My Week, Part 1

[logomancer]

In SGA, Mike Barnett really annoyed me this past Tuesday when he decided that the Legislative Action Committee should take a stand in favor of Commonwealth Chartered status (basically, the university cuts most ties with the government except that they still get a small bit of tax money) with stipulations (basically, that there would be a cap on annual tuition increases, and, possibly, that the student BOV reps get a vote). The idea is that this will remove the universities from a good deal of state bureaucracy -- competitive bids on building new buildings was one example Mike brought up -- and that the University would be more autonomous, with the BOV determining some things that are right now determined by Richmond.

OTOH, this would make VT a de facto private institution, which to me is a bad idea. For one thing, tuition rates would skyrocket. Tech will never agree to an increase cap; that's half the reason for breaking away. And the Student BOV reps wouldn't have a problem with tuition increases either, if they're the sort of people SGA wants in the BOV (Mike says that the student body cannot be trusted to elect these people). Meanwhile, the BOV gains more power. Given the fact that they've proven themselves to be student-hostile in the past (like passing a resolution that restricts freedom of speech by requiring all on-campus speakers to be approved by the President), this I would consider to be a Very Bad Move. Though the Student BOV votes may shift power in the students' favor.

So, anyway, Mike's pushing Commonwealth Chartered status, and I'm opposing it. And he pulled out all the stops, including bringing in the faculty advisor to SGA who then argued that this would free the school from unfunded mandates from the state. Do we even have any from the state? The only unfunded mandates I know of are federal, like the ADA. But anyway, Mike was at it. And, eventually, to my dismay, he swayed the group to his view. And the great thing is, the bill's not even on the table at the General Assembly; it got tabled until next year in favor of the budget mess. He's saying that if we moved now, we could lobby for changes before it hit the floor next year. Of course, what he left out was that he was working closest with the lobbyists. And since we've already taken a stance, we've given our blessing to whatever he and the lobbyists cook up. Smooth. And I was the only nay vote.

But he got his soon enough, when he started talking about tuition increases (or reduced aid) for people who took more time to graduate. The idea is, you get four years (unless you're an architecture major or some other major that takes longer to get a degree, then you get five), a grace year, and then your tuition bills go up. This provoked some of the people with majors like Horticulture (which requires 128 hours to graduate) to speak out against it. In the end, Mike washed it as a "conservative vs. liberal" debate. Which may be true, but it still doesn't invalidate the fact that there might be extenuating circumstances for people who take longer to get their degrees (they changed majors multiple times, for example), and that this idea wouldn't take them into account.

vtsffc members, what do you think? It is, after all, you I'm representing...

Comments

[pathia.livejournal.com]

There are always dozens if not hundreds of unfunded mandates by both state and federal governments.

They want to have Tech going private? Oy.

[murrday.livejournal.com]

Count me in, on agreeing with you. (Even though I'm not a
student - got lots of friends who are.)

Tuition's high already. Last thing anybody needs is
for it to climb even higher.

(Admit, that may be oversimplified. Typing short posts
this morning. Lack time for extended discussion.)

[uilos.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Mr. Barnett has read any recent statictics on how long it is taking people to graduate these days. Fewer and fewer are managing to do it in the traditional 4 years. And the logistics of actually implementing the thing is a nightmare. What about co-op and internship people? What about people who take a year off? Do you count by semesters taken or from the date of enrollment?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that Tech is just here some days to ream us for all the tuition they can get.

Gar.

[anterus.livejournal.com]

That does not sound favorable. Tuition rates go up, even more people will have to go into (more) debt to attend here. And that's good how?

[nius.livejournal.com]

Gah, what a mess..

I agree - It's a bad idea, oppose. Fuck the unfunded mandate crap, you're absolutely right that Tech would never agree with a cap. And as someone else posted, nobody graduates in 4 years anyway - most of Tech's engineering degrees are actually 5 year programs crammed into 4. I had 128 required credits (I graduated with 143 I believe), and it took me an extra summer to get things done in "4", so really I did 4.5 - And I graduated with a 3.5, never changing majors - I certainly wasn't some "slacker" who couldn't cut it!

[wheeerdball.livejournal.com]

Give 'em Hell. Public institutions are here to provide education to everyone and privatizing (or heading in that direction) this school is a step towards becoming an elitest university. Its not just that people go into debt, its that some people also can't afford it even after loans are taken out too. Combine that with his motion to penalize the straglers and it sounds like he is picking on the weaker students.


...of course, I'm spiel and not vtsffc...