"The consequences threaten polarization of the student body into high- and low-income groups, with students from middle-income families depending more on assistance from the Office of Student Aid to remain in school," the Student Aid Committee said in a special report in June 1972. But what if the university does not have enough in institutional funds to help make up the critical difference between family contributions and educational costs? This is a growing problem for Walbom and the Student Aid Office staff. "The federal government's guidelines stipulate that aid must be given to the neediest students-but who is the most needy? Inevitably, aid goes to those from families with the lowest incomes," the director said. "Our aid doesn't stretch far enough to meet the full needs of students. We estimate that a student's costs will be about $4,500 (in 1972-73-the figure is about $4,750 now). We're lucky if we can meet half of that amount, and that includes a loan of $1,000. "If we can't find other resources by which we can provide scholarships, loans and jobs, students must either drop out for a semester or more or transfer to a University of California campus or one of the state colleges and universities— and some have already done so.' At the moment, only the Federally insured Student Loan Program, under which banks and other lending institutions offer loans at 7% interest, is open to students from middle-class families-at least on paper. Much of the aid in other federal programs has gone to students from minority groups because of their greater financial need. In 1970-71, minority students were 10.6% of the population, the Office of Education reported. They received 20.8% of the federal direct loans, 26.3% of the work-study payments, and 37% of the suppplemental grants. Under the Education Amendment of 1972, the Basic Opportunity Grants Program was established. In the older programs, students competed for the available money, and the university was responsible for final decisions on awards, subject to federal regulations. However, the basic-grants program differs in that aid is channeled directly to the needy student, and that eligible students receive the same minimum grants as students of similar need do. Federal programs will continue to emphasize need, which will not help students from midle-class families. Some university officials hope more students will qualify for federal aid simply because of increasing educational costs and diminishing family contributions. Only time will tell, though. [From the Daily Trojan, Nov. 27, 1973] TUITION POLICY IS FOCUS OF PANEL'S MAJORITY REPORT The majority recommendations of the Commission on Tuition and Fees are limited to the university's tuition policy and do not consider its general financial situation. Three of the five majority recommendations deal solely with tuition, and a fourth is concerned with long-range tuition policy. In this respect, then, the majority recommendations differ from those in the minority report, which deal with general university finances. Both reports are scheduled to be discussed Monday by the University Council. A recommendation on tuition is expected to be made then. Two of the recommendations in the majority report were passed easily at the commission's final meeting Nov. 8. One of these urged the university to cope with cost increases by a combination of better management and additional income from gifts. The other urged the establishment of a permanent commission to determine long-range tuition policy. A third recommendation-to limit revenue from student tuition to 40% of total university income in 1974-75-was passed, 7-5. However, on one motion that included the critical recommendations-to increase tuition by $7 per unit in 1974-75, or by $210 above the current tuition of $2,700, and to reinstate the flat rate for students taking 15 to 18 units-the 10 faculty and staff members and the 9 students on the commission were divided. Seven commission members voted in favor of the increase, four voted against it and three abstained. The other members were absent. None of the student members voted in favor of this motion. So the majority report includes two recommendations passed overwhelmingly and three recommendations adopted by a plurality of commission members, not a majority. The minority report was approved by all the student members. It is a minority report only in the sense that the students were outvoted on the critical recommendations. It urges the University Council to defer a decision pending completion in the spring of the 1974-75 budget, when cuts might be made. This is perhaps the major difference between the reports. In the adoption of the majority report-the proposed $210 tuition increase it was assumed that about $8 million in additional revenue would be needed in 1974-75 to pay for new costs. An increase of $210 would not generate that much money. It is estimated that such an increase would produce about $4 million in new revenue. The rest of the money would have to be raised from other sources. What are these increases in university costs on which the key majority recommendation is based? The administration has estimated the following minimum new expenses: A general increase of 5.5% in faculty and staff salaries: $2.8 million. Increases in externally imposed programs (mostly fringe benefits) and increases for operations and maintenance : $1.9 million. Price inflation on university purchases: $1 million. Increases for personnel improvements, including the equalization of faculty and staff salaries, offices for personnel and equal employment opportunity, and the elimination of discrimination: $1.5 million. However, these are not yet firm university commitments. Once an increase in tuition is approved by the Board of Trustees, the additional revenue can be allocated by the university administration any way it chooses. The administration has listed what Golin MacLeod, director of financial services, has called a more realistic estimate of increased costs for 1974-75-about $12 million. These would be distributed as follows: General increase of 10% in faculty and staff salaries to catch up with levels at other universities: $5 million. An increase in student financial-aid funds: $1 million. An increase of $350 in tuition $12 per unit) was suggested. This would have produced about $7 million of the estimated needs. However, the commission did not vote for such an increase. But it is possible that the Board of Trustees could accept these higher estimates, and may well increase tuition at least $300, despite final action by the University Council. If that happens, a major university crisis could occur. In fall, 1972, the recommendation for an increase in tuition was $210, but the figure finally approved was $240, for the current $2,700. So the key majority recommendation this time could be discarded in favor of a trustee-imposed increase. The other majority recommendations are less controversial. The flat rate for tuition, which allows a student to take up to 18 units at the regular rate of 15 units, was to have been eliminated under one of the commission's tentative recommendations adopted Nov. 1. However, in the final vote Nov. 8, the commission retained the flat rate, because its abolition would have added at least $180 per year to the tuition of many students, since a regular academic load is 16 units per semester, not 15 units. An estimated $2 million in revenue may be lost by the retention of the flat rate, the commission was told. Another majority recommendation urged that the revenue from student tuition should be limited to 40% of total university income in 1974-75. This percentage has been reasonably stable since at least 1962. A fourth majority recommendation urged the university administration to cope with cost increases through better management and increased revenue from gifts. The report did not elaborate on the first of this recommendation, except to say that the administration should try to keep costs down. Private gifts and grants totaled $18.8 million for 1972-73, more than the original target of $15 million. This part of the majority recommendation urged the administration to increase such gifts. However, it is uncertain just where the increase above the $3 million already proposed is to take place. Is it in last year's target of $15 million? Or last year's result of $18.8 million? The final recommendation urges the establishment of a permanent commission to study long-range tuition policy. "The commission members felt that six weeks was not sufficient time in which to make a thoughtful, detailed study of all the issues germane to the formulation of a tuition policy," the majority report said. "Its recommendations for 1974-75 tuition policy reflect a reasonable BandAid solution to a complex problem. Sometimes critical information was either nonexistent or unavailable." The majority report said tuition was linked to the general financial situation. "Inevitably, the setting of tuition rates will become inextricably involved with the accountability for usage of these present and future tuition revenues" the report said. "To accomplish this task in a thoughtful manner requires an exhaustive examination and analysis of the relevant data as well, perhaps, as an assessment of university priorities." [From the Daily Trojan, Nov. 28, 1973] STUDENT JOBS UNFILLED DESPITE U.S. FUNDING The Student Aid Office has a new problem this year-apparently more parttime jobs are available than there are student applicants who qualify. In the past, students have besieged the Office for such jobs, the earnings from which pay the costs of their education. In response to these needs, the Student Aid Office sought more money last spring from the federal government to fund additional part-time jobs under the College Work-Study Program. It was successful in this effort. Under the program, established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the federal government pays 70% of the wages of a needy student working in a university office or an off-campus nonprofit agency. The university pays the other -30%. Undergraduates this year may earn up to $2.75 an hour; graduate students, up to $3.50. In 1972-73, the university received $332,250 from the federal government for wages, and students earned a total of $454,976. For this year, the university received more than twice as much as last year$724,383-and students are expected to earn $1,034,000. However, despite the attempts of Ron Mills, the employment coordinator in the Student Aid Office, to match as many student applicants as possible, many jobs have been left unfilled. If this is the case at the end of the year the Student Aid Office will have to return unspent funds for the College Work-Study Program to the federal government. What may be even more damaging to USC is that its allocation for the program in 1974-75 could be cut drastically because it failed to spend all its money for 1973-74. "We have been starved (of funds) for many years, and we couldn't meet student demands for part-time jobs. Now we have the money, but apparently there are no other students who want to help pay their own way through school," Mills said. "Next year we'll probably be starving again." About 300 students here were earning money under the College Work-Study Program in 1971-72 and 1972-73. With this year's increased funding, about 1,000 job opportunities are available. Despite publicity in the Daily Trojan through news stories and half-page ads, not enough new applicants came in, Mills said. "I guess we are already helping all of the needy students we can. I don't know how else I can reach other potential job applicants-except to set up a table by Tommy Trojan and advertise free money,” Mills said. 56 He will now consider part-time students for jobs. Mills did not know why more potential applicants failed to seek part-time work. Like most federal programs, the College Work-Study Program is based on financial need. The lack of such need is why some applicants were not accepted for the available part-time jobs, Mills said. For years, the university has tried to develop a better program for part-time work to supplement financial aid from scholarship and loans. "The university's participation in the federal College Work-Study Program has increased the number of job openings for students who need the earnings from such employment to continue their education," a report in March, 1967, Student Life and Student Services, 1966-80, said. "This type of aid was designed to stimulate and promote part-time work for students, preferably in jobs related to the student's educational objective.” However, the report, which was submitted to the University Planning Commission, suggested an expanded program. "This expansion should include contacts with alumni and staff visitations to business and industrial organizations to promote a student work program which would be mutually beneficial," the report said. A Priority for the 70s, the plan for academic improvements in this decade approved in April, 1970, pledged that $1.5 million would be raised for scholarships, loans, and work-study programs. The special report of the university's Student Aid Committee in June, 1972, emphasized the necessity of plentiful part-time jobs for students. The Committee endorsed an expansion of the job program, saying, "This appears to be an excellent source of additional financial assistance." Pamela H. Walbom, director of the Student Aid Office, pledged such an expansion during an interview in 1972. "We're going to spend a lot more time in developing jobs for students,” she said. Two other projects that will receive attention in the next few years will be the acquisition of more donor scholarships and better coordination with alumni scholarship committees. "We have about 300 donor scholarships for which we must select special students; we have to match students with those funds," Walbom said. "They may have to have a higher grade-point average. We have to report to the donors on the progress of the students, their majors, their grade-point averages, the number of units they take per semester, and so forth." Donor scholarships are often restricted by a student's permanent residence, major, career objectives, class level, and extracurricular interests, among other factors. This matching process takes time-time that an overworked Student Aid Office staff may not be able to take. This apparently was the case in mid-1972. "Our investigation revealed a number of instances of failure to comply with donor regulations. Most appeared to be related to the excessive workload," the Student Aid Committee said in its report. "The committee was concerned that some of these situations clearly jeopardized the continuity of funding, and in one, available funds were not being utilized." So the acquisition of additional donor scholarships will probably require a more thorough process of matching and reporting by the Student Aid Office staff. Another major concern of the Student Aid Office will be better coordination with the University Scholarship Alumni Interview Program-110 alumni committees in the United States that interview student applicants for admission and scholarships. "Evaluators use recommendations from these scholarships committees in determining financial need and respond to the committees as to what aid was received." Walbom said. The Student Aid Committee reported some dissatisfaction with the operation of the system. "It appears that in a number of instances, the top-rated candidates by the alumni interview groups have not been awarded scholarships, while lower-rated candidates have,” the 1972 report said. "When this information becomes known by the local committee, it understandably jeopardizes the continuity of the committee, whose members feel their work is in vain, and reduces their potential as a source of additional financial aid." "The committee views this situation as another example of the present staff's inability to cope with the work assigned to their office. . . . 57 "Occasionally they (alumni) may have been slighted; in other cases, there has not been enough time to provide sufficient feedback to alumni groups on financial and scholastic eligibility requirements, with the result that their advice appears to be ignored." Since the report, special workships have been held so that alumni committee members and university personnel can coordinate their efforts. [From the Daily Trojan, Nov. 29, 1973] MINORITY TUITION REPORT CALLS BUDGET EXCESSIVE The minority report of the Commission on Tuition and Fees poses numerous questions about the university's financial condition-questions omitted from the majority report because of its limited focus. "It would be absurd to consider tuition and fees separately without an examination of the context under which they are levied," the minority report said. Its primary recommendation urges the University Council to delay a decision on an increase in tuition until the 1974-75 budget is completed in the spring. At that time, the report said, the budget should be submitted to the commission, which would then recommend possible cuts. "There are far too many questions of university expenditures, income and management practices-particularly the university administration's projected increases in expenditures for the 1974-75 year-still unanswered for us to endorse the commission's recommendation at this time," it said. The minority report was approved by the nine student members of the commission. Both it and the majority report, which recommends an increase of $210 in the current tuition of $2,700, are to be discussed Monday by the council. "Students have the right to know just for what their tuition money is being spent. . . . We fear the commission's recommendation reflects the belief that increasing student tuition is the most expedient and simplest solution to some very complex problems," the minority report said. About a third of the 27-page report comments on proposed increases in university expenditures for 1974-75-estimates it calls needlessly high. It commented extensively on proposed salary increases for faculty and staff members. "We realize that the university must offer salaries competitive with those of other universities across the state and nation if it is to recruit and retain top faculty and staff members," it said. "Yet we seriously question the administration's planning in this vital matter." The report asks why the administration failed to announce until Nov. 8 (the commission's last meeting) that it was contemplating an increase of 10% in salaries. It also asks if estimated funds will actually be committed to pay for increases. It criticizes the administration's implementation of such salary increases on a nonsystematic basis. If a 10% increase for faculty members were granted. it would follow reported average increases of 5% for 1971-72 and 3% for 1972-73. It questions whether a 10% increase in faculty and staff salaries, increases for equalization of salaries, and increases in fringe benefits are too much in one year for students to bear. The report also commented on increased expenditures for personnel improvement and the equalization of faculty and staff salaries. "The university administration's proposals under this category are unclear at best." it said. "We support the concept of equal pay for equal work. But why did the administration postpone such improvements in women's salaries for years until pressure from the women and the federal government . . . forced such action? It urges the administration to state the exact allocation of funds for salary equalization for 1974-75. An estimate of $1 million for academic-program improvement was criticized in the report. "We want specific accounting by the administration on which programs the money will be spent, and whether such money will really benefit classroom and laboratory instruction-or will, instead, benefit university administrators and their staffs," it said. The report said the allowance for price inflation appeared to be reasonable in other major categories of proposed expenditures. The allocation for student |