|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A 9.6 percent tuition increase for University of California schools was approved today by a 14-4 vote of the UC Regents Board.
Despite passionate reservations from several board members, the finance committee approved the tuition hike, an attempt to close $650 million
in state funding cuts in the new state budget.
The hike is the second tuition increase for UC students in the past eight months — an eight percent increase was already added in November.
The tuition increase will only affect about 55 percent of current students, according to UC officials, because of financial aid options given
to students whose family income is less than $80,000 per year.
The new fees will cover 26 percent of a $1 billion budget shortfall the UC system faces next year. The remaining funds will be made up through cuts to campus services and increased enrollment of out-of-state and international students, who pay higher tuition than California residents.
Under the new tuition rates, and including all required fees, California resident undergraduate students will pay $13,218 per year and out-of-state students will pay $36,096.
Graduate students in academic programs will pay slightly less, but their tuition will still be raised by 9.6 percent, to $12,824 for Californians and $27,926 for non-residents. Graduate students in professional programs, such as law and business, pay different tuition.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau outlined Berkeley’s strategy of increasing out-of-state and international enrollment to generate revenue. California residents receive a large tuition break, so increasing out-of-state enrollment generates significantly more funding.
Birgeneau said UC Berkeley has kept California resident enrollment consistent over the last several years while increasing non-resident enrollment. He said that the extra revenue has allowed Berkeley to provide more services for all students.
Despite the advantages of increasing out-of-state enrollment, several board members worried that if the cuts continue, the university would be forced to turn more and more California residents away in favor of students that pay higher tuition.
There were also concerns that the increased fees would be a disincentive to attracting the most talented graduate students.
Mollie Epstein, a student at UC Berkeley, addressed her concerns during public comments that talented students would not come to UC schools because of the rising costs. “The California school system will lose the best and brightest to schools with better financial aid packages,” she said.
Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, an ex officio board member, addressed the board and encouraged them to vote against the fee increase. He said the
Legislature would not grant more funding as long as the university accepted the cuts.
“We’ve become a foregone conclusion here,” Newsom said. “Ten years in a row, we’ve done exactly what the Legislature thought we were going to do. We’re going to continue to get them out of hot water. We’ve become predictable.”
Regent Norman Pattiz reacted angrily to Newsom’s suggestion. “We don’t have the luxury to say ‘let’s send a message to Congress, or the state
government,'” Pattiz said.
“I’m going to vote for this, and I’m going to hate every minute of it, because tomorrow, we’ve still got to have the University of California,” he said.
Regent Bonnie Reiss said that the cuts threatened the quality of the UC system, and risked turning it into a “second rate” institution. “If Governor Brown and our legislators continue on this path of always putting us on the chopping block, they are risking a legacy of presiding over the demise
of higher education in our state,” she said.
But she said she would not support future cuts and fee increases because she believes “they are in grave danger of becoming second-rate,” she
said. “I hope but doubt the governor and the Legislature have the courage to take responsibility for these tuition increases.”
Student protesters gathered outside the meeting dressed in costume, and several students addressed the board before the vote to voice
their objections.
Joseph Silva, a student at UCLA who addressed the board dressed as Captain America, said he thinks the California government is prioritizing corporations over higher education. “An investment in our higher education will have greater returns than tax breaks for corporations by far,” he said.
Julia Gettle, a student at UC Berkeley who spent the summer working for the state government in Sacramento, said the board should confront the state legislature more directly. “We need to stop playing nice and tell them that these continued cuts are unfair and we can’t take this anymore,” she said.
Andrew Albright, a student at UC Berkeley, said the fee increase could end his plans to pursue a double major. “As the UC Regents you should have a vested interest in supporting a strong and competitive work force, but the policies you pursue do just the opposite,” he said.
The increases to the UC system come just days after California State University raised its tuition by 12 percent. Both institutions have had their state funding cut by $650 million each, and both are bracing for another potential cut of $100 million later this year.





What a shame UC is putting the cost of education out of reach of the middle class.
While your in-state resident son or daughter (or more likely their parents) are paying 9.6%
more in tuition out-of-state illegal aliens are being subsidized to the tune of $22,878
(for graduates of the California school system that is $36,096 minus $13,218). Can anyone excplain why this is fair?
Duffy, can you clarify where you get your information?
Thanks!
University of California Berkeley wage concessions stop tuition increases. Californians suffer from greatest deficit of modern times. UC wages must reflect California’s ability to pay, not what others are paid.
Wage concessions for UC President, Faculty, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, UCOP:
No furloughs
18 percent reduction in UCOP salaries & $50 million cut.
18 percent prune of campus chancellors’, vice chancellors’ salaries.
15 percent trim of tenured faculty salaries, increased teaching load
10 percent decrease in non-tenured faculty salaries, as well as increase research, teaching load
100% elimination of all Academic Senate, Academic Council costs, wages.
(17,000 UC paid employees earn more than $100,000)
Duffy is absolutely correct! Illegals are getting in state tuition as well as taking a spot stolen from a citizen. Wake up People! It is wrong. Then add in those who get in to our colleges/universities by “special” diversity doors. Currently there is a med student with D’s in undergrad chemistry and 20% on her MCAT in a Stanford residency program! A “special” program. A Joke program.
ITS SO SIMPLE…..EVERYONE BOYCOTT THE UC SYSTEM AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE SYSTEM. SEND YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF STATE!!! ITS CHEAPER AND SOME OF THE BEST SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD ARE OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA!!
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS SUCH A DISASTER AND I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PARENTS HAVE EVEN VISITED THESE CAMPUSES….SOME OF THEM ARE DOWN RIGHT IN NEED OF UPGRADING….YOU WON’T FIND THAT VISUAL AT DUKE OR
TEXAS A&M, OR GEORGIA TECH!
HIT THE ROAD AND CHOOSE A LOVELY OUT OF STATE SCHOOL…..SCREW THE POLITICIANS AND IDIOTS RUNNING SACRAMENTO, THEY BLEW IT!!
“Special” programs students fill so many “special” spots that it is probably impossible to determine the true number. The fact is, however, that too many academically unqualified students fill seats at the UCs and CSUs while academically qualified students are bumped.
Why should academically unqualified students get financial assistance AND fill the seat of a qualified student?
Community college anyone?
Despite the large percentage increase in UC and CSU tuition (somewhat euphemistically called “fees” by our state schools), UC tuition is very comparable to the in-state tuition of neighboring state schools, and CSU tuition is still quite low. It’s just that they used to be better deals than in most other states, and have in creased by large percentages over the past several years.
Actually, Nevada (and perhaps other nearby states as well) offers their in-state rate to CA residents, as part of a reciprocal agreement.
What’s also frustrating is when you see large salary increases announced whenever a new UC or CSU top administrator is hired. I forget which school this was at (a smaller UC, or a CSU campus), but the head of that campus was retiring with a low $200k salary, and the regents felt compelled to offer the new person a $300k+ salary. I guess there were no applicants at the lower rate…..
At the same time as announcing the tuition hikes, the UC board of regents also announced some large raises for existing administrators (demonstrating a profound lack of PR skills, if nothing else…):
“The regents also gave raises to three executives.
Patrick Lenz, a UC system vice president, will earn a base salary of $300,000 from taxpayer funds, a $27,500 increase.
Santiago Muñoz, an associate vice president, got a 24.1 percent raise, from $201,400 to $250,000. Taxpayers pay 40 percent of his salary.
Mark Laret, who runs the UCSF Medical Center, will get a base salary of $935,000, a $195,300 raise, and a retention bonus of $1 million over four years. It’s paid from medical center revenue.”
Independent of whether the UCSF head is paid out of medical center revenue, it’s not obvious to me that UCSF doesn’t receive taxpayer funds for other purposes. But no doubt Laret would have quit if he wasn’t given a 20% (plus) raise, as well as a huge bonus. And just as obviously, there is no one else in the entire world, let alone the entire UCSF administration, capable of doing Laret’s job…. (I’m being sarcastic, in case it isn’t obvious.)
The UC folks assure us that they’ll step up financial aid, to make sure that the needy aren’t impacted by the large tuition increases. Of course, if you were foolish enough to save money for your kids’ college, then please fork it over! We want more from you, so we can offer more aid to others…