UC tuition hike only option amid state divestment

UNIVERSITY ISSUES: Freeze in tuition for the past six years was never viable solution for University

Willow Yang/Senior Staff

After six years of living in a frozen paradise, UC students once again face the possibility of increased tuition. And this time, it’s not only reasonable — it’s necessary, for all the wrong reasons.

The UC Board of Regents has proposed a $282 tuition increase that would go into effect in the next academic year. The hike would affect most nonresidents and roughly one-third of residents, leaving the two-thirds of in-state students who can least afford it unscathed.

While it may be tempting to blame the UC system for disregarding students’ financial concerns, a quick alternative fix does not exist.

The state has failed to provide adequate funding for the university, leaving two options, both of which would lead to backlash. It can either increase enrollment — to the benefit of nonresidents, who pay more in tuition and fees — or it can increase tuition systemwide.

At UC Berkeley, we have seen the detrimental impacts of increased enrollment: overcrowded classrooms, housing insecurity and overstrained campus infrastructure.

In the meantime, the small tuition hike can alleviate these problems and give the university more money to improve services.

While many universities increase their tuition every year to accommodate for inflation, the University of California has not increased tuition since 2011. If it had, tuition at UC Berkeley would have risen a total of $747.58 since 2011.

Still, the state continues to pressure the UC system to further increase enrollment. In 2015, the state and the regents discussed a plan wherein the university would increase its enrollment by 10,000 students over the next three years in exchange for $25 million in state funding.

A two-year freeze proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015, while surely popular among in-state students, was never a viable or fair solution for the university.

Worse yet, someone had to make up for the revenue loss: While in-state tuition has stagnated, nonresidents have paid a 5.4 percent yearly increase in their supplemental tuition since 2015. Meanwhile, a 2016 state audit found that increasing nonresident enrollment has disadvantaged resident students.

Faced with the continual threat of state divestment, the university has recognized that, judging from past systemwide protests, students would call out an unreasonable tuition increase. The $282 hike merely asks in-state students to pay a share of the burden that their nonresident peers had, until now, shouldered alone.

We have not seen the end of tuition increases and should expect more after this is approved. As students, we must never grow complacent with rising costs of tuition, no matter how small. Our dollars may hold off the university’s financial collapse for the time being, but the system, the state and the taxpayers must be held accountable for divestment from public higher education.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board as written by the opinion editor.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • AcheronLupus1

    Let’s cut the crap here: Professors in the UC system are overpaid, in-state students are paying far too little, and non-resident supplemental tuition is far too high. On top of that, I’m sure we don’t need to toss as much money at irrelevant research topics as we do.

    If we simply lowered the salary of professors (Some of which make 250 k), made in-state tuition two or three thousand dollars higher and cut out wasteful expenditures this wouldn’t even be a conversation.

    Stop blowing money, and operate in a fiscally responsible manner. Just because students are not from California doesn’t mean you should rip them off for an education which is no better than their peers, and just because someone is not from the state does not mean they do not want to move there permanently.

  • Alex

    Easy explanation, the Berkeley and LA campuses became global institutions, and elite education = more $$$. The problem is, UC tuition is the same on every campus, fees at Berkeley and LA are the same as Merced and Riverside. Does this make sense? No, but if variable tuition were allowed to be introduced, the UC system would inevitably break apart with Berkeley and LA going their separate ways, and they would probably steer towards further privatization anyway. That said, Berkeley is still a bargain, comparatively speaking.

  • diogenes

    Math problems:

    In 1976 the total tuition, including ASUC fees, for one quarter, was $212. The minimum wage was $2.30. The minimum wage has increased by by 69%. How much has tuition increased by?

    How much has expenses on administrative staffing increased? How much have faculty salaries increased? How much have graduate student instructor salaries increased?

    And the Daily Cal says: bend over.

    • ErikKengaard

      Governor Moonbeam cut off funding for study (by CPEC) of California University tuition.

      • diogenes

        That’s right. I blame it all on Governor Moonbeam, that fake operative of southern california bloodsucker (watersuckers).

        But I’m ashamed of the editors of the Daily Cal for lining up behind this filthy proposal. The Daily Cal has an intermitantly distinguished history, which they are disgracing.

  • geez, then stop protesting budget cuts and laying off bloated bureacrats. you guys cant have it both ways with no budget buts and no tuition increases

  • Kurt VanderKoi

    So you drank the Berkeley Kool Aid and are now disappointed by tuition hikes.

    Here are several options.

    Option 1: You cannot control tuition costs but you can control housing costs.
    Check out housing costs around:
    – Cal Poly http://www.calpoly.edu/
    – UC Merced http://www.ucmerced.edu/

    Option 2: You should check out distance online education and earn you degree from home or a low cost housing area.
    – Arizona State University https://asuonline.asu.edu/
    – Georgia Institute of Technology http://www.cc.gatech.edu/academics/degree-programs/masters/online-ms-cs
    – Many Others

    Options 3: Move to and become a resident in a different state where tuition and housing costs are lower.

    • justiceplease

      Connections and access to urban employment opportunities are a big part of the value of a degree. I feel sorry for the kids who were suckered into online education during all the hype of the last decade. That degree will be almost as worthless as claiming on your resume that you self-taught yourself via YouTube videos. Most work skills are learned on the job: it’s getting your foot in the door that counts.

      • Kurt VanderKoi

        I listed 3 options.

        BTW, just about every major university has moved many courses and degrees online. UC Berkeley is stuck in the mid twentieth century requiring students to be physically present in large classes, living in expensive Berkeley or enduring expensive and time consuming commutes to Berkeley.

        • justiceplease

          Yeah, that’s why I feel sorry for the entire generation that was pushed into online education. The on-campus college experience was an important way of overcoming geography-based class barriers, and campus housing also gave young people an important step to living on their own. In the future, online schools will probably face the same sort of lawsuits as “tech schools” do now.
          It doesn’t help that online education is a hot investment area: what’s in the interest of the rich gets a lot of PR.

          • Kurt VanderKoi

            I listed 3 options.

            Who will pay for your on-campus college experience and campus housing or expensive and time consuming commutes to Berkeley?

          • justiceplease

            Even a thousand years ago, Oxford had live-in housing, fellowships, and campus jobs to support poor students. The University of California’s Master Plan made college tuition-free: subsidized by the taxpayers so that educated people would be serving public needs. In more recent years, the War on Poverty spread subsidies so a whole generation could enter the middle class, regardless of race, gender, class, etc. There are always ways to pay for it: it’s a matter on whether people think education is a priority.
            For decades, we’ve starved rural areas of even a basic education: the void was filled with propaganda and social media memes. Look what happens when we don’t think education is a priority. You will be out-voted by people who don’t have the intellectual tools to think for themselves.

          • lspanker

            Fortunately, this time, you and your ilk were out-voted by those who COULD think for themselves…

          • justiceplease

            Are you saying you voted for Trump?
            (Not that I would be surprised.)

          • lspanker

            Didn’t vote for Trump myself, but after I saw the antics of the loonies who were out rioting and breaking things, I am honestly relieved that the Democrats lost this election. We don’t need a country run by people who think that only their votes and their opinions matter, and that they can resort to violence if they don’t get their way. If THAT is an example of what young people are learning in their universities these days, maybe it’s time to defund the whole mess and start all over…

          • justiceplease

            You might want to tell that to the right-wing militias and all the nutjobs who regularly threaten to take up arms – invoking their 2nd amendment rights – to overthrow the government.

          • lspanker

            How many of those “right wing nutjobs” as you put it rioted and broke things after Obama was elected, vs. the left-wing nutjobs who did just that a couple of months back? You are so far, far removed from reality in your little goo-goo progressive Berkeley world that you’re a regular joke, even among other liberals.

          • diogenes

            In 1962 the wealthiest 5% of Americans owned about 50% of all wealth. Today they own over 75%. This is a profound shift in the distribution of wealth, and therefore also of power and of benefits. The Board of Regents consists almost exclusively of members of the wealthiest 1% plus a few of their passive mouthpieces. That’s what drives these policies.

          • justiceplease

            If I recall correctly, Richard Blum did want to convert the UC system to online education…where all his investments were.

          • lspanker

            Yeah, that’s why I feel sorry for the entire generation that was pushed into online education. The on-campus college experience was an important way of overcoming geography-based class barriers, and campus housing also gave young people an important step to living on their own.

            Uncle Sam took care of both of those for me, in return for a six year commitment to the United States Air Force (active duty & reserves). My assessment of that experience is that our armed forces do a far better job of overcoming “geography-based barriers” and providing a step to living on one’s own than the UC system has done with its hundreds of thousands of spoiled, immature, irresponsible and overly sensitive snowflakes over the last few decades. Sounds like you’re more concerned that these students get their prerequisite dose of lefty liberal PC indoctrination than whether the funds allocated to their education are spent in a productive manner…

          • justiceplease

            Ah, yes – I forgot the military route. Rural schools advertise the military route to college rather than providing direct college counseling.
            So…”who pays” for the military college benefit? Who even pays for the military? It’s a social choice to collectively pay for things we consider to be public goods.

          • lspanker

            Unlike you lefty liberals, many of us consider defense of our country, along with the side product of producing mature, responsible young men and women who have what it takes to assume leadership positions, to be a public good.

          • justiceplease

            So it sounds like you are willing to “find the money” for that. If education were your priority then you would “find the money” for that, too.

          • lspanker

            So it sounds like you are willing to “find the money” for that.

            We have the money for that, paid by federal taxes.

            If education were your priority then you would “find the money” for that, too.

            I make a clear distinction between “education” and shoveling money to a bloated academic bureaucracy that refuses to hold itself responsible for its inability to balance a budget. In addition, the UC system is the responsibility of the California taxpayers, not the federal government. Do you even know the difference?

        • lspanker

          I listed 3 options.

          But, but, but… you didn’t offer any option involving rainbows and unicorns, and all the children of the world holding hands and singing “give peace a chance”, or money growing on trees. You’re clearly a mean person who hates children and probably doesn’t recycle either. Shame on you… :Oo

  • shesaid5

    It is never mentioned on this topic is that “out-of-state” or “foreign” students can pay in-state tuition after “residing” in CA for a year and a day. Berkeley is notorious for promoting such a scheme. Also the same receive grants and scholarships. The point of needing their increased tuition is therefore moot.

    • Bob Jacobsen

      The statement about paying in-state tuition after a year is just wrong. See http://registrar.berkeley.edu/tuition-fees-residency/residency-tuition-purposes which says:

      “The process of obtaining California residency for tuition purposes is extremely difficult for undergraduates under the age of 24 with nonresident parents (this includes transfer students from community colleges and other postsecondary institutions within California). Virtually all nonresident undergraduates with nonresident parents remain nonresidents for the duration of their undergraduate career at UC Berkeley.”

      • shesaid5

        But it is still possible and done:

        Parent of Minor who Moves from California

        If you are a minor whose parent(s) move from California to establish
        residence elsewhere, you will be entitled to a resident classification
        if you remain behind and enroll full time in a postsecondary institution
        within one year of the date that your parent(s) establish their new
        residence. Your resident classification will continue as long as you
        maintain continuous full-time attendance at the postsecondary

        Self-Supporting Minor

        If you are a minor who has been totally self-supporting and physically
        present in California for at least 366 days immediately prior to the
        residence determination date, with the intention of establishing
        residence, you are eligible for a resident classification so long as you
        continue to be self-sufficient. You must provide clear and convincing
        evidence of complete self-sufficiency.

        Two-Year Care and Control

        If you are a minor or an 18-year-old student, you may be eligible for a
        resident classification if, immediately prior to enrolling in a
        postsecondary institution, you’ve been living with and been under the
        continuous direct care and control of, a California-resident adult,
        other than a natural or adoptive parent, for a period of not less than
        two years. Requirements:

        must have lived with an adult, or series of adults, other than a parent, for at least two years immediately prior to enrollment

        must not receive support or income from any source outside of California

        The California adults must not receive support or income on your behalf from any sources outside of California

        during the two-year period, you must have been under the continuous
        direct care and control of the adult(s) with no assistance provided by
        others, including your parents

        during the one year immediately prior to the residence determination
        date, the adult(s) must have met the requirements for residence for
        tuition purposes

        if you are not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, you must be in an eligible immigration status

        you must maintain continuous enrollment at a California public postsecondary institution

        if you’ve enrolled in more than one postsecondary institution,
        attendance in all postsecondary institutions must amount to continuous,
        full-time attendance throughout the prescribed period

        you must live with the person having care and control, and at no other address


        California High School Graduate (AB 540 – Cal. Ed. Code § 68130.5)

        Dependent of a California Resident Parent (Condit)

        Current Member of the Military (& Dependent Children, Spouses, Registered Domestic Partners)

        Former Member of the Military (& Dependent Children, Spouses, Registered Domestic Partners

        University Employment Outside of California

        Unmarried Child, Spouse, or Registered Domestic Partner of a UC Faculty Member

        T or U Visa Holders

        Dependent or Ward of State through California’s Child Welfare System (Foster Youth)

        Other Exemptions


        Nonresident Doctoral Students Advanced to Candidacy

        Employee of California Public School District

        • Bob Jacobsen

          You did notice that these are “parent who moves _from_ California”, “present in California for at least 366 days immediately _prior_ to the residence date determination date”, “you’ve been living with … a California-resident adult, … for a period of not less than two years”, etc, right?

          None of those are the case you described in your first comment, which was ‘ “out-of-state” or “foreign” students can pay in-state tuition after “residing” in CA for a year and a day’.

          The only exemption that comes close to what you claim is the military exemption: “a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty for a period of more than 30 days and whose domicile or permanent duty station is in California, or the spouse, registered domestic partner, or dependent child of such a member, may be entitled to an exemption from nonresident supplemental tuition” That covers people who were California residents, and might not be how because they’ve been assigned away.

          Can you give a specific scenario? Or a pointer to an example?

    • diogenes

      What do you expect? Administrators get paid big money to rig this. Look what kind of people are on the Board of Regents.

  • justiceplease

    The UC system was intended to be tuition-free for in-State students. The University needs to confront the reasons for State divestment instead of aspiring to be a global institution. The simple fact is the City of Berkeley can’t absorb increased enrollment. Governor Brown won’t pony up the funds for affordable housing. The University needs to do strategic planning about how they can be perceived as an asset by the taxpayers. The current situation is untenable.

    • ErikKengaard

      @ justice – with regard to how the university can be perceived as an asset by the taxpayers: that will be difficult, given the change in the population since 1970. Prior to 1970 (plus or minus) the taxpayers of California viewed the university as serving their children; is it probable that they now they perceive it as serving other people’s children?

      • justiceplease

        The change in population shouldn’t be an issue if that population also votes. I agree, though, that the perception is the University serves other people’s children and the more they woo out-of-state and International students, the worse that perception will be. The administration itself probably does want to break out of being a State institution and leverage UC Berkeley’s International reputation to become an Ivy of the West Coast. If the citizens of California allow this, it will be a loss of a great asset that they built and invested in.

        In my view, the problem isn’t only “someone else’s children” – it’s the children of the global super rich. It’s almost like the super rich stole administrative tactics that were meant to promote diversity – much the same way that the need for “housing” was stolen to enhance International investment vehicles. What a perversion of the good intentions of globalism.

        • lspanker

          The change in population shouldn’t be an issue if that population also votes.

          It WILL be if the change in demographics results in a change in economic condition as well. People are ignoring the fact that with the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the increased taxes and regulation put on business, decent paying jobs (and the people working them) have been leaving California by the millions for several decades now. Replacing those people with illegal aliens whose contribution to the tax base is negligible is NOT going to sustain public spending at the current rate, which is already evidenced by the huge pension liabilities faced by both state and local governments in California already…

          • justiceplease

            The increase in taxes on businesses and property are to compensate for the reduction in Federal taxes. People don’t understand that they have to pay for government and public services *one way or the other*. If they don’t want local taxes to go up, they have to pay Federal taxes that will get re-allocated to localities.
            As for the demographic change: I don’t get your point. America was built on demographic changes, and taxpayers are taxpayers. Why are you assuming some people are worse taxpayers than others?
            However, since your point of view is no one should pay taxes, it seems like it’s actually the wealthier people with more influential political voices that we should all be worried about (in terms of who wriggles out of their obligations).

          • lspanker

            The increase in taxes on businesses and property are to compensate for the reduction in Federal taxes. People don’t understand that they have to pay for government and public services *one way or the other*.

            YOU and the rest of the “progressives” don’t understand that when working people are disproportionately called on to support illegal aliens and long-terms welfare recipients, and realize that they aren’t getting services commensurate with what they pay in taxes, they tend to look for a better deal in places such as Arizona, Nevada, and Texas, all of which have benefited greatly from California driving off its taxpayer base.

            As for the demographic change: I don’t get your point.

            Of course you don’t, because that would mean having to admit a rather inconvenient economic truth.

            Why are you assuming some people are worse taxpayers than others?

            Did I say “worse taxpayers”? Or did I merely point out that illegal aliens, most of them working at the lower end of the wage spectrum (FWIW, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay less than 5% of all federal and state income taxes), aren’t going to bring in the same level of state tax receipts than the college-educated, middle-class workers who have fled the state in droves to find somewhere where they can afford to live?

            However, since your point of view is no one should pay taxes

            Where did I state that? Sources and cites please.

          • justiceplease

            Or perhaps you just notice the poor ones, especially if they aren’t white? Someone from Norway can illegally immigrate here, and no one complains about them. Silicon Valley puts immigrants to work at all level of talent. Do their taxes count?

            Or perhaps we should get rid of the foreign *owned* companies as well: that would cost us a lot of employment and taxes, but at least we’d be rid of those foreigners!!! /sarcasm.

            By the way, most “welfare” programs are Federal, so running away from California won’t help you escape participation in social safety nets. Unfortunately, the Federal government doesn’t pay nearly enough for these programs, so localities really get soaked for emergency services and housing.

          • lspanker

            Or perhaps you just notice the poor ones, especially if they aren’t white? Someone from Norway can illegally immigrate here, and no one complains about them.

            Show me where I have defended illegal aliens if they were white. I have not, so stop trying to turn this into a racial issue, the last resort of fruitcake liberals who have no real argument to make.

            Silicon Valley puts immigrants to work at all level of talent. Do their taxes count?

            You apparently have no clue as to the difference between a illegal alien, a legal immigrant, and a resident alien with a valid work visa. Why is that?

  • ErikKengaard

    “The state has failed to provide adequate funding for the university . . . . ”


    How was the state (aka the taxpayer) able and willing to support the University for 100 years (1868 – 1968), allowing zero tuition for 12.5% of high school graduates? Were families smaller then? Richer?
    Were per student costs of the University lower?

    • lspanker

      Three reasons:

      (1) Smaller staff with less bureaucracy as they didn’t need to fund a bunch of federal mandates and social programs.

      (2) Other than the occasional “legacy” who got in because his or her parents were willing to provide some major donations to the university, we didn’t have “affirmative action” or “diversity” or other quota systems that populated campuses with students who had neither the intellectual aptitude nor the demonstrated academic ability to succeed in a college environment. Spending tens of thousands on a student who later drops out because he or she can’t cut it is another waste of money that is completely overlooked.

      (3) Nobody back then felt that we were obligated to provide college educations to people who weren’t in the country legally.

      • diogenes

        Up until 1984 one third of entering freshman spots at Berkeley were reserved for qualifying Bay Area highschool students. This built our local culture. Which the regents didn’t like since local cultures tend to express and defend local values instead of the predatory Wall Street vampire values represented by the kind of people who sit on the Board of Regents. so they changed the rule and started referring local applicants to Riverside, UCLA, UCSB, etc. The REgents’ agenda is destructive of our community.

      • ErikKengaard

        Christina Kersey made an attempt to explain in her Master’s thesis (look it up).
        The essence of the matter is that California became overpopulated, and the increase did not reflect the economic substance and integrity of the population of the first hundred years of the University.
        Thanks largely to immigration of poor, State funds were diverted to increased funding of K12, to prisons, and to welfare. See CPEC and Christina Kersey’s thesis for data. http://www.csus.edu/PPA/thesis-Project/bank/2012/Kersey.pdf

Tags No tags yet