Students Polled Support an Increase in the Student Body Fee
In an anonymous survey published in last week’s edition of the Quest, students were asked whether or not they would support an increase in the student body fee. This was inspired by a recent Senate Public in which Senate opened discussion on whether or not to raise the fee in order to accommodate the declining size of the student body and increased costs for student events due to inflation. When asked generally whether or not they would support an increase in the student body fee, 67% of students answered yes, and 33% of students answered no, out of 36 respondees.
In the September 19 Public, Vice Treasurer Jules Flynn ‘27 mentioned that tentative Senate plans propose a $20 increase in the fee from the current fee of $155 a semester per year over five years, for a total increase from $155 to $255 a semester. 42% of students polled were in support of this particular plan, whereas 17% said they would prefer a “more gradual or smaller increase in the student body fee,” 22% said they would prefer an “even larger or even faster increase in the student body fee,” and 17% said they would not support any increase in the student body fee.
The Quest also delved into the financial status of respondents, including as an optional demographic question “What is the annual income bracket of the individual/individuals responsible for covering the cost of your college education, whether it be you/your family/your guardians?” Respondents were somewhat evenly distributed around the $100,000 to $200,000 bracket, with 17% of respondents falling into the $0 to $20,000 bracket, 17% of respondents falling into the $20,000 to $100,000 bracket, 31% of respondents falling into the $100,000 to $200,000 bracket, 11% of respondents falling into the $200,000 to $400,000 bracket, 6% of respondents falling into the $400,000 to $700,000 bracket, and 3% of respondents falling into the over $700,000 bracket. The remaining 17% of students declined to share their financial status. As shown in the chart above, out of the students who shared their financial bracket, those who support an increase in the student body fee came from across the financial spectrum, while every student against the student body fee increase came from a bracket below $200,000.
The Quest also asked for respondents’ class year. A slight majority of respondents were upperclassmen, with 17% being freshmen, 20% being sophomores, 31% being juniors, and 31% being seniors. The distribution of students who are for or against the fee increase is shown in the chart [last chart], and, notably, most class years have a strong preference for the increase, except for sophomores, of which 71% polled are against the increase. For most students, the main concern was not necessarily the amount of money by which the fee would increase, but instead how student body money is spent in the first place.
Students were invited to reach out to the Quest for longer comments, but were also welcome to leave anonymous ideas for how to instead propose being able to “address the rising cost of appointments, clubs, Renn Fayre, FinComm, and the Senate discretionary fund,” to which nine students responded. Of those, four had concerns about the amount of money given to larger groups like Beer Nation or Renn Fayre or Senate expenditures or clubs they deemed unnecessary. Two students also brought up that the administration should be responsible for funding some of what the student body budget currently covers, rather than directly coming from students. One anonymous respondee said, “[students] saw Beer Nation not place top 40 but still receive funding because they provide drinks for alumni gatherings. If they are part of the alumni relations office and will receive funding regardless, then they should receive funding through those alternative channels. While this wouldn’t fully address the rising costs, it may help offset some of them.”
Three students mentioned financial aid in some capacity, either with assurance that higher costs will be distributed equitably due to coverage with financial aid, or with concern that they would not be. The confusion here stems from the fact that the scope of financial aid coverage varies drastically between different students. While one student on aid may get enough aid to cover the student body fee along with the rest of their tuition, this might not be true for another student. On Reed’s cost of attendance breakdown, the annual student body fee (listed as “fees” in the “direct cost” category) is included, indicating that it is taken into consideration for the calculation of the Reed Grant.
When asking the Financial Aid office for clarification, Executive Director of Financial Aid Anna Hitchcock responded, explaining that “Financial Aid supports the costs of attendance, which includes tuition, housing, food, travel, books/supplies incidentals, and the student body fee if they are not studying abroad.” (Hitchcock clarified that for students studying abroad, there’s a separate study abroad fee they pay instead). Hitchcock emphasized that “[e]ach student’s situation is unique. The amount a student is responsible for paying out-of-pocket depends on a number of factors, including…the total amount of their charges each semester and the total amount of financial aid they are eligible for and accept.” Hitchcock noted that because Reed meets 100% of demonstrated student need, it would be unlikely for a student to have the entirety of their cost of attendance covered except for the student body fee (essentially covering 99.7% of the cost of attendance. Hitchcock recommends students with questions about their financial aid bring those questions to the financial aid office.
One of the students who reached out by name to the Quest was Senator Andrew Happy ‘27, who wanted to share his opinion not only as a senator but also as a low-SES student on 100% financial aid. Happy brought up the importance of paid student positions, noting that “if [Senate] cannot provide our students with a stipend that is commensurate with the work they are performing, we lose interest in the role … The moment we lose our ability to properly fund those positions for both labor and maintenance, we lose a vital component of student autonomy to create culture on campus.”
Happy also brought up funding identity groups, who “devote a decent amount of their resources to connecting with other members of their community either within Reed or to the broader Portland communities [and] are really important in cultivating a sense of community on campus and I would hate to see us no longer be able to properly fund that.”
Happy “empathize[s] heavily with students who are concerned about being stretched too thin in their financial resources to pay for college.” However, Happy thinks that “some of these frustrations are better suited for the administration and college as a whole, [who] have increased the cost of attendance at a far larger, and far more regular magnitude.” The idea behind the student body fee, Happy explained, is a part of student payment that students are able to see make its way back to them, and he mentioned that “the money the SB fee has been used for has enabled me to go to events and take part in experiences I simply would not have been able to partake in without the support from funding from Senate.”
Another student who reached out was Ivy Queen ‘26, who, like Happy, emphasized the importance of paid student roles, and how an increase in the student body fee “would increase access for low SES [people] to participate in [S]enate and so it's important to keep the positions paid and keep up with inflation.” The question, said Queen, is whether or not Senate is “capable of effectively supporting low SES students enough to justify a personal $20-100 additional expense?” Queen has doubts.
The problems low SES students face, said Queen, are “very ingrained systemically and a group of stressed out overworked senators, however well intentioned, aren't gonna be able to do $100 worth of repair for each student.” Queen says that, overall, they are in support of the increase if it is “not possible to keep [S]enate seats open & paid” and if there is no other way for club funding to function, but is unconvinced “about value-added, especially for low SES students specifically who will probably get slightly shafted for the more well-to-do students to have their fun.”
