Monday, October 21, 1996
FEES:
UCs should realize that each student is unique, and must allow
for obstacles to graduationThe proposal which would penalize UC
students for delayed graduation appears to be running out of steam.
It is being acknowledged by UC officials as a misstep and will,
more than likely, be shelved. The Daily Bruin Editorial Board
applauds this display of good judgment.
It should not be the mission of a UC campus to process its
students. UCLA is not the DMV.
Colleges are centers of both academic and cultural activity and
each student follows a unique course which, in some cases, cannot
be completed within four years.
There is more to academic life than expeditiously collecting a
degree, and delayed graduation surcharges would only pollute the
richness of the college experience.
Proponents claim that the surcharge would effectively motivate
students to dash through their studies and into their caps and
gowns. Such efficiency would then increase the institutional
capacity to enroll new students. Also, funding from the delayed
graduation charges would provide more financial aid and need-based
grants. But we know from experience that fees do not benefit
students; they serve only to fuel an increasingly demanding
educational bureaucracy. Administrators should discontinue their
annoying habit of mislabeling proposed fee increases as forms of
student aid.
Although there are slackers on campus  career students
seeking their third undergraduate degree while snatching undue
financial aid  they represent a minority. They can easily be
spotted by Murphy Hall computers and administrators can deal with
them on an individual basis.
The majority of UC students, however, are not deadbeats and a
blanket policy designed to police their progress is both insulting
and unsettling. Most who do not graduate within four years are
slowed by genuine obstacles. Groups such as single parents,
students with double majors, minors or specializations, and return
students seeking degrees while working full-time, would all be
screwed if the surcharges were implemented. It is unfair to punish
these worthy individuals for circumstances over which they have
little or no control.
Approximately 77 percent of all UC students take longer than
four years to graduate. The detrimental effects of the delayed
graduation fees would be too widespread for the program to work. A
five year limit would be much more realistic, but we have an even
better idea. Instead of using stiff penalties as "encouragement"
for students to get through their degree programs in four years, UC
officials would accomplish more by offering some positive
reinforcement for a change.
If anything, students should get price breaks for completing
their courses of study early or on time.
The unfavorable evaluation of the proposed surcharges by both
students and UC officials is right on target. Other avenues for
improving new-student enrollment capacities, as well as the overall
condition of the UC system, must be thoroughly explored before
going after student wallets. UC policy makers have sent too many
discouraging signals to students and their families. By abandoning
the surcharges and taking a more proactive approach toward a
solution  one which fully acknowledges student needs Â
the UC Office of the President can send a past-due signal of favor
and support.