This tuition increase is probably going to Peter George for his retirement benefit. The man makes enough money even after he will leave which I found out recently.

More important, I think, than the immediate question of a tuition increase is the question "How did we get here in the first place?" Consider the following news story?

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/763270

$66000, to avoid public disclosure of the President's contract? Should not a public institution like McMaster strive for transparency, not actively fight to avoid it in court? Both the waste and the attempt to avoid public scrutiny are wrong, on principle, and people should be held to account for the decisions that led to this. That is the problem with a bureaucracy: it's never anybody's fault; it's the system (note the response from the VP (Administration): exactly a variation on the "it's the system" rationale). However, the system is made up of people, making decisions, and those of us who are affected by those decisions have a right to know who decided what and why. If there is a structural deficit, as we keep hearing, we need to ask hard questions at the people who created and maintain the structure! Such questions require transparency, something which apparently McMaster University is willing to spend a considerable amount of money to avoid. One wonders: why?

Originally Posted by dsahota

The problem is none of this money is likely ear-marked for improvements such as those. So we all can be paying a lot more money next year without any guarantee anything will be better. Essentially students are writing the University a bigger blank cheque to the tune of $7.4 million for 2010-11 and likely a $15.5 million bigger in 2011-12 (PACICES Report PDF, Page 14).

The University Administration is still just trying to cover off major structural deficits as a result of a lot of building, the market tanking and investments being devalued, not having enough to cover their pension contributions because they spent the surplus in good years, etc. For example, they still project a Pension and EFB Reserve deficit of $51.9 million for 2010, and $73.6 million for 2011* (PACICES Report PDF, Page 14)

PACICES Report link:
http://www.mcmaster.ca/opr/html/disc...rch_2 010.pdf

Here's a statement from the bond-rating agencie DBRS published 24-April-2010:

Despite an upward revision to the discount rate, unfunded pension liabilities more than doubled in 2008-09 to $373 million, one of the highest levels in the sector. In addition, the University carries sizeable post-employment benefit liabilities, estimated at $194.9 million as at April 30, 2009. McMaster has been using internal reserves to fund some of the special pension deficit payments but the latter are likely to rise notably at the next actuarial valuation in 2010, which will further constrain operating flexibility.

nvm


nvm

what ended up happening with all this?

did the increases get approved?

Originally Posted by danallan

what ended up happening with all this?

did the increases get approved?

The graduate representative and undergraduate voted against the tuition package but in favor of the miscellaneous fees. Both carried/passed.

The proposal in addition to general tuition increases was also for the first time to charge listeners, auditors, and students over the age of 65 the full cost of tuition and supplementary fees that was opposed by both representatives on.

I actually had a good email exchange with the Undergraduate rep Norman Kearney about this and from his explanations(And he is one of the few people around that I would trust to be on the ball with what is going on and what is in the best interests of students) and insight especially on the $50+ Million Dollar Deficit and the unsustainable platform on which our university is being funded hence leaving them with no option but to increase tuition did make alot of sense.

In other words despite the Job Cuts(80-100) that the University announced they would not be able to successfully operate under the current financial scenario.

Originally Posted by Cassanova

This tuition increase is probably going to Peter George for his retirement benefit. The man makes enough money even after he will leave which I found out recently.

Or you know... to help with the projected operating deficit in the coming years?