Student fee increase prevents equal access

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

In renegotiating the University of California’s Master
Plan for Education, the Finance and Facilities Working Group has
decided that students are the ones who should pick up the slack in
the university’s budget slump.

The advisory subcommittee recommended Tuesday that the
university implement a 10 percent student fee increase and
reconsider its long-standing low fee policy, which protects
California’s students from having to pay tuition. The finance
report suggests that the current low fee policy is not aligned with
“modern reality.” It fails to coincide with the
“strong pressure higher education is subjected to from the
current depressed economic situation.”

However, one aspect of reality seemed to be overlooked in the
committee’s assessment. They neglected to mention that a
college education is not designed exclusively for those who can pay
for it. By the finance committee’s reasoning, in times of
economic crises ““ the times when poor students are more
strapped for cash than anyone else ““ the university should be
accessible to the people who can afford to take on a fee increase,
or an extra five or 10 years of school loans.

Perhaps the low fee policy is insensitive to the economic
pressure on “higher education.” In the end, it’s
really about who will take out the loan. Since it’s highly
unlikely the UC will fold under economic pressure, and very likely
a poor student might, it seems much more reasonable for the
university to bear the brunt of the hardship.