UC System, Tiered to Ruin

An idea has been floated by the University of California in response to the drastic budget cuts by the Brown Administration's "live-within-our-means" strategy:

A tiered tuition system, whereby the most popular "flagship" campuses charged more.

The UC flagship campuses are Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego. The proposal was followed by a numbers game that theoretically put tuition for UCLA at $16,000/yr. Adding the average cost of shelter, food, books and other amenities, the cost to attend UCLA would hover around $30,000+/yr. Tuition at other UC schools (Irvine, Merced, Davis, Riverside, Santa Cruz) would stay around $11,000/yr. With extras, the cost remains closer to $20,000/yr. While UCLA and UC Berkeley are more expensive schools to attend, the difference is nominal. That difference is defined by the prestige of faculty and institution, which translated to slightly higher costs for students. This is reasonable. A tiered system is not.

A tiered system would make a mockery of the purpose of the UC campuses. In the first blog post I wrote for Middle of the Road, I lambasted the governor for cutting funding to the UC system. I proselytized about cutting classes, increased tuition and less prestige. While the UC system has not lost its prestige, they are going through a restructuring which has included higher tuition and class cutting. Again, I find myself reminding the UC Regents of the purpose of public education:

To create a system of universities where merit (in its most subjective form) is the only measure of accessibility. In other words, regardless of background or wealth, an individual who is deemed eligible to attend UCLA, Berkeley or UCSD, then they should be offered the resources to do so. These resources should be funded partially by tax money, research grants and private donations.

This tiered system will make the the flagship campuses less accessible to large populations of CA students. It will also create a hierarchy whereby the more affluent students will be able to attend the flagship colleges. This is in direct conflict with the directive of the UC system. But, the worst result will be the inherent competition that might arise from a tiered system. If UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego raise tuition because of a perceived "higher" status, other campuses will attempt to obtain the same status through the same means resulting in a uniform increase in cost. This will be, what UC David law school professor Daniel Simmons calls "competition that would be destructive." Richard Blumenthal, Chancellor of Santa Cruz, also made the point that the uniformity in cost in the UC system gives taxpayers certainty, and any drastic tier-based system will result in a splintering of shared resources. If given the opportunity, according to Blumenthal, schools like Berkeley would raise tuition 25% or more. Affordability and accessibility, something that Berkeley touts when it accepts those who "show promise" as opposed to those with deep pocket books, will be thrown out the door. A good example would the flagship of the University of Wisconsin school system (UW-Madison), which is attempting to secede from the system to have more freedom to raise tuition.

Another important factor to consider is the perceived prestige of the tiered system. The UC system gets its international lauds for being an affordable, near-uniform priced, public university system that allows people from diverse backgrounds to attend classes from internationally known and highly regarded faculty. Whether your at UCR, UCI, UCLA or Berkeley, your diploma will have the "UC" stamp of recognition. The commission admitted that a higher tuition will create a perception of an unequal prestige level. This refers to the committee's statements of "potential negative impact on the perceived reputation or academic quality of some campuses." In other words, your UCR diploma might mean less than your friend's UCLA diploma.

Again, the committee might need a reminder as to the purpose and charter of the UC system.