The Working Group plan puts forward a number of recommendations that are worth pursuing under any financial model. However, we believe that the contingencies and risks inherent in the proposals are too great to supplant the need for new revenue sources. Regrettably, tuition remains the only realistic source of new revenue in the near future. — Richard S. Lincer, chair of The Cooper Union Board of Trustees
Below is the entire email announcing the Cooper Union's decision to start charging tuition this fall, breaking the school's 153-year tradition.
Catch-up on the history behind the controversial move, explained in Archinect's 13 top issues of 2013: #5: Free Cooper Union
To: The Cooper Union Community
From: Richard S. Lincer
Date: January 10, 2014
Subject: Working Group Report
In late June 2013, an ambitious plan took shape to provide an alternative to a tuition-based financial plan for The Cooper Union. Authored by trustees, faculty, staff and alumni, this alternative came to be known as the “Working Group Report.” In December, the board began a rigorous review of the assumptions underlying the financial plan that had been adopted by the board in April 2013, and studied in depth the specific recommendations of the Working Group.
This review was conducted by everyone on the Board of Trustees with the assistance of the Huron Group, The Cooper Union’s financial consultants. Since the goal of the Working Group was to provide a plan that allowed The Cooper Union to provide full-tuition scholarships, the entire board supported the Working Group’s ambitions and goals.
Despite agreeing with the goals of the plan, the board has reluctantly concluded that the Working Group recommendations cannot -- by themselves -- be prudently adopted as a means to assure the institution’s financial sustainability into the future.
The Working Group plan puts forward a number of recommendations that are worth pursuing under any financial model. However, we believe that the contingencies and risks inherent in the proposals are too great to supplant the need for new revenue sources. Regrettably, tuition remains the only realistic source of new revenue in the near future.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the members of the Working Group. In a very real way, their efforts typify those The Cooper Union has relied on for many years: faculty, students and staff putting their full energy and intelligence into the service of a larger ideal. Moreover, the Working Group undertook their work at a particularly difficult moment, because we face a $12 million structural deficit and because so many care so much about The Cooper Union and what it has represented. On behalf of The Cooper Union, the board extends its sincere and profound gratitude for the countless hours of work by a large and dedicated group within the community.
The efforts of the Working Group have value both because they identified a number of proposals that are worth pursuing and also because they reminded us that this crisis, while financial in origin, creates an opportunity to explore deeply the identity of the institution and its meaning within our extended community. The Cooper Union, after all, is more than a financial construct—it embodies a set of values. It is an ideal that moves faculty to teach and students to learn. It inspires the entire community to be as active and involved as it has been. While there have been substantive differences about how to move forward, we all have agreed that we must find a way to serve that ideal despite the constraints we currently face.
While we cannot now restore the full tuition scholarship, the board will commit itself to exploring Working Group recommendations, which -- coupled with investments in our academic program -- can continue to position The Cooper Union as the one of the most unique and exceptional educational institutions in the United States. As part of that long-term commitment, we will set out to develop the resources that can allow us to increase student aid over time, augmenting need-based financial aid and ultimately perhaps even restoring the full tuition scholarship.
We cannot reasonably project how or when we can restore this aspect of The Cooper Union’s legacy. But as we work together to find new ways to get The Cooper Union onto stable financial ground, we will also work together to develop a contemporary mission for the institution.
We must, and will, find a way to move The Cooper Union ideal forward despite the changed economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Despite the changes, our admissions will continue to be based strictly on merit. The spirit that animates learning in the classroom, the studio and the lab must remain fundamentally egalitarian. We must reaffirm our commitment to educating the working-class students for whom Peter Cooper founded the school in 1859.
The economics alone are bigger than tuition. The overall landscape of higher education and the economic realities of New York City are different. The Cooper Union’s traditional tuition scholarship has benefited all students who can attend, but has never sufficiently addressed students’ increasing living expenses. Historically, these costs may have been negligible, but they now constitute a barrier to participation for many prospective students.
For some students, a full tuition scholarship is not enough. The Cooper Union still attracts a sizeable proportion of students whose financial circumstances make them eligible for Pell grants (approximately 20 percent). Many of these students are able to commute to campus, but many others must find housing in order to attend. It seems imperative that we do better by these students than we do right now. In order to ensure the access that motivated Peter Cooper to found the school, we need to provide additional aid to ensure that any deserving student can attend.
To these ends, the board will constitute a group of trustees to work with faculty, students, administration, staff, alumni and friends to clarify the mission for the 21st century and to develop a strategic plan for implementing the mission. Foremost among their concerns will be sustaining merit-based admissions, increasing accessibility for students from all backgrounds and, to the extent our resources allow, adding resources to the overall tuition scholarship.
The committee will be reaching out to the community in the coming months and will ensure that this process is inclusive and transparent. We recognize there have been strongly felt feelings on both sides of the tuition issue. We also recognize that now is the time for The Cooper Union community to come together to build on all the strengths we can offer. The Working Group report can best be understood, we think, as a step in this process of looking carefully at our current realities and developing creative alternatives that can carry the institution forward. We look forward to continuing this process with the community.
We commit, as we have always committed, to access for everyone who deserves to get in, and to programs that deserve to be called the best.
Richard S. Lincer, chair
The Cooper Union Board of Trustees
11 Comments
#sfuab
What did I post yesterday about the demolition of Folk Art Museum? It applies here too: another beautiful, authentic, idiosyncratic thing mowed over and destroyed by the bland, homogenized, and greedy. Shameful and sad.
That shitty new $200m starchitect building has nothing to do with it ...
IMO it's a pretty good building.
How is what's going on here bland and homoginized, or motivated by greed? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint.
A quick stroll up the Bowery will explain the blandness. A horribly unsound loan that could never have been paid for, for a building that was never wanted or needed, for a project that began construction without a proper donor, for a university president to get an extra bullet point on a resume, only begins to explain the greed.
Reuters journalist Felix Salmon breaks it down quite nicely:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/why-cooper-union-cant-be-trusted/
As does professor Litia Perta:
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2011/12/local/why-cooper-union-matters
Bland and homogenized in that what truly made Cooper unique was its financial structure which led to the caliber of its students being exceptionally high. Greedy in that the Board voted against an alternative that could have kept it tuition-free, but they themselves - the Board members - don't have to worry about paying back student loans themselves, as future students - some of them, anyway -will.
More generally: Cooper was truly unique. It will continue to be so for three more years, and will have a great reputation based on its past, but it's now much more similar to every other school than it used to be.
Does that help, EKE?
A great article by one of the trustees. In case anyone hasn't read it yet.
Free is not for Nothing.
It helped me understand your thinking, Donna. But greed is a very strong word. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that their BOD are not acting in the way they think is in the school's best financial interest. I do not have any real knowledge of what led them to construct that giant, crazy-expensive building, and how they expected to pay for it. But that ship has sailed. It seems to me that they are making what they believe to be sound financial decisions designed to keep the institution solvent, given the environment with which they are now faced. Don't understand how that could be considered greedy.
Donna's right on the money (heh). The BoT responsible for that hideous monstrosity wanted to generate $$$ as part of a corporate driven expansion, and (poorly) restructured the school's finances to reflect that. Add a market crash and $20,000 tuition bill to the equation and, as one alum aptly put it, our degrees will not even be worth the cost of the ink used to print them within 5 years. This is not really that unusual or surprising given the higher-ed crisis in the U.S. writ large except that Peter Cooper's school had managed to function tuition free for 150 years. Sacrifice, and never greed, was always the name of the game.
If the tuition plan does indeed go through as planned, the institution will still likely not remain solvent, and certainly not without turning into a second or third rate school (ex. a leaked BoT meeting powerpoint stated that the art school will be phased out in the admin's 'reinvention' plan). The financial risks of the tuition-based model are so high that even the financial consultants the school used advised against it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.