Anastasia Lukianchikov: UC is trading quality education for financial security

In the administrative struggle for academic efficiency, students have long been left with competing values: the search for personal growth and the promise of monetary returns.

The change in the perception of higher education didn’t happen overnight: State funding, across the country, took a dive in 2008, and many states struggled to bounce back in education – among other areas. UCLA, and the UC at large, is still struggling to balance its books and compensate for the relative loss in funding amidst rising and mandatory institutional costs.

The UC’s past and projected budgeting strategies may salvage immediate economic stability, but it will come at the cost of education and teaching quality. According to the projected UC budget report, the possible strategies are: increasing state funding by 4 percent through 2018 to 2019, increasing student services fees by 5 percent, enrolling an additional 5,000 more students next year, immediately increasing tuition for nonresidents by 8 percent, increasing future tuition for residents by 5 percent, phasing out financial aid for nonresident students and increasing pressure for accelerated graduation rates and academic streamlining.

The UC also has plans to decrease degree completion times for top majors from four years to three. Lecture halls are already bursting with students, so any emphasis on accelerated degree plans is encouraged to make room for the next class of students and a new wave of tuition.

This belt-tightening makes one thing painfully clear: Education is a business above all. It has bent more to economic pressures than the demands of students and educators in recent years.

Given how many constraints there are on institutions, it’s clear that there is no perfect solution to the lack of financial support for public higher education, and simply calling for more money will not accomplish anything. Instead, we must focus on analyzing what the current system means for students and what choices they are left to grapple with.

Although students have had the benefit of a tuition freeze since 2011, UC President Janet Napolitano has made it clear that tuition hikes are unavoidable unless per-student state funding is increased. UCLA itself will receive almost none of the state funding and minimal new revenue from tuition hikes.

To combat the cuts like these, public schools have shifted in the past few years to a reliance on private money for revenues – a shift that typically has a disproportionate effect on minority and first-generation students. Private schools, meanwhile, have fared the economy just fine because of tax-exempt school foundations and endowments.

The result is an economic situation that favors dependence on private money. UC core funding is now supported more by tuition than state funds by a 5 percent margin, and this burden will fall especially hard on nonresident students.

But despite this reality, nowhere in the UC budget reports are there plans for enhancing education quality. Terms vaguely emphasize a commitment to high-quality education, enhancement and greater education offerings. But these are now tertiary concerns overlooked by other priorities.

So where does this leave the meaning of an undergraduate education in the wake of economic struggle? The restructuring and creative allocation of low funds has changed the way administrators and students view education, more akin to a business that must stay balanced amid free market forces.

This is incompatible with the classical ideals of intellectual growth and teaching, because education was once perceived as a space free from severe societal pressures that allowed students to explore their interests and talents. Universities now promise efficient degree plans for diplomas that are key to success in postgraduate careers. The intellectual worth of academia has diminished.

Unfortunately, even the economic worth of the college degree is called into question when seen alongside the trend in student loans: student debt surpassed $1.2 trillion in 2014 at the national level.

Students are faced with two conflicting theories about the purpose of an undergraduate education, neither of which seem positive. And mixed messages only hurt students’ decision-making: Should you follow your interests as they reveal themselves or choose a path that promises greater economic compensation?

The financial state of UCLA, and the wider UC, is gradually improving. The state budget is at a surplus, and the UC is slowly gaining predictable, if not more stable, economic footing. But the journey has come at the compromise of educational ideals: damage that isn’t easily quantified. And while funds can bounce back, a reversal of the new educational mindset may take longer, if at all.