Student Fees (The Other Tuition)

I know I haven't been participating in the blog much lately, but my research has been moving and I also have a new addition to my family that takes up a lot of my time and effort. I have a few ideas for posts that I have been working on and will hopefully get them posted soon (Spoiler: They include topics such as Faraday Rotation, Philosophy as Science, measuring band gaps, and others).

So on to today's topic: Student Fees.

I am bringing up this topic because the issue of student fees has recently become a hot topic here at UNC. Due to budget concerns the University has been dealing with ways of reducing the money spent by the University. Here in North Carolina the state education budget was cut, meaning that the operating budget of the University was impacted. To compensate they raised tuition, but there is a state statute that says that tuition raises will be capped at 6.5%/year. So they raised tuition but it still wasn't enough to cover costs. So they decided to get inventive and raise student fees to compensate.

So here's the deal. In the physics department our tuition and tuition remission (for out-of-state students) are paid for by either the department, research funds, an/or the graduate school. In addition to this we also receive a stipend, mainly because we are "employees" (i.e. we teach or do research). It isn't much but it is supposed to be enough so that we can live.

The problem comes in with student fees. Student fees are not paid for by my department, but are paid for out of our stipends. This would not be a problem except for the fact that our student fees keep going up, and usually for things that graduate students do not use, or think are completely useless. The most recent proposal would raise our fees by more than $100 per semester and bring our total fees to just over $2200/year, which is significant considering we are only paid ~$22,000/year.

This proposed fee increase (especially for things that graduate students do not use, and in general do not think should be funded by student fees) is generating significant push back from graduate students. As part of our effort we are attempting to gather information about "peer institutions" and how they handle student fees. We are collecting this data to present to the committee that governs student fee increases to show that currently UNC is on the extreme high end of student fees compared to its peer institutions. If we can demonstrate that UNC is out of the norm for student fees then we will have a case to say that the Athletics Department should not be funded by student fees to pay for tutors that write the reports and do the homework of our "student" athletes.

So if you are willing could you send me information about your department, and how they handle student fees. We are looking for information about annual stipend, how much your student fees are (and any differences, for example, do your fees change after passing the qual?), and how they are paid for (i.e. by the department, by the student, by your adviser etc.). If you aren't in a physics department please also let me know what department you are in.

You can leave a comment with the information, or you can email me directly. My email is just the name that I post under and then @gmail.com. Easy enough. Any other relevant information would be appreciated (as in how do different departments at your schools handle student fees? Is is different form department to department or is it the same? How does your stipend increase, if it increases?).

On a completely unrelated note, I thought I would share this cool video with you guys. It has nothing to do with student fees whatsoever, and is only indirectly about physics.

What Would Happen To Particle Physics If The LHC Finds Nothing?

Apparently Tommaso Dorigo, bet $1000 in 2006 that no physics will be found at the TeV scale (the energy scale the LHC is shooting for) before 2011 and even titled that post This 1000$ says there ain’t new physics at the TeV scale.  Back in 2006 that probably would have been seen as a pretty bold bet.  (Now less then a week away, not so much. :) )  It also appears he is still convinced there may not be much to look forward to in 2011 by way of new discoveries.

All this has got me thinking: what would happen to particle phsyics if the LHC finds no new physics beyond the standard model?  Or: what if the LHC finds nothing new except the standard model Higgs? 

A few things come to mind:

First:  I wonder if that would spell the end of accelerator physics for some time to come do to a withdrawal of funding.  The US and UK already appear to have taken some steps to cut funding for future accelerator experiments even in the face of the potential discoveries of the LHC.  In fact, the UK may still cut some funds for the LHC itself.  How can this funding landscape do anything but get worse if the LHC finds nothing?

It will be difficult to appear before governments and argue "Funny thing HaHa... moving up in energy with the Tevetron yielded no new physics beyond the standard model despite claims that it might... Then moving up in energy even further with the LHC yielded no new physics beyond the standard model despite a barrage of theory papers arguing it should... But, interestingly enough it turns out that if we build an even more expensive/elaborate accelerator then we really believe this time we will find something. :) "

Second:  All the theory papers will be rewritten to demonstrate that the natural energy scale for new physics beyond the standard model is really just above the TeV scale. :)

Now don't get me wrong, I sincerely hope that the LHC (and perhaps still the Tevatron) finds new physics beyond the standard model.  The world would be too boring if the standard model is all us humans can ever uncover with accelerators.  Furthermore, I have a hard time thinking we can go up orders of magnitude in more energy and find nothing. (Although my personal opinions don't effect the reality of the universe.)

Nevertheless, I still wonder what will happen to particle physics if the LHC finds nothing beyond the same standard model that has been around for decades.

Any of you have a any thoughts/guesses?  More money for Cosmology? :)

The Breakdown Of Obama's Budget For Science.

I got an email today from the AAS that said this.  Thought some people would be interested:

SUMMARY: The President's budget request for FY 2011 has been released.
Overall, science funding will rise despite the proposed spending
freeze with most big investments in climate change research, renewable
energy, and STEM education. The doubling path for the three key
science agencies included in the American Competitiveness Initiative
(NSF, DOE, and NIST) is maintained by providing them a combined
$13.3B, an increase of $824M (6.6%) over the FY 2010 enacted total.

DETAILS:

The President has released his Administration's budget request for FY
2011. Science has fared well despite the spending freeze proposed by
the President on all non-discretionary spending. This budget request
asks for a 5.9% increase in non-defense R&D spending (an increase of
$3.7B for a total of $66B). The country's total R&D budget request for
FY 2011 is $147.7B once the defense R&D funding is included. This is
an increase of $343M or 0.2% over the enacted FY 2010 level. There is
also significant investment in programs to foster the next generation
of S&T workers, both at the NSF, DOE and the Department of Education.

The breakdown for the agencies relevant to our community is as follows:

NSF: The NSF request is for $7.4B, an increase of 8% over 2010 levels.
The Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS), which houses
the Astronomical Sciences (AST) within NSF, receives a 4.3% increase
and AST receives a 2.5% increase to $251.77M.

Of the facilities supported by MPS, the AST facilities have done very
well getting a majority of the funding increases. The requests and the
percent increase over FY2010 estimates are: ATST - $2M, ALMA - $23.5M
(33.8%), Gemini - 1$19.58M (2.5%), IceCube - $2.5M (16.3%) and LIGO -
$30.30 (6.3%).

The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program sees a 16.4% increase
to $158.24M while the Faculty Early Career Development Program
(CAREER) sees a 6.5% increase to $209.16M. There is also an additional
investment of $103M to realign and consolidate existing programs to
broaden participation by under-represented groups in the S&T
workforce.

NASA: The biggest change at NASA is of course a new vision for the
manned space flight program. NASA's total budget request is for $19B
with $5B for the Science Mission Directorate. The biggest increase
within SMD goes to Earth Science in line with the Administration's
focus on renewed investment in global climate change research.

Planetary Science sees a small increase, targeted to identify and
catalog Near Earth Objects. Some really good news for planetary
science is that the Plutonium-238 production restart is called out
prominently. Members might recall that the Administration had
requested $30M in funds in the last budget for the Pu-238 production
restart required to power missions to explore other planets in the
solar system. Congress had zeroed out the request citing inadequate
detail. This request reopens the dialogue. Heliophysics sees a small
increase as well of roughly $13M. Astrophysics funding declines over
2010 levels by 2.5% (~$27M). The good news for the astronomy community
is that new money has been requested to fund the increased investment
in earth science and space science was not cut to fund that increase.

DOE: The Office of Science at DOE receives a 4.4% ($217.7M) increase
for a total of $5.1B. The High Energy Physics program, which supports
astronomical programs such as Fermi, receives a 2.3% increase for a
total of $829M. Fusion energy sciences are down 10.8% to $380M. Of
some interest to our community might be that the U.S. ITER project
sees a decrease of $55M compared to FY 2010 levels. This is a
reflection of the pace of construction and W.F. Brinkman, the Office
of Science Director, is quoted as saying that the DOE was not willing
to provide money for ITER until it had solved some underlying problems
and the funding reduction was intended to "send a message."

The President's budget request reflects the priorities of the
Administration. It is very supportive of science, including
curiosity-based science, but has focused its big investments in
climate change research, renewable energy sources, and STEM education.
There is also a substantial investment in technology development at
NASA. We must now engage Congress about the role astronomy plays in
the national agenda and what our community can contribute to the
nation. Everyone is awaiting the report from the Decadal Survey to set
funding priorities for astrophysics. But we need to start talking to
lawmakers now about the role of astronomy in the innovation agenda.