There’s a difference between theory and reality.
In theory, UC Irvine alumnus Chris Campbell’s plan to freeze undergraduate public college tuition at first-year rates is good.
The California Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative, authored by the 2011 Irvine graduate, is still in the initial stages of the signature process to qualify for the statewide November ballot. Its aims are undoubtedly positive, as the initiative’s goal is to give students financial certainty in uncertain times.
But in reality, the plan won’t work, and could very well do more harm than good.
Yes, it would be nice for students to know exactly how much they will be paying each year for college when they enroll. But the initiative is unfair and not viable. Mostly, though, freezing tuition does not address the real problem: the state government.
Tuition rates have gone up exponentially in the past few years, while state funding has gone down. Last year, the state cut $650 million each for both the UC and CSU systems. The total amount of tuition UC students are paying has already surpassed state funding.
Freezing tuition at rates students pay upon enrollment punishes future generations of students. The plan would not give universities a whole lot of flexibility in figuring out how to meet demands when they can’t touch tuition. Campuses need to be able to look at everything, especially when we can’t count on consistent and substantial state contributions. Who knows, if tuition is frozen, schools might have to compensate by cutting programs and services on campuses, which could end up being far worse than a fee hike.
The constitutional amendment would alienate classes, separating students by their year. For instance, one class might not have reason to speak up — unlike the following class or two, perhaps paying substantially higher tuition. There is power in numbers, and a protest that does not represent all students would be far less effective.
The plan also has a detrimental effect on transfer students, who would be less inclined to transfer for what would likely be a higher tuition as a new student. This would not just impact a few people; about one-third of college students transfer at some point. In addition, the number of out-of-state and international students, which has already reached epic proportions in the UC system, would almost certainly continue to surge upward.
Campbell’s intent is good, but this is not the solution.
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.
Dear Editors of the Daily Californian,
The proposed ballot initiative, 12-0006 “Public Postsecondary Student Tuition and Fees”, will hold institutions of higher education accountable for the information published in their catalogs or marketing materials. If passed, it would establish binding terms and conditions (set and published by the respective institution) between the institution and the student. It is not a budgetary measure. In fact, the measure does not increase or decrease taxes whatsoever. Essentially, it makes both parties accountable to the established terms and conditions and it is up to the institutions to figure out how to budget for and honor their end of the deal. Nothing more.
A draft of the ballot initiative was submitted by the proponent, Chris Campbell, but the final version was written by the Legislative Counsel. I am certain the final version must have passed through several reviews by the appropriate committees and legal eagles prior to release. Additionally, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reviewed the proposed initiative and prepared the following Summary of Fiscal Effects:
(1) Colleges and universities would face new constraints on their ability to raise additional
revenue in the form of student fees and tuition in a given year.
(2) While continuing students in good academic standing would experience stable tuition
and fee levels, tuition charged to new students at the University of California and the California State University could be higher than it would otherwise be, especially in the initial years after the initiative’s adoption.
(3) The state could face General Fund cost pressures to the extent that universities were
not able to raise the tuition revenue they would otherwise seek. This pressure would
likely diminish over time as additional students became subject to the increased tuition
levels. At the California Community Colleges, General Fund pressure likely would be minor, even initially.
With numerous elite brain trusts, economists and data analysts at its disposal, the UC Regents, CSU Trustees and the CCC Boards should have no problem figuring out how to set a fiscal policy one year in advance of publication of their catalog(s) and revise, augment or modify their curriculum(s), staffing, laboratory/facility needs and budgets accordingly. Increases in student tuition and fees should never, under any circumstances, exceed the annual rate of inflation. If so, the administrators have not performed competent strategic planning and adjustments in personnel are warranted. When all else fails, it is up to the administrators to interface with the state legislators and explain in detail why they cannot meet their obligations without additional funding. I don’t believe California voters/taxpayers would have any problems with this process.
When I attended graduate school at Cal from 1990 to 93, there were
several unexpected tuition increases that cause great hardship to my
meager family budget. That was two decades ago… and nothing has
changed! I now have two sons enrolled at a UC and CSU campus. I have
witnessed how repeated tuition increases over these past few years have
created undo stress and financial hardship on both sons and their fellow
students. Even with a graduate degree from Cal, I am still in the
99% and my husband and I can only provide minor financial assistance.
Once a student enrolls and pays their tuition, they have essentially committed to the terms and conditions applicable to his/her field of study. As long as the student remains in “good standing”, they are honoring their end of the agreement. Postsecondary institutions must be held accountable to honor the published terms and conditions set by each and every department or professional school as well.
The UCs, and CSUs have no shortage of highly-qualified students vying to get accepted to the various campuses. The prospective students are also more than willing to do whatever it takes (short of being blind-sighted by increases every semester) and pay the published rate for tuition and fees for the honor of receiving a degree stamped by them. But thousands upon thousands of qualified prospective students are turned away or wait-listed. Possessing a commodity that is so dearly desired and in demand, it appears as though UCs’, CSUs’ and CCCs’ budgetary problems are self-imposed — which can only be attributed to one or more of the following: poor long-range planning, mismanagement, or a total lack of independent oversight and/or transparency in contract negotiations.
Ingrid Campbell
Cal Alum — Class of ’93
Campaign Manager and Treasurer for CHEC2012
Hey DC editorial board: when did you become a mouth-piece for the UC administration? Never mind it’s a rhetorical question. Place all the blame on Sacto? straight out of Yudof’s playbook!
Why isn’t DC asking WTF Yudof&UCOP are doing with the SLUSH FUND that is $1.32 billion/year characterized only as ‘misc. services’?
“plan also has a detrimental effect on transfer students”
SRSLY? Why wouldn’t transfer students take comfort in – and therefore be encouraged by – the stability provided by a locked in price?
With such vagaries as ‘flexibility’ being invoked it should be obvious that this editorial is utter bullshit.
Why else would commentator ‘I_h8_disqus’ agree with it?
LOLOLOL, that guy is always wrong!
The Daily Cal and students should be demanding more detail on the $1.32 billion in misc. services.
Transfer students don’t go to Cal yet, so their tuition cost for attending Cal will not be locked in until they are actually students. So they have no stability at this time. Two years from now, those new community college transfers will be paying much higher tuition costs, since the students already at Cal will be locked in with their lower tuition costs.
“Flexibility” isn’t a vague word. When you take away an option to increase revenue, then you reduce the flexibility the university has to meet its budget.
How about that? An argument by the editorial board that I agree with. What Chris Campbell should try to get on the ballot is a freeze in the legislature’s ability to cut school funding. Maybe tie school funding cuts to cuts in the salaries of legislators.
FAIL, imbecile
Please tell me what is your major? I am curious about who thinks so much of themselves while not getting the point the Daily Cal is making. You have to be the same person using the OpEd By Breslauer name below.
Well, he’s clearly a troll, in all likelihood the same individual who stalks and tries to impersonate a number of posters here. You will never see him post anything resembling a reasoned argument to your posts, so I can’t imagine he’s majoring in anything requiring any serious academic effort.
It’s so sad that self-serving elected officials will
spin a legal matter into a budgetary issue just to further their political
agendas.
The
primary focus of the ballot initiative 12-0006 “Public Postsecondary
Student Tuition and Fees” is not budgetary but rather a legal issue — an
issue that can only be implemented by going outside the political arena and
amending the state constitution. Colleges and universities throughout the
nation, not just California’s post secondary institutions, recruit and actively
solicit students to attend their institutions through any number of marketing
and outreach programs.
The proposed ballot initiative is just one crucial step to ensure
the UCs, CSUs and CCCs honor
their side of the terms and conditions as authored and published by them. Otherwise,
the UCs, CSUs and the CCCs should be required to add a disclaimer to
all publications and marketing materials stating, “We cannot commit to a
timeline or guarantee the cost of tuition and fees for any student to
matriculate through this institution and graduate with a degree.” Now,
that is a fine marketing strategy that is sure to entice top talent.
In response to your suggestion…”get a ballot measure to freeze the legislature’s ability to cut school funding”…that’s not such a radical idea. However, it might be best that the UC Regents, CSU Trustees and CCCs Boards spend their time, energy and influence on getting it adopted and passed by the legislature because that is what they are getting paid to do — advocate for the students and faculty as well as present themselves as the cheerleaders/role models for achieving excellence in public secondary education. Thus far, they have only succeeded in achieving failing grades in every arena. Is it terribly disappointing to many of us to see CA’s fine institutions so poorly managed by high-priced and, supposedly, top-notch talent. What a bad ROI!
So you think that colleges don’t have disclaimers saying that they can alter tuition from semester to semester or quarter to quarter?