SAN FRANCISCO – Whether you consider tuition increases necessary in the face of declining state funding or view them as an undue burden on the backs of students, reality boils down to one thing: Student tuition is likely to continue to rise at least into the near future.
A budget plan to be discussed by the UC Board of Regents Thursday includes annual tuition increases of at least 8 percent and as high as 16 percent for the next four years. The plan comes on the heels of a 10 percent tuition increase approved at the board’s July meeting — the third increase since November 2009.
That vote raised systemwide fees — composed of student tuition and a student services fee — to $12,192.
The purpose of the multi-year plan — which will only be discussed at Thursday’s meeting and will not be acted upon until the board’s November gathering — is to address the $2.5 billion funding gap the university says it will face over that time period.
The model states that tuition would be increased by 8 percent annually to supplement corresponding 8 percent increases in funding the UC would also seek from the state.
However, if the state fails to meet those budgetary requests — a distinct possibility, considering state funding for the UC has dropped by $900 million from its 2007-08 levels and could drop a further $100 million if trigger cuts are enacted in January — tuition could increase by as much as 16 percent annually to fill the resulting gap.
In an interview Wednesday, Student Regent Alfredo Mireles Jr. said that he would vote against any fee increase but that the state’s consistently reduced funding forces the board to consider them.
“When the state continues to divest from us, it’s our duty to maintain quality,” Mireles said. “The goal (of the plan) is to shame Sacramento into funding (the UC).”
But instead of shaming the state government into funding the university, several speakers at Wednesday’s meeting raised the concern that planning student fee increases could pave Sacramento a path around increasing funding for the UC.
If faced with the choice between funding the university, which has funds relatively available in the form of student fees, and another state service without such a liquid source of money — prisoners can’t be counted on to pay tuition, for example — some fear the state would allow students to pick up that slack.
Read the UC report outlining the multi-year budget proposal, annotated by higher education reporter Damian Ortellado:
Jordan Bach-Lombardo is the university news editor.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Well, we’re always going to have the unhappy poor me employee out there.
Review our benefits and you’ll find that we’re still ahead of the game
compared to the private secter. Anyway, I’m proud to say I work for
this awesome University and as long as I have this job and benefits to
go with it then I’m blessed! I’d have all my family and friends work
here if it were possible. Çek Kanunu
Pay increases for
generously paid Faculty is arrogance.
UC Berkeley (ranked #
70 Forbes) tuition increases exceed the national average rate of increases. Chancellor
Birgeneau has molded Cal.
into the most expensive American public university.
President Yudof and Chancellor
Birgeneau have dismissed many much needed cost-cutting options. They did not
consider freezing vacant faculty positions, increasing class size, requiring
faculty to teach more classes, doubling the time between sabbaticals, cutting
and freezing pay and benefits for all chancellors and and reforming the pension
system.
They said faculty such
reforms “would not be healthy for University
of California”.
We agree it is far
from the ideal situation, but it is in the best interests of the university
system and the state to hold the line on cost increases. UC cannot expect to do
business as usual: raising tuition; granting pay raises and huge bonuses during
a weak economy that has sapped state revenues and individual Californians’
income.
There is no
question the necessary realignments with economic reality are painful. Regent Chairwoman Lansing can bridge the public trust
gap with reassurances that salaries and costs reflect California’s economic reality. The sky above UC will not fall
Opinions? Email the UC Board
of Regents [email protected]
How does it cost 50% more (after adjusting for inflation)
for University of California (UC) Board of Regents Chair Lansing and President
Yudof to provide the same service?
Total expenditures in the UC system in 1999-2000 were $3.2
billion to educate a student population of 154,000. Converted into 2011 dollars
using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator gets us to $4.3B in 2011
dollars, which comes out to $27,850 per student.
In 2011, the total UC system budget was $6.3 billion
dollars: an increase of almost 50% after adjusting for inflation. Enrollment
also rose – to 158,000 students, a 3% increase, yielding a cost per student of
$39,750.
Costs went up 50% in
10 years. And yet the news out of UC
President Yudof is that the UC system is “bracing” for ‘another round
of budget cuts’!
Email opinions to UC Board of Regents [email protected]
University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau
($500,000 salary) displaces qualified for public university at Cal Californians
with $50,600 FOREIGN students
Public University of California
Berkeley is not increasing enrollment. $50,600 FOREIGN students at UC Berkeley are getting into Cal at the expense of instate students.
Yours is the opinion that can make the difference email UC
Board of Regents [email protected]
Wage concessions by University of California FACULTY, UC PRESIDENT, 10 CHANCELLORS, 10 PROVOSTS etc prevent tuition increases.
Other universities can not afford the generously paid faculty, chancellor etc
Fire UC berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau for displacing Californian applications for admission in favor of FOREIGNERS paying $50,600 tuition.
“Wage concessions … prevent tuition increases.”
But they wouldn’t. UC’s budget shortfall is approaching a billion dollars. Tuition payments would barely be affected if we paid executives nothing at all. Adjust your perspective.
I love University of California (UC) having been a student and lecturer. But today I am concerned that at times I do not recognize the UC I love. Like so many Alumni, Donors, Legislators, and Californians I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failures of UC senior management and regents.
Californians suffers from 19% unemployment (includes those working part time, and those no longer searching), mortgage defaults, loss of unemployment benefits. And those who
still have jobs are working longer for less. Chancellor/Faculty
wages must reflect California’s ability to pay, not what others are paid.
UC Berkeley (Cal) planned pay raises
for generously paid Faculty is arrogance. UC Berkeley (ranked # 70 Forbes)
tuition increases exceed national average rate of increase. Chancellor
Birgeneau’s leadership molded Cal into the most expensive public university in the USA.
Can we do better with a spirit of shared sacrifices by Faculty, Provosts, and Chancellors?
(17,000 earn more than $100,000)
No furloughs.
18 percent decrease UCOP
salaries, $50 million budget cut.
18 percent prune chancellors’ salaries.
15 percent trim tenured faculty salaries,
increase teaching.
10 percent non-tenured faculty pay decrease,
increase research, teaching.
100% elimination
of Academic Senate, Academic Council budgets.
There is no question the necessary realignments with reality will be painful.
UC Board of Regents Chair
Sherry Lansing can bridge the public trust gap with reassurances salaries reflect depressed California wages. With UC’s shared financial sacrifices, the sky above UC will not fall.
Yours is the voice that can make the difference, email UC Board of Regents [email protected]
“tuition increases exceed national average rate of increase”
That has nothing to do with Birgeneau. All campuses have had to raise tuition. It’s because California’s legislature has made more drastic cuts than any other state’s. UC can’t solve its budget shortfall internally; the legislature must behave responsibly.
How does it cost 50% more (after adjusting for inflation)
for University of California (UC) Board of Regents Chair Lansing and President
Yudof to provide the same service?
Total expenditures in the UC system in 1999-2000 were $3.2
billion to educate a student population of 154,000. Converted into 2011 dollars
using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator gets us to $4.3B in 2011
dollars, which comes out to $27,850 per student.
In 2011, the total UC system budget was $6.3 billion
dollars: an increase of almost 50% after adjusting for inflation. Enrollment
also rose – to 158,000 students, a 3% increase, yielding a cost per student of
$39,750.
Costs went up 50% in
10 years. And yet the news out of UC
President Yudof is that the UC system is “bracing” for ‘another round
of budget cuts’!
Email opinions to UC Board of Regents [email protected]
“Total expenditures in the UC system in 1999-2000 were $3.2 billion to educate a student population of 154,000.”
You’re using the wrong benchmark. The $3.2 billion wasn’t to educate students; it includes medical centers, research institutes, auxiliary units, agriculture extensions, and a lot of other things unrelated to instruction.
The 3.2 billion all has to do with education…education is more than just instruction Guest
Please stop filling the message boards with irrational and nonsensical statements. It’s clear you understand nothing about university finances.
Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not.
Sticks and stones will break my bones but calling me names does not change the facts.
You seem unable to distingush fact from fantasy. Why blame Birgeneau for everything? He’s only one of dozens with responsibility for UC’s policies.
Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) of University of California Berkeley, displaces qualified
for public university education at Cal. Californians with $50,600 FOREIGN
students
University
of California Berkeley,
ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment. $50,600 FOREIGN students are accepted by Cal. at the expense of
qualified instate students.
Opinions make a difference, email UC Board of Regents [email protected]
Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it sensible.
Tony M was clearly never a Cal student. If you want people on welfare to stay on welfare, either deny them access to higher education or saddle them with student loans that rival a reasonable California mortgage. Increasing tuition without increasing student aid (from non-tuition sources) accomplishes this.
University
of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau
($500,000 salary) displaces qualified for public university education at Cal.
Californians with $50,600 FOREIGN students
University
of California Berkeley,
ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment. $50,600 FOREIGN students are accepted into Cal. at the expense of
qualified instate students.
Yours is the opinion that can make the difference: email UC
Board of Regents [email protected]
Students, have you told your legislators what you think?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
Increase tuition? Ok, but ONLY if you’re going to increase financial aid too
Increasing financial aid is part of the scam to milk the taxpayers out of more money…
“ONLY if you’re going to increase financial aid too”
You may be unaware that a third of tuition payments are used to fund financial aid.
Wait, why do we need tuition increases? I thought there was plenty of money – after all, the chancellor has been campaigning to give away more money to illegal aliens…
Wake up, Cal students! The idiots are truly running the asylum.
“the chancellor has been campaigning to give away more money to illegal aliens…”
I doubt that it was the Chancellor’s idea. He’s supporting a student initiative. If the ASUC doesn’t oppose it, students will bear the cost.
No, Tony M is correct. The Chancellor at Berkeley has been pushing his personal social agenda since the day he was hired, and using funds provided by the citizens of California to subsidize students who are not in California or the country legally (i.e., illegal aliens) is part of his agenda. Moreover, the money he is using isn’t new money that he himself brought in to UC or UCB, it’s money he’s taken away from the programs that support students who are citizens of California and/or in the country illegally.
Students in the country legally lose. Students in the country illegally win.
I very much doubt that Birgeneau can originate assembly bills. AB130 and AB131 must have begun elsewhere. They apply to the entire State of California, not just the Berkeley campus. If students oppose state aid to illegal aliens, why haven’t we heard from the ASUC?
[I very much doubt that Birgeneau can originate assembly bills. ]
Nobody ever suggested that Birgenau originated these bills. However, it’s quite clear that he’s taken a strong advocacy role in supporting the agenda of the pro-illegal-alien crowd. Whether you happen to agree with my position or not doesn’t refute the fact that Birgenau is not just a passive observer on this issue. To draw a parallel to activist journalism, he’s making the news, not just reporting it…
“not just a passive observer”
Okay, but as I said, he’s supporting a student initiative. If the ASUC had taken an “opposed” position, Birgeneau would probably never have spoken up. The guy who attributes this to his “personal social agenda” seems to be a conspiracy theorist.