Soteros-McNamara is a fourth-year political science student.
By Thomas Soteros-McNamara
Idan Ivri’s column “ASUCLA
fails to meet student needs,” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Jan. 8) addresses many of the unresolved student concerns regarding
the direction and operation of the ASUCLA businesses at Ackerman
Student Union.
That he decided to create a dialogue at all is a wonderful
thing, however, Ivri’s column, while having noble intentions,
is pure fantasy. The assumptions that he makes ignore the somewhat
unique and precarious economic situation of the student union.
Prices are high at Ackerman partially as a result of economies
of scale. As any economics major will inform you, a business, in
ideal circumstances, becomes more efficient the larger it becomes.
Since ASUCLA is not nearly as large as a business like Ralphs or
Rite-Aid, it will not stand to make the same profit if all other
factors are the same.
Also, as ASUCLA sells in many different products and services,
it reduces the economy of scale even more. The “Korean
restaurant on Gayley” only buys a few items and therefore
reduces the potential that some items will sell and others not.
This is also reflected in the prices you pay at any given
store.
Rarely is the cost of anything you buy, say that $50 UCLA
sweatshirt, simply the cost of manufacture, transportation, profit
and sale. It is also a calculation of what is needed to break even
should not every item in the store be sold. Hence, book prices
in the Union are the closest to market price and things like
electronics (which can be hard to move) and food (which has a
limited viability) have the greatest disparity to prices on the
open market.
The other reason for seemingly outrageous prices involves
something a bit less systemic. ASUCLA is deep in debt from both
fiscal mismanagement and the need to rebuild after Ackerman
suffered damage in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
ASUCLA had the opportunity to outsource the entire operations of
the store to outside contractors. While prices may have dropped in
the store, the quarterly student union fee would have gone from $51
(due to earthquake retrofitting) to around $250 a quarter. When you
consider that in 2003 the student union fee will return to $7.50 a
quarter, it poses a tough question: would you rather pay for the
privilege of having a student union at the start of quarter or
throughout the quarter by having inflated prices? Either way, Ivri
and students have to accept that they have to pay.
Yet some people may feel that it is the responsibility of the
university and, by extension the state, to protect students from
price-gouging. This is not a fair expectation largely because the
issue is not simply greed, as Ivri would like us to believe.
Instead, one must realize that the university can never provide
anything at cost. There must always be mark up. Why you ask? Well
the state of California prohibits the money it gives to
universities from going toward non-academic uses, namely parking,
housing, ASUCLAÂ and athletics to name a few. These sectors of
UCLA have to be fiscally independent as a result. The reality is
that for the most part, many people on different levels would like
to help out students more than they do currently. Yet the law
succinctly prohibits this and so apathy often reigns when money
dries up.
The other stark reality is that only 30 percent of UCLA’s
budget comes from the state itself. The other 70 percent comes from
other sources, be it donations, third-party contracts or even
filming rights. Of course, some universities out there (like
Stanford and Harvard) have incredibly large endowments. But
consider, how much you pay in fees at UCLA ““ $5,000. How much
would you pay at Harvard? $27,000. Harvard’s alumni give at
around 46 percent whereas at UCLA it is more like 12 percent. The
university has more in common with its students than Ivri realizes,
as both parties teeter on being broke.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The cost
of higher education is not something which the state of California
wants to give away for free. However, since it chooses to keep
tuition low the university must find other ways to harvest revenue
from its customers/students. Therefore, expect that every
convenience will come with a price.
Do not think, however, that this is somehow a unique problem.
The problem Ivri discusses is a byproduct of the capitalist system,
and students privileged enough to attend UCLA ought to realize that
in their desire to get good jobs and high wages, the state (and
everyone else) will try and exploit them along the way.