UNT Board increases student fees for athletics

[ragpicker]

Hopes raised, hopes dashed. I'm madder than hell and I wont take it anymore!

[UNTflyer]

DOH! Looking back at my emails. The SSG President told me that the fee was set to be raised from $10 to $15 per hour in the Fall of 2013, but the Board of Regents does not have the power to raise the fee, that can only be done by the state legislature. How accurate that is I don't know.

It's not accurate at all. The BOR can increase it by 10% per year to a max of $20.

[GL2Greatness]

Point is, the first student vote allowed for the fee to be increased $2 per year until it maxed out at $20 per semester hour, but apparently Dallas Lee failed (yet again) to protect this part (and several others) of the original student vote when it went to the legislature.

We really must be masochists to follow UNT Sports. I mean, the administration has done everything but send us an email to say that they simply won't support athletics, and yet we just keep coming back for losing season after losing season.

as has been pointed out it is not the athletics fee that is being raised it is the student services fee that was the same fee that was cut $3 when the $10 athletics fee was implemented

here is a list of north Texas fees

http://essc.unt.edu/saucs/tuition-and-fees.html#explainfee

for comparison here is a list of fees for Texas State

http://www.sbs.txstate.edu/billing/fee_definitions.html

so starting this year Texas State will will be paying $20 for athletics in a dedicated fee that started at $10 and was raised $2 per year for 5 years as was voted on by their students

north Texas students DID NOT vote to allow a fee increase....below at the bottom of the linked story is the actual verbiage of what was passed by the north Texas students

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/oct/14/unt-athletic-referendum-voting-underway/

The athletic referendum on the ballot appears as follows:

"In order for the University of North Texas to have a better Athletic program, which in turn can lead to national exposure and increased recognition of UNT; I agree to a dedicated Athletic Fee not to exceed $10 per semester credit hour, capped at 15 hours. Once the Athletic Fee is implemented, the Student Service Fee will be reduced by $3 per semester credit hour. The Athletic Fee shall not be implemented until the semester the new football stajium is complete, which is expected to be fall 2011."

the only thing that lee the idiot had changed or put in place was the end of the fee once the bonds are paid off and possible the language about only having it raised 10% without student approval

and I have not seen anything that says the north Texas 2009A bonds issued that included the stajium were called and from what I have seen they were AA- when issued not AA.....there is a possibility they were rebonded when north Texas moved up to AA from AA- in the last year or so......of course north Texas is about to go back down to AA- most likely as was spelled out in the article about new dorms

if the bonds were actually called and paid off (not refunded) then north Texas would have to stop charging the fee as per section J of the bill....and the way I read it it most likely refers to bonds specifically for the football stajium not any other bonded athletics project as has been assumed on here before

so to sum it up the fee that Harrison (the OP) is bringing up is the student services fee not the athletics fee and they are two separate fees and the athletics fee can be raised a single time for a max of 10% without a student vote and the athletics fee can no longer be charged once the bonds (or refunded bonds) that were issued for that project have been paid off and there is no guarantee that any of the student services fee will go towards athletics (besides intramural)

and for those that wonder how lee the idiot keeps his job it is because no one associated with north Texas in Denton cares or actually realizes that lee the idiot is using the Denton campus as a slush fund for dallas economic development projects and the BOR is perfectly OK with that and the governor doesn't care because he and the rest of the legislature has handed the north Texas system off to the dallas area idiot politicians to use as an economic development play toy in exchange for those idiots keeping out of the way of what the UT and Texas A&M systems are doing and really all the other systems in Texas as well......take north Texas....rape it, waste money, build unneeded and useless crap that under performs and stay the hell out of the business of what everyone else does and vote they way you are told on issues dealing with those other systems in exchange for the occasional vote for what dallas proper wants to waste money on if the funds are available

it should be apparent with the "nation wide search" for the new president of the HSC in Fort Worth that resulted with.....viola!....the interim yes man friend of idiot lee instead of bringing in fresh blood and it SHOULD be apparent here in the next 9 months of so when some chair warmer is hired to be the president of the Denton campus that will surely have no experience running a "major research university" if any experience at all as the head person of any university of any size or stature......it will be another person that keeps a seat warm and signs the things that lee the buffoon says to sign.......it should have been obvious with the temp hire and then full time retention of affable retired guy that is finally retiring again, but some like to avoid the truth.....it should also be obvious when Denton students in majors that have been long associated ith north Texas are having their classes and department moved to Tshacks while dallas students have a building that was built with "system money" and "belt tightening" on a "calculated risk" and they are getting a $70 million dollar reading center bonded out while Denton students are paying huge new fees for the student union so it is not bonded out as much and yet there is no money for actual long term buildings for the dance and fashion students to hold classes in....they get Tshacks.....but really NICE Tshacks though!!

lee the idiot cares nothing about Denton, improving Denton, having Denton compete with any of the emerging research universities in Texas or anything other than keeping enrollment up and most fees low so there is room to raise overall tuition that can then cover "system" projects without people asking "where did that dedicated money go"

it should also be apparent with the "endowment campaign" that was really just tabbing up the last 8 years of "secret fundraising" and then adding two years of "public fundraising" onto that at the "aggressive" goal of meeting the same pretty unimpressive fundraising totals met most of the last decade or so.....and the way that lee the idiot got chumped by his heavy hitter fundraising buddy bill lively left after less than a year when he pinky promised lee the idiot he would stay at least a year to three years

and also just to be clear when lee the idiot was hired it was not because he has connections to get things done in the legislature it was because he was suppose to have big money fundraising connections.....lee the idiot was a nobody do nothing county judge in dallas county not some political heavy weight and he is also apparently not that big of a philanthropic heavy weigh either.....he is really just a yes man idiot for the loser politicians of dallas proper and dallas county and he is a no one to the legislature and apparently to big donors as well

and for those that refuse to understand the truth

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/SB00473F.pdf#navpanes=0

read the legislation again it allows a SINGLE 10% raise without a student vote period....not per year....JUST ONE

and no one at Texas A&M or UT even bothered to waste their time worrying about north Texas and north Texas building a stajium they could care less

also read section J

(j)

AA

The fee may not be charged after the fifth academic year

in which the fee is first charged unless, before the end of that

academic year, the university has issued bonds payable from the

fee, in which event the fee may not be charged after the academic

year in which all such bonds, including refunding bonds for those

bonds, have been fully paid.

it reads in plain language that the fee may not be charged after 5 years unless BEFORE that 5th year bonds have been issued....so new bonds cannot be issued for some other project after 5 years because they will NOT have been issued before 5 years after the fee was first charged

and yes north Texas can continue to "refund" or rebond bonds to drag that out as stated at the end of section J, but the issue with that is you are still PAYING DOWN bonds as the years go by and as you pay down those bonds you can't "refund" or rebond new bonds for an amount larger than the bonds you are paying off.....when you "refund" or rebond bonds you are issuing new bonds to cover EXISTING bonds in an amount equal to the bonds that you are paying off.....if you want more than that then you have to issue NEW bonds.....and as the language states north Texas can issue new bonds for up to 5 years after the fee is first implemented, but after that 5 years passes no new bonds can be issued that count as bonds to keep the fee in place....and again as you PAY off binds each year the amount of outstanding debt of those bonds DECREASES so even if you "refund" or rebond those same bonds over and over eventually the amount you are able to "refund" or rebind equals ZERO and the fee ends

also that would be a very very very financially irresponsible way to operate because you will be paying a great deal more in interest over time VS paying on the actual debt.....and also there is the issue of when you rebond or "refund" bonds you usually do so in order to gain a lower interest rate because the bond rating of your entity has improved (because you have more income or you have less debt).....when the 2009A series bonds for north Texas were issued (the stajium) they were rated at AA- which is the lowest high grade investment bond rating there is and lower than that and many investment trust and pension funds and the like will not buy them......north Texas has now moved up to an AA rating, but as was mentioned in a recent article about building new dorms there is a very good chance if those projects move forward it will move the bond rating back down to AA-......so if the stajium bonds have been "refunded" recently as AA bonds it would be highly financially irresponsible to refund them yet again as AA- bonds just to keep the stajium fee in place

so eventually bonds issued for the stajium (and for athletics projects up to 5 years after the fee was first implemented) will be paid off and the fee will go away and that (in the case of north Texas) will most likely be right in the period of time the bonds were first issued for with no repeated rebonding or "refunding" to prolong that and even if rebonded or "refunded" eventually that will, go to zero as well because you will be able to rebond or "refund" less and less each time because you have been paying down

Edited June 14, 2013 by GL2Greatness

[UNTflyer]

1. The language of the student vote was largely irrelevant. What matters is the language of the law, which states the BOR has the power to increase the fee up to 10% per year.

2. Lee Jackson had nothing to do with the bond language - that was UT, AtM, Tech lobby getting together to make sure the small schools didn't grow too big and too fast. The applied the same language to Texas State.

3. The language of the law does not specify football stadium bonds, in fact it says the fee ends after 5 years unless additional bonds are issued payable from the fee. As long as the university keeps issuing bonds payable by the fee, it remains in place.

Edited June 14, 2013 by UNTflyer

[JesseMartin]

Hey Flyer, the only weird thing about that is the vagueness of the language in the ed. code. Most of them specify the allowed percentage increase as a per annum figure, where this one appears to only allow for a maximum increase of 10%, period, in Subsections F and G as BD pointed out. Because it doesn't say it's the maximum increase "per year" like most of the fee statutes, if they tried to go over $11 without a student vote there would be a possibility of somebody calling them on it...unless there's something else relevant that allows it? I mean, like if there is a new portion of the State Ed. Code 54.500's (specific fee chapter) that states that "all increases are assumed to be per year". I don't know if I'm explaining the apparent disconnect properly, did that make sense?

Edited June 14, 2013 by JesseMartin

[UNTX]

It's not accurate at all. The BOR can increase it by 10% per year to a max of $20.

Prove it................PLEASE!

[UNT90]

1. The language of the student vote was largely irrelevant. What matters is the language of the law, which states the BOR has the power to increase the fee up to 10% per year.

2. Lee Jackson had nothing to do with the bond language - that was UT, AtM, Tech lobby getting together to make sure the small schools didn't grow too big and too fast. The applied the same language to Texas State.

3. The language of the law does not specify football stadium bonds, in fact it says the fee ends after 5 years unless additional bonds are issued payable from the fee. As long as the university keeps issuing bonds payable by the fee, it remains in place.

Just so there is no confusion, are you saying that the BOR has the power to raise the athletic fee 10% per year until the fee maxes out at $20 per semester hour?

If so, do you know if the fee has been raised the last 2 years?

[oldguystudent]

Students don't have to pay them, either. They can head on over to SFA, SHSU, or even UTA if they don't want to pay what students at UTSA and TX St pay.

Interesting that we have had record enrollments the 1st two years of the dreaded (by some) dedicated athletic fee. Seems it really isn't that big of an issue for incoming students.

I really do have mixed feelings on the whole thing. It's great to have Apogee and to start to see name recognition increase.

So much aggressive student lending out there has led to colleges turning themselves into Hilton quality resorts. Added fees for this, that, and the other, big shiny new buildings, huge reductions in state subsidies. I graduated from a very good university in 1994, put myself through, zero debt. 14 years later, I came to UNT for four years. $45,000 in debt. Now, don't get me wrong, it has proven to be worth it heretofore, but it seems a huge burden to place on these kids at such a young age, especially if they're majoring in liberal arts, sculptures of garbage trucks, or interpretative dance.

Considering the demographics of the overall student body, sometimes I do think it's a rough thing to put on the students. Business students? Screw it! Rack up those fees!

Bottom line, I don't think you can say that record enrollment is indicative of students lining up to pay extra fees. I think it's indicative of students buying into the notion that every man, woman, and child must go to college, and that student loans are free, easy, and without consequence. The universities are eating this stuff up.

(Can anyone tell I made a loan payment this morning?)

[letsgiveacheer]

The Dallas Business Journal said we had an athletic budget of about 22.5M. In another post about our GPA's, someone on this board said we had 300 student-athletes at UNT. If thiose figures are correct, we are spending about 75,000 per athlete annually. Wow.

[oldguystudent]

we are spending about 75,000 per athlete annually. Wow.

So, lunch and a car payment for Eric Dickerson?

[Harry]

I really do have mixed feelings on the whole thing. It's great to have Apogee and to start to see name recognition increase.

So much aggressive student lending out there has led to colleges turning themselves into Hilton quality resorts. Added fees for this, that, and the other, big shiny new buildings, huge reductions in state subsidies. I graduated from a very good university in 1994, put myself through, zero debt. 14 years later, I came to UNT for four years. $45,000 in debt. Now, don't get me wrong, it has proven to be worth it heretofore, but it seems a huge burden to place on these kids at such a young age, especially if they're majoring in liberal arts, sculptures of garbage trucks, or interpretative dance.

Considering the demographics of the overall student body, sometimes I do think it's a rough thing to put on the students. Business students? Screw it! Rack up those fees!

Bottom line, I don't think you can say that record enrollment is indicative of students lining up to pay extra fees. I think it's indicative of students buying into the notion that every man, woman, and child must go to college, and that student loans are free, easy, and without consequence. The universities are eating this stuff up.

(Can anyone tell I made a loan payment this morning?)

I sort of agree and disagree. We all know that every kid out there can go to a community college and get all of their basics out of the way and if they do well transfer to a good school and even get some decent scholarships at a fraction of the cost it would be at a 4-year university or private school. Their degree will still say the name of where they graduate from. So I don't buy into there aren't any other avenues for students from a debt perspective. I agree with you that the cost of tuition at 4 year public colleges rising is troubling--- very troubling. My problem is places like here in Texas, the politicians control who gets what and that has led to a cronyism syndrome which has allowed certain state universities to flourish while others lag far behind, in terms of perception and most importantly RESOURCES. The only thing, and I repeat the only thing that has kept UNT ahead of the curve is the fact they can raise monies through their growing enrollment and projected enrollment in the future.

The University of Texas used to be the number 1 college for Texans, now it has become a haven for students from other states to get a good education on the cheap. A&M not there yet but heading that way. We have good Texas kids who end up going to OU, OSU SEC etc...because they can't get into UT. I have a problem with that although I think in a way it has benefited UNT immensely. I would like to see more tier 1 research institutions in Texas and the associated funding that comes with it. It's not right that two or three schools in Texas get a lionshare of the funding. We have to get politics out of the education business...easier said than done!

[shaft]

Increased atheletic fees aren't going to bankrupt the students, but I think its laughable that the folks calling for fee increases don't pay the fees.

If student fees go up, ticket prices should go up accordingly.

And of course there's the question why does Atheletic program need more money?

[UNT90]

Increased atheletic fees aren't going to bankrupt the students, but I think its laughable that the folks calling for fee increases don't pay the fees.

If student fees go up, ticket prices should go up accordingly.

And of course there's the question why does Atheletic program need more money?

Got no problem paying an extra 10 % on season tickets, but you don't raise prices when you can't fill a stadium.

Are you seriously asking why athletics needs more $? Have you looked at where we rank budget wise in CUSA, much less the overall NCAA?

If you like losing, by all means, keep the budget where it is

Edited June 15, 2013 by UNT90

[JesseMartin]

I really do have mixed feelings on the whole thing. It's great to have Apogee and to start to see name recognition increase.

So much aggressive student lending out there has led to colleges turning themselves into Hilton quality resorts. Added fees for this, that, and the other, big shiny new buildings, huge reductions in state subsidies. I graduated from a very good university in 1994, put myself through, zero debt. 14 years later, I came to UNT for four years. $45,000 in debt. Now, don't get me wrong, it has proven to be worth it heretofore, but it seems a huge burden to place on these kids at such a young age, especially if they're majoring in liberal arts, sculptures of garbage trucks, or interpretative dance.

Considering the demographics of the overall student body, sometimes I do think it's a rough thing to put on the students. Business students? Screw it! Rack up those fees!

Bottom line, I don't think you can say that record enrollment is indicative of students lining up to pay extra fees. I think it's indicative of students buying into the notion that every man, woman, and child must go to college, and that student loans are free, easy, and without consequence. The universities are eating this stuff up.

(Can anyone tell I made a loan payment this morning?)

One problem I see, not with your reasoning, but with its origins, is the matter of perception - the perception students with "liberal arts" or fine arts degrees have of their actual degree.

It's true that some students fare better in different ways (money, recognition, whatever) after graduation, but why is that?

Some in the arts, for instance, do far better than others. And I'm not just talking about Eli Young Band, Jesus Bautista Morales, Norah Jones, Peter Weller, etc. that all of you know about. We have quite a few alums in Visual Arts, Music, etc. that do make a decent chunk of change and get a lot of recognition...and a lot that don't. One big, common element is their level of commitment to their education overall.

True, there are some exceptions - one music major I know, for instance, did very poorly in classes outside of his major and ended up doing some fairly big things. But for the most part, many of the ones who fare poorly somehow had this notion in their heads - whether it's just a collective tendency or was passed on by others, who knows - that your major is all that really matters, and the rest of your education is just bull.

The point I'm making is that most of the students in these areas that fare well - not necessarily to the acclaim or fortune of some you've all heard of, but enough to have rather lucrative careers - remained disciplined enough to retain high GPAs outside of their major field of study. If you factor this problem in, you can see that it's not just the majors we usually point out (teachers, social workers, etc) that bring down our median income of graduates...a lot of what drops this number is the "I'm only here for my major" crowd, whose lack of discipline in their studies continues after graduation. The musicians, advertising artists, and designers that took the curriculum seriously (as well as those with liberal arts degrees) come out of UNT with a better sense of the world, themselves, and how to accomplish things. Those who focused only on their major would have only fared slightly poorer with a correspondence course or technical school (Art Institute of Wherever, etc). A serious 4-year education doesn't just prepare you for a career in your major; it helps develop critical thinking skills such as logic, reason, deconstruction, philosophy...the list goes on.

So until we can change the mindset that all you need to focus on is your major, and that you only have to do enough to squeak by in everything else, we will continue to see a large number of Fine Arts and Liberal Arts students who are not only working in a field other than their major, but are often not faring very well in their adopted field either.

I met a girl out here that goes to ASU, and a good chunk of the money she makes working part-time goes towards paying other students to do her homework and write her essays. She wants to be a music journalist. If she doesn't get caught cheating and expelled, I don't expect her "it's not part of my major so it's a waste of time" attitude to put her name on any bylines we'll see in the future any more than if she went to UNT. Creative and unique people should not feel as though the requirements of their education are some sort of master plan to create automatons. We need to find a way to help them understand how useful the core curriculum is, which is why they should choose a University education over a "chain" or correspondence degree.

Sorry if this was too long or seemed off-topic, but I think it's very relevant to note that with our enrollment demographics, the correlation between overall GPA/commitment to education and capacity to navigate life, career, and loan payments is very valid. Those who take their education seriously, regardless of their major, will have the skill set necessary to create a better life for themselves, including their ability to pay for (or pay off) their college education bills.

[UNTflyer]

Prove it................PLEASE!

Prohibits the amount of the fee from increasing to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by a student vote under Subsection (f) or this subsection

The "or this subsection" is the critical language. It indicates the fee can be increased by up to 10% of the amount approved by the students, OR by up to 10% of the amount approved by an increase permitted under subsection G - but never no more than 10% unless approved by the students.

[GL2Greatness]

1. The language of the student vote was largely irrelevant. What matters is the language of the law, which states the BOR has the power to increase the fee up to 10% per year.

2. Lee Jackson had nothing to do with the bond language - that was UT, AtM, Tech lobby getting together to make sure the small schools didn't grow too big and too fast. The applied the same language to Texas State.

3. The language of the law does not specify football stadium bonds, in fact it says the fee ends after 5 years unless additional bonds are issued payable from the fee. As long as the university keeps issuing bonds payable by the fee, it remains in place.

this post is incorrect

1. what the students passed does matter

2. the language of the law says that the athletics fee can be raised a single time to a max of 10% and that is it period

3. UT and Texas Tech and A&M had nothing to do with inserting anything it was put in place by Dan Patrick that represents north west Harris County and has a BA degree from the university of Maryland Baltimore so he is hardly a UT or TAMU or Texas Tech homer

4. the language for Texas State is NOT the same and also the language in the "answer" part of this thread is not the actual bill it is the analysis of the bill and it is actually an analysis of the bill that was not the bill that was enrolled so it is missing parts of the bill that were actually voted in place and approved by the legislature

here is the north Texas bill...the actual bill as it was enrolled not an analysis of a form of the bill before final amendment and enrollment

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00473F.HTM

here is the Texas State bill

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00161F.htm

key differences the Texas State bill allows yearly unlimited raises of 5% if approved by the student government

Sec. 54.5382. part D.

key similarities.....the Texas State bill just like the north Texas bill allows for a greater increase in the fee if a student vote was taken.....and that is exactly what happened at Texas State........in 2008 Texas state followed the language of the above bill and held a student vote that allowed the fee to be increased to 10 dollars AND for yearly 2 dollar increases for the next 5 years to a total of $20 dollars

http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html

there is one key difference with the Texas State bill as well it allows the fee to be in place with or without bond debt in place so the Texas State fee has no period when it might end

5. as I read the law the university has a 5 year window to issue bonds ad after that no new bonds will count towards keeping the fee alive only "refunding" or rebonding of the existing bonds that were issued in that 5 year period would count towards keeping the fee alive.....I might be wrong on this interpretation, but I am fairly sure I am not and the reason I am failry sure of that is because that language was put in for a reason and that reason was to make sure the fee dies at some point......if there was no intent for the fee to dir at some point there would be no language like that in the bill the bill would simply not have any clause like that (similar to the Texas state bill linked above that has no clause for issuing bonds within a time period or the fee ending when those bonds were paid off or bonds used to "refund" those bonds were paid off)

even if a "refunding" does take place binds are not like a home loan where you have equity to borrow against if an asset increases in value or if you have paid enough to have equity.....when you "refund" bonds you "refund" for the amount owed on the existing bonds if you desire more money than that you have to issue new bonds and yes you can pay off the old bonds with some of the money from a new bond issue, but you have issued new bonds you have not "refunded" existing bonds

and the way I am reading that language in the bill only bonds issued in a 5 year window count as bonds able to keep the fee alive and any NEW bonds issued after that do not count and "refunding" of existing bonds would count to extend the fee, but eventually because you pay down the bonds over time and "refund" less and less each time the bonds issued in that 5 year window and the ones issued to "refund" those bonds will go to zero and the fee will end

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/amendments/pdf/SB00473S3F1.PDF

if anyone wanted actual clarity of the intent of that amendment I am sure they could email Dan Patrick and ask him what the intent of that is and the true meaning....I read it to mean that only bonds issued in a 5 year period (and bonds that refund those existing bonds issued in that 5 year window) keep the fee alive and that NEW bonds issued after that 5 year window do not serve to keep the fee alive and again when you "refund" existing bonds you do not add new money you refund for a lesser and lesser amount each time because you have been paying on those bonds and eventually it goes to zero

IMO if the intent was to have an athletics fee that stayed in place forever the language in the amendment above never would have been put in place like the bill for Texas State that has no such language

Prohibits the amount of the fee from increasing to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by a student vote under Subsection (f) or this subsection

The "or this subsection" is the critical language. It indicates the fee can be increased by up to 10% of the amount approved by the students, OR by up to 10% of the amount approved by an increase permitted under subsection G - but never no more than 10% unless approved by the students.

this is exactly what has been stated over and over....the fee can be increased a single time up to 10% unless approved by the students.....so without a vote of the students the fee for athletics can be increased to a max of $11 dollars and any higher than that requires a new vote of the students and it cannot be raised any higher than $11 dollars ever without a vote of the students with the current legislation in place

again the key difference is that the administration at Texas State had used their available 5% YEARLY increases and the HAD A STUDENT VOTE to increase it more......while the administration at north Texas has not used their SINGLE ONE TIME 10% (NOT YEARLY) raise nor have they seen fit to have a student vote to allow it to be raised to more than $11 dollars

so why would anyone really be concerned about the fee being able to be raised 10%, 20%, 50% or even 1000% (it can be raised ONE TIME FOR 10%) when the administration for over 2 years has declined to raise the fee the single allowed 10% without a student vote.....that makes no sense......"well we can only raise the fee 1 time for a dollar and that is not good enough so lets just do nothing because really we want to raise the fee 1000%, but all we can do is raise it a dollar so we will just do nothing".......ok well actually maybe that does make sense to an idiot like lee jackson, but not to anyone else

I sort of agree and disagree. We all know that every kid out there can go to a community college and get all of their basics out of the way and if they do well transfer to a good school and even get some decent scholarships at a fraction of the cost it would be at a 4-year university or private school. Their degree will still say the name of where they graduate from. So I don't buy into there aren't any other avenues for students from a debt perspective. I agree with you that the cost of tuition at 4 year public colleges rising is troubling--- very troubling. My problem is places like here in Texas, the politicians control who gets what and that has led to a cronyism syndrome which has allowed certain state universities to flourish while others lag far behind, in terms of perception and most importantly RESOURCES. The only thing, and I repeat the only thing that has kept UNT ahead of the curve is the fact they can raise monies through their growing enrollment and projected enrollment in the future.

The University of Texas used to be the number 1 college for Texans, now it has become a haven for students from other states to get a good education on the cheap. A&M not there yet but heading that way. We have good Texas kids who end up going to OU, OSU SEC etc...because they can't get into UT. I have a problem with that although I think in a way it has benefited UNT immensely. I would like to see more tier 1 research institutions in Texas and the associated funding that comes with it. It's not right that two or three schools in Texas get a lionshare of the funding. We have to get politics out of the education business...easier said than done!

actually UT and TAMU have a relatively low out of state enrollment

http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/percentage-of-out-of-state-students-at-public-universities/360/

the site above has TAMU at 1% lower than the out of state enrollment for north Texas and 2% below Texas Tech and UT the same as Texas Tech and only 1% above north Texas

and this Daily Texan article has the incoming freshman class for UT at 8.3% out of state students (vs the above numbers that are total student body)

http://dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2013/02/20/top-ten-shuts-out-out-of-state-students

and the above article from 2013 also points out that peer universities for UT like tOSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State have significantly higher out of state enrollments

so while it is true that students like UT and TAMU because they can get a very high quality of education for a low cost even as out of state students UT and TAMU are not enrolling a large number of out of state students as a % of overall enrollment nor are they enrolling near the % of out of state students that peer public universities enroll

and in Texas all universities are baseline funded the same even UT and TAMU and PVAMU.....they are all funded using the exact same two formulas for "infrastructure" and for "instruction and operations"....every university including TAMU, UT Austin and PVAMU are funded with those formulas (the only difference for UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU is "excellence funding)

each formula starts out using enrollment as a basis and then they have types of degrees and graduate and undergraduate enrollment as scales

in the I&O Formula liberal arts is normalized to "1" and it scales up from there to sciences, business, engineering and then pharmacy or vet programs and the like and then there are parts of the formula for graduate VS undergrad enrollment......because liberal arts degrees have less expensive hiring cost for professors VS engineering or pharmacy of Vet programs

it is similar with the Infrastructure formula only "space utilization" is also accounted for, but again it is based on the idea that liberal arts do not require large expensive labs that are "single use" in nature and engineering and the like require much more technology and space to accommodate that technology and graduate students especially in the hard and physical sciences and engineering (vs the soft and social sciences) will be working in specific use labs

so the formulas are weighted in terms of funding for the various degrees offered and the level of students enrolled

as for PUF VS non-PUF participating universities the only difference there (again besides UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU) is that PUF participating universities (including the three singled out) get their formula infrastructure funding from the PUF instead of getting it from general state revenues while non-PUF participating universities get their infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues......ALL universities in Texas get their I&O funding from general state revenues and ALL state universities in Texas use the same formulas for both infrastructure and I&O

with UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU AFTER all the PUF participating universities have their formula infrastructure funding covered from the AUF (the portion of the PUF that is paid out each year for universities to spend) the remaining money left over in the AUF is split 2/3 UT Austin and 1/3 TAMU/PVAMU for "excellence"

and those dollars are hardly the lions share of the higher education dollars in Texas and they are not even the lions share of overall state funding for any of those three universities much less the lions share of those three university's budgets

also in Texas there is "small university" funding as wellt hat goes to Sul Ross, north Texas dallas, UH Downtown UT Tyler and some others because the cost of administering a university is relatively "fixed" for smaller schools VS larger schools (economies of scale) so a smaller university still has a president and computer systems and a library and on and on for 5,000 students VS 50,000 students and as the university gets larger the cost of that fixed (or relatively fixed) overhead declines on a per student basis

so UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU do get additional funding over and above formula funding for "excellence" that is the remainder of the AUF (spent portion of the PUF) after the infrastructure formula funding is covered for all the PUF participating universities is covered, but it is far far far from the lions share of state higher ed dollars and it is not even close to the lions share of state funding or budgets for those universities and all the other universities in Texas are funded equally after that....so there really is no politics involved

as an aside here is the 2012 total state funding for each university in Texas ranked on a per FTFE and FTSE basis and then only the emerging research universities as well (full time faculty and full time student equivalent)....so looking at those numbers one can see that some universities are getting a disproportionate amount of state funding per full time student and per full time faculty member, but those universities are not UT Austin, TAMU or PVAMU and they are really not any of the emerging research universities......and more clearly one can see where WASTE AND POLITICS leads to universities not having the funding they desire because it is being WASTED on economic development projects in specific areas (hint hint look right at the very very very tippy top)

FTFE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

By FTSE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

Research and emerging Research Only

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

Edited June 15, 2013 by GL2Greatness

[DallasGreen]

I enjoy UNT90's posts quite often, but I am not sure about the attitude in this one. We need to find a balance between what we put on the students. I graduated in 2004 and paid all of my schooling and came out debt free. There is no way I would have been able to do that with todays fees.

I know many other schools lesser and bigger require a lot more of their students... but, I don't think we necessarily have to be them in that way.

We are making it harder and harder for kids to get through school. Sports, a new union, a new parking garage, business building, etc is all well and good. but, it is sad when it cripples the students ability to get by.

Why record new enrollments then if this is such a problem? I paid considerably more in fees that were were just labeled FEES @ UT in early 2000s.for my two sons. We fear our students way too much. Alums have done their part with amounts paid for club seats,season tickets, MGC, and out right donations. We ask extremely little from the students for what they are given in return. I agree the heat should be turned up on the admins to support what it takes to compete at least with mid majors a la U of H.

[UNTflyer]

this post is incorrect

1. what the students passed does matter

2. the language of the law says that the athletics fee can be raised a single time to a max of 10% and that is it period

3. UT and Texas Tech and A&M had nothing to do with inserting anything it was put in place by Dan Patrick that represents north west Harris County and has a BA degree from the university of Maryland Baltimore so he is hardly a UT or TAMU or Texas Tech homer

4. the language for Texas State is NOT the same and also the language in the "answer" part of this thread is not the actual bill it is the analysis of the bill and it is actually an analysis of the bill that was not the bill that was enrolled so it is missing parts of the bill that were actually voted in place and approved by the legislature

here is the north Texas bill...the actual bill as it was enrolled not an analysis of a form of the bill before final amendment and enrollment

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00473F.HTM

here is the Texas State bill

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00161F.htm

key differences the Texas State bill allows yearly unlimited raises of 5% if approved by the student government

Sec. 54.5382. part D.

key similarities.....the Texas State bill just like the north Texas bill allows for a greater increase in the fee if a student vote was taken.....and that is exactly what happened at Texas State........in 2008 Texas state followed the language of the above bill and held a student vote that allowed the fee to be increased to 10 dollars AND for yearly 2 dollar increases for the next 5 years to a total of $20 dollars

http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html

there is one key difference with the Texas State bill as well it allows the fee to be in place with or without bond debt in place so the Texas State fee has no period when it might end

5. as I read the law the university has a 5 year window to issue bonds ad after that no new bonds will count towards keeping the fee alive only "refunding" or rebonding of the existing bonds that were issued in that 5 year period would count towards keeping the fee alive.....I might be wrong on this interpretation, but I am fairly sure I am not and the reason I am failry sure of that is because that language was put in for a reason and that reason was to make sure the fee dies at some point......if there was no intent for the fee to dir at some point there would be no language like that in the bill the bill would simply not have any clause like that (similar to the Texas state bill linked above that has no clause for issuing bonds within a time period or the fee ending when those bonds were paid off or bonds used to "refund" those bonds were paid off)

even if a "refunding" does take place binds are not like a home loan where you have equity to borrow against if an asset increases in value or if you have paid enough to have equity.....when you "refund" bonds you "refund" for the amount owed on the existing bonds if you desire more money than that you have to issue new bonds and yes you can pay off the old bonds with some of the money from a new bond issue, but you have issued new bonds you have not "refunded" existing bonds

and the way I am reading that language in the bill only bonds issued in a 5 year window count as bonds able to keep the fee alive and any NEW bonds issued after that do not count and "refunding" of existing bonds would count to extend the fee, but eventually because you pay down the bonds over time and "refund" less and less each time the bonds issued in that 5 year window and the ones issued to "refund" those bonds will go to zero and the fee will end

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/amendments/pdf/SB00473S3F1.PDF

if anyone wanted actual clarity of the intent of that amendment I am sure they could email Dan Patrick and ask him what the intent of that is and the true meaning....I read it to mean that only bonds issued in a 5 year period (and bonds that refund those existing bonds issued in that 5 year window) keep the fee alive and that NEW bonds issued after that 5 year window do not serve to keep the fee alive and again when you "refund" existing bonds you do not add new money you refund for a lesser and lesser amount each time because you have been paying on those bonds and eventually it goes to zero

IMO if the intent was to have an athletics fee that stayed in place forever the language in the amendment above never would have been put in place like the bill for Texas State that has no such language

this is exactly what has been stated over and over....the fee can be increased a single time up to 10% unless approved by the students.....so without a vote of the students the fee for athletics can be increased to a max of $11 dollars and any higher than that requires a new vote of the students and it cannot be raised any higher than $11 dollars ever without a vote of the students with the current legislation in place

again the key difference is that the administration at Texas State had used their available 5% YEARLY increases and the HAD A STUDENT VOTE to increase it more......while the administration at north Texas has not used their SINGLE ONE TIME 10% (NOT YEARLY) raise nor have they seen fit to have a student vote to allow it to be raised to more than $11 dollars

so why would anyone really be concerned about the fee being able to be raised 10%, 20%, 50% or even 1000% (it can be raised ONE TIME FOR 10%) when the administration for over 2 years has declined to raise the fee the single allowed 10% without a student vote.....that makes no sense......"well we can only raise the fee 1 time for a dollar and that is not good enough so lets just do nothing because really we want to raise the fee 1000%, but all we can do is raise it a dollar so we will just do nothing".......ok well actually maybe that does make sense to an idiot like lee jackson, but not to anyone else

actually UT and TAMU have a relatively low out of state enrollment

http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/percentage-of-out-of-state-students-at-public-universities/360/

the site above has TAMU at 1% lower than the out of state enrollment for north Texas and 2% below Texas Tech and UT the same as Texas Tech and only 1% above north Texas

and this Daily Texan article has the incoming freshman class for UT at 8.3% out of state students (vs the above numbers that are total student body)

http://dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2013/02/20/top-ten-shuts-out-out-of-state-students

and the above article from 2013 also points out that peer universities for UT like tOSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State have significantly higher out of state enrollments

so while it is true that students like UT and TAMU because they can get a very high quality of education for a low cost even as out of state students UT and TAMU are not enrolling a large number of out of state students as a % of overall enrollment nor are they enrolling near the % of out of state students that peer public universities enroll

and in Texas all universities are baseline funded the same even UT and TAMU and PVAMU.....they are all funded using the exact same two formulas for "infrastructure" and for "instruction and operations"....every university including TAMU, UT Austin and PVAMU are funded with those formulas (the only difference for UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU is "excellence funding)

each formula starts out using enrollment as a basis and then they have types of degrees and graduate and undergraduate enrollment as scales

in the I&O Formula liberal arts is normalized to "1" and it scales up from there to sciences, business, engineering and then pharmacy or vet programs and the like and then there are parts of the formula for graduate VS undergrad enrollment......because liberal arts degrees have less expensive hiring cost for professors VS engineering or pharmacy of Vet programs

it is similar with the Infrastructure formula only "space utilization" is also accounted for, but again it is based on the idea that liberal arts do not require large expensive labs that are "single use" in nature and engineering and the like require much more technology and space to accommodate that technology and graduate students especially in the hard and physical sciences and engineering (vs the soft and social sciences) will be working in specific use labs

so the formulas are weighted in terms of funding for the various degrees offered and the level of students enrolled

as for PUF VS non-PUF participating universities the only difference there (again besides UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU) is that PUF participating universities (including the three singled out) get their formula infrastructure funding from the PUF instead of getting it from general state revenues while non-PUF participating universities get their infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues......ALL universities in Texas get their I&O funding from general state revenues and ALL state universities in Texas use the same formulas for both infrastructure and I&O

with UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU AFTER all the PUF participating universities have their formula infrastructure funding covered from the AUF (the portion of the PUF that is paid out each year for universities to spend) the remaining money left over in the AUF is split 2/3 UT Austin and 1/3 TAMU/PVAMU for "excellence"

and those dollars are hardly the lions share of the higher education dollars in Texas and they are not even the lions share of overall state funding for any of those three universities much less the lions share of those three university's budgets

also in Texas there is "small university" funding as wellt hat goes to Sul Ross, north Texas dallas, UH Downtown UT Tyler and some others because the cost of administering a university is relatively "fixed" for smaller schools VS larger schools (economies of scale) so a smaller university still has a president and computer systems and a library and on and on for 5,000 students VS 50,000 students and as the university gets larger the cost of that fixed (or relatively fixed) overhead declines on a per student basis

so UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU do get additional funding over and above formula funding for "excellence" that is the remainder of the AUF (spent portion of the PUF) after the infrastructure formula funding is covered for all the PUF participating universities is covered, but it is far far far from the lions share of state higher ed dollars and it is not even close to the lions share of state funding or budgets for those universities and all the other universities in Texas are funded equally after that....so there really is no politics involved

as an aside here is the 2012 total state funding for each university in Texas ranked on a per FTFE and FTSE basis and then only the emerging research universities as well (full time faculty and full time student equivalent)....so looking at those numbers one can see that some universities are getting a disproportionate amount of state funding per full time student and per full time faculty member, but those universities are not UT Austin, TAMU or PVAMU and they are really not any of the emerging research universities......and more clearly one can see where WASTE AND POLITICS leads to universities not having the funding they desire because it is being WASTED on economic development projects in specific areas (hint hint look right at the very very very tippy top)

FTFE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

By FTSE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

Research and emerging Research Only

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

You're simply wrong.

[UNT90]

You're simply wrong.

If there is one person on here who would know, it would be you.

Oh, and thank you for the brevity.

[UNTflyer]

Just like in elementary school, we can break a compound sentence with the "or" conjunction into two separate complete sentences.

...Prohibits the amount of the fee from increasing to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by a student vote.

...Prohibits the amount of the fee from increasing to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by this subsection.

The legalese isn't that difficult to understand. Subsection G describes the limit of any increase as it relates to two different baselines:

1. The original student vote of $10 (or any future student vote that sets a new fee amount)

2. Any increase approved by the BOR under subsection G.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Edited June 15, 2013 by UNTflyer

[DeepGreen]

GL2greatness, was that lengthy of a post really necessary? My head is spinning. We know you are the smartest guy in the room, but c'mon man!

Edited June 16, 2013 by DeepGreen

[UNT 90 Grad]

GL2greatness, was that lengthy of a post really necessary? My head is spinning. We know you are the smartess guy in the room, but c'mon man!

smartess = smartest or smartass? Only DeepGreen knows for sure.

[DeepGreen]

I surrender to the spelling gestapo. Should have typed "smartest".

Edited June 16, 2013 by DeepGreen

[emmitt01]

this post is incorrect

1. what the students passed does matter

2. the language of the law says that the athletics fee can be raised a single time to a max of 10% and that is it period

3. UT and Texas Tech and A&M had nothing to do with inserting anything it was put in place by Dan Patrick that represents north west Harris County and has a BA degree from the university of Maryland Baltimore so he is hardly a UT or TAMU or Texas Tech homer

4. the language for Texas State is NOT the same and also the language in the "answer" part of this thread is not the actual bill it is the analysis of the bill and it is actually an analysis of the bill that was not the bill that was enrolled so it is missing parts of the bill that were actually voted in place and approved by the legislature

here is the north Texas bill...the actual bill as it was enrolled not an analysis of a form of the bill before final amendment and enrollment

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00473F.HTM

here is the Texas State bill

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00161F.htm

key differences the Texas State bill allows yearly unlimited raises of 5% if approved by the student government

Sec. 54.5382. part D.

key similarities.....the Texas State bill just like the north Texas bill allows for a greater increase in the fee if a student vote was taken.....and that is exactly what happened at Texas State........in 2008 Texas state followed the language of the above bill and held a student vote that allowed the fee to be increased to 10 dollars AND for yearly 2 dollar increases for the next 5 years to a total of $20 dollars

http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html

there is one key difference with the Texas State bill as well it allows the fee to be in place with or without bond debt in place so the Texas State fee has no period when it might end

5. as I read the law the university has a 5 year window to issue bonds ad after that no new bonds will count towards keeping the fee alive only "refunding" or rebonding of the existing bonds that were issued in that 5 year period would count towards keeping the fee alive.....I might be wrong on this interpretation, but I am fairly sure I am not and the reason I am failry sure of that is because that language was put in for a reason and that reason was to make sure the fee dies at some point......if there was no intent for the fee to dir at some point there would be no language like that in the bill the bill would simply not have any clause like that (similar to the Texas state bill linked above that has no clause for issuing bonds within a time period or the fee ending when those bonds were paid off or bonds used to "refund" those bonds were paid off)

even if a "refunding" does take place binds are not like a home loan where you have equity to borrow against if an asset increases in value or if you have paid enough to have equity.....when you "refund" bonds you "refund" for the amount owed on the existing bonds if you desire more money than that you have to issue new bonds and yes you can pay off the old bonds with some of the money from a new bond issue, but you have issued new bonds you have not "refunded" existing bonds

and the way I am reading that language in the bill only bonds issued in a 5 year window count as bonds able to keep the fee alive and any NEW bonds issued after that do not count and "refunding" of existing bonds would count to extend the fee, but eventually because you pay down the bonds over time and "refund" less and less each time the bonds issued in that 5 year window and the ones issued to "refund" those bonds will go to zero and the fee will end

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/amendments/pdf/SB00473S3F1.PDF

if anyone wanted actual clarity of the intent of that amendment I am sure they could email Dan Patrick and ask him what the intent of that is and the true meaning....I read it to mean that only bonds issued in a 5 year period (and bonds that refund those existing bonds issued in that 5 year window) keep the fee alive and that NEW bonds issued after that 5 year window do not serve to keep the fee alive and again when you "refund" existing bonds you do not add new money you refund for a lesser and lesser amount each time because you have been paying on those bonds and eventually it goes to zero

IMO if the intent was to have an athletics fee that stayed in place forever the language in the amendment above never would have been put in place like the bill for Texas State that has no such language

this is exactly what has been stated over and over....the fee can be increased a single time up to 10% unless approved by the students.....so without a vote of the students the fee for athletics can be increased to a max of $11 dollars and any higher than that requires a new vote of the students and it cannot be raised any higher than $11 dollars ever without a vote of the students with the current legislation in place

again the key difference is that the administration at Texas State had used their available 5% YEARLY increases and the HAD A STUDENT VOTE to increase it more......while the administration at north Texas has not used their SINGLE ONE TIME 10% (NOT YEARLY) raise nor have they seen fit to have a student vote to allow it to be raised to more than $11 dollars

so why would anyone really be concerned about the fee being able to be raised 10%, 20%, 50% or even 1000% (it can be raised ONE TIME FOR 10%) when the administration for over 2 years has declined to raise the fee the single allowed 10% without a student vote.....that makes no sense......"well we can only raise the fee 1 time for a dollar and that is not good enough so lets just do nothing because really we want to raise the fee 1000%, but all we can do is raise it a dollar so we will just do nothing".......ok well actually maybe that does make sense to an idiot like lee jackson, but not to anyone else

actually UT and TAMU have a relatively low out of state enrollment

http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/percentage-of-out-of-state-students-at-public-universities/360/

the site above has TAMU at 1% lower than the out of state enrollment for north Texas and 2% below Texas Tech and UT the same as Texas Tech and only 1% above north Texas

and this Daily Texan article has the incoming freshman class for UT at 8.3% out of state students (vs the above numbers that are total student body)

http://dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2013/02/20/top-ten-shuts-out-out-of-state-students

and the above article from 2013 also points out that peer universities for UT like tOSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State have significantly higher out of state enrollments

so while it is true that students like UT and TAMU because they can get a very high quality of education for a low cost even as out of state students UT and TAMU are not enrolling a large number of out of state students as a % of overall enrollment nor are they enrolling near the % of out of state students that peer public universities enroll

and in Texas all universities are baseline funded the same even UT and TAMU and PVAMU.....they are all funded using the exact same two formulas for "infrastructure" and for "instruction and operations"....every university including TAMU, UT Austin and PVAMU are funded with those formulas (the only difference for UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU is "excellence funding)

each formula starts out using enrollment as a basis and then they have types of degrees and graduate and undergraduate enrollment as scales

in the I&O Formula liberal arts is normalized to "1" and it scales up from there to sciences, business, engineering and then pharmacy or vet programs and the like and then there are parts of the formula for graduate VS undergrad enrollment......because liberal arts degrees have less expensive hiring cost for professors VS engineering or pharmacy of Vet programs

it is similar with the Infrastructure formula only "space utilization" is also accounted for, but again it is based on the idea that liberal arts do not require large expensive labs that are "single use" in nature and engineering and the like require much more technology and space to accommodate that technology and graduate students especially in the hard and physical sciences and engineering (vs the soft and social sciences) will be working in specific use labs

so the formulas are weighted in terms of funding for the various degrees offered and the level of students enrolled

as for PUF VS non-PUF participating universities the only difference there (again besides UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU) is that PUF participating universities (including the three singled out) get their formula infrastructure funding from the PUF instead of getting it from general state revenues while non-PUF participating universities get their infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues......ALL universities in Texas get their I&O funding from general state revenues and ALL state universities in Texas use the same formulas for both infrastructure and I&O

with UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU AFTER all the PUF participating universities have their formula infrastructure funding covered from the AUF (the portion of the PUF that is paid out each year for universities to spend) the remaining money left over in the AUF is split 2/3 UT Austin and 1/3 TAMU/PVAMU for "excellence"

and those dollars are hardly the lions share of the higher education dollars in Texas and they are not even the lions share of overall state funding for any of those three universities much less the lions share of those three university's budgets

also in Texas there is "small university" funding as wellt hat goes to Sul Ross, north Texas dallas, UH Downtown UT Tyler and some others because the cost of administering a university is relatively "fixed" for smaller schools VS larger schools (economies of scale) so a smaller university still has a president and computer systems and a library and on and on for 5,000 students VS 50,000 students and as the university gets larger the cost of that fixed (or relatively fixed) overhead declines on a per student basis

so UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU do get additional funding over and above formula funding for "excellence" that is the remainder of the AUF (spent portion of the PUF) after the infrastructure formula funding is covered for all the PUF participating universities is covered, but it is far far far from the lions share of state higher ed dollars and it is not even close to the lions share of state funding or budgets for those universities and all the other universities in Texas are funded equally after that....so there really is no politics involved

as an aside here is the 2012 total state funding for each university in Texas ranked on a per FTFE and FTSE basis and then only the emerging research universities as well (full time faculty and full time student equivalent)....so looking at those numbers one can see that some universities are getting a disproportionate amount of state funding per full time student and per full time faculty member, but those universities are not UT Austin, TAMU or PVAMU and they are really not any of the emerging research universities......and more clearly one can see where WASTE AND POLITICS leads to universities not having the funding they desire because it is being WASTED on economic development projects in specific areas (hint hint look right at the very very very tippy top)

FTFE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

By FTSE

University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139

Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883

Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442

Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024

Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093

Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421

Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537

The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920

Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784

Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608

West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481

University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358

Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310

Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164

Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097

Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Lamar University $59,717 $4,660

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844

Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791

University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514

Research and emerging Research Only

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584

Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961

The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679

Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017

University of Houston $69,546 $6,002

The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984

Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871

The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105

The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949

Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488

University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

Tolstoy's version is WAY better.

[glick1980]

Increased atheletic fees aren't going to bankrupt the students, but I think its laughable that the folks calling for fee increases don't pay the fees.

If student fees go up, ticket prices should go up accordingly.

And of course there's the question why does Atheletic program need more money?

I graduated in 2008 but require 3 classes to sit for the CPA exam which I am in the process of completing. I paid over $400 in fees to take one 3 hour class last semester. I say raise th fees.

PS - my employer reimburses me for tuition and book expenses but not fees.