Since its inception, the University of California has fashioned policy focused on one goal: Provide all qualified citizens in California the chance to receive an affordable degree from a world-class institution. Overlooking hiccups along the way, generations of UC administrators have met these objectives and turned the UC system into arguably the finest collection of state-run colleges in the country. This success has bred a sense of pride in UC students, but also a sense of ignorance. Any student knows that UC schools are public institutions, but not all fully grasp the implications that come with this distinction. Recently, however, the global financial meltdown has exposed our university’s dependency on state funding, and the UC Board of Regents has been forced to make some controversial financial decisions to cope with budget shortfalls. It has always been the duty and the pleasure of UC students to stand up and protest when new policies encroach upon the promise of public education in this state, but this time circumstances are different. The regents are handcuffed by the political deadlock currently playing out in Sacramento, and as California’s budget impasse continues, they will be forced to make difficult financial decisions. Ultimately, they must sacrifice easy resident access to the university in order to maintain the quality of education we have come to expect.
The regents’ decision that has received the most attention thus far is a Jan. 14 move to cut freshman enrollment systemwide by 2,300 students’ in the 2009-10 academic year. This would affect every UC campus except Los Angeles and Berkeley, where enrollments would remain the same, and Merced, where there is potential for growth. To compensate for the decrease of incoming freshmen, campuses would admit an additional 500 transfer stu
dents. On the surface, this decision seems like a slap in the face to high school students who worked hard to gain access to the UC system. If somebody told me that I was not going to get into UCSD because of budget cuts, I would be enraged ‘mdash; a murderous rampage through the guidance office would not be out of the question. But these are the’ strategies that the regents have been forced to use. The university strives to provide access to any student who is qualified, but the quality of education must also be a primary concern. It doesn’t help anybody to let in more students if it means we can’t afford the resources that make University of California great in the first place. Chances are, many students who aim to attend top UC schools but are denied admission due to budget constraints will enroll in other public schools such as UC Merced or the Cal State system. More capable students forced to attend less-prestigious campuses will make those schools more academically competitive and raise expectations for California’s entire public higher-education system. Hopefully, decreased UC admittance will not be permanent, but our state’s cash-strapped condition requires us to maintain a high level of educational performance by making temporary enrollment cuts until California can balance its budget and provide necessary funding.
Rising UC fees are also constantly challenged. UC students know that tuition increases are nothing new; the regents raised fees by 7.4 percent for 2008-09 and the governor’s new budget assumes a 9.4 percent increase for 2009-10. In addition to constant fee hikes coming from UC administrators, others have suggested introducing campus-specific fees. This past November, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau released a report titled ‘Access and Excellence’ that proposes each campus set its own tuition rates as long as it remained within 25 percent of an agreed-upon level. At first glance, this concept counters the equal access on which the UC system is based, but in truth, it reflects a reality that most students refuse to accept. While each UC campus provides a wonderful education, some of them do so better than others. UC Berkeley is consistently ranked as the best public school in the nation, and the rest of the UC campuses are not. Just because UC Berkeley is affiliated with nine other schools does not necessarily mean it should cost the same. If UC Berkeley and other UC schools were to go ahead with this plan, it would be paramount that they maintain their commitment to providing financial assistance to those who are admitted but cannot afford a pricier education. However, if students are qualified for a top UC campus and have the funds to add a little extra to the coffers, they should be obliged to do so. This plan could not only help generate more money to maintain current levels of education, but it would also allow the top schools in the system to compete with more well-endowed private universities.
The regents are also considering attracting more out-of-state students to earn more revenue. I know, the thought that home-grown Californians would be forced to breathe the same educational air as rowdy Texan cowboys is appalling, but this proposal could help the system earn needed cash immediately. On average, out-of-state and international students pay more than $20,000 a year than Golden State natives, yet make up less than 10 percent of the total student body. As long as the regents are transparent in ensuring out-of-state profit is used for the students’ benefit, this strategy could be a useful short-term solution. If and when the economy recovers, the UC system could return out-of-state enrollment to its standard 10 percent, or use the profit it earns to simply increase total student enrollment.
As the global recession grows deeper, those in control of the UC system will be forced to make unpopular decisions. I’ll be the first to admit that the UC regents doesn’t deserve any awards for corporate management or financial foresight, but we should not hold them in contempt for making necessary decisions; instead, we should recognize our budget crisis’ unavoidable limitations. Hopefully, the quick-fix solutions chosen will be temporary and easily modifiable as funding becomes more available. But until then, it’s time to make room for the Texans.’