To the surprise of almost no one who reads any local news, The New York Times is reporting that the UO, among other public universities, is under-supported by the state, and as a result it's adding considerable fees on top of tuition:
All told, fees add up to $1,542, or nearly an additional 40 percent on top of tuition of $3,984. That does not even count additional fees charged for taking certain courses.
Later in the story comes this:
â€œThereâ€™s a particular appeal for the students who pay it, because they see it and they see the benefit,' said Dave Frohnmayer, president of the University of Oregon.
But earlier in the story, the student interviewed, student body president Emily McLain, says, "â€œStudents want more transparency."
Whichever of those viewpoints you're inclined to agree with, I'd like to give the NYT a hug: I tire of hearing about sports vs. academics when what I really want to hear about is why the UO is so underfunded by the state. Why not take the question to the next level? Just for a little while, can we stop asking why sports gets more money and attention from donors, and ask instead why this public institution doesn't get more attention and money from the state?