Petition Against Differential Fees

Dear President Mark Yudof and The UC Commission on The Future

Re: Undergraduate Differential Fees

We write to communicate our great concern about the possibility of the introduction of disciplinary based fees and campus-based differently fees for UC students. We applaud the University's recent decision to withdrawal a proposal for a $900 a year fee for students in Business and Engineering programs.

Furthermore, we urge you not to reintroduce the possibility of differential fees for the following reasons:

The strain placed on student pocketbooks resulting from prospective additional fees by campus or major, if introduced within the next two to three years, will be significantly amplified by the context in which these fees are being introduced. Alone, a several hundred dollar differential fee may not deter a large number of students from pursuing these programs. But in this time period, where fees are set to skyrocket in tandem with a recession and the states refusal to commit to funding Cal Grants beyond two years, this additional cost may become the kind of deterrent for students it would not otherwise be during stable economic times. Students' are already graduating with thousands of dollars in debt, the choice of a major should not hinge on how much additional debt a student can take out.

This added financial strain for already financially stressed students cannot be justified exclusively by the revenue it will bring in. The last differential fee proposal might have raised roughly ten million dollars and that proposed change was a drop in the bucket compared to the UC budget. That said, it would have felt like a lot more than a drop in the bucket to the students and families coughing up an extra $900 dollars just for a Business Economics class.

For many students, access to many of the supposedly "more expensive" programs means upward economic mobility for oneself and ones community, and changes which may jeopardize this opportunity for thousands of students will not benefit the UC or the State of California in the long run.

It is likely that student expectations will change if differential fees became policy. For example, to what extent will expectations for some programs change when students in them come to recognize that they will be paying more than their peers for the same end product (a B.A. or B.S.)? Even if these students understand that they must pay more because they cost more, they may legitimately question why other high cost programs do not also come with a higher price tag.

A permanent divergence from long-standing policy should not be implemented in reaction to a budget crisis. Presumably, this policy will remain a fixture of the University long after the crisis which necessitated it had passed. The real motivation or rational for such a proposalthe why which justifies differential fees for some specific programs over othersmust be absolutely transparent and logically consistent with the UCs mission and values. UC should not introduce this policy based on the argument that "the market will allow it," or "students will put up with it." This kind of nickel-and-dime-the-students mindset as rational for policy is poor public policy thinking and breeds mistrust of UC leadership at a time when the UC community is trying to rally around persuading Sacramento for more funds.

Lastly, this move may also change the mindset of the UC community towards program funding and funding distribution in detrimental ways. This policy change stems from the idea that we can quantifiably prove that some programs are more expensive per declared major than others. To what extent could an academic hierarchy of cost impact the curricular direction of the University? This assumption requires further public vetting, as we must consider other factors relating to individual programs like how many General Education opportunities they offer to other students, and how much money many of these supposedly more expensive programs bring to campuses from research overhead.

We are opposed to differential fees by program for campus and believe they will be more divisive on campuses and fiscally painful for students and families than they are beneficial to UC. Please do not revive this problematic proposal.