This week was the Regent's meeting where UC ANR had a chance to educate the Regents about who we are and the value we bring to California. I missed the first public day of the meeting because the Program Council was also this week. But I was to be there yesterday which was the scheduled day for Glenda's UC ANR presentation. The group was behind schedule by 9 AM. They ended up so far behind schedule that the UC ANR presentation was rescheduled to the May meeting.
The topic that put the agenda so far behind schedule? Student tuition. The proposal centered on a 2.6% increase to non-resident fees that would equate to just under $800 per year. Regents raised concerns that, while $800 may not seem like much, in some countries it is a month's wages. Additional concerns regarded DACA students who failed to meet the requirements for in-state tuition and the fact that they would be impacted by the $800. Those against the increase argued that the cost of running UC is not the financial responsibility of non-resident students. Those in favor countered that while they, too didn't like the idea of increasing costs to students, there is a $30M gap in the budget, state funding does not keep up with rising costs, and 2.6% is less than a cost-of-living adjustment. In the end, the decision was to undertake further analysis and make a decision at the next meeting (hopefully after the UC ANR presentation). I happened to be sitting near a large group of students who declared ‘victory.' By the way, did you know that snapping fingers have replaced clapping (less disruptive)?
I'm not sure who won what. Acceptance letters need to go out, and they will state that the non-resident fees may increase by 2.6%. That then turned into a discussion about the need for students to be able to know, in advance, what their education will cost without changing those costs mid-stream. If the increase goes forward, should it only then apply to incoming students? Then next year's acceptance letters would include the 4-year cost for the class entering in fall 2020, and so on. The commitment would only be made for four years, thus, promoting an increase in 4-yr graduation rates.
While tuition doesn't relate to UC ANR directly, I found the principles relevant. One could replace the word ‘tuition' with ‘REC research costs' and have the same conversations. In fact, I've had these same conversations. It all comes back to ‘who pays when the taxpayers don't?' Unfortunately, the Lt. Governor did not offer to help make a push for UC ANR like she did with state support for UC, in general, but perhaps that will come.
I'm still digesting the Program Council conversations, but in the meantime, I need to start working on my weekly quota for reviewing merit and promotion packages. So far, I am 0% complete for the week.