On Monday, my friend IM’ed me with the news about University of California president Robert Dynes’ resignation. She asked, “what should I write in my statement?”

My response: good riddance.

The newspaper articles seem to say this, but in a nicer tone. They focus on Dynes’ role in the executive pay scandal, but don’t talk much about how Dynes did little to address the increasing diversity crisis at UC’s most competitive campuses and how fees (what everyone else calls tuition) rose rapidly during his tenure. Dynes also signed a Compact with newly elected Governor Arnold Scwarzanegger to ease the serious funding issues. One of the main criticisms about the Compact was that Dynes sold out the students by committing to annual fee increases and left out other key decision-makers, like faculty and the board of regents. You know, that whole shared governance thing?

I wrote a short paper for my first year exams on the Compact and how it could threaten California’s Master Plan for Higher Education written in 1960. I’ve included a few paragraphs from the paper after the jump. They’re related to one of my favorite topics: increasing tuition and financial aid. Sorry if it doesn’t flow, I just copied and pasted the aspects related to fee increases, financial aid and fundraising.

In 2004, President Dynes of the University of California (UC) and Chancellor Reed of the California State University (CSU) systems entered into a Compact with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Compact presents an optimistic view for the future of California’s public four-year institutions. First, the Compact is a plan covering five years, 2005-06 through 2010-2011. Second, the Compact delineates tasks and responsibilities for the State and the two systems. For example, the Governor committed to adequate funding to ensure “long-term stability” while the systems will meet accountability measures. The State’s commitments are broken up into nine areas.

The first and most important for the State is the commitment to “basic budget support.” The State committed to increases of 3% for the first two years of the enactment of the Compact to fund base budget needs. However, UC and CSU have also agreed to continue to look for outside support from private resources. This is important to note because each system will have to commit resources and energy to this endeavor…

One of the major aspects of the Compact concerns the proposed fee increases for undergraduate, graduate and professional students. In the long term, tuition shall increase as per capita income in California increases, but in the short term, fees will increase an average of 10 percent per year as per “fiscal circumstances.” Administrators argue that these increases are necessary to maintain quality. Legislators could still make the argument that UC and CSU institutions fall below comparison institutions and that they are still getting a “bargain” because the State continue to subsidize higher education (Johnstone, 1991).

It is possible that such increases would make higher education out of reach for some students, but the writers of the Compact have anticipated this. They pledge 20 to 33 percent of revenue from student fees to be used for financial aid. The Compact also includes a plan for increasing fees for graduate and professional students. Two of the factors that will be considered in fee increases are the market and the state’s need for more professionals in a particular field. These two factors show that the State is prioritizing higher education’s mission to serve the needs of the state and advance economic development. These three main components of the Compact are followed by agreements for capital projects, the UC Merced campus, and special initiatives.

One important aspect of the Compact that can influence the systems is the increasing cost of attendance at a four-year public institution. According to the Compact, fees will increase an average of 10% over the first three years of the compact. This would undoubtedly price out some students who cannot afford the increases and do not fit the federal definition of a “needy student” as mentioned in the Compact. Johnstone (1991) discusses the “price elasticity,” or the expected percentage drop in enrollment as a result of an increase. The expected drop is “one to two percent for each $100 rise in tuition” (p. 159). This can threaten UC and CSU’s commitment to access for students from all income levels. Even if the fee increases are offset by financial aid (a high tuition, high aid policy), research shows that low income and underrepresented minority students –- Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans –- make up a disproportionate amount of students dissuaded from higher education because of the high tuition (p. 170). This would be devastating especially since the percentage of underrepresented minority students at the most selective UC campuses has dropped significantly since the passage and implementation of Proposition 209 and Standing Policy 1 (Jewell, 2000).

The Chronicle of Higher Education published a list of top fundraising institutions across the nation. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) was the only public institution in the top ten (Strout, 2005). This is indicative of the statement in the Compact that UC and CSU will continue to look for additional funding sources. Although there are sources of support –- alumni, private foundations, private donors, corporations, etc –- these sources could have a hidden hand in altering the mission and purpose of the institution (Harclerod, 1999). This could prevent the institutions from conducting research geared toward a particular societal issue because a private foundation contracted researchers to investigate another issue in the foundation’s interest.