Page 20


FUTURA PRESS Phone 512/442-7836 1714 SOUTH CONGRESS P.O. BOX 3485 AUSTIN,TEXA… *”4.e i; -16. HOTEL ottilltanb contributions total approximately $15 million about what T.C.U.’s administration expected. But that is not the whole story. The school has cinched tight its purple-and-white, Horned Frog-hide money belt. T.C.U.’s administration has instituted several austerity measures, among them: a moratorium on faculty salary increases and a restriction on new faculty and assistant hirings. In addition, T.C.U. has financed a 14 The Texas Observer ATHENA MONTESSORI SCHOOL integrated; non-sectarian creative non-graded program 7500 Woodrow Austin 454-4239 1 Newspapers Magazines Political Specialists Signs and Placards BuMperstrips Office Supplies 100% Union Shop Heart Downtown Dallas 24-HOUR COFFEE SHOP No Charge for Children Under 18 Radio -Television Completely Air Conditioned FREE INSIDE PARKING Commerce-Murphy-Main Streets Telephone: 742-6431 Dallas, Texas three-year deficit from a dwindling surplus pool. Of the university’s particular crisis, Chancellor Moudy has written: All classifications of T.C.U. income are growing, except for a small decline in federal research funds and those for the T.C.U. Research Foundation, as well as those from the central treasury of our church [the Disciples of Christ] . Despite growth of income, it has not grown as fast as outgo. As a result, we have just finished three years of operational deficit totaling nearly $2 million, practically exhausting our free surplus husbanded so carefully over many years for just such emergencies as this. The size of our deficit almost exactly matches the deficiency one would see graphically if he plotted our actual enrollment patterns against a straight line of normal growth we expected. … Freshman enrollment dipped slightly in 1966, then severely in 1967, seriously undercutting our income expectations. Though it turned up again in 1968, 1969, and this year, our full-time student equivalent figure is still 337 below its high point of 5663, achieved in 1966. In the period Moudy refers to, T.C.U. enrollment declined probably because of name-change of Arlington State to the two tuition increases that hiked the price of a semester’s study from $450 to $750. Although the chancellor speaks optimistically of the 1970 freshman class as “the largest ever,” he realizes the hazards in predicting a sustained enrollment climb. The development of a University of Texas at Dallas, the continued growth of U.T.A., and the possibility of T.C.J.C. switching to a four-year college must weigh on his mind. More important, he knows that T.C.U. cannot keep on raising tuition so drastically every two or three years, while comparable state institutions maintain a relatively stable course rate. Moudy sees the tuition equalization bill as insufficient by itself. He thinks in terms of a two-pronged attack: the tuition grants as essentially “student aid” and degree purchases as “university aid.” Whereas the former would let an individual choose freely between state and private schools, the latter would pump cash directly into the hands of an administration in return for a finished product. The first hopefully would boost enrollment in private universities and thereby indirectly raise operating funds. The second would mean a more visible and flexible gain; a university could continue to charge its present high tuition rates and at the same time pocket a “bonus” of at least $1,000 for each degree granted. Moudy regards private institutions like T.C.U. as already semi-public. That is, they governed or abide by federal and state agencies. As an example of the second type of governmental influence, Moudy mentions state regulation of teacher certification. According to him, this is an area in which the state establishes standards and in which the university has the opportunity to participate voluntarily. The university is not forced to yield autonomy; it may if mutually beneficial standards are agreed upon. Moudy says he sees the degree purchase plan as essentially this sort of “contract” arrangement. For clarification, he uses the analogy of highway construction: “Say a state wants highways. It doesn’t go out and build them itself. Instead, it lays down construction standards and then pays a private company for the service.” THE CRUCIAL QUESTION is the matter of standards. T.C.U. and the other private universities especially the church-related ones want the standards to be determined for the most part by the already existing southern regional accrediting agency. Since most, if not all, members of presently are accredited, the private unviersities would be relinquishing no real autonomy. Their single “concession” to the state would come under the degree purchase bill’s specification that no religion diplomas be bought. A knowledgeable spokesman said he feels the private institutions may have to agree to two further restrictions before the bills can be passed. According to him, the legislature probably will demand that participating private institutions maintain their present tuition levels. Obviously, if a school like T.C.U. could depend on the maximum tuition grant of $300 per student, and then on top of that increase its course rates, the intention of the bill would be subverted. Tuition would not be “equalized” between state and private universities. \(The present draft of the bill contains no safeguard against this sort of The observer also said he believes I.C.U.T. schools probably would have to enlarge their scholarship funds. According to him, this stipulation would promote better price equality and assure that students from all income levels of the state have equal opportunity to attend the college of their choice. As it is now, paying a private university for degree production without requiring it to fund additional scholarships would continue to restrict private education to middle, upper-middle, and upper class students who already can afford it. In the final analysis, beggars still cannot be choosers. And private universities find themselves forced to beg for their very existence. They want to retain a type of education which they see as above the common level. Yet they want to keep it by tapping the common taxpayer’s pocketbook. Probably they will have to yield more than the preliminary drafts of their two bills suggest in return for a diet of dollars that may allow them to survive in a semblance of their present form. r Happiness Is Printing By, 4