It was announced last week that UC is increasing student fees by 32%. This is from an institution that makes the bogus claim that it does not charge tuition. As private colleges often point out, when the sum of all school fees are compared to tuition at private colleges they are much more equal than advertised.
So if I am a UC student and I somehow manage to pay 32% more will I be getting smaller class sizes, more library books, or better computer access? No, around a third of the student fee money, including the increase, will subsidize the fees of poorer students. Here we see the classic effect of distributive schemes: Raise costs on one group so that money can be given to others. The higher costs result in greater numbers who cannot afford to pay. Eventually the enterprise runs out of other peoples’ money. Lost is the simple notion that if the fees were not so high there would be less need to subsidize any student’s fee.
So besides paying for other students who cannot pay, what else are students paying for? The quick answer is that no one knows and UC is not telling. This ivy tower is more like a medieval castle that has shut out the modern world of accountability and openness. Anybody want to bet that the controversial Labor Institute that was cut out of the budget will be back, financed by student fees?
Should students get a choice in what their fees pay for? Yes. As these fees more and more resemble regular general fund taxes, not only students but the voting public should have a say. UC has been exempt from accountability for far too long.
Maybe it is time for a Grand Jury to investigate this enterprise. Let the sun shine in.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am
Would SCA 21 be the best solution to bring accountability to the UC System?