It was hard for me to not to feel like tuning up the ol' violin for 52 students at my undergraduate alma mater last week.

 

The students, following news of a 32 percent tuition hike across the University of California system, were arrested after holding a sit-in for several hours at UC Davis' main administrative building. Apparently these kids slept through the lecture on the fiscal toilet-bowl that is the state of California. Even with a budget shortfall projected at $21 billion just a few months into the new fiscal year, a tuition rate of $11,300 per year outraged hundreds of my fellow Aggies and hoards of other students across the prestigious 10-campus system. So, they took to the streets.

We, here at USC, can expect a bill for quite a bit more than that amount every semester without the $3 billion of taxpayer's money subsidizing us. According to Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, net per-pupil revenue in California, (i.e. what the state receives per pupil minus any money spent subsidizing his/her education) averages out to roughly $1,200.

 

Nationally, that number is about $3,000. Anyone who can convince voters to pass a tax increase to keep that number where it is, has a bright future in politics. After Celeste Rose, Denice Denton and this gem from a few months ago, you'll forgive California taxpayers for being just a bit skeptical about how their money is being spent.

The real issue here is the fact that the fee structure currently in place at the UC system is an example of regressive taxation at its worst. Every student, regardless of income, pays the exact same price, thus receiving the exact same level of taxpayer subsidy. 

Take the example of two friends of mine who attended UC Berkeley, an institution that arguably stands on par with any of the East Coast Ivies. One is a refugee from Bosnia who lived with his mom and sister in a one-room apartment on the bad side of Oakland. The other is the son of two lawyers. Both paid the same tuition to take some of the exact same classes at Cal.

 

If we take the roughly $35,000-per-year tuition of Harvard or Stanford as our guides, the California taxpayer effectively handed both of my pals about $100,000 over the course of four years, whether they needed it or not.

This isn't to say that we should put the UC system on the auction block. Quite the contrary, the research that comes from these schools and the caliber of students they produce is one of the few things left attracting businesses to California over other states. But continuing along without asking those of means to pay their fair share will do nothing but erode the quality of these institutions, as top-tier professors and top-tier students start fleeing for greener pastures elsewhere.

Maybe next time these kids should do themselves a favor and "occupy" the library. There, they could open up a book and learn there's still no such thing as a free lunch.