TO THE EDITOR:
Regarding the Monday article, "Tuition has room to grow," I write to clarify some incorrect conclusions drawn about the recently completed tuition price sensitivity study.
In what otherwise was a helpful report, the story erred in attempting to link specific dollar figures for future tuition levels with our consultants' report. That was not the purpose of the study.
Instead, the report examined what the University might gain or lose at various levels of price increases for both in-state and out-of-state students. It tested several hypothetical price increase scenarios.
Additionally, the report suggested that the University build its own comparative price index with its market peers to inform specific price recommendations for future policy consideration.
We are in the process of building such an index now so that we can better understand how those market conditions relate to our current tuition targets (25th percentile of our peers for in-state students and 75th percentile for out-of-state students).
The problem with the story is that it leaves the reader with a wrong conclusion that the report already has set specific dollar thresholds that tuition cannot exceed.
The report does suggest that we have room to grow with our tuition levels.
More importantly, the report provides us with the empirical data we need to help understand how our current philosophy about tuition policies might continue to work in practice.
