In 2009, faced with a 20 percent drop in state funding, University of California regents passed a 32 percent increase in undergraduate tuition, activating the avalanche of protests, further cuts, and efforts by the UC system to “trim the fat” from its 10 campuses. At the time, regents argued that by charging about $2,000 more per undergrad, the UC could potentially close the gap resulting from a $650 million decrease in state allocations. At least that’s how Yudof and his colleagues explained their unanimous vote (save for Jesse Bernal, the 2009 student regent) in that fateful November 2009 meeting.
Then, this March, the state cut another $500 million. That was after the regents approved an eight percent tuition hike in November 2010 for the 2011-2012 school year. About two weeks ago, the state cut another $150 million, bringing the reduction in state funding for the 2011-2012 school year to a level that mirrors what was implemented in 2009. Regents met in a three-day series of meetings on July 12, 13, and 14, which culminated in an affirmative vote Thursday to increase tuition — for both undergraduate and graduate students — by another 9.6 percent, bringing tuition this fall up 17.6 percent total.
In-state undergraduate students will now pay $12,192 in tuition per year, up from $10,302 for the 2010-2011 school year. The number does not include room, board, and roughly $1,000 in campus-based fees. Meanwhile, CSU Trustees voted Tuesday, July 12, to add a 12 percent increase to the already-approved 10 percent increase on CSU tuition this fall. CSU tuition — like UC tuition — has tripled over the last decade, and will now cost $294 more per semester.
Back in 2009, when the decade-long tradition of state fund decreases and student fee hikes suddenly accelerated, regents’ go-to justification for the hike that sent the $7,788 tuition price tag to a number flirting with five digits was that the UC’s income is derived from two main sources: state funding and student tuition, the justification being that if one goes down, the other must come up.
Rather than save the ship, the imbalance has only intensified and measures to cut back (by eliminating departments, freezing hiring, increasing overall undergraduate enrollment, bringing in more students from out-of-state, etc.) have invited investigation from a growing, skeptical academic community.
I sat down with Bob Samuels, president of the University Council – American Federation of Teachers (UC – AFT), which represents more than 4,000 lecturers and librarians employed by the UC, to get his take.
“The thing I’ve focused on is looking at the budget and how much the university spends on undergraduate students,” began Samuels, a lecturer at UCLA’s writing program and author of popular blog Changing Universities. “It turns out they have a standard calculation… They say it costs $17,000 to educate each individual student.” (Samuels added that the calculation is based on highly generalized, abstract numbers.)
“This is for ‘instruction and instruction-related things.’ The state used to give about $10,000 per student, and each year it goes down a little bit; students pay more and more of that. The problem is, it costs much, much more to educate graduate students than undergraduates. There are 205,000 undergraduate students and 25,000 graduate and professional students, which have the smallest classes and highest paid professors. So what happens is they keep on raising tuition on undergraduate students because they’re the only thing that brings money into the university.”
“We discovered a couple years ago that when students pay tuition or fees, it all goes to the UC regents,” continued Samuels. “Then the office of the president redistributes the money.” The formula followed in this process is not public information. So the state auditor approved the most expensive audit the state has ever done. When the state budget review comes out July 28 (which is tentative as the date has been pushed back several times already), it will spell out in detail the inner workings of budget distribution.
What we do know, according to Samuels, is that UCLA gets about $27,000 per student, while smaller schools like UCSB and UCSC — that is, schools that have fewer and smaller graduate programs — get around $16,000 per student. We also know that in the past, tuition fees from all campuses have ultimately subsidized graduate students at campuses like UCLA and UC Davis. That will change this school year, when, for the first time, money generated from student fees will remain on students’ respective campuses.
According to Samuels, the problem stems from the way funds are distributed not only by the UC but also by the state. “A few years ago we looked at the [campus tax schedules] … we took state funds, student fees, and tuition. We divided it by the student body and we found these incredible inequalities,” he explained. “They’ve dealt with part of the problem by letting campuses keep the money from fees, but the bigger problem is the state funds not being distributed equally.”
I spoke with several UC professors, both from the Santa Barbara campus and others, and one point unanimously and adamantly made was a commitment to higher public education. When asked, none said they would leave the UC for another, higher-paying institution — though a couple had thought about it.
I asked what differences they’ve noticed, and almost all responded first by listing negative implications for students. “Classes are larger. Students have more difficulty putting their schedules together,” said Michael Meranze, a UCLA history professor whose commitment to the UC began when he was a PhD student at Berkeley. “Students are forced to take jobs because fees are going up, which affects their time and their energy,” he went on. “In a class that has 50, 60, 70 students in it, we can engage with the students in a different way than if it’s 100. Even a shift of 10 to 20 students in a class can alter the learning experience of students, in a bad way.”
UCSB history professor Mary O. Furner echoed Miranze and took points to a national level. “[We’re losing] the ability to support graduate students, who are essential to our teaching mission and our next generation of college teachers.” She’s worried about recruitment of both professors — “We are desperately short-staffed in the History Department,” she said — and graduate students.
“We might admit [graduate students], and then they get an offer for five years of full payment from a private university, and they go, even though they know they would get a better education here,” continued Furner. The National Research Council recently rated UCSB’s graduate history program among the nation’s top 10.
Furner is worried about the future. “It’s through grad students that fields reproduce themselves… When baby boomer generation professors retire, will there be enough PhDs out there to sustain our commitment to higher education?” Furner also pointed out the “flip-flop” over the last decade in state funding for prisons versus public education.
Other professors added that they see undergraduate students rushing to finish their degrees in order to minimize debt upon graduation, making efforts toward bachelor’s degrees stressful, rather than exploratory and fulfilling.
On July 8, bond rating agency Fitch gave the UC’s General Revenue Bonds (GRBs) an AA+/F+, meaning GRBs to be issued by the regents for the benefit of UC are extremely stable and promising, both in the long term (for which AA+ is the second highest possible rating) and the short term (for which F+ is the highest possible rating). The bonds, which go on sale on set dates through July, are taxable. According to the report, $935 million of proceeds will help fund the UC Retirement Plan, and $265 million will help the UC cope with state funding cuts.
Like any business, maintenance and growth of the UC relies on borrowed money. Considering the UC’s $17 billion in debt, a good bond rating is crucial. Among primary rating rationale Fitch provided in its positive report were the UCs “diverse revenue base” and “ability to raise tuition and fees.”
Funding for California’s public K-12 schools will be similar to already reduced levels from last year, but, overall, the state budget is such that cuts of an additional $3.5 billion will be taken from California’s public colleges and universities over the next two years.
President Yudof insists that he is committed to stabilizing the “yo-yo” for students. Time will tell whether the hikes can truly “help stabilize the University’s fiscal situation,” in the words of the UC Committee on Finance’s report. The general consensus among professors, however, is that they won’t.
Related Links
This article has been amended since its original posting to correct an error: Tuition has risen to $12,192 per year, not per quarter.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
That's to much. I'm sorry but most undergraduate classes aren't worth that kind of money.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't be overly surprised when the only people that can afford the UC system are from China or Korea - the cost is rapidly approaching that of the Ivy League schools, since those are a lot more liberal with offering grants.
montSQ (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The increased earnings from a UC education result in higher income taxes paid, due to California's progressive income tax. From a California State perspective, the State contribution to a students' UC education more than pays for itself.
And that is why developing nations like India and China invest so much in education, including higher education.
Not to mention the California of the 1930's, our great depression, when corrected for inflation, UC fees etc amounted to about $1,000/year in today's dollars.
The current fees and tuition are simply a new tax on students who already bust their butts to make the grades to get into UC.
In contrast, cadets at the California Prison Academy *get paid $3,000/month*. Then after only 4 months they get total compensation of >$100,000/year, in a job where they pay you a bonus of $1,600/year just to get a physical from a doctor.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
University of California arrests tuition increases with wage concessions, University of California faces massive budget shortfalls. It is dismaying Calif. Governor Brown. President Yudof and Board of Regents have, once again, been unable to agree on a package of wage, benefit concessions to close the deficit.
Californians face foreclosure, unemployment, depressed wages, loss of retirement, medical, unemployment benefits, higher taxes: UC Board of Regents Regent Lansing, President Yudof need to demonstrated leadership by curbing wages, benefits. As a Californian, I don't care what others earn at private, public universities. If wages better elsewhere, chancellors, vice chancellors, tenured, non tenured faculty, UCOP should apply for the positions. If wages commit employees to UC, leave for better paying position. The sky above UC will not fall.
Californians suffer from greatest deficit of modern times. UC wages must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others are paid.
Wage concessions for UC President, Faculty, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, UCOP:
No furloughs
18 percent reduction in UCOP salaries & $50 million cut.
18 percent prune of campus chancellors', vice chancellors' salaries.
15 percent trim of tenured faculty salaries, increased teaching load
10 percent decrease in non-tenured faculty salaries, as well as increase research, teaching load
100% elimination of all Academic Senate, Academic Council costs, wages.
(17,000 UC paid employees earn more than $100,000)
Overly optimistic predictions of future revenues do not solve the deficit. However, rose bushes bloom after pruning.
UC Board of Regents Chair Sherry Lansing can bridge the public trust gap by offering reassurances that UC salaries reflect depressed wages in California. The sky will not fall on UC
Once again, we call upon UC President, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Faculty, UCOP to stand up for UC and ‘pitch in’ for Californians with deeds - wage concessions.
Moravecglobal (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree with pardall that a UC education (or any higher education for that matter, whether it be community college, Cal State, or UC) is a great investment for the individual and the state.
Regarding montSQ's comment, while this is only indirectly related, 30% of this year's incoming freshman class at UC Berkeley don't speak English as their first language (I'm sure foreign student enrollment is less):
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-c...
And yes, I don't know why I busted my behind to get a degree from UC when I could have become a state prison guard. Check out their perks here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Moravecglobal... propose same salaries & post-employment benefits for same years of education between school teachers, CC, CSU, UC and.... prison guards, firefighters, and cops, and you might get some converts.
Picking only on UC doesn't make sense, particularly when UC's budget has been reduced every year for most of a decade already.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Umass Amherst is $12K for a year for in state, $25K for out of state check the link. http://www.umass.edu/umfa/basics/costs/.
To put my two kids thru college now, assuming the UC Regents don't up tuition anymore, it's $180K savings to move for 4 years. I checked a few other state schools, $10-12K per year seems to be the norm. Hmmn, seems easy to just sit in a room and say "Pay More" when it doesn't really affect your own personal lifestyle. But I'm certains if you ask the Regents why, they'd say "This was a very difficult decision that we did not come upon lightly. We truly didn't want to do this. It just had to be done. Yes, we are lazy individuals who didn't even think of the Amazon Tax for higher education, we were too busy congratulating ourselves on keeping the increase to a bare minimum. More Champagne and Caviar anyone". Get that Amazon TAX pushed thru and use it ALL for Education.
khiggler (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In-state undergraduate students will now pay $12,192 on tuition per quarter, up from $10,302 for the 2010-2011 school year."
Rebecca, shouldn't that say "per year" instead of "per quarter"?
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
work@home is the inside joke at some UCB departments. Professional staff stay at home taking care of infants and toddlers, and work contracting gigs while being paid as full time workers by taxpayers, students, and parents. It is fraud, and the perpetrators keep saying "They get so much more done at home"...well sure...like stealing from the goverment. It is ridiculous to think you can be working while watching an infant or toddler. Men are as guilty as women of this theft. Plenty of honest employees pay childcare and come to work. If you want save money, get rid of this fat and save 2 or 3 million directly. Then reap the indirect costs because these freeloaders are the ringleaders of obstructionism to collaboration and consolidation in these dire fiscal times. They have no incentive to change their gravy train. Tuition hike or not, every UC has to cut 10s of millions so heres 2-10 million at UCB, and it brings integrity to the system.
AbrahamL2010 (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
User profile: AbrahamL2010
Joined: July 18, 2011
Comments posted: 1 (view all)
Tambora (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Financial abuses at University of California Berkeley drive up tuition. Until action is applied by the University of California (UC) Board of Regents to chancellors, like Birgeneau at University of California Berkeley, UC shouldn’t come to the Governor or public for support for any tax or tuition increase.
(The author has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at UC Berkeley (Cal) where he observed the culture & way senior management work)
Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) has forgotten that he is a public servant, steward of the public money, not overseer of his own fiefdom (these are not isolated examples): recruits (uses California tax $) out of state $50,000 tuition students that displace qualified Californians from public university education; spends $7,000,000 + for consultants to do his & many vice chancellors jobs (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same 0 cost); pays ex Michigan governor $300,000 for lectures; in procuring a $3,000,000 consulting firm he failed to receive proposals from other firms; Latino enrollment drops while out of state jumps 2010; tuition to Return on Investment drops below top 10; QS academic ranking below top 10; only 50 attend Birgeneau all employees meeting; visits down 20%; NCAA places basketball program on probation, absence institutional control.
It’s all shameful. There is no justification for such violations by a steward of the public trust. Absolutely none.
Birgeneau’s violations will continue indefinitely. Governor Brown, UC Board of Regents Chair Lansing, President Yudof must do a better job of vigorously enforcing stringent oversight than has been done in the past over Chancellors like Birgeneau who use the campus as their fiefdom.
Moravecglobal (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2011 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everybody here is looking at this from the wrong perspective. If you want to learn something about economics, listen up.
Education is an entry point into the economy for new money in the form of bank credit and government subsidy funded with new money borrowed into existence from the Federal Reserve. And the result predicted by the Free Market Austrian Economists? Price hikes in the sector into which new money is flowing. Voila! And the really brilliant thing is that the banks have so inflated the cost of education that it is now almost impossible to get an education without borrowing from the banks.
Remember when people used to be able to work a part time job or two, pay for their room and board and tuition? Sure, they were on a tight budget, but it was possible.. Now with government guaranteed loans it is not possible, everybody is forced to get a loan.
The only person running for President in 2012 who understands this is Ron Paul. He also wants to end our overseas empire and bring the troops home, which would bring hundreds of billions of dollars back to the tax payers to spend on things like education. Hold your nose, register Republican and vote in the primaries Ron Paul 2012.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2011 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)