Editorial: State must make education higher priority

It all comes down to what the goals of the state are,”
Will Doyle, a senior policy analyst at the National Center for
Public Policy told the Daily Bruin about higher education
funding.

Doyle is absolutely correct.

The state, even in this period of financial crisis, can pay for
public higher education. The question is whether the new governor,
the Legislature and the UC Board of Regents can come together and
make a workable, fair plan. So far, the indications are not
good.

The regents must work within the budget framework set by the
Legislature and signed by the governor, and currently the state is
facing a total shortfall of as much as $20 billion. Unless Gov.
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature agree to raise taxes or borrow
heavily, the UC will surely face more cuts.

Today, the regents will meet to discuss options for dealing with
cuts projected in September to total $600 million. This new round
of cuts comes one year after a cut of $424 million, which forced
the UC to scale back non-instructional programs, freeze salaries,
and increase student fees by 30 percent.

Now, the regents are considering a number of last-ditch options
including an additional 40 percent fee increase, a sliding fee
scale, increasing out-of-state admissions, program cuts and
enrollment caps. None of these ideas are especially attractive
because all of them would in some way restrict access to the UC
system. But the regents will have no choice but to choose one or
more of these options if the state government does not find new
sources of revenue.

For UC students, nothing would be worse than a 40 percent fee
increase.

Such an increase would mean that in two years, fees will have
risen from about $3,800 to more than $7,000. These numbers do not
include room and board, books, and other fees that all students
must incur. With fees hovering around $7,000, UCLA would almost
certainly lose its status as one of the “best deals” in
higher education. Worse, many students would probably be forced to
reconsider attending such an expensive school, especially with the
cost of living in Los Angeles. Even with financial aid covering
some of the increase, students and their families would ultimately
shoulder much of the burden, as seen with the last round of
increases.

Unfortunately, the other options are not much better. A sliding
fee scale would result in outrageous fees for higher-income
students. Program cuts would hurt minority enrollment and stagnate
campus life.

Increasing out-of-state admissions would bring in more money,
and is a possible option, but fewer Californians would benefit from
a system designed to serve them. Similarly, enrollment caps would
ease costs, but again, fewer Californians would have access to
quality higher education.

The fight for higher education boils down to a question about
priorities. Are average Californians willing to endure small tax
hikes to educate young people? Or will they let the Legislature and
governor bow to people who would chip away at the ideal of
inexpensive education rather than pay a couple hundred dollars more
per year?