Today, the UC Board of Regents will be on the UCLA campus to
vote on UC President Robert Dynes’ recommendation to increase
your student fees, again. They will also vote to set the level of
financial aid support for the UC system.
Over the past few years, students have been burdened by steep
increases in mandatory systemwide fees. In the 2003-2004 school
year, resident undergraduate student fees rose $1,150, or 30
percent. In the current year, fees have risen an additional 14
percent for resident undergraduates.
Additionally, the Higher Education Compact, negotiated by Dynes
and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last May, calls for 8 percent
increases for the next two years. The combination of all these fee
hikes will amount to an overall increase of more than 60 percent in
just about the time it takes to complete a degree program.
Increasing fees, although never something welcomed by students,
is especially troubling because Dynes’ proposal would reverse
a long-standing UC commitment to ensure that students from low- and
middle-income families have affordable options for funding their
education.
Dynes’ proposal allocates only 20 percent, rather than the
traditional 33 percent, of student fee increases to financial aid.
This level of financial support is insufficient to cover the
expected increase in the cost of attendance. This practice of
“return to financial aid” is meant to ensure the
affordability of the university for all students.
Prior to this school year, one-third of student fees were set
aside to provide grants to students with unmet financial need.
Through the distribution of grants to these students, the
university ensured that an increase in student fees did not mean
students would have to work or borrow outside a manageable
range.
With a decrease of return-to-aid, however, students must make up
for the grant dollars they no longer receive by either borrowing
more or increasing the number of hours they work.
A 25 percent return-to-aid will negatively affect the students
who struggle the most. Many low-income students will have no option
but to work longer hours to make up for the money they will no
longer receive because their families do not qualify to borrow
more. Many middle-income students will only qualify for
unsubsidized private loans, which are more costly in the long run
than the Stafford and Perkins loans that most students take out
now.
This proposal will ultimately result in very difficult and
cumbersome loan and work loads that even the university has
acknowledged will be an extremely large burden for students. More
students will also graduate with large amounts of debt.
As the state’s funding responsibility for the university
is shifted more and more to students, not only is the affordability
of the university in jeopardy, but the accessibility of a UC
education also is compromised. It is not hard to imagine that the
matriculation of low- and middle-income students will decrease as
the cost of attendance increases.
Higher education is the key to being able to contribute to our
society and economy in a meaningful way, but rising fees and lower
financial aid limit access to higher education and consequently to
good jobs in the future.
Finally, the failure to bring return-to-aid back to its
traditional one-third level will reduce the quality of a UC
education. Specifically, it will make meeting expected cumulative
progress requirements more difficult, as students will be unable to
take the mandated number of units and still balance work and other
college activities. The value of a UC education will be terribly
eroded.
The regents must carefully consider the consequences of their
actions should they approve student fee increases and diminish the
UC’s commitment to financial aid. The consequences are clear
““students will suffer.
Biniek is the national affairs director at the USAC office
of the external vice president. She is a third-year economics
student.