. The Business Leaders of Michigan, for example, is a private organization partnering with our state’s three research universities to help reignite the Michigan economy. These executives advocate increasing our state investment in higher education from its current status of 38th in the nation to the top 10. This collective voice of support is encouraging and powerful.

Third, private support no longer is a luxury, but rather a necessity. Philanthropy has always been a cornerstone of America’s private universities; the culture of giving back to one’s alma mater is ingrained in students from their first days on campus. Public universities must look more to alumni and friends for support, particularly for scholarships. As president, I challenged Michigan alumni to fund need-based scholarships for undergraduates, and they responded with nearly $70 million; this came after raising $540 million in a capital campaign to support students. Universities have an obligation to ask, and alumni should feel equally obligated to give back.

Finally, universities themselves must continue to cut costs. It may not always feel so for families, but at Michigan we have cut $235 million in operational costs in the last eight years to help offset tuition increases. We have eliminated or consolidated hundreds of jobs. We have asked employees to pay more for their health care. Only one budget item is sacrosanct and that is financial aid; here we are adding dollars. The result is that for many of our low- to middle-income resident students, it actually costs less to attend Michigan today than in 2004, and their loan burdens are lower than in previous years.

Mr. President, you have two wonderful daughters; I have two beautiful grandchildren. Parents and grandparents throughout the country want a secure, productive future for our young, and that future will demand a college education. As a former college professor, you know the rewards of seeing students grow intellectually, exercise critical thinking, and begin to shape their communities. This transformative experience of higher learning contributes to the overall wellbeing of our nation.

The onus is now on all of us – elected officials, university presidents, business leaders, philanthropists and parents – to collaborate on effective answers. I welcome being part of this critical national conversation and I trust that together America can find solutions.

You have my best wishes for a warm holiday season.

Respectfully yours,

Mary Sue Coleman"

FOLLOW HUFFPOST DETROIT

When University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman made a Christmas wish, she didn't write a letter to Santa; she addressed one to President Obama instead. In Ian open letter, Coleman commende...
When University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman made a Christmas wish, she didn't write a letter to Santa; she addressed one to President Obama instead. In Ian open letter, Coleman commende...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 32
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
12:48 AM on 12/19/2011
I LOVE MARY SUE!!
06:57 PM on 12/18/2011
According to a website I just looked at, Mary Sue Coleman is compensated to the tune of $760,196. That alone makes it a bit hard to keep tuition under control. I know that many graduates of U-M will go out and make big bucks, but I also know that many will not. It's hard to imagine them feeling the need to "give back" once they are free from massive debt they've incurred.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tidalwave4455
12:27 PM on 12/18/2011
I was a professor at a University for 30 years. My salary barely equaled inflation during most of that time. Yet tuition increased more than inflation. Many people try to blame faculty salaries for the tuition increases. One Chancellor spent 5 times an average faculty salary remodeling his personal office.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moravecglobal
04:31 PM on 12/17/2011
Underfunding of University of California Berkeley is NOT the problem. The problem is the high cost of providing university education. Paying more is not a better university. I love University of California (UC) having been a student & lecturer. Like so many I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failures of Birgeneau from holding the line on rising costs & tuition. On an all in cost, Birgeneau has molded Cal. into the most expensive public university. Faculty wages must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others are paid.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) dismissed many needed cost-cutting options. Birgeneau did not consider freezing vacant faculty positions, increasing class size, requiring faculty to teach more classes, doubling the time between sabbaticals, freezing pay & benefits, reforming pensions & health benefits.
Birgeneau said such faculty reforms would not be healthy for Cal. Exodus of faculty, administrators: who can afford them?
We agree it is far from the ideal situation. Birgeneau cannot expect to do business as usual: raising tuition; granting pay raises & huge bonuses during a weak economy that has sapped state revenues & individual income.
We must act. Chancellor Birgeneau’s campus police deployed violent baton jabs on students protesting increases in tuition. The sky above Cal. will not fall when Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) is ousted.

Email opinions to the UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu
03:36 PM on 12/17/2011
One of the issues brought up with at UM Occupy teach-in was the Construction vs Instruction Debate.

This has to do with the increase of building construction on campuses for non-academic buildings like sport complexes, dorms, student centers, gyms etc...

These buildings are not cheap and they are paid for in part by issuing Construction Bonds, which are design by companies like Goldman Sachs.

In order to create these bonds the college provides collateral in the form of a promise to raise tuition and to low staff cost.

This is in part why we seen tuition go up and staff/instructors switch from mostly full time to mostly part time.

The idea is that fancy buildings and sports programs will attract more out-of-state student who pay more to go to state colleges.

These buildings look great on the college tour right?

The problem is that it that this increases tuition for everyone and it also cost tax strapped state who are cutting higher education budgets to cover the expense of construction, but in the end there is less money going toward instruction and many students are being shut out or they going into massive debt.

Michigan is unique in that they actually make money with their football program (which support the other sports), but most college loose money on sports.
01:24 PM on 12/17/2011
MSC was a chemist before heading the other U of M Still, she makes a lot of money and legitimately feels going to college is good for everyone. i feell more and more,it's especially good for folks employed by colleges. There is a huge gap in everything between someone graduating from AA with a chemical engineering degree and a gender studies degree.The U benefits from the latter student.And Mc Donald's. But,the kid gets a useless degree and a broken heart
10:49 PM on 12/16/2011
Well the student loan debt is a lame excuse for the Pccupy kids. Just don't take the loans out. DOE loans are amazingly deferable. Trust me, I've had them paused everytime I became an unemployed engineer after college. The kids are just too dumb to figure that out. Of course I went to the better school MSU. But they are correct, maybe she could look to her own school first. I can't beleive the building going on at MSU and UofM right now. It seems the Boards and Presidents are very disconnected from the reality of the potential student base. And cheap government loan money is not helping.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KatieLee116
09:59 AM on 12/17/2011
Deferring loans isn't a good thing. And it's not that we are too stupid to figure it out. I worked full time while attending college, went to a community college first then to a SUNY 4 year college and still had to take out 30k in student loans. You must have gone to college 20 years ago. Even though I don't make a ton of money, I never ever defer my loans. The interest on loans I had to take out while Bush was in office are at 6.8%, when you defer loans they still accrue interest or are you to stupid to understand that? I think the bigger issue with students being upset is the cost of college rising. My college tuition rose by 8% ever year that I was in college and this article states that is has risen 233 percent since 1990. Because college isn't something you can afford without loans (I guess you know another secret way) ever time there is an increase it is just more debt students need to take on. I have never ever met anyone in my life who has not needed to take out loans. Maybe you grew up in a family that could afford 20k a year in college costs, but most of us did not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
02:56 PM on 12/16/2011
How about Universities stop trying to provide 1 of every degree under the sun and pick what they can teach WELL and AFFORD?  Furthermore, how about we stop requiring spurious classes to be passed for graduation in a degree that has nothing to do with the class (e.g. for what purpose does a biology major need to take music history?).

Specialize more and make ALL degree programs worth something.  Allow students more latitude by way of elective credits rather than broad requirements.  It would not only go a long way to control costs, but would likely foster greater achievement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Viable Way
08:51 PM on 12/16/2011
Why are children going to expensive schools? I calculated the cost PER CLASSROOM HOUR (not credit hour) at a public college, $12.50 and a private college, close to $50.00 per hour! For that money, three or four public school students could get together, OR one private schools student could have a ONE ON ONE PRIVATE TUTOR!

WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?

As far as liberal arts requirements...biology majors DO NEED to take classes outside their comfort area...it just doesn't have to be anything more than a COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRICE!

ALSO...music majors really do still need to have a working understanding of science and math (especially ECONOMICS) if they are going to be able to make sensible decisions as musicians who EARN A LIVING!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cryingliberty
You think Michigan's blue? You don't live here.
02:29 AM on 12/17/2011
There's a difference between a "working understanding" of science and math versus what you're taught at the university level. As a music education graduate myself, I can attest that the science and math courses offered that count towards your gen-ed requirements are NOT practical and have very, very little bearing on skills that you will actually put to use in your teaching or your life.

What would be more useful are classes that directly relate to your field - I got lucky because my university happened to offer an acoustics class that was designed for music majors, but that was one class out of a required four, and to make matters worse, the math curriculum was utterly pointless when it came to practical skills.

I have no problem with ensuring that I have a well-rounded education and practical life skills, but at the same time, it also behooves whatever institution you are studying with to actually OFFER classes along those lines. As a music education major, I could've done without the zoology, chemistry, geology, trigonometry, psychology, and sociology, and instead had classes in grant-writing, in-classroom best practices, musical physics, public speaking, and in-classroom experience.

I can see how music performance majors might have some use for economics, but I think what would be much more useful are marketing classes and business school classes to help a musician be more able to market themselves.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
05:19 PM on 12/17/2011
The money goes in to supplement programs that are unpopular, but exist because there is artificial demand to keep them the size they are, if they would exist at all without the requirement for students to take courses in those areas.

I'm all for students getting a liberal arts education.  However, the authoritarian approach most universities take to this is far from liberal.  In fact, it rings of a fascism in many cases where the university is literally dangling your future success in front of you while telling you that you must be proficient in an area that has absolutely no bearing on your success, nor holds any personal/professional interest.

Keep credit hour requirements above that of what a Bachelor's would minimally require, but let the students decide what they would like to learn about outside of that area.  You'll still have a liberal education, but will cease to have to fund entire departments that are currently sitting on their laurels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cryingliberty
You think Michigan's blue? You don't live here.
02:59 AM on 12/17/2011
I am a firm, firm believer in the notion that universities should lessen so-called "general education" requirements. College should not be a rehash of high school with a series of more targeted courses at the end; it should provide you the knowledge and skill to succeed in a specific field.

University education should provide more targeted education that is directly related to one's field of study.

THAT SAID, there is something to being able to broaden one's views, and so that's why I believe that some gen-ed requirements should still exist - if only because one can get tunnel vision when focusing so hard on their subject area that they become ignorant of the world around them.

There is also something to be said for cultural advancement, which is something that a university education can provide where a high school might be less capable of filling that need. A life devoid of art, music, and literature would be dry indeed, and yet, the collegiate level is often the only time many students get to truly be able to immerse themselves in a multicultural experience.

At the same time, students often have other interests outside their major, and gen-ed courses can sometimes sate that interest. In my case, I got lucky with an acoustics course designed for music majors that was not only relevant, but scratched the itch I had for physics.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
05:11 PM on 12/17/2011
I'm not saying that gen ed requirements should go away.  Rather, they should be come elective courses so that students will be afforded more opportunity to supplement their degree with something meaningful to themselves or useful in their desired line of work.  It is not the place of an institution to dictate what areas are of value, and subsequently what areas MUST be ignored (through lack of time and/or funding), often to the detriment of the student.

One would think that a student who has the ability to get into college can effectively self-regulate well enough to navigate which courses to take without being told what they "need to know".  I certainly am not getting anything out of a good portion of the credit hours I paid for, and that's even after I finished my general math and science requirements in high school.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
susanbsbi
Slave to 3 cats
02:09 PM on 12/16/2011
One way to increase the amount for education would be that the dean of universities take a smaller salary. Members of the School board, reduce their salaries. They reduced the teachers pay, did they dean and board of directors reduce their, are they paying their fair share of their health insurance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Viable Way
08:53 PM on 12/16/2011
School Board members do not have a SALARY...at least not at the elementary or high school level in AZ.

How about the FOOTBALL COACH's salary?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cryingliberty
You think Michigan's blue? You don't live here.
01:37 AM on 12/17/2011
Board of Regents members and administration at U-M do get salaries - some quite lavish, but you're right - not as lavish as the football coach.

The only difference is that the athletic departments at most major D-I universities are usually self-contained; that is, their budgets are usually unaffected by the school's overall budget. Between the television payouts, contracts, and licensing, the athletic departments are usually able to be financially independent.

Where the problem exists is where the state funding goes. While it doesn't go into the athletic department's coffers (usually) it frequently goes into the hands of highly-paid deans, administrators, and board members such as Coleman. Tenured professors may see six-digit salaries, but untenured professors will see substantially less, and adjuncts will see embarrassingly low pay.

In fact, being an adjunct at a university is scarcely better than working part time for a public school, since you're paid per-class. Most adjunct professors are lucky to make $25,000 a year, based on anecdotal evidence I've gleaned from colleagues of mine who teach at the university level.
10:08 AM on 12/19/2011
You realize that football coach makes a fraction of the revenues that the team brings in? On top of that, those very same revenues fund EVERY OTHER SPORT at the university. They also help pay for other "non-essential" programs.

It's funny when people who obviously don't know anything about sports revenue bring them into question.