If voters reject Prop. 30 at the polls Tuesday, the state budget dictates that the University of California will be dealt a $250 million cut this fiscal year and another $125 million cut in 2013-14.
Though UC officials have said that if the cuts go into effect the university would be forced to implement a mid-year tuition hike of around 20 percent, other possible courses of action have been discussed to deal with longer term funding shortfalls.
At their Sept. 12 meeting, The UC Board of Regents discussed the possibility of bringing in additional funding by increasing the number of out of state students admitted to the system, charging differential tuition based on campus or course of study and restructuring the UC’s revenue, investments and endowments.
One of the most likely actions the Regents could take would be raising the amount of out-of-state students accepted into the university systemwide from its current 10 percent cap to 15-20 percent. In addition to paying the tuition charged to California residents, out of state students are assessed a supplemental fee of about $23,000 a year. That means that for every 1,000 nonresident students enrolled, UC receives $23 million that can be used to help fund the education of California students, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.
“This ‘excess’ revenue adds up quickly,” Klein said in email.
Critics have long argued that increasing out of state student enrollment could negatively impact the diversity of the UC and push California residents out of the system.
“While out of state students bring geographic diversity, they rarely bring racial or economic diversity,” said UC Student Regent Jonathan Stein. “Using out of state students as a budget solution may decrease the diversity of the institution as a whole.”
Stein added that because out of state students primarily apply to UCLA and UC Berkeley, increasing the cap could shift California residents from those schools to some of the system’s less prestigious campuses.
“The UC must remain nimble and creative in order to preserve the guiding principles of our university system: access, affordability, and academic excellence,” Klein said in the email.
Another option discussed at the September Regents’ meeting was a controversial one: the potential for charging differential tuition determined by campus or discipline. Some graduate programs and professional programs already charge differential tuition.
However, the option has been criticized because of the potential for privatization it could pose if one campus in the system charges more than another for a degree, and Stein said the option is unlikely to find much support within the system or with the Regents.
“That’s opposed by everybody,” Stein said. “I think that’s a terrible idea.”
Other potential ways to make up for funding gaps if Prop. 30 fails include providing incentives for the early completion of degrees to cut down on costs, restructuring the university’s debt — including bonds — and pulling on money earned from funds functioning as endowments.This restructuring could generate $20 million in one-time funds.
Still, according to Elizabeth Deakin, vice chair of the academic senate and a professor of city and regional planning, the bottom line is that if Prop. 30 fails, the chances are that tuition hikes will be counted on to fill the funding gap. The proposed 20.3 percent tuition hike would raise student fees by about $2400 per semester.
“The Regents would probably have no choice but to raise tuition, and that would have a tremendous impact on our students,” Deakin said. “There’s very little else that we can do as fast.”
Should the proposition pass, though students will be off the hook for a tuition increase this school year, they will likely still face a 6 percent tuition increase for the 2013-14 academic year.
Critics of the proposition have said that it does not guarantee that a substantial amount of funding will go to the schools.
“It won’t solve all our problems, but it will give us some breathing room,” Deakin said. “If it doesn’t pass, we’re in big trouble.”
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.
Here’s what Bob Meister, UCSC Politics Professor has to say about the
collusion between the State, UC Regents, and using ever-increasing
tuition to fund their own agenda–NOT education:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/american-students-the-coal-miners-of-today/
Also, plans afoot by both Dems and Repubs to stop automatic cuts to education, because Prop 30 is too close to call.
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/11/reversing-the-trigger-cuts/
And, here’s a funny:
http://www.twitpic.com/abmync/full
Wow, look at all this liberal propaganda on the eve of the election. Way to be an “unbiased” newspaper, Daily Cal!
And the Lib media boot licking continues….
So it is now clear that California’s agenda is to redistribute wealth, this doesn’t just smack of socialism it is on the cusp of communism.
This is nothing but political blackmail by the sleazy politicians in Sacramento lead by the king of sleaze himself Jerry Brown. I am voting no on 30 and voting for anyone but Brown in the next Governors race. The money is going directly into the general fund and 150% of it will be spent before a penny goes to our states educational system. A big NO!
“If voters reject Prop. 30…”
The entire premise of this report is wrong. It should have started with “If California’s legislature had not assumed a huge influx of money before authorizing payouts to politically connected special interest groups …”
Voters should reject Prop. 30 on principle alone, even if they strongly believe in high taxes for high income families. Letting the state legislature get away with Prop 30 only reinforces its ability to make fantasy budget projections, pander to every special interest group, spend money it doesn’t have, and feign distress when it runs out of money, which forces it to point a gun to public schools year after year to extort more money.
Yes, Moonbeam and his Lib cabal are running an extortion racket in SACTO. Hold the gun on the public….hands up…fork over your dinero MoFos.
Calipenguin, do you not have student loans? Do you come from a rich family? How can you in good conscience vote against Prop. 30 when the 20% mid-year tuition hike will hurt thousands of students by placing them further in debt?
Vote NO on 30
If the proposition fails, we will have a 20% mid-year tuition hike come January. How can you vote against it when it will place many students in further debt?
There is NOTHING in Prop 30 that guarantees that a single penny of the additional taxes collected will go to the UC system, dimwit. It’s gullible man-children like you who fall for this nonsense and have created a large portion of the problem this state has with out-of-control spending in the first place.
There is a much better way to get funding for Cal. Protest! The legislature proves every year that they can push Cal students around by cutting our funding and raising our tuition without them suffering any negative effects. Tomorrow, vote against the incumbent legislators running. Then next week start protesting at the university, at Loni Hancock’s office, and in Sacramento. Cal students shouldn’t let themselves be victims of government that tries to extort them for votes. Cal students should take the offensive and show the legislature that Cal students are strong and can’t be pushed around.
What do you think about http://www.dailycal.org/2012/11/02/why-cal-students-should-vote-on-election-day/ where Nadesan Permaul wrote, “I am grateful for interest in my opinion piece, though saddened by this response to it. It seems to presuppose that one constituency has more value than another, and continues the fragmentation and polarization we see in state, local and national politics, rather than embracing a broader sense of public good. I certainly support fiscal responsibility, but to punish higher education as a kind of principled position seems self-defeating. Education benefits all constituencies.”
The “benefits all constituencies” argument FAILS. Giving away free cell phones, food, gas, and medical care benefits all constituencies.
You may be correct. Judging from your posts, you don’t seem to have derived much benefit from your university education.
I think that if the governor and legislature agreed with Nadesan, then they wouldn’t have created a proposition that is being sold as a way to help K-12 and community college education. Provide a proposition that supports only education, and that doesn’t allow the legislature to take previously budgeted education money away, and I might get behind that proposition. Lie to me about the purpose of a proposition, and I will not vote for it. I won’t vote for a lie, and other Cal students shouldn’t either. I am saddened that Nadesan basically says that even though the proposition is a lie, we should vote for it. We should live with integrity and demand integrity from our elected officials.
NO on 30
Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to make voters an offer they can’t refuse. He knows that Californians value education, so he is traveling up and down the state threatening voters with deep cuts to schools if his Proposition 30 tax hike initiative doesn’t pass. The ugly truth about Proposition 30 that the governor fails to tell voters is that Proposition 30 is a gimmick to backfill the state’s budget and doesn’t guarantee any new funding for schools.
Proposition 30 is just a $50 billion political shell game. Politicians can take existing money for schools and use it for other programs and then replace that money with the revenue raised from Proposition 30′s higher taxes. We never really know where the money is going.
Proposition 30′s inherent flaws have been exposed by state officials and others. The California School Boards Association stated, “The governor’s initiative does not provide new funding for schools.”
If that isn’t enough, look no further than the initiative itself. The official title and summary of Proposition 30 says the money can be used for “paying for other spending commitments.” The Wall Street Journal concluded, “The dirty little secret is that the new revenues are needed to backfill the insolvent teachers’ pension fund.” It doesn’t get much more clear than that.
Despite the governor’s reliance on the popularity of education in his effort to extort more from taxpayers, spending on K-12 schools has risen by $9 billion over the last 10 years. The current fiscal year is no exception. Total school funding increases in 2012-13 whether Proposition 30 passes or not, by $1.2 billion. That means a budget increase of $610 per pupil. We will continue to spend nearly half our state general fund budget on education.
And when the governor claims that these tax increases are “temporary,” voters should immediately see a red flag. Proposition 30 would increase the state budget and spending, but since there is no provision that would reduce that spending when the taxes expire, the state would have to make up for the loss of $6 billion in revenue. This would create enormous pressure to make these tax increases permanent or even bigger.
The loopholes and gimmicks in Proposition 30 prove that this is just another tax-and-spend scheme for which Sacramento politicians are notorious. They are trying to dupe voters into believing that the money generated from Proposition 30 will go to our schools but, in reality, our classrooms aren’t guaranteed one single penny.
Proposition 30 allows the pay-for-play Sacramento politicians to continue their irresponsible spending and pass the bill on to taxpayers. No changes, nor reforms – just more spending. Holding our schools hostage in an attempt to extort more taxpayer money is not a tactic to which voters will respond favorably.
We need real reform that will cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy and guarantee that our money gets to the classroom. Let’s give California students the quality education they deserve by changing the system first so we can make sure that education funds are being used wisely and efficiently.
NO on 30
One point you didn’t mention is that public safety is also mentioned as a direct beneficiary of Prop. 30 money. So the legislature doesn’t even have to play a shell game. They can just take as much Prop. 30 money as they want and use it to increase the prison budget.
I don’t even care what they use the money for. I’m voting YES on Prop. 30 so that there will not be a 20% mid-year tuition hike in January.
I actually expect most students to vote on the proposition based on this fact. The legislature has threatened the students, and the students can either give in to the threat or they can fight. Cal isn’t much of a fighting university any longer.
Thanks for the copypasta, plagiarist.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/16/4914280/viewpoints-will-prop-30-boost.html