UC regents to vote on tuition hike at Wednesday meeting

tuition_rachaelgarner_file
Rachael Garner/File

Related Posts

The UC Board of Regents will convene Wednesday and Thursday at UCSF Mission Bay to vote on a proposed tuition hike, discuss internal audit activities and establish a new position in the senior management group of the associate vice president.

On Wednesday, the regents will vote to adopt a policy on compliance with state audits and endorse recommendations for the academic verification task force, among other actions. They will also review an annual report on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s 2017 fiscal year and discuss an update on the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract competition.

One of the most anticipated actions is the regents’ approval of the budget for the 2018-19 academic year, which includes the budget for current operations, tuition and financial aid, as well as adjustments for employer contributions to UC campus retirement plans.

This proposed budget includes a tuition hike that would, if approved, increase tuition for the 2018-19 academic year by 2.5 percent.

The regents have been considering the tuition increase since September. The proposed tuition hike amounts to $348 per year with additional student expenses of $662, adjusted for inflation.

The tuition hike has been a source of contention on campus and has inspired the campus student organization Rising Immigrant Scholars through Education, or RISE, to create a petition opposing the proposed tuition increase.

There will also be a “Fight the Hike: Rally against Tuition Increase” on Sproul Plaza on Wednesday at 10 a.m., according to a Facebook event page. The rally is co-sponsored by the UC Berkeley progressive student association, CalSERVE, the UC Student-Workers Union and Berkeley Citizens Action, among others.

Thursday’s meeting will feature an endorsement of the recommendations of the academic verification task force, approval of supplemental tuition for a graduate professional degree program on the UC Merced campus and a revised agreement between the University of California and the California Institute of Technology for the California Association for Research in Astronomy.

Ani Vahradyan is the university news editor. Contact her at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @anivahrad.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to statewide student coalition Rise California as the UC Berkeley student group Rising Immigrant Scholars through Education.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • I love Trump!!!

    Wonder if these protestors know who pays for these costs? No, I don’t think they care. They think everything should be free. The real world runs out of ‘free’ very quickly.

  • That Guy

    Our UC funding is exactly backwards. We should lend the money, all of it, and then credit it to taxes post graduation. Instead of a gift that you take with you to North Carolina it’s a loan you repay by staying in CA and building the state.

  • Nunya Beeswax

    Also, come on : “Who’s University” is a gaffe that should have been caught & dealt with before a picture was taken. Good grief.

    • California Defender

      That gaffe (I’m doubtful it is) perfectly reinforces my earlier responses.

  • California Defender

    A tuition hike, far more than a minuscule $348/yr, is long overdue.

    In-state tuition per year at major public universities:

    UC Berkeley: $14,068
    Illinois State: $14,061
    U Illinois: $17,040
    Michigan State: $14,460
    U Michigan: $16,696
    Clemson: $14,712
    U Mass: $15,596
    U Virginia: $16,146
    U Vermont: $17,740
    Penn State: $18,436
    U New Hampshire: $18,067
    U Pittsburgh: $19,080
    William & Mary: $20,287

    Is your education better than Illinois State? Perhaps you’re right, don’t raise tuition. A 2nd tier state college is where Berkeley is at.

    If we remove all public funding, you can lower tuition as much as you want. Deal?

    • Rollie

      Your comparison presupposes that tuitions in those other states aren’t excessive themselves. Perhaps an Illinois St. student would use such a comparison to argue for lower tuition at that institution. Maybe budgetary bloat is a common problem among public universities nationwide, and every one of those listed, in-state tuitions is unduly high.

      Or maybe not. But I think that any fiscal self-reckoning to be done by the UC system should be based on comparing its itself against a comprehensive standard, with its own citizens in mind, and not against a single datum sampled from other states.

      Also, it’s easy for us to say that $348/yr. is miniscule, but we only speak for ourselves. Doubtless there are students to whom that amount of money is very significant.

      • California Defender

        I would not dispute that assumption. This is why I advocate for the privatization of higher education.

        • Rollie

          Interesting idea, but likely one with a slim chance of happening because privatization is anathema to bureaucrats, even conservative ones.

          In general, I favor parallel, private institutions rather than replacement of public ones, so that competition will best serve the consumer. Sometimes the public entity performs better (CalTrans), and sometimes the private one does. (SpaceX comes to mind.) Typically, this ensures only higher-quality alternatives at a higher cost, not a lower-priced option of sufficient quality for consumers of limited means. The proof of this is that we have private colleges and universities right now, and they compete with public institutions, yet I can’t name any that are as good as the UC schools but with lower tuition. The way I see it, neither the public nor private institutions are exactly driving each other’s costs down. So I suspect that privatizing California’s universities would turn them into the same kind of higher-tuition private schools that currently exist.

          Also, I consider students to be a special type of consumer, because merit is a factor. For example, I’d never say that someone deserves a Corvette if he can’t afford one, because “deserves” has nothing to do with it, only money does. In contrast, a student of limited means, but a great student by all academic measures, with the potential to improve our society, deserves a great education despite not being able to afford it. I don’t see private institutions attending to that value as much as public ones.

  • Nunya Beeswax

    Their energy would be better spent lobbying the office of the Governor and state legislators to restore the university’s funding. This school costs money to run, and it’s got to come from somewhere.

    • California Defender

      Tuition is that somewhere.

      Universities perform best when they are held accountable to those who pay for it.

      Donors are primary.
      Students are secondary.
      Taxpayers are ignored.

      Let the first two pay.

Tags No tags yet