Fee increase rational budgetary remedy

Gov. Gray Davis messed up. Entering office with a comfortable
surplus, he has sunk California into a $38 billion slump. For Davis
himself, this will most likely mean a recall vote in the fall
while, at the same time, UC students and their parents will be
expected to pay in other ways.

UC President Richard Atkinson has admitted that a systemwide fee
hike of up to 30 percent ““ or approximately $1,150 for
resident undergraduates ““ is likely for the coming year. At
first, the protesting liberal in me was up in arms about this
travesty to public education. But the liberal-me relaxed when I
realized the necessity and rationale of this eventual rise in
fees.

California’s budget debacle has left the UCs in a $360
million hole, with a proposed additional $80.5 million one-time
budget reduction. Governor Atkinson’s new proposal calls for
fee increases of up to 30 percent, while slashing funding for all
non-instructional programs in the coming year. The rest of the
money, some 40-odd million dollars, is to be borrowed and repaid
through a 6 percent increase to be graciously footed by
out-of-state students. Future enrollment reductions will
supplemented these fee increases ““ for as early as the Class
of 2008 ““ if budget problems continue.

After hearing of such an outrage, this is about the time most
students and concerned parents would start their public outcries
and sending angry letters to the Daily Bruin’s Viewpoint
section. To most people, any increase in tuition ““ never mind
one of 30 percent ““ is reason for protest. A predictable
hard-to-reason-with knee-jerk fervor takes hold. We all want a
campus with better amenities, from the newest facilities to the
brightest professors, all the while keeping tuition fixed and
financial aid rising. While this had been possible in years past
thanks to the too-good-to-be-true economic boon of the pre-Dubya
(Bush) era, reality and term limits have finally caught up with
us.

Something had to go, and it is reassuring to know that a quality
institution such as the UC system would choose the appropriate,
although painful route of accepting a budget cut without cutting
academic excellence. While most critics would point to the
iniquitous “30 percent,” I would point out that
instructional programs are not being cut. If anything,
Atkinson’s plans do not go far enough. If a 50 percent
increase and a hundred million dollars being borrowed is
what’s necessary to prevent enrollment reductions for next
year, such a hefty increase would be well worth it.

The amount students will be expected to pay is nowhere near an
obscene level. Even after the increase, UC’s rates will be,
on average, $1,200 lower than that of other comparable state
universities. With the state still subsidizing students for most of
the $16,900 it actually takes to provide a UC education, an extra
grand out of our own pockets is nothing to complain about. Having
to pay for a third of your own education will be an undue burden
for very few. And, with a stepped-up financial aid plan, no one
will be left out in the cold. In general, financially needy
undergraduates with an annual household income of less than $60,000
will pay for absolutely none of the planned increases, and
financially needy undergrads with an annual household income up to
$90,000 will receive a grant to compensate for at least a portion
of the increase.

Even in light of these facts, the protests are still sure to
keep the torches lit for months to come. Already, USAC and GSA
representatives have expressed their constitutional rights and
protested the fee increases. These organizations fail to realize
that an increase in fees to students is a far lesser evil than
allowing the UCs to become bargain colleges without the economic
strength to remain respectable. Still, once the official fee hike
is passed and enacted, a rational realist’s voice will be
hard to find.

In a perfect world, the protesters are right and Atkinson is
dead wrong. In a perfect world, instead of a fee hike, they would
pass a “temporary refund adjustment.” Then, everyone
would be issued a parking space in the middle of Westwood and given
automatic “A”s and there would be an emphasis on
learning in the classroom.

But this perfect world scenario is simply not possible, and
protesters should not promote it as if it were. The issue comes
down to making the best of a bad situation. President
Atkinson’s plan is capable of leading us through these
difficult times until Sacramento spawns some competent
politicians.

Moon is second-year, pre-business economics major. You can
contact him at jmoon@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *