Please let me provide some information for your readers in response to Jason Abbruzzese’s commentary on the standard tuition rate set by the Board of Trustees for the 2006-2007 academic year (“Let’s use tuition money where it’s needed,” March 29, p.3).
It is true that, when possible and where feasible, the university does, in fact, negotiate long-term contracts with utility providers to manage costs. Nevertheless, that does not mean a negotiated contract sets a single, locked-in unit price for the full period of the contract, nor does it necessarily cover all the costs of providing that service. The fundamental purpose — and primary benefit — of negotiating various energy contracts is to smooth out cost increases, thus avoiding periodic price spikes. This is good, sound business practice; however, it does not mean the university is able to avoid the gradual and steady cost increases.
The university’s utility costs have risen nearly 62 percent since 2004, from $26 million to an estimated $42 million through next year’s budget: water costs are up 16.5 percent, electricity 28.1 percent, gas 97.1 percent and fuel oil 129.3 percent. In addition to the cost pressures from utilities, the university’s cost of providing employee health care benefits has risen 33 percent in just the past three years. These are the two areas President Brown cited in the tuition letter as presenting the greatest budgetary challenge.
The university recognizes the financial impact of the tuition increase on students and their families and is increasing the amount of university-provided financial assistance. More than half of our students receive some form of financial aid. Yet tuition income accounts for just half of the university’s approximately $1.5 billion operating budget.
In comparing on-campus room-and-board rates with off-campus housing, it’s important to note on-campus housing includes electricity, heat, and water, along with free cable, Ethernet connections, furniture, security and other amenities. Also, the commentary did not mention the more than $1 billion in new academic, research and athletic and recreational facilities that have been added to the campus in the past decade that enable the university, as President Brown wrote, to “continue to focus on delivering a first-rate education to our students and to further enhancing the quality of student life.”
Too few people may realize that Boston University’s annual tuition rate increases over the past decade have been below the national average (as a percent) for similar four-year independent colleges and universities and well below the national average (as a percent) for four-year public colleges and universities. It is testimony to the immense hard work of the administration and trustees that their effective and ongoing efforts to prioritize and address the university’s academic, capital, technological and facility needs continue to attract outstanding students, faculty and researchers to Boston University.
Lastly, I know that Executive Vice President Joseph Mercurio would be happy to speak with or meet with student reporters, editors or columnists on these important issues, as he has done for so many from The Daily Free Press over the years.
Colin D. Riley Director of Media Relations Boston University
