Editorial: UC Commission on the Future’s suggested fixes represent a shift in the university’s priorities

Last week, the UC Commission on the Future proposed a preliminary round of ideas to help solve the UC budget crisis while maintaining the quality of the UC education.

Among the many points were proposals to encourage students to obtain three-year undergraduate degrees, to offer and expand online classes, increase the number of out-of-state students and increase student fees for more popular campuses, namely UCLA and UC Berkeley. This editorial board sees the implementation of several of the proposals as detrimental to the quality of education within the UC. We must keep in mind that any changes made are changes we must be comfortable with, as they will set precedents and remain a part of the system beyond the current crisis.

Encouraging students to obtain their degree in three years is too simplistic and decreases opportunities for students to get internships, prioritize extra-curricular activities or study abroad. It also undermines the concept of a well-rounded liberal arts education, with the elimination of general education courses and streamlining of degrees.

The idea of offering online classes to facilitate speedy degrees is also problematic. Online classes traditionally serve those who work full-time jobs. It would be unfair to deprive full-time students access to an interactive classroom experience in favor of a one-way communication system an online course would provide. As a way to generate revenue, the proposed increase in the number of out-of-state students could benefit the UC. This board understands that as a public state university, the UC exists to serve California residents. And it does. But increasing out-of-state admission would not only bring in extra revenue, but increase each campus’s geographical diversity.

However, a tiered fee system based on the popularity of each campus would only worsen UC’s problems. It would close off access to the top schools to students who cannot afford them, putting low-income applicants at a serious disadvantage. An alternative plan is for the university to provide four-year tuition schedules to students for “more predictability in student fees” or annually increase fees.

This board is glad the university has become realistic in acknowledging potential fee increases that can happen over the span of one’s college career. No one wants to be shocked with a 32 percent fee increase weeks before it is passed.

However, this is representative of a noticeable shift in the payment of public education, from being a state priority to a student’s responsibility. Fee increases will only sustain the system for a limited time and are not long-term solutions to the crisis. We must call on the state to provide us with more financial support for public education.