Roberto Rodriguez walks on the campus of the University of California-Riverside. The school is one of several seeing protests from FixUC, a group proposing a radical new tuition plan. AP Photo/Reed SaxonA student-led group at the University Of California-Riverside has proposed a solution to the crippling student debt load: make a UC education free and have students pay 5% of their income for 20 years.
The ‘UC Student Investment Proposal’ will be presented by a group called FixUC, led by President Chris LoCascio, to the University Of California Board Of Regents. With a state in crisis and education cuts abound, LoCascio and his team hope that their solution can lay “the groundwork for a new long-term funding plan.”
At first glance, the proposal calls for increased investment in students — hardly a bad thing. It reads: “Because the UC will depend on the earnings of its graduates, it is in its best interests to ensure that all graduates are in stable, high-paying jobs.” Initially that seems like something everyone can agree on, but the proposal goes on to highlight a big problem.
“Campuses will be encouraged to refrain from giving preferential treatment to departments and majors that lead students to more traditionally lucrative careers.” Is ‘encouraged to refrain’ enough to stop a school from picking the best financial fit rather than the best academic fit in the admissions office? Would colleges funnel students away from the liberal arts and into more lucrative majors?
LoCascio hopes not, but when asked what FixUC proposed to stymie the possibility of favoritism, he repsonded that “In the interest of maintaining campus autonomy, we left out a specific mandate, leaving that responsibility to respective chancellors and faculty members.”
The plan appears to show that within seven years, the 5% income plan would surpass the $1.5 billion in tuition revenue for UC schools, and within ten years, it would provide the schools with an extra $500 million in revenue.
Undoubtedly, an extra $500 million is just the tonic for an ailing system, but where the extra money comes from could be controversial, given that some students will pay more than others.
LoCascio said “The UC’s current funding model is based upon differential tuition. Currently, students from high-income families pay 1/3 of their tuition into financial aid, which is used to support the cost of attendance for low-income students. With this new model, the financial contribution is based on a graduate’s own income, not their family’s.”
Their proposal is turning heads, but so are their tactics. Larry Chung, a former UC Riverside student and current law school applicant, was visiting campus January 19th for a meeting when he witnessed students involved with FixUC protesting outside a room the Board of Regents were meeting in.
Chung told USA Today “There were about 100 students at the bottom of the stairs up to the Highlander Union Building, trying to get inside and chanting ‘Free Education!’. There were riot guards marching and blocking the stairwell. I’d never seen anything like it in all my years at Riverside.”
How would you feel if your school implemented FixUC’s plan for no-cost upfront but 5% of your income for 20 years after?
You might also be interested in:
- 25 undocumented immigrants find a home – and free college education – at Santa Clara University
- 10 easy ways to save money in college
- Princeton students leave school… in the name of education reform
- Education, earning, entertainment: Sites for all three phases of college life
- Going DEEP for equal opportunity higher education
Maybe the solution is a tax just like paying into Social security and Medicare. I know in Australia, they do that all the time and I bet that could be something that the US can look at as well
[...] The University of California-Riverside think they have a new solution to the increasingly dramatic cost of higher education. Instead of paying for school while undergraduates, a student group is appealing to California [...]
How is that different than taking a student loan at low interest and paying it back over 20 years? And the amount people would pay would vary based on what jobs they had (An engineering student with a high paying job would pay substantially more than an arts student working at a low paying job)