Potential mid-year fee hike unfair
By Daily Bruin Staff
Nov. 16, 2009 10:18 p.m.
The UC Board of Regents will vote on a proposed 32 percent student fee increase when it convenes at UCLA today.
The proposed fee hike, which is expected to be approved by the board at this week’s meeting, comes less than two weeks before UC applications are due. If approved, the mid-year fee increase would be $585 for resident undergraduates, bringing the total amount to $8,373.
Furthermore, registration fees for winter quarter are due Dec. 18, meaning current UCLA students potentially have a little less than a month to come up with the extra money.
It is unfair for the Regents to vote on this proposal so late in the quarter and for it to take effect so soon afterward. Students taking out loans or working multiple jobs to pay for college need more time to find alternate sources of income and rework their budgets.
The University cut freshman enrollment by 2,300 for the 2009-2010 academic year, and they will vote on whether to cut another 2,300 for 2010-2011. The cuts are unfortunate in that they decrease accessibility and make UC admissions even more competitive, but enrollment cuts are preferable to increasing fees for students who have already committed to attending the University of California.
While we understand that administrators are hesitant to reduce freshman enrollment, our resources are stretched far too thin as it is. The University’s focus on keeping enrollment figures high is admirable and is meant to keep higher education accessible to everyone. But administrators must also consider that skyrocketing fees and shrinking class sizes ““ a by-product of high enrollment numbers ““ reduce accessibility.
Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the California Master Plan for Higher Education.
The statewide plan articulates the mission of public education: to keep higher education in California affordable and achievable for everyone.
Nearly half a century later, the particulars of the plan are no longer applicable to a public education system that has changed drastically since the document’s inception. For instance, the plan has no standardized policy for setting student fees, so increases are inconsistent and unpredictable.
An analysis of the plan by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office points out ambiguities and deficiencies in the document, like in the way the plan structures funding for public education. The plan does not, for example, clearly specify “how education costs should be split between students and the state, nor how various financial aid programs should work together to ensure affordability.”
Times have changed since the California Master Plan was drafted, and serious revisions are long overdue. A document carrying the title “Master Plan” should not go unrevised for 50 years, but should be a constantly developing and evolving plan adapted to the times.
Updating the document would help lay the foundation for the Regents and legislature to begin restructuring higher education in California.
