University Times

Provost James Maher defended Pitt's tuition benefits program for the children and spouses of employees before the state House of Representatives' Select Committee on Higher Education on Monday. He argued that Pitt needs the program in order to attract the best possible faculty and staff.

But Maher's argument drew little sympathy from committee Chair Rep. John Lawless, R-Montgomery County. In an interview with the University Times, Lawless called the tuition benefits program "archaic" in light of the way businesses throughout Pennsylvania and the nation are cutting benefits. He reiterated his often-stated belief that it should end.

"My position is no secret," Lawless said. "I think tuition waivers are a waste of taxpayer money. I think that those who provide tuition bills to the Pennsylvanians who go to these schools should also understand what it is like to get tuition increases and understand what it is like to have to pay college tuition. And then just maybe they will take a little bit of responsibility in their spending practices." In a previous interview, Lawless said he does not oppose granting tuition benefits to employees of Pitt and other state-owned and state-related universities, only to the children and spouses of those employees. Lawless pointed out that many businesses pay the tuition of employees seeking to improve themselves and he sees nothing wrong with state-owned and state-related universities following that practice since it produces more valuable employees. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education indicates that 65 percent of all accredited, non-proprietary colleges and universities offer tuition benefits for their employees' children and 63 percent offer the benefit for the spouses of employees. According to the same study, 99 percent of all private colleges and universities offer tuition benefits for employees' children and 94 percent do so for employees' spouses.

During his appearance before the Lawless committee, Maher noted that Pitt's salaries are slightly lower than those at other institutions in comparative markets, but that the University makes up for that deficiency by offering a carefully constructed package of fringe benefits of which tuition benefits for the children and spouses of faculty and staff are a key element.

Concerning the theory that individuals take a job at universities like Pitt only so their children can obtain an education, and then immediately quit after they graduate, Maher told the committee that Pitt faculty and staff place a high value on education and generally work at the University for years before drawing on any tuition benefits. "Even though the scholarship costs real money during the years it is being used," he added, "its attainability tends to benefit us during many more years when it is not being used." Maher told the committee that the high value faculty and staff place on education causes them to put an enormous emotional value on the tuition benefit even if they are not using it. Because of that emotional element, he said, Pitt employees actually assign more value to the benefit "than a rational cost-benefit analysis would support, a mark of an ideal benefit for an employer to offer." Mark Ginsburg, a professor in Pitt's School of Education and president of the United Faculty, supported Maher's stand by pointing out that he joined the Pitt faculty in 1987 because of the University's tuition benefits program.

"I received two offers for faculty positions," Ginsburg told the committee, "one at Portland State University in Oregon and one at the University of Pittsburgh. The Portland State position would have meant a higher salary and an immediate promotion, but a deciding factor in choosing to come to Pitt, despite the pay and status difference, was its tuition benefit plan that would assist me in funding my children's college education." Ginsburg said tuition benefits for children and spouses of university employees have been a feature of life in higher education since 1901, when the University of Chicago instituted its program. He said that 41 states (19 through state policy and 22 through institutional discretion) currently provide tuition benefits to faculty and staff, while 32 states provide tuition waivers or remission for the dependents of faculty and staff.

At Pitt, Ginsburg noted, the worth of tuition remission is only 2.1 percent of the total compensation package offered full time faculty. "Because most of this tuition benefit is not paid out by institutions, the actual cost of this benefit is significantly lower," he added.

Besides condemning tuition benefits for employees' children and spouses, Lawless also expressed disdain for the sabbatical leaves that state-related and state-owned universities grant their faculty. Earlier this summer his committee conducted a hearing on sabbatical leaves. The testimony by representatives of state-owned and state-related universities who defended the sabbatical leaves was "hogwash," according to Lawless. Lawless said testimony presented to his committee during that hearing focused on the difficulty of obtaining a sabbatical leave. However, he said, when his staff looked into the issue they found professors who were granted sabbatical leaves on the basis of proposals that were a half-page long.

Lawless said he examined sabbatical leave proposals from West Chester State University and Kutztown State University. At West Chester, Lawless said, a faculty member was granted a sabbatical to study rock 'n' roll lyrics and their effect on crime.

"I came back to Harrisburg and made a call to the State Library," he said. "There are 150 studies already on that subject. Why do we need this guy to go out and do more and pay him $35,000 for 18 weeks?" At Kutztown, Lawless said, a faculty member took a sabbatical to study how to become a fan of the opera. That study included visits to nine different European cities. "It would have made a great postcard or place to take your spouse," he said.

The Select Committee on Higher Education will next meet on Sept. 14 at Lock Haven State University to hear testimony on the number of hours faculty members spend in the classroom. Lawless is a critic of teaching loads, and has indicated that he believes most faculty members do not spend enough time teaching students.

A final report on the committee's hearings will be presented to the General Assembly by Feb. 1.

–Mike Sajna