|
Editor's Note: The following is a letter to President Cooper and two members of the Board of Trustees for the University of Richmond, Otis Coston, Jr. and John B. Clarke.
I am writing regarding tuition at the Law School. Specifically, I am requesting that the University reexamine the way University costs are allocated to the Law School as this seems to be the driving force behind tuition increases. I also urge the University to do a better job of explaining how tuition is set, in general, and to provide the specific reasons behind annual tuition increases. The major problem with tuition is that the good will of Richmond
Law students and recent graduates is being seriously eroded.
Eroded by tuition increases approaching or equal to $1,000 every
year with little and vague explanation. Eroded by the fact that
we as students are helpless to do anything about the extent of
these tuition increases while we are here. Eroded by an awareness
that the University has an endowment of over $803 million dollars
that is not being used to keep tuition at reasonable levels.
Eroded further still in light of Virginia public universities
that are rolling back tuition for undergraduates and are in the
process of freezing or rolling back tuition for graduate students
as well. As I see it, there are two things the University could do to improve the situation. First, the major problem: the method of allocating costs to the Law School. By this, I mean the costs the University charges to the Law School for being associated with the larger university. As I understand it, the Law School is in the red because of these costs and the ways things are currently structured, the Law School may never get out of the red. This seems to me to be fundamentally unfair to the Law School as well as to the students who continue to have to pay higher and higher tuition. At present, the Law School is in an untenable situation, made only slightly better by the University's promise to hold off further large tuition increases for a time. Second, with regard to the short-term, I urge the University do a better job of explaining the formula for how tuition is set as well as the specific reasons behind our annual tuition increases. The fact is that the annual letters announcing tuition increases have become a source of derision and bitterness at the Law School. We are given very vague reasons for our tuition increases and when inquiries have been made to the University administration, we have been put off. The strong and sharp reaction by law students last year to the University's proposed purchase of Bandy Field should be a wake-up call and I hope you will take heed of it. The most recent tuition increase letter does a better job of explaining the reasons behind it. I am encouraged by this but there is still much work to be done to address the broader issues of the University's cost allocation method, as well as using a small part of the endowment to keep tuition at reasonable levels. I urge you to take action on this important issue. While the University may be generating a few more dollars for its coffers in the short term, I think the long-term good will of, and financial contributions to, this University are being compromised.
Melanie Kielb |
Previous Page 
Next
Page