The University of California is the nation’s most prestigious public university, enrolling thousands of the best and brightest Californians and even attracting students who hail from well beyond our state borders, for good reason — cutting-edge research programs and top-notch faculty combined with the affordability allowed within a public system make UC campuses highly desirable options for students seeking a world-class education.
But a new plan from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau could severely jeopardize the university’s mission to remain open and affordable for all qualified applicants regardless of family income, a key tenet maintained by the university since its inception over a century ago. Birgeneau recently proposed a plan calling for the Board of Regents to shift its longstanding policy of keeping tuition rates identical at each of the nine undergraduate campuses systemwide, instead allowing each campus to develop tuition rates it deems fit in an effort to combat dwindling state financial support and more aggressively compete with private institutions. Currently, each campus is grouped under a single tuition rate, with undergraduates paying $6,571 per year.
Reasoning that flagship schools such as UC Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD could raise fees in spite of increased costs by banking on their notable reputations to attract students, Birgeneau’s plan — titled “Access and Excellence” — also suggests reducing fees at less popular campuses such as UC Merced and UC Riverside to attract more applicants.
“We believe that it is time for UC to consider a more flexible model,” Birgeneau wrote. “To be concrete, we would suggest that UC consider a methodology in which the regents fix the mean fee level for the system, but allow individual campuses to deviate from the regents number by plus or minus 25 percent. Some campuses might choose a lower number to enhance their economic competitiveness, while others, like Berkeley, might choose a higher number.”
What Birgeneau fails to realize is that his proposal completely contradicts the university’s promise to California to uphold accessibility. His plan would essentially privatize the university, forcing applicants to base their preferences upon ability to pay rather than granting all qualified applicants an equal opportunity to apply for admission to any UC campus.
Birgeneau claims an increase of $2,000 per student in tuition for its 35,000 students would result in $70 million in additional revenue for UC Berkeley, enhancing financial-aid availability and raising faculty salaries in an effort to attract better professors. However, his idea runs counter to the university’s policy that all campuses be considered equally in terms of student fees and faculty compensation under the rationale that campuses lagging academically will eventually join their top-tier peers if not subjected to financial disadvantages.
Theoretically, Birgeneau claims that by adopting the new proposal, the university ensures that more financial aid will become available for low-income students by reducing debt burdens by thousands of dollars, dictating that only high-income students be subjected to the full amount of the fee increases.
But his plan leaves middle-income students, often the most heavily weighed down by high tuition rates and post-graduation debt, the most vulnerable of all, as many who just miss the financial-aid threshold will be mandated to pay sizeable rates just to keep up with campus-specific tuition hikes, forcing them to confront situations where they are academically eligible for admission to all campuses yet are forced to settle for lower-tier campuses because of their inability to pay hefty tuition differences.
The harm Birgeneau’s plan will bring to prospective students is undeniable, as it blatantly disregards the university’s position as a public institution, offering equal chances for all qualified individuals. If the university truly strives to maintain fair access, the proposal must be scrapped.
