Should the UC regents raise undergraduate fees?

A key committee of the UC Regents on Thursday approved an 8% fee increase for undergraduates. The atmosphere was calm, notably lacking the protests and arrests that accompanied discussions the day before.

On Twitter, a conservative blogger questions the educational commitment of student protesters, as a mother worries about the rising costs of higher education.

Read more: UC regents give initial approval to 8% student fee increase

Weigh in with your comments below.

Comments

[Gogo]

I don't think it is right to raise undergraduate fee now.
the education is future for person & America. This way will push more and more young people out of school and loss the education. It is so bad.

[Eric]

No fees should be raised as long as ANY ILLEGAL recieves 1cent in government aid...

[Donald Keir]

Why should I send my Daughter to a UC for at least 5 years (only about 45% of students graduate in 4 years) at $30,000 a year when she is going to a private school back East with a scholarship for under $20,000. Most students that go out of state will stay out of state and California will be missing their talents.

[Grandpa]

Let the little darlings work their way through college like I and many others of my geenration did. You want something? Work for it -- one of the real world's biggest lessons. Don't make Mom or Dad have to pay -- you do it, Sparky. Now, go play.

[Joop Kaashoek]

One would expect that tools like the internet and other electronic distribution means make teaching more efficient, and therefore cheaper. But if the state subsidies of the UC system dry up then I guess they have no choice but to raise their fees way ahead of general inflation.

[arrowhead7]

From a review of the increases over the past 20 years, instead of raising taxes, fee increases are being used as a substitute. As an undergrad at UCLA in 1985, my fees were $285/quarter. Next year, the fees are projected to be $11,124/quarter.

Put another way, I paid $855/ year for 3 quarters. Next year, the fees are projected to be $33,372/year.

From a certain perspective, that's a 3,900% increase in fees over 25 years.
This percentage increase is greater than the rate of inflation or housing evaluation during the last two and a half decades. It is also evident that there is no 3,900% increase in student services, classes, faculty and facilities.

In closing, the legislature and regents are very shrewd to continue to "tax" the part of the electorate most disinclined to vote. These increases will continue because it serves them well. There is an unintended consequence: the missed opportunity to cultivate the young minds whose advances would have propelled their professions forward.

[you're missing the point]

Hey grandpa,

How much did you pay for college? How much did you have to work to pay for it? A lot of students I have met at different schools work to go to school. They work long hours, on top of studying and classes. They have to pay for school, as well as exorbitant rent. How much did you pay?

The more they raise fees, the harder it will be for those kids who work to pay for school. The ones who don't have to worry about fee hikes are the ones whose parents pay for them. Working for something is far different from raising fees so that working kids can't even stay in school.

And to those who make snarky comments about how protestors don't care about their education because they're not in class on those few days when there are protests - education isn't just about attendance and grades. It's about passion, knowledge, critical thinking, caring for the future, empowerment and much more. The protestors exhibit that much more than the many kids who go to class and graduate having learned little of actual value. And many of those kids who aren't protesting don't even go to class.

[smith]

Raising tuition is unfair as long as professors can retire with a full pension at age 50. The cost of supporting those professors and the Chancellor's $850,000 salary and pension contributions is obscene when tuition is hiked 40% in 2 years. If education is som important, why aren't these people sharing in the sacrifice they are asking others to make?

[PyotrLip]

The question seems disembodied from the necessary contexts: how much money is available? how much does a student's education cost? what accommodations can be made without raising fees?

Presumably the regents have considered all such issues and worked out an optimum balance. Why would they do otherwise?