Once again, it seems that University of California administrators have forgotten the most common moniker applied to college students: broke.

With the UC currently facing the greatest financial crisis in the system’s history, it should come as no surprise to see that administrators continue to rely on students to fill in where state or federal funding has fallen through.

As the result of a budget gap of more than $125 million for the 2012-2013 school year, the UC Board of Regents decided July 18 to approve supplemental tuition increases for graduate programs within the UC.

Since 1994, Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition has helped graduate schools pay for the high-caliber faculty and facilities they need to remain competitive.

Supplemental tuition, currently implemented at about 50 UC professional schools, can range anywhere from below $10,000 to more than $30,000 per year, depending on the UC campus and specific program.

The regents approved increases in supplemental tuition for more than 10 percent for seven schools. Other schools will have fees pushed up by less than 10 percent, or keep their rates stable.

The UCLA School of Nursing and the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television will boost supplemental tuition by about 35 percent and 10 percent respectively for graduate programs this school year.

While this decision is a positive move to sustain educational quality at UC professional schools, it means that the UC system is once again relying on students­ ““ this time graduate students ““ as their go-to funding source. Can the UC not find a different ATM to pull money from?

Considering that these students are in a more economically vulnerable position than many of their undergraduate counterparts, this reliance is especially problematic.

Because graduate student loans are not subsidized by the federal government, they accrue interest while students are enrolled.

Adding additional fees to their debt load can make financing graduate school even more of a challenge.

Placing the burden of UC finances on graduate students also has the potential to dissuade students from seeking civil service careers.

Student Regent Jonathan Stein was one of only two votes who opposed the measure. It appears as though the UC has resigned itself to using student fee increases and private donations as a primary means of gathering funds, Stein said.

“I think that (trend) has really negative effects for diversity and really negative effects on students who want to go into public interest and social justice careers,” Stein said. “I think that we’ve lost our nationwide leadership on access and affordability issues.”

At the end of the day, the question we are faced with is simple: Can a heavily student-funded university system attract students to its programs with the foreknowledge that they will be subject to mounting tuition rates during their tenure?

Furthermore, will students take the risk of entering what are surely to be lower-salaried public service careers with the knowledge that the degrees required for such careers could lead them to long-term debt?

Student fees at UC professional schools can be almost as burdensome as those at private institutions. Currently, tuition at Harvard Law School only costs about $2,000 more than resident tuition at the UCLA School of Law.

Other revenue options must be seriously considered and undertaken if the UC is to continue attracting students to its traditionally low-cost, but high quality, programs.

“To throw up our hands and to say, “˜There is no state funding. Privatization and students are the only answer,’ is to give up the game, to quit our idea of public higher education,” Stein said.

In 2011-2012, student funding comprised 13 percent of the UC budget, two percent more than the state’s general fund contributions, and well below the 27 percent provided by the UC’s medical centers.

According to the UC’s budget news website, “student fee increases are the direct result of failing state investment in higher education.”

Hiking tuition can be an inefficient way of making up for lost state funds. Nearly 37 percent of money from the increase in professional school supplemental tuition will be allocated back to financial aid, according to a UC report.

The state needs to find a way to stabilize funding for UC graduate programs. After all, the ultimate loser from raising tuition is not only the student, but also the state.

California needs educated, knowledgeable workers to drive our technology and innovation, a demographic the UC provides in the thousands.

Email Tashman at atashman@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.

Leave a comment

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