The Newsstand

Board of Regents votes to reduce scholarship

It’s official: the University of Minnesota Board of Regents passed a measure Friday that will require employees to help pay their tuition costs. Instead of offering free tuition to employees, the Regents Scholarship will cover 90 percent of tuition for those seeking their first baccalaureate degree, and 75 percent for all others.

 

According to the proposal, the change is effective beginning fall 2009.

 

After unanimous approval by a regents committee Thursday, the full board passed the change Friday, though regents Maureen Ramirez and Steven Hunter said “nay” to the measure.

 

Ramirez, a former recipient of the scholarship, told the committee she’d heard from employees who said the change would prevent them from continuing their education. She added she felt the cuts would be made at great cost to the productivity of the workforce.

 

Hunter acknowledged the tough economic time and praised Bruininks for lowering the cut for those seeking their first degree, but said he was nervous about opening the door for future administrations to make further changes to the scholarship.

 

Regent Dean Larson, however, said he sees paying 10 percent of full tuition as “one heck of a deal,” and said the board also has to be fair to full-tuition paying students. “I think it’s called for,” he said.

 

Other regents in favor of the measure tried to put it in perspective by comparing the savings from the program to jobs ($3 million = 50 jobs, according to Regent Clyde Allen), and comparing the University’s scholarship program to those offered in the private sector.

 

In private industry, Regent John Frobenius said, it’s common to see scholarship plans that don’t cover the full cost of education and that function as tuition reimbursement rather than up-front payment.

 

Regent Patricia Simmons, who chairs the board, requested a report on the measure be made in a year.

 

Many University employees have expressed disapproval of the change, some of whom rallied outside the McNamara Alumni Center, where the regents meet, on Thursday. For more on employee concerns, see previous Daily articles:

 

Employees Rally in May

Employees Rally in March

Backlash over cuts

5 Comments

The Minnesota Daily wants to host a forum for discussion regarding issues and stories regarding the University of Minnesota and surrounding communities. However, the online comments should not be used to threaten or defame. This is a place for people to be heard, and want to contribute to discussion. Those who persist to use expletives, inappropriate, racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post.

To comment, please login.

My new motto "eff the U like it effed me"

Amen.

Thank you to Maureen Ramirez and Steven Hunter. It saddens me that some Regents fell victim to a straw man argument, and I'm severely disappointed in the Regents who willfully ignored their obligation to the U's workforce and place in the state of Minnesota.

You are destroying the morale of your workforce, you are destroying the incentive for people to leave higher paying jobs and come to the University, and you are destroying the culture of learning that those of us who actually care about education know is necessary for improving what we provide here.

I know a number of highly talented people at the U who will be skipping professional development that would benefit this institution, and these are people whose skills make them very mobile and attractive to other organizations.

This is an absolute shame and I hope you actually have an honest report provided to you to evaluate the damage you've done. I doubt it, though. I'm going to hate to see people I really value here move on to different positions.

As long as they're comparing with the private sector, how about comparing wages? Did private colleges stop offering their employees free tuition and discounts for their children? The Regent's scholarship was already somewhat poor compared to other school's tuition benefits. This was a short sighted decision, the effects of which will be felt for years.

Can you say, "land grant institution"? I think not. This is a classic decision made by the bourgeois to sustain their privilege at the cost of the poor and wanna-be middle income folk. The jobs that are saved certainly aren't ours. Have you looked around lately?