For 24 years, from 1995 through 2019, I served as a regent of the University of Michigan. During that time, I voted on budgets, tuition rates, capital projects and other decisions that determine what it costs to operate a university. So when Michigan’s public universities explain another round of tuition increases by pointing to inadequate state appropriations, I understand the argument. I also know it tells only half the story.
State support for higher education has unquestionably declined on a real, per-student basis. But Michigan’s universities haven’t spent the past 30 years standing still while Lansing slowly took money away. They grew.
Consider the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus.
In 1995, U-M enrolled about 36,700 students. Today it enrolls roughly 53,500 — an increase of 46%.
Undergraduate enrollment grew about 50% from roughly 23,600 students to more than 35,300.
Meanwhile, resident undergraduate tuition in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts has risen from about $5,700 in 1996-97 to more than $18,000 today. Nonresident tuition has gone from roughly $18,000 to more than $60,000.
Those numbers tell a story that cannot be explained simply by blaming the Legislature.
Universities make choices about how large they want to become. They decide how many students to enroll, how many employees to hire, which programs to create, which services to provide and which buildings to construct.
Those choices may produce a better university.
They also produce a more expensive university.
And here is the part too often missing from the tuition debate: More students don’t just create costs. They generate revenue.
U-M has increased enrollment substantially while also increasing the percentage of students who pay much higher nonresident tuition.
That is not an accident of state appropriations. It is part of the university’s financial model.
In fiscal year 2006, U-M reported approximately $676 million in net tuition and fee revenue and $365 million in state educational appropriations. By fiscal year 2024, net student tuition and fee revenue had grown to roughly $1.7 billion, while state educational and supplemental appropriations were approximately $421 million.
That represents a fundamental change in how the institution is financed.
Yet whenever tuition rises, the public conversation inevitably returns to the same explanation: Lansing isn’t providing enough money.
That framing asks the wrong question. The question isn’t simply whether state appropriations have kept pace with university spending.
The question is: What caused university spending to grow in the first place?
A university budget is not an uncontrollable force of nature. During my 24 years on the board, I saw firsthand that budgets reflect choices.
Boards approve tuition. Boards approve budgets. Boards approve major construction. Administrations expand programs and operations. Universities determine their ambitions and, ultimately, the cost of pursuing them.
The Legislature controls appropriations; it does not control the size of the university.
There is an easy way to expose the weakness in the conventional argument.
Suppose Lansing had increased U-M’s appropriations with inflation every year since 1995. Would Michigan still have 1995 enrollment today? Would it have the same number of employees and programs? Would it occupy the same physical footprint? Would its operating budget simply equal the 1995 budget adjusted for inflation?
Of course not.
The university still would have grown. And that growth still would have required money.
That doesn’t mean Michigan shouldn’t invest more in its public universities. It should have that debate. And there is a strong argument for additional state funding when those dollars are tied directly to making college more affordable for Michigan students.
But universities should stop pretending they are merely passive victims of legislative decisions.
Over the past three decades, they have made deliberate choices to become larger, more complex and more expensive institutions. They have enrolled more students and collected dramatically more tuition revenue to help finance that expansion.
Lansing is responsible for how much taxpayers contribute. University leaders and governing boards are responsible for how much universities spend.
If we’re serious about the cost of college, both sides of that equation deserve scrutiny.
After 24 years governing the University of Michigan, I know this much: You cannot have an honest conversation about rising tuition without also having an honest conversation about the rising cost — and relentless growth — of the universities themselves.
Andrea Newman served three consecutive eight-year terms on the University of Michigan Board of Regents from January 1995 until January 2019.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Michigan universities can’t blame Lansing for all their tuition hikes | Opinion
Reporting by Andrea Newman / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Andrea Newman | USA TODAY Network
