Here’s a heads-up on the increases proposed for room and board at state universities, as discussed this month before a possible vote next month by the Kansas Board of Regents:
The average student at Wichita State University would see room and board rise about $280, or 5 percent, to $5,860 a year.
At the University of Kansas, room and board would increase about $330, or 5.4 percent, to $6,474 a year. At Kansas State, a student could see room and board increase by $364, or 6 percent, to $6,448. At Fort Hays, Emporia and Pittsburg, average housing-and-food rates could go up by 4, 4.9 and 6 percent, respectively, or $241, $276 and $306 more a year.
University officials justifiably point to how reasonable their schools’ fees and tuition are compared with other Midwestern peer institutions, where room and board average $6,800 a year. But those who run higher education in the state need to be as sensitive to price as their would-be students are.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
20 Comments
Perhaps get a community development grant to fix up the boarded up homes around WSU and rent those out to students. You can deal with blight and provide more housing options for students in one.
Nice ideal Doug, now what about the security issues?
If Room and Board means “room and something to eat” then it’s not a bad deal.
I’ve had relatives who gotten the deal at other Universities and it included two meals a day.
Anyone know what WSU offers in its package?
Maybe there ought be programs to help reduce the cost based on the performace (or nom performance) of the students.
Nearly 500 a month all bills paid really isn’t so bad.
How can you say “justifiably”? It is a never ending racket to increase rates/charges just because EVERYBODY ELSE does.
If they DECREASE rates do you think our colleges should too?
Jump off a cliff because everyone else is?
Wow. These are the guys with the degress speaking.
The way a “public” business SHOULD run is you increase rates when your COSTS require you to. Not whatever the market demands.
You have priced the middle class out of our colleges. The rich go where they want, the poor get the subsidized education, and the middle class pays the full price.
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/374704.html
Nearly 500 a month all bills paid really isn’t so bad.
Posted by: political_mom
$533 at KU a month for room and whatever “board” is. The meal plan varies and not all students hours avail themselves of the plan.
But political mom, as a father who sent all three of children through a Kansas college let me assure you this is NOT all bills.
Tuition $6,400 (min load)Books (1000-1500)Mandatory Health InsuranceParking/busActivity Booklet (optional)Campus computer fee 150Campus Fee $755Course fees (vary Architecture$17 pharmacy 132)And on and on………..
So PM, everytime they raise ONE fee, the others always go up to.
University officials justifiably point to how reasonable their schools’ fees and tuition are compared with other Midwestern peer institutions,
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Idiots. The cost of living is NOT the same! Just look at the cost of a home in Kansas compared with either coast. Just because the AVERAGE is HIGH, does not mean Kansas costs should go up!
Maybe realtors should start selling homes based upon the AVERAGE nationally?
Stupid with a college degree.
Maybe the Eagle should pay the editors the average for Kansas – and not the average nationally.
Is there a link to the universities cost to room and board a student? Open records?
Come on journalist!
Do some investigating!!! Even using your average salary.
Some harsh words written here. In a nutshell I agree that the standard of cost comparison for a publicly subsidized institution is not how much other colleges cost but rather the actual cost figures.
Along the same lines, the comparison is even less valid when you consider that:
1. If Kansas students went to those other Midwestern schools they would pay out-of-state tuition. So it’s apples and oranges.2. Only a portion the cost is mentioned. How much per student is subsidized by the state? $5000? $7500? $10000? $15000? Did this amount go up or down?3. How does this compare to a student living off campus? Does it cost more or less?
Harsh words maybe. Bitter. I paid it all. We didn’t get any financial help. Didn’t NEED any, except is was not fair that we could not qualify for education loans (lower interest rate), because we make too much. That is bull. Every American should be able to take out loans for education – regardless of income, if used for costs.
From 2000-2007 school year, tuition went up 125%!! And people complain about the high cost of medicine and it’s increases.
So many variables. But I can tell you off campus ended up saving our family money. The fraternity/soriety route was more economical, provided better security/safety, meals from a cook in house, a support network, tutoring in house, and incentive to keep grades up or get kicked out.
Here’s a question though. KU received one million dollars for the game at the Chiefs stadium.
Will that lower anyone’s tuition, kansas tax paid to the college, or of any economic break for students?
I think the answer is no, and yes I am harsh.
I do think that if you offer student loans as a federal program you must offer it to everyone regardless of parental income.
College students are (generally) 18+ adults. Even the kids of the ‘rich’ should be able to take out loans and assume the same risk as anyone else.
Ah, ProudMan, it doesn’t work that way. In a nutshell, if the parent(s) of the student may claim the student as a dependent upon the federal 1040, then the parents’ income is used to determine eligibility for the various “need based” financial aid programs administered by the federal and state governments, with the institution serving as the agent thereof.
As to the issue of room and board; yes, living in non-university or non-college housing might indeed be less costly, or it might be more costly. I agree with those who say the costs for housing should be based upon the cost to the school. However, as pointed out above, there is a subsidization from general university revenue of all costs associated (with the exception of books and supplies) with college attendance.
As to the money from the KU-MU game in Arrowhead. It (the money) went to the athletic departments of the schools, not the general fund of the schools. As I have posted before, the athletic departments are separate corporations from the universities themselves. This was demonstrated last basketball season by the KU athletic department’s contribution of $1 million (IIRC) to KUMC for its cancer research program. Such contribution made big news, but if the athletic department revenue went to the university itself, there would have been no contribution to be made, as the money would have already been in the university coffers.
If it went to the university itself, and was used to reduce tuition, the net effect would not be that great. If one assumes the $1 million went to KU, and if one assumes the total enrollment at KU is approximately 27,000, then the “benefit” would be a bit over $37 per capita. Not that much, correct?
Can I keep the extra $810.00 fractional round off you didn’t account for Vaughn? :)
Kansas, sure, why not; at three cents per student multiplied by 27,000 students (offered for those unlike Kansas who didn’t do the arithmetic), someone should get to keep the $810. :-)
The point remains that the athletic department got the money, and not the university. So, again, why not, Kansas; the athletic department won’t miss it.
VT,
I am aware of how it works. I just don’t like it.
It stems from an experience I had with medical care. We were told upon entering the hospital that financial assistance was available. I asked the administrator right then if there was a means test. After explaining to her what a means test was she said no.
Later my wife went to sign up for the assistance. The first question asked was, ‘How much do you make’? That jerk laughed at my wife asking for assistance. It boiled down to that we were good enough to pay into the assistance fund but no good enough to received any assistance.
ProudMan, misunderstood your post. There is nothing about which I am aware that prohibits anyone from obtaining an educational loan. There are restrictions on the availability of the “low interest” ones as they are termed “need based”, thus your comment about anyone should be able to obtain a loan regardless of familial circumstances led me to believe you were unfamiliar with the rules. As Maxwell Smart said, “Sorry about that”.
That colleges can make millions off their sports program but they dont use and never spend any of on anything but the sports program is stupid didn’t the Kansas schools just ask the Legislature for money for campus repairs, and where does the money from licenses go Clothes, toys, video games, hats etc. Millions more no doubt.
Tom Paine, as was reported earlier this Fall, the licensing rights to various schools’ official logos, etc., are held by the athletic departments. The money, thus, goes to them.
From my limited knowledge of the history of these things, at one time all college and university athletic departments were a part of the schools. During the 1950s on, the athletic departments were “spun off”, so to speak, into separate corporations which were distinct from the main university/college, with the school being the “owner” of the same. I would speculate the reason for this was to allow the raising of funds for athletic scholarships, coaches salaries, etc., to occur outside the normal endowment association fund raising for the general scholarship fund and the normal funding process (for public universities and colleges, at least) used to determine and pay faculty salaries.
From my understanding of the KU situation, there is but one university employee in the athletic department; the athletic director. All coaches, etc., are employed by the athletic department, which pays their salaries, etc., from the revenues raised by the said department. The money for athletic scholarships comes from donors to the various funds established by the athletic departments (at KU, this is the Williams Scholarship Fund).
I don’t recall the school, but last summer a ripple went through the big time athletic program community when the school announced it was taking control of the athletic department by abolishing the separate corporation which had been running things, thereby removing some of the opportunities for misdeeds connected to the athletic department. In a way, this makes much sense, because in the case of NCAA violations, it isn’t the athletic department who is “punished”; the punishment is meted out to the school. See, e.g., the NCAA punishment, if you will, of KU for various infractions found to have been committed by the KU Athletic Department in the football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball programs, together with the “lack of institutional control” finding. Again, it is the institution which is placed on probation, etc., not the athletic program directly, although the penalties affect the athletic programs involved.
Much of these actions might well be avoided if the rules which apply to NCAA Division III (no athletic scholarships, etc.) were made applicable to the other divisions. There would then be no real need for the financial behemoths which are the athletic departments to exist; while the level of athletic performance might suffer, the competition on the field, on the court, would still be as fierce. Plus, this would force the NFL and NBA to create some form of “minor leagues”, rather than relying upon the colleges and universities for their players. It would also have the positive effect, IMHO, in eliminating the stupid NBA rule that a player must attend college for one year to be eligible for the NBA draft, thereby eliminating certain players from playing college ball for a year before “going pro”. As Coach Knight at Texas Tech said, how many of these guys (the “one and done” types such as Michael Beasley at KSU is rumored to be) will even bother to attend class the second semester their Freshman year, if they’re headed to the NBA?
Yes, I know I misstated the NBA rule a bit; it only specifies that the individual is not eligible to be drafted for one year after his/her high school class has graduated, but the practical effect is and will be until a court finds this to be an antitrust violation to direct a small group of highly talented athletes into college programs for one year before they go to “the league”.
http://usateenworld.com
http://usayoung.com
http://blackgirlusa.com
http://fastgirlusa.com
http://girlusacheap.com
http://girlusasite.com
http://girlzoneusa.com
http://goodgirlusa.com
http://surfgirlusa.com
http://thegirlusa.com
http://girlboyrabbit.info
http://girlboyrevolution.info
http://girlboyart.info
http://girlaskguy.info
http://womanandboy.info
http://womanbeatman.info
http://theboyadvance.info
http://womanfindboy.info
http://girlwankingboy.info
http://theboypics.info