Pitt students and their families will be forced to dig a little deeper into their pocket… Pitt students and their families will be forced to dig a little deeper into their pocket books when they receive their tuition bills this August – 9.5 percent deeper for in-state students and 7.5 percent for those from outside the state.

The tuition hike was announced Monday morning during Pitt’s board of trustees’ budget committee meeting.

The percentage increase will raise the cost of in-state tuition by about $750, bringing the annual cost to $8,614, and out-of-state students will pay $17,926 each year.

This tuition increase means Pitt students will now pay one of the highest public university tuition rates in the nation. Because of dwindling state and federal funding for education, most public institutions are being forced to raise their price tags.

In Pennsylvania, Pitt was not alone in raising its tuition this year – Pennsylvania State University raised in-state tuition by about 9.8 percent for most students, Carnegie Mellon raised it 8.5 percent for new students and the University of Pennsylvania raised tuition 4.8 percent.

“We, like all higher education institutions, are facing rising costs,” said Vice Chancellor of Budget and Controller Arthur Ramicone.

But Todd Brandon Morris, a Student Government Board member, had another take on the increase, “What unfortunately is happening is that students in this area are being priced out of an education.”

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg cited several factors that forced Pitt to raise tuition this year, after last year’s 14 percent increase. Among those factors were a continually rising standard of excellence, the rising costs of technology and the labor market, a “dramatic increase” in the cost of health care and the continually decreasing financial support from the state government.

Nordenberg said that Pitt expects only 12.3 percent from the state in budget support, which is down from an all-time high of 32 percent in 1975. He went on to say that Pitt would receive $163 million this year, compared to an appropriation of $178 million in 2002. However, the Commonwealth was forced to reduce the 2002 amount to about $173 million as a result of its own financial challenges.

“These decisions really are the product of a yearlong process,” Nordenberg said, acknowledging that students and their families are apprehensive of another substantial rise in tuition.

As a result of Pitt’s limited resources, it has developed, according to the Chancellor, “a culture of cost-effectiveness.”

“We accept the fact that we are expected to do more with less,” he added.

“Since 1995, [Pitt] has invested in quality,” the chancellor said, explaining that Pitt plans to continue to make investments in the people, programs and facilities to ensure quality education.

In order to combat the effects of less funding and higher costs, Pitt plans to increase the financial aid budget for next year by $8 million, bringing the total budget to more than $100 million.

But Morris said that he fears financial aid will not bring relief to the majority of students.

“Financial aid packages do not benefit all students, but tuition increases hurt all students,” Morris said.

Pitt needs to be as cost-effective in its programs as possible, Nordenberg said, adding that the administration plans to increase fund raising to compensate for the lack of state-supported funding.

Pitt does not predict an increase in the estimated state funding after the state’s budget is approved, but Pitt trustees remain in Harrisburg, lobbying for more education funding.

SGB member Stephanie Hadgkiss became aware of this in June, when members from SGB lobbied in Harrisburg for Port Authority funding.

“I’ve always thought that the University really does care about the tuition increase, and they really do care about the money coming from the state – we’re all playing on the same team,” Hadgkiss said.

SGB President Liz Culliton and members Hadgkiss, Brian Kelly and Morris said that they feel Pitt students need to take more responsibility for the rising tuition costs and make their voices heard in Harrisburg.

“I think that, until students get more involved in legislation and holding our representatives accountable, we can’t expect to be seen as a valid voting block,” Kelly said.

Culliton, who believes the tuition increase was inevitable, agrees that education funding will be more of a priority for legislators only if students start voting.

Morris plans to work to increase the number of Pitt students registered to vote in the fall. As voters, Morris said that Pitt students’ “goal should be to prevent this [tuition hike] from happening again.”

But many students are wondering what the University is spending its money on. When asked about his 14 percent raise and salary bonus during a press conference following the tuition increase announcement, Nordenberg declined to comment.

In the chancellor’s defense, Provost James Maher said Nordenberg’s raise was part of an effort to make certain University positions’ compensation more competitive with other universities. The chancellor’s salary is behind the “benchmark” of the national salary level, he added.

Terry Aikin, visiting with her daughter Sydney, a prospective student from Bethel Park, Pa., said that, despite tuition increases, she still feels that Pitt is a good value. She emphasized that all universities are currently increasing tuition.

Brian Lee, a fifth-year senior paying out-of-state tuition, said, “Personally, I don’t like it – it’s a good school but … with last year’s chancellor’s raise, it doesn’t balance out.”

Senior Sara Miller said she’s concerned about how the tuition increase will affect her future.

“It’s frustrating. As a social work major I know I’m choosing a profession in which I’m not going to make tons of money,” Miller said, adding that she will have difficulty paying off her student loans.

Miller said she would feel better if she “sees it [tuition] put back into the system.”