In a decision that some have called a victory for students, a
court ruling last week ordered the University of California to pay
back fee increases to certain professional school students who say
the increases violated a contract they had with the UC in the
amount of more than $33.8 million.
But what was a victory for some students may mean a financial
burden for others.
To compensate for the costs of the lawsuit, the UC Board of
Regents raised fees last July for current professional students
uninvolved with the case by $700 for the 2005-2006 school year and
$350 for the 2006-2007 school year.
If the UC’s appeal of the ruling is rejected, the UC may
have few options other than to increase fees again, particularly
given state budget cuts over the past few years.
Under last week’s decision, the UC will have to pay a
total of more than $33.8 million to over 50,000 students who were
enrolled before December 2002 and experienced the contested fee
increases.
When the regents raised fees last July to cover losses
incorporated with the lawsuit, they said they would reevaluate the
fee increases if the university experiences more losses as a result
of the litigation.
UC spokesman Ricardo Vazquez said the regents will decide how to
finance the $33.8 million, and “it is likely that fees for
new professional school students will have to be
increased.”
Vazquez said he is sure the university “will consider
whatever options there are ““ but there are very, very few
options.”
“Given the financial impact that such an award may have
… the university and the regents may have no choice” but to
increase fees again, he said.
Student representatives said they do not think students should
have to pay for the consequences of an issue that arose before they
set foot on a UC campus.
“I was very troubled by the precedent that it set that
students who were not enrolled in the UC had to be the insurance
for the UC to pay back those fees,” Student Regent Adam
Rosenthal said.
“It’s not a sound policy to make other students pay
back fees which former students should have paid,” he
said.
Jared Fox, president of the UCLA Graduate Students Association,
said while he is happy for the students who may be reimbursed, it
is “simply not fair” for the university to charge
current students for something that happened before they were
enrolled at the university.
“In order for the university to pay for its mistake, the
university is taxing students who weren’t even students at
the time of the violation of the contract,” he said.
But even given the financial restraints facing the university,
Fox said increasing fees should not be the only option the regents
consider. He pointed to the possibility of fundraising as a way to
avoid putting the burden of the lawsuit on professional
students.
“The regents are some of the most wealthy, powerful and
well-connected people in the state. … These people have a lot of
wealthy friends and people who have the ability to donate large
sums to a university,” he said.
With the fee increases due to the lawsuit and due to the state
budget difficulties, there have been concerns over how the UC will
continue to entice top students, who may now choose to attend other
comparable universities.
For out-of-state and international students, Fox said,
“this fee increase made it more expensive to go to any of the
UC law schools than it is to go to Stanford or Harvard law
schools.”
For the 2005-2006 school year, tuition at the Stanford School of
Law is $35,400, and tuition at the Harvard Law School is $35,100.
Coming in a few hundred dollars higher, tuition at the UCLA School
of Law is $35,544.50 for nonresidents, the least expensive of the
three UC law schools, according to published information on
university Web sites.
Because of these comparable tuitions at top law schools,
“we’re going to lose the best and the brightest from
around the country and around the world,” Fox said.