I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).
When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.
That's generally what Section 3 attempts to accomplish. As I understand it, most of the increases in tuition costs are driven by administrative growth, new building, and spending on athletics. By excluding those from eligibility for funding under the bill, you exclude some of the primary sources of tuition growth.
The funding formula in 2.a. also works to prevent cost inflation—the sum given to the regions would be equivalent to whatever is necessary to eliminate tuition this year, adjusted annually to wage inflation and not to the cost of tuition as an incentive to keep costs low. I'm open to suggestions on the funding formula, but by making the calculation independent of anything under the control of college administrators I hoped to prevent any hazard that arises giving the universities a blank check.
