TUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE

 

RECORD OF MEETING

 

Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT

March 25, 2003

 

 

Members Present:      K. Guay, Sen. Hartley, W. Johnson, L. McHugh, K. Krapek, M. Meotti, A. Vertefeuille

 

1.   Call to Order

 

Chairman Meotti called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

 

2.   Acceptance of January 22, 2003 Minutes

 

On a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by W. Johnson, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2002 meeting.

 

3.   Target Student Market Survey Results

 

Chairman Meotti reported that each unit supplied the Department of Higher Education with information in an attempt to define their “target market” or who they seek to serve.  He reviewed a summary of the target market information which was broken down by admissions competitiveness, income distribution, diversity and geography.  Central Connecticut State University has not provided all of its information and therefore was not included in the results.  In addition, the Department is waiting for revised data from the University of Connecticut regarding undergraduates receiving non-need aid, as well as a breakout of the information for the regional campuses.  Chairman Meotti further reviewed fall 2002 enrollment maps by zip code for the Community-Technical College System (CTC System), Connecticut State University System (CSU) and the University of Connecticut (UConn).  Chairman Meotti requested that the institutions review the survey results to make sure the numbers are correct prior to the next meeting in order to have real comparable data.  M. Johnson will continue to gather more information from the constituent units, such as graduation rates. 

 

Chairman Meotti noted reported similarities between Eastern Connecticut State University (ECSU) and the University of Connecticut – Storrs.  K. Krapek stated that ECSU has done a good job of attracting better students.  He further noted that the CSU Board of Trustees has encouraged each institution to choose its own path, which the Board reviews on a quarterly basis.  Chairman Meotti expressed his concern over public institutions making individual decisions about their own direction.  He cautioned that over time public goals may be lost.  He sees differentiation among the CSU institutions and, therefore, is concerned about where ECSU is going.

 

K. Krapek stated that ECSU is at full-capacity and is rejecting more students now than ever before and therefore should raise their SAT scores criteria.  Chairman Meotti responded by asking if ECSU was achieving its goals by buying its numbers and asked who is making these decisions.

 

L. McHugh stated that Connecticut’s ultimate goal should be that all students begin their college education at the community colleges and then continue their education at CSU and UConn.

 

Scott Brohinsky, Director, University Communications, University of Connecticut, reported that the University of Connecticut seeks to serve more, better qualified and diversified students. 

 

K. Guay requested information on how high school seniors make their decisions on where they attend in order to gauge importance of data on student success.

 

There was some discussion regarding in-state and out-of-state state support, tuition and graduation rates against peers.  K. Krapek noted that the CSU Board of Trustees thinks the colleges can increase tuition by over 20 percent to achieve average rates.  Commissioner Lewis asked for clarification of what is meant by average since CSU is already relatively high compared to similar public colleges.  She also raised concerns over what would happen in terms of expectations if rates were raised by these levels in successive years.

 

Chairman Meotti inquired what the benchmarkable goals are around access of Connecticut residents with different economic backgrounds and whether the reins should be loosened on tuition policy with more focus being put on state appropriations for student financial aid.  He suggested that since the CTC System rises to the grandeur of access into the system, the state may need to raise state aid at the CTC System.  Scott Brohinsky responded by stating that financial ability to pay should not determine where students go and noted that price is not the factor in why students discontinue their education at UConn according to recent surveys. 

 

Chairman Meotti reported that he would draft recommendations on the tuition/student financial aid policy issue for the next meeting for group review and discussion.  In addition, he requested each unit to submit requested changes to policy to him.

 

4.      Discussion on How to Address Major Cost Drivers

 

The following issues were raised as major cost drivers to be discussed further at the next meeting scheduled for April 15th at 2 p.m. at the Legislative Office Building:

 

·        Faculty salaries (as reported in IPEDS)

·        Collective bargaining issues

·        Faculty workload

·        Faculty productivity by campus

·        Changes in labors costs against tuition increases over time

·        Duplication of programming (both geographically and that seen as “mission creep”)

·        Impact of statutory waivers

·        Impact of workforce shortages on programming

 

5.   Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary K. Johnson

Secretary

 

/lml