When looking at the economic problems that California faces, the answers to two questions reveal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision to cut $12 million in funding for UC outreach programs, with additional cuts for the next year, was the proper one: Are these programs effective, and are they essential enough to necessitate their maintenance during a time in which the state faces the largest deficits in its history?

In the end, the effectiveness of the outreach programs proves only marginally convincing, and therefore their necessity is lacking on numerous accounts.

Common descriptions of the UC outreach programs are similar to the mission statement for the Center for Research on Educational Equity, Assessment and Teaching Excellence: “”[to] increase the number of underserved, low-income youths who are eligible for admittance to college”” on campus. Definitely a noble effort in words, but what does it mean in operational terms?

Unfortunately, the Web sites of C.R.E.A.T.E, and other programs like it, offer few answers. As one weaves through their elaborate web, each program entwined with several others, a common theme evolves: ambiguity. Although programs like C.R.E.A.T.E. have heart-felt mission statements, few can explain, in explicit terms, what “”reaching out to underrepresented students”” actually means; even fewer can offer any concrete solutions. The mystery surrounding the programs’ methods casts a shadow of doubt on the urgency of their continued funding.

In addition to this vagueness, there is a misleading generalization about these programs: that they all serve to help underprivileged students gain acceptance into UC schools. This was the numerous programs’ original purpose and the foundation on which public support for them was based.

In reality, many of the programs that are associated with outreach aim to educate K-12 teachers in such topics as mathematics, science, computers, space and astronomy. This fact brings up the question of the purpose these programs are meant to serve. Essentially, associations like the Algebraic Thinking Institute are acting as an extension of teacher education programs, bypassing the original intent of UC outreach efforts.

Due to the fact that many of these programs have little to do with helping students gain admission to college, their necessity, especially in fiscally tight times, is debatable.

Why is it essential to fund Astronomy for Educators to help it undertake “”Project Astro”” to help 4th-grade teachers educate their students on astronomy (http://mamacass. ucsd.edu/ projectastro)? During prosperous times, convincing arguments for its maintenance exist, but during the current fiscal crisis, such exorbitant programs need to be temporarily cut.

Inspecting one of the most coveted and widespread of the UC outreach programs, the Early Academic Outreach Program, calls into question their urgent necessity. As written on the EAOP Web site, its efforts include assisting students in “”meeting admission requirements and completing the UC application by the deadline. EAOP students also receive assistance in completing their financial aid materials and meeting financial aid deadlines.”” Indeed, these processes are essential in the college application process.

However, many of them can be replaced, even if only temporarily, by computers in school libraries with access to the numerous online resources containing calendars of deadlines and detailed information on the UC application process. Nothing replaces the effectiveness of having an individual to assist students, but such luxuries are not integral, crucial elements of tackling problems of low representation of minority students on UC campuses. They can be spared in times of tight fiscal policy and revived at a future time.

In addition, empirical evidence further weakens the arguments used to praise the success and need of outreach programs.

On their Web sites, EAOP states that “”more than one-third of the historically underrepresented students who are University of California undergraduates participated in EAOP.”” Although EAOP prides itself on this statistic, they neglect to point out that it also means that two-thirds of underrepresented students in the University of California did not need the assistance of outreach programs to apply for higher education. And an unknown amount of the one-third who did take part in the program actually benefited from them.

The mere costs of these programs are staggering. A Dec. 21, 2003 editorial in the Los Angeles Times states, “”assuming the outreach efforts were crucial to all 2,302 students [that participated in the program], that’s close to $29,000 per freshman, based on the program’s funding at the time, just to get them to their first day of college.”” Indeed, $29,000 seems a high cost for a marginally effective program.

Comparable private programs like Advancement Via Individual Determination have found far less costly means of preparing students for the college admission process. A.V.I.D.’s 73 percent success rate of participants that went on to college far exceeds the highest estimates of its UC equivalents.

Despite their good intentions and some positive results, these programs by no means constitute a necessity, as is often depicted, for maintaining acceptable levels of underrepresented student admissions to colleges. Compared to similar private organizations, the costs of UC outreach programs seem excessive, revealing that they are a luxury, and not a necessity.

Granted, it is in California’s interest to provide those students who are capable and worthy with greater opportunities to participate in higher education. However, many of the programs that will see their funding cut this year and next play a limited role in this effort and their temporary marginalization will not cause a dramatic drop-off in minority admissions. The recovery of the fiscal situation is a primary concern for California, and certain luxuries afforded during prosperous years cannot be expected to persist.

The apocalyptic screams about the effects of cutting UC outreach programs are pure hyperbole, driven by several elements. First, there exist many misperceptions of the programs and their duties, such as the underreported fact that a great deal of them actually serve to educate teacher.

Second, there is an exaggeration of both the effectiveness and the share that these programs play in increasing the admission of underrepresented groups into colleges.

Finally, there persists an element of the self-interests of the countless individuals in charge of maintaining this expanding web of programs, which have seen their cumulative budget rise to $33 million in recent years.

California needs to take a step back and ask itself: What is a necessity and what is a luxury? A proper assessment of this question will indeed reveal that UC outreach program funding needs to be cut for the time being.