Page 1
Tuition and aid advisory board
December 2, 2004
D R A F T – NOTES FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Premises, from prior meetings
 Total funding per student is far below the average for our peers
 Nevertheless we stand at or above the average of AAU publics on a number of outcomes or quality
indicators
 So we must have been using the money we have efficiently
 Total funding per student is declining relative to peers and absolutely – our position is deteriorating
 Sub-par and declining total funding per student have consequences for class size and availability,
number of faculty per student, maintenance of buildings, financial aid, and so on
 We’re trying to document those effects
 Therefore we need more total funding per student, to maintain and enhance both access and quality
 Sources of total funding
 Annual flow from fund-raising and endowment
 ICR, indirect cost recoveries from research grants and contracts
 Entrepreneurial revenues including executive education, summer school, technology transfer, real
estate, and investment income
 Tuition from students from outside Colorado
 Funding from the state of Colorado
 Tuition from Colorado resident students
General conclusion, from prior meetings: The most plausible, equitable method of increasing total
funding per student over the next six years incorporates all of the following actions:
 Double the annual flow from fund-raising and endowment
 Maintain ICR at current levels
 Increase entrepreneurial revenues
 Maintain tuition revenue from undergraduate students from outside Colorado
 Keep tuition rates at or near present levels because there’s no market capacity left to increase
them
 Keep the proportion of undergraduate students from outside Colorado at or below present levels
because there’s neither the market capacity for nor interest in increasing this proportion
 Maintain tuition revenue from graduate-level and professional students
 Maintain or increase state funding for graduate and professional education
 Increase funding per resident undergraduate from the joint contributions of the state of Colorado and
Colorado students themselves
 State of Colorado
 Continue work on TABOR
 Continue to emphasize state responsibility to and state benefit from higher education
 Work to increase state funding for all of higher ed
 Work to protect the CU system’s share of state-wide funding, and Boulder’s share of CU
system funding
 < COF, fee for service, performance contracts, etc.>
 Students and their families, through tuition and fees
 Use a progressive income tax model – students gain personal benefit from higher education,
and students who can afford to pay the cost of education should do so
 But always set aside a portion of tuition increases for financial aid to retain access for those
who cannot afford the full rate
 Students and families must make up for the state of Colorado’s declining resources for higher
education while continuing to emphasize state responsibility
 If state funding per student is stable or increases at inflation, resident tuition rates must more than
double to move total funding per student to the peer average.
Presentation to the Regents complementing the premises and conclusion
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\219474440.doc -- 07/12/16 7:09 AM – Page 1
Page 2




Academic Planning Study Session, December 8, 2004 12:30PM. CU-Boulder, Coors
Events/Conference Center, Room 3.
Financing the Cost of Higher Education Dennis Jones (NCHEMS) and David Longanecker (WICHE),
30 minutes
Solicited by CU system and system tuition and aid group
Outline – see
Actions to increase resident undergraduate tuition rates by double (or more) over six years
 Consider aid at every step
 Work with state constraints – which change daily
 Limit on increase in total tuition revenue (grad and UG, resident and NR), or on tuition plus ??
 Or perhaps limit on percentage increase of every rate category (full time, part time; law, business,
arts and sciences; grad, undergrad; res, NR??)
 CCHE still has a say. JCB and legislature have a say. Governor has a say. Democrats
recognize funding is too low and recognize state responsibility. Very difficult to get these parties
to focus on (tuition and aid) vs. tuition alone.
 Higher ed JCB staff briefing http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/hedbrf.pdf has sobering
discussions of establishing need for funding (if the institution hasn’t closed, it doesn’t need more)
and of legislative control of every tuition rate.
 Consider trade-offs of
 Graduate tuition rates, complicated by institutional support of most doctoral students and by a
lesser obligation to access for Colorado residents
 Non-resident undergraduate tuition rates and numbers
 Resident undergraduate tuition rates
 Consider students already here, vs. new students. Do we have an obligation to place major
increases only on new students? But continuing students have already benefited from low rates.
Detour: How financial aid works
 Key concepts – see the aid primer http://www.colorado.edu/pba/tuiaid/aidprimer.html
 How it works for Colorado resident new freshmen, fall 2003
 Tuition and aid working
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\219474440.doc -- 07/12/16 7:09 AM – Page 2