Thanks for reaching out. Yes, the “sticker price” for tuition has risen in recent years. At UK, we are deeply sensitive to the cost of education for our students and their families. There are a couple of factors to consider: first, the vast majority of students don’t pay the sticker price. Second, in the last five years alone, for example, UK has more than doubled its investment in scholarships and aid that does not have to be repaid. Next year, UK will invest $117 million in scholarships. In fact, when you consider UK scholarships along with money from the state for things like the KEES scholarship, more than 85 percent of Kentucky undergraduates receive aid and their tuition cost per semester last year was under $1,500. As a result, about 50 percent of undergraduate students graduate without debt. Of those who do have some debt, it’s under $30,000. Finally, because of those investments in aid and scholarships, UK has actually significantly lowered the rate of tuition increases in recent years from five-year averages of double digits just a few years ago to under 5 percent this year. There’s always more we can do, though, and we are investing even more time and energy in recruiting private donations for scholarships and we are assessing how best to use our scholarships to ensure that we are helping those with financial need. I hope that answers your question. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions or concerns. - Jay Blanton
I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I think we are likely ideologically opposed on this issue. 18-year-old students don't "need" Steak 'n Shake in the lobby and granite countertops in shared state-of-the-art kitchens to gain a college education. UK is keeping up with national trends, and that is no fault to UK. In today's post-secondary education climate, competition is fierce for students; I understand that. But at the end of the day, many students across the US are racking up extraordinary amounts of student loans to be competitive in the job market, and those loans, at least partially, are being incurred to pay for more state-of-the-art facilities to bring more rock-climbing walls to campuses. We all, as a society, need to discuss the realistic issues that face students with long-term debt service in light of the never-ceasing investments in (arguably unnecessary) capital programs on college campuses. What would it take to freeze tuition increases? Or even more radically, reverse tuition increases to move towards a model of near zero-cost college education? Could we achieve or at least work towards this goal through the scaling back of capital investment on campuses? Has UK addressed the possibility of the many voices warning of a college bubble at risk of bursting? As an alumnus, I am still very pleased with my education at our state's flagship university; I hate to see that opportunity continue to slip further away from reality for all Kentuckians. I hope I am wrong on many of these fronts, but I also am confused by the seeming contradiction in continual large-scale building campaigns coupled with continual significant tuition increases.
Hi, again. Thanks again for some great questions. You’ve raised some important questions about the impact of new residence halls and dining, in particular, on college costs. In fact, we’ve undertaken these public private partnerships to help better control costs. For example, because of our public private partnership with Aramark to take over our dining operation, the cost of basic dining plans actually went down the first year of operation, even as Aramark also funded about $70 million in new facilities while also increasing quality and options for our students, faculty and staff. How? With better options, they’re creating more volume and customers. As for housing, yes, the new housing is more expensive - moderately so - than the older residence halls. But the older residence halls were on average almost 45 years old. They didn’t have classrooms and learning spaces. They didn’t have appropriate technology and connectivity for the kind of learning students do today. Students were voting with their feet. We know that students do better, and graduate at higher rates, if they spend at least some time - the first year especially - living on campus. If they graduate on time, that lowers debt and costs. At the same time, the older dorms were becoming cost prohibitive to repair and maintain and, in some cases, weren’t able to be retro-fitted for the kinds of living and learning arrangements that maximize student success and that students and their families expect from campus living. So, with new residence halls, we believe we can actually keep increases priced more moderately and ensure higher rates of occupancy than with the old dorms. Moreover, because these are public private partnerships - completely using private equity - we were able to construct modern facilities more quickly and efficiently. These costs are related to housing and dining costs, but not the tuition you cite. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve been lowering the rate of increase for tuition the past few years, such that rolling average is now under 5 percent annually. I hope that clarifies further some of these important issues. Thanks again for raising them. -Jay
I just can't figure out why tuition has gone up almost 200% since I attended in the early 2000's... -_-
Thanks for reaching out. Yes, the “sticker price” for tuition has risen in recent years. At UK, we are deeply sensitive to the cost of education for our students and their families. There
are a couple of factors to consider: first, the vast majority of students don’t pay the sticker price. Second, in the last five years alone, for example, UK has more than doubled its investment in scholarships and aid that does not have to be repaid.
Next year, UK will invest $117 million in scholarships. In fact, when you consider UK scholarships along with money from the state for things like the KEES scholarship, more than 85 percent of Kentucky undergraduates receive aid and their tuition cost per semester last year was under $1,500. As a result, about 50 percent of undergraduate students graduate without debt. Of those who do have some debt, it’s under $30,000.
Finally, because of those investments in aid and scholarships, UK has actually significantly lowered
the rate of tuition increases in recent years from five-year averages of double digits just a few years ago to under 5 percent this year. There’s always more we can do, though, and we are investing even more time and energy in recruiting private donations for scholarships and we are assessing how best to use our scholarships to ensure that we are helping those with financial need.
I hope that answers your question. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions or concerns.
- Jay Blanton
I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I think we are likely ideologically opposed on this issue. 18-year-old students don't "need" Steak 'n Shake in the lobby and granite countertops in shared state-of-the-art kitchens to gain a college education. UK is keeping up with national trends, and that is no fault to UK. In today's post-secondary education climate, competition is fierce for students; I understand that. But at the end of the day, many students across the US are racking up extraordinary amounts of student loans to be competitive in the job market, and those loans, at least partially, are being incurred to pay for more state-of-the-art facilities to bring more rock-climbing walls to campuses. We all, as a society, need to discuss the realistic issues that face students with long-term debt service in light of the never-ceasing investments in (arguably unnecessary) capital programs on college campuses. What would it take to freeze tuition increases? Or even more radically, reverse tuition increases to move towards a model of near zero-cost college education? Could we achieve or at least work towards this goal through the scaling back of capital investment on campuses? Has UK addressed the possibility of the many voices warning of a college bubble at risk of bursting? As an alumnus, I am still very pleased with my education at our state's flagship university; I hate to see that opportunity continue to slip further away from reality for all Kentuckians. I hope I am wrong on many of these fronts, but I also am confused by the seeming contradiction in continual large-scale building campaigns coupled with continual significant tuition increases.
Hi, again.
Thanks again for some great questions. You’ve raised some important questions about the impact of new residence halls and dining, in particular, on college costs. In fact, we’ve undertaken these public private partnerships to help better control costs. For example, because of our public private partnership with Aramark to take over our dining operation, the cost of basic dining plans actually went down the first year of operation, even as Aramark also funded about $70 million in new facilities while also increasing quality and options for our students, faculty and staff. How? With better options, they’re creating more volume and customers. As for housing, yes, the new housing is more expensive - moderately so - than the older residence halls. But the older residence halls were on average almost 45 years old. They didn’t have classrooms and learning spaces. They didn’t have appropriate technology and connectivity for the kind of learning students do today. Students were voting with their feet. We know that students do better, and graduate at higher rates, if they spend at least some time - the first year especially - living on campus.
If they graduate on time, that lowers debt and costs. At the same time, the older dorms were becoming cost prohibitive to repair and maintain and, in some cases, weren’t able to be retro-fitted for the kinds of living and learning arrangements that maximize student success and that students and their families expect from campus living. So, with new residence halls, we believe we can actually keep increases priced more moderately and ensure higher rates of occupancy than with the old dorms. Moreover, because these are public private partnerships - completely using private equity - we were able to construct modern facilities more quickly and efficiently. These costs are related to housing and dining costs, but not the tuition you cite. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve been lowering the rate of increase for tuition the past few years, such that rolling average is now under 5 percent annually. I hope that clarifies further some of these important issues.
Thanks again for raising them. -Jay