The Minnesota State system of colleges and universities will freeze tuition for most undergraduates next school year, but students could still face increases for parking, housing or fees tied to specific programs.
Minnesota lawmakers required leaders to freeze tuition for most undergraduate students when they gave the system an additional $293 million to spend over two years. But, the legislation also included an exception that allows schools to increase rates for some programs “where costs for course or program delivery have increased due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the college or university.”
Five types of programs met those requirements. For example, students taking some construction management courses at Minnesota State University, Moorhead, will pay an extra $2 per credit, while people taking a computer network administration class at Pine Technical and Community College will pay an extra $44.50 per credit.
Vice Chancellor for Finance and Facilities Bill Maki told trustees during a meeting Tuesday that they attempted to be “pretty surgical” in their decisions, keeping a “very high threshold” for deciding when programs could be granted an exception. He said there are hundreds of differential rates across the system’s 33 schools.
The tuition and fee rates were included in a $2.4 billion budget proposal that also requires many of the system’s schools to make cuts to balance their budgets. Many schools have offered buyouts to employees and are re-evaluating their programs.
Some college presidents told trustees they are trying to find a delicate balance as they face demands to keep costs under control, meet students’ educational needs and navigate capacity challenges in some programs.
“We really have to talk about our values and those areas that our communities need us to be training and educating students the most,” said Carrie Brimhall, president of Minnesota State Community and Technical College. “These are tough conversations because we’d like to continue to be able to do everything.”
Some trustees asked if the exceptions could be applied more liberally, a move that others cautioned against because they didn’t want to strain their relationship with state lawmakers who making crucial funding decisions.