Stress is a common theme in an average college student’s life, but it appears as if Michigan Tech will be taking a big step towards decreasing that stress. How, you may ask? At the recent Board of Control meeting, the chairman of the Finance & Audit committee announced that Michigan Tech will be upping financial aid by roughly 10 percent for the 2010-2011 school year. Currently, financial aid is $38 million. This increase will raise it to approximately $41.3 million.
This proposed increase couldn’t come at a better time, as students today are suffering from the ill-effects of Michigan’s budget shortcomings. Many students were relying on the Michigan Promise Scholarship and Michigan Competitive Scholarship to help make ends meet, but with almost no warning, that scholarship has been pulled out from under their feet, so to speak. Almost 2,000 Michigan Tech students were affected by that decision.
This isn’t the first time in recent history that Michigan Tech has attempted to make things somewhat easier for their students financially in response to the state decisions. When the scholarships were cut in the fall, Michigan Tech picked up the slack, and covered the scholarships for the first semester for students.
What exactly does this increase mean for students though? Will it mean an increase in tuition? Where will the funds for this be coming from? Michigan Tech students are full of questions, praise, and hesitance when it comes to this matter.
Fourth-year Biomedical Engineering student Dan Hirst praised the decision, saying “I believe that increasing financial aid would be a good idea. Many students struggle with the constantly increasing tuition and by providing more funding to the financial aid program will help them further their education at Michigan Tech.”
It was felt by first-year students Joe McSweeney and Mike Verbeke that a boost in financial aid would allow for them to focus more on their schoolwork and less on their financial situations, and being sure that their educations were being funded.
To the 91 percent of students who receive financial aid, this glimmer of hope for a greater amount of aid is quite a blessing. However, one must look at the other side of the equation. Money must all originate somewhere. Where will the university be getting these funds from? Will tuition rates increase yet again? Third-year Accounting student Steele Lindbloom wasn’t as optimistic as Hirst and McSweeney in his response to the decision. “It is an interesting move, but who are the people paying for that increase? The students who aren’t obtaining as much financial aid? Are they going to have to increase tuition even more just so they can attempt to recruit even more students?“
Lindbloom brings up very good points; however, the answers to these questions may only be evident as time passes. If our tuition is raised, yet our financial aid is raised, and they balance out, there shouldn’t be a problem. An increase in incoming first-years is a positive for all aspects of campus, as more students leads to more state funding, and more monetary flow.
How effective will this actually be in drawing in prospective students? Well, to get a taste of it, we asked Stephanie Munch, a senior at Calumet High School who is currently deciding between a few different schools in Michigan, whether or not a slight increase in financial aid at Michigan Tech would help to sway her decision.
“I do think it would help my decision because I’m considering multiple colleges and if one school has that advantage over the other, it would be very beneficial. The Michigan Promise Scholarship money would have helped out a lot of people, and since it has been taken away, I feel that colleges should attempt to compensate for it,” Munch shared. For anyone, though, that feels as if the university doesn’t keep them as their first priority, think again. Reassuring words were spoken at the meeting by President Mroz. According to Michigan Tech News article, he stated, “People are our priority. We want every student who values what Michigan Tech offers to come here. Today the board has sent a message that we will go out of our way to make it financially possible.”

Michigan Tech students might soon see an additional fee added to their bills. A committee was recently formed to investigate the possibility of changing Michigan Tech’s current health care and health insurance policies. The committee, headed by Dean of Students Dr. Gloria Melton, has yet to form an official proposal but has begun to investigate possibilities for changes to existing policies. Although no official proposal has been made yet, the committee’s main focus at this time centers around opening a new clinic for Michigan Tech students.
According to meeting minutes from the Jan. 25 meeting of the Wadsworth Hall Student Association (WHSA), the “proposed location was where COMPASS [located in the basement of Wadsworth Hall] is currently located.” The proposed clinic has received positive feedback from WHSA but has faced a mixed reaction from Undergraduate Student Government (USG) members. Some USG members are concerned about the increase in the number of sick students present in the residence hall. However, proponents of the clinic claim that the convenience of having a clinic located closer to students would increase the chances of a sick student visiting a doctor.
Michigan Tech’s contract with Portage Health, the company that currently runs the clinic attached to the SDC, expires this year. One of the main concerns of the health care committee is the lack of preference shown towards students. According to Lucia Gregorakis, USG representative, “The committee felt that the new contract needs to be reformed because students are not coming before other patients which is the reason Portage is at the SDC.”
In order to fund the new clinic, students might see a new fee appear on their bills. Much like the Experience Tech fee, students would essentially “buy in” to the service; by paying a small fee, any visit to the new clinic would be free. According to Griffin Roblyer, WHSA secretary, the clinic would provide “free, basic healthcare for the entire student population” and would provide services such as “diagnosis of athlete’s foot, flu, strep throat and pink eye but if they want to test for something serious, you still would go to the hospital.” Since the new clinic would not feature a pharmacy, students would still have to fill their prescriptions at an off-campus location.
I think that the proposed added fee for students in exchange for basic medical services would be a smart decision for the University. Many other schools in the state already provide a similar service to their students. The University of Michigan offers clinic visits, eye care services, nutrition counseling, radiology and other services under their health service fee. Michigan State University offers students three free medical office visits each school year. The cost of these visits are subsidized by the University. Offering these types of services to University students is certainly not a novel idea.
By providing a free clinic to students, Michigan Tech would be able to require students to receive immunizations before coming to school. Currently, freshmen and transfer students are highly encouraged to receive a set of immunizations before coming to Michigan Tech, but are not required to do so because the University currently does not provide these services to students through a free clinic. By introducing a free clinic, the University could shift their policies from “strong encouragement” to “requirement” of certain immunizations.
Graduate students could also see a potential benefit from a change in current health policies. Health insurance provided through Michigan Tech offers the option to add a dependent but the associated costs often deter graduate students from using it. The health care committee is interested in providing graduate students with families a less expensive way to insure themselves and their dependents.
Some students who have health insurance provided outside of the University have voiced concern about paying for both their own health insurance and the proposed medical services fee. Although some students would be paying for their health care twice, the added benefit of having access to a clinic on campus would be worth the nominal added fee. The argument that a certain group of students will not use the services they are paying for was an issue heard when the Experience Tech fee was first proposed. Many students who did not use the facilities covered by the Experience Tech fee were upset that they were funding other student’s recreational activities. In an effort to get as much student input as possible, USG created an online survey that offered students the chance to voice their opinions. The survey showed that there was strong support for adding the Experience Tech fee. A process like this will be absolutely crucial to the success of a change in the University’s health care. The stark contrast between WHSA’s approval of the clinic and USG’s split reaction shows the potential for disagreement among students regarding these changes.
Once a formal proposal has been drafted by the committee, it will likely be reviewed by USG, Hall Councils and Housing (since the clinic may be placed inside Wadsworth Hall) before being voted on by the Board of Control.

Walking down campus between classes, small clouds of smoke are seen rising above the crowd. Many of these clouds are not of condensing breath but are, rather, plumes of exhaled cigarette smoke. Many students are used to simply dodging others’ smoke clouds, but some students are taking a stand against smoking and asking smokers to “quit it” across most of campus.
Michigan Tech’s current smoking policy is outlined in the Michigan Tech Board of Control Policy Manual and states that “Smoking is prohibited except where permitted by the administration.” Many of the entrances to buildings on campus have been designated as non-smoking entrances. However, the enforcement of these non-smoking areas proves to be a challenge for Public Safety officers. Public Safety Chief Dan Bennett said that since the University’s smoking entrance policies are not an official law, they are very hard to enforce. “The strictest thing we could do is forward a name to Judicial Affairs if we catch someone [smoking],” Bennett said. If the offender were staff or faculty, their name would be sent to Human Resources for review.
Bennett stated that “if someone was smoking inside a building, we (the police) have the authority to cite them for a civil infraction for violation of the Public Health Code…” However, since this level of authority does not carry over to outdoor offenses, officers are left with a punishment that is no more than a “slap on the wrist” from University Judicial officials. Bennett said that he hopes smokers exercise good judgment when choosing a location to smoke, but “if everybody uses good judgment, we wouldn’t need police.”
Carissa Miller, a second-year Business Management student, recently proposed a partial smoking ban on campus. In an e-mail she sent to Student Affairs, Miller states that she would like to “start some sort of petition or student surveys” to research student reception of such a ban. Miller proposed “allowing people to smoke where there are designated smoking entrances” and “in private vehicles” while also asking for the construction of smoking shelters on campus since she believes the availability of shelter is the main reason smokers choose to smoke next to buildings in areas that are designated non-smoking entrances. Miller also explains that she believes the main reason she has found initial support among students for her proposal “stems from the fact that the university is not enforcing its current policies about not smoking within x amount of feet from the academic buildings.”
While the enforcement of smoking entrances is spotty at best, the problem originates from the lack of an enforceable law with which Public Safety could cite offenders.
Michigan Tech needs to consider changing its 23-year-old smoking policy in order to enable Public Safety to enforce the school’s existing smoking policies. Perhaps the threat of a fine or a more severe judicial punishment would curb the number of smokers outside non-smoking entrances. Although I don’t agree with the proposed partial smoking ban on campus, I do agree that the existing rules regarding smoking need to be consistently enforced. I believe that the first step toward effective policy is enacting effective enforcement measures.
If officers were able to punish wrongdoers with more than a report sent to Judicial Affairs, Michigan Tech smokers might think twice before lighting up next to a non-smoking entrance.

Recently, Dr. Madhukar Vable, associate professor in the Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Mechanics department, decided he had had enough with both the way the State of Michigan funds public universities and how Michigan Tech values research more than the education of its undergraduate students. Vable, in a bold effort to spark change and discussion among Michigan’s lawmakers and Michigan Tech administrators, returned both his Michigan Association Governing Board of State University award and his Michigan Technological University Distinguished Teaching Award. He also resigned from the Michigan Tech Academy of Teaching Excellence.
Following the return of his two awards, Vable wrote letters to Michigan Tech President Dr. Glenn D. Mroz, members of the Board of Control, Governor Jennifer Granholm and members of the Michigan Tech Academy of Teaching Excellence. These letters have been made available to the Michigan Tech student body online.
In his letters, Vable explains the system that is used within his department to assign the number of courses each professor must teach. According to Vable, each professor is expected to teach six courses per year. This number was reduced by one course for each graduate research assistant advised. The system which is used to calculate salary increases – a merit points system – rewards a professor with 19 points for each graduate student advised but only three points for teaching an undergraduate three-credit course with up to 500 students. “…in other words, 600% more merit points for teaching each graduate student over teaching a class of undergraduate students,” Vable says in his letter to President Mroz. “These changes…have made mockery of undergraduate education, unfunded scholarship and represents a massive transfer of resources from undergraduate education to finance funded research.”
Vable, in his letter to Michigan legislators, asks that the State reevaluate the way in which it funds university research. “Universities have an established accounting system in which each research project of a faculty member is tracked and budgeted. Demand that the same accounting model be used to cost each course the faculty member teaches and use this information to obtain the average cost of each degree awarded by the University.” Vable goes on to suggest that this information be made available to the consumers of education: the students. By publishing the difference between the cost the University incurs per course taught versus the tuition received for taking the course, students will be able to evaluate the actual cost of obtaining their degree.
In the more than 25 years Vable has been teaching, he says that there have been countless reports published about the deteriorating environment for undergraduate students in our nation. The cause, according to Vable, is “the way we fund research and education, however no individual or an institution can use this as an excuse for what happens in their university.”
“The…proposal will accomplish several things,” Vable states. “First, it will put public pressure on universities to reduce the difference between the list price and the actual cost of a degree and thus moderate the increases in tuition.”
The proposed requirement for universities to publish this information would help keep tuition increases in-check. By making this type of information available, students would be able to more effectively evaluate the brand value of each public university in the state and would force universities to think twice before further increasing the financial burden placed upon undergraduate students.
Vable hopes that his proposal will also help place the emphasis back on the education of the undergraduate student within the educational system instead of on the amount of money that can be brought in for research. He argues that “[t]he worst part of the evolving culture at [Michigan Tech] is the inversion of our fundamental values. The primary mission of teaching is less respected and rewarded than the secondary mission of research.”
Under Michigan Tech’s current policies, the impact a professor makes upon his colleagues is valued more highly than the impact they make upon students. Students surely can benefit from having a professor who actively engages in research. The added knowledge a professor can bring to the classroom as a result of research is invaluable. The funding brought into the University by research, however, should not trump the importance of a quality education. By reevaluating the funding process and increasing the transparency of each school’s expenditures, undergraduate students would, once again, become the focus of an educational institution.
“Transparency and information are very powerful mechanisms for change,” Vable added.
In an effort to make more students aware of the proposed changes, a Facebook group was recently created. The group, titled “Plight of the Michigan Tech Undergrad,” had over 600 members earlier this week. On the group, students are urged to express their concerns about Michigan Tech’s current funding systems to members of the Undergraduate Student Government who can, in turn, convey the message to the Board of Control at their meetings.
“…I love teaching and cannot remain silent and do nothing about the damage to the undergraduate teaching that is taking place at [Michigan Tech] and in our nation,” Vable said. “I hope you, too, will speak.”

At its regular meeting just prior to Spring Break, the Board of Control approved for more than $24 million in funding for several projects, including a new student residential apartment complex, the construction of the Great Lakes Research Center, an expansion of the Keweenaw Research Center near the Houghton County Airport and a $1 million renovation of the John MacInnes Ice Arena.

Read the full story

After more than a month since the announcement of Governor Granholm’s 2009-10 Executive Branch Budget and the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package, the financial waters are still muddy with uncertainty, particularly in regard to higher education. Granholm’s budget calls for a three percent decrease to Michigan public universities and along with cuts to the Kings-Chavez-Parks Initiative, which paves the way for under-represented groups to earn a college education, Michigan Tech will be receive at least $1.6 million less than last year as it currently stands.

Read the full story

Six months and one full semester into the new Experience Tech initiative, students and staff of Michigan Tech have a seemingly unanimous opinion: it’s a hit.

Read the full story

It is obvious that there has been a significant increase in the student population this year. However, this caused massive shortages in the amount of space in the residence halls. As a result, the University was forced to rent out the first and sixth floors of the Franklin Square Inn downtown as well as convert apartments and other larger conference rooms within the residence halls into eight- and 10-person residence hall rooms.

Read the full story

At Michigan Tech, there is an enormous amount of student organizations that provide a vibrant variety of activities and services to the entire student body. Memorial Union Building (MUB) room 106, the Student Organizations Office, currently houses 13 organizations that operate advantageous functions such as Blue Key, The Lode, Sound and Lighting Services and more. The office provides cubicle workspaces, mailboxes, copy and fax machines and a reception desk.

Read the full story

On Thursday, Oct. 2, at the Board of Control’s regular meeting, Michigan Tech alumnus Dave House announced his $10 million donation to Michigan Tech’s national campaign.

Read the full story