Education reform was one of the fundamental platforms of President Obama’s campaign last year. The Obama administration has pledged to overhaul the nation’s education system and ensure that quality schooling is available to everyone. However, concerns are mounting over the University of California’s decision to raise student fees by 32%, a move which will potentially widen the educational gap between classes or what the New York Times refers to as the “haves and the have nots.”

The large group of protesting students, faculty and staff claim that these increases will alienate even further, lower and middle class students from third level education. In a demonstration covered by the New York Times, approximately 70 students occupied Kerr Hall at the University of California, Santa Cruz. During the raucous protest furniture and refuse were scattering in the hall and electronic equipment was damaged.

In response the University, which is one of the nation’s largest with 230,000 students, claims that it cannot maintain their standard of education without increasing fees. The New York Times reports how The University of California has already received $716 million in federal stimulus funds to offset a $1 billion budget gap in 2009. The hike comes in the aftermath of California officials slashing higher education funding, according to the Wall Street Journal: “The UC system faced a $1.2 billion deficit for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.”

Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have solicited alumni to weigh in their opinions on the matter. Tom Campbell, University of California alumni and ex-congressman cites the raise as a positive move forward and notes that low income families will not be affected by the increase because the university is also expanding their scholarship program.

Cindy Mosqueda, a doctorate student compared UCLA’s figures to those of other public universities; the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan: “In 2008, 25 percent of U.C.L.A. undergraduates received a Pell Grant compared with 8 percent of students at the University of Virginia and 11 percent at the University of Michigan. In 2010-11 the total cost of education at the University of California will exceed that of our peer institutions.” She believes that the high cost/high aid scheme may sound like a viable plan but when put into practice, is untenable. Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University believes that since the majority of U.C.L.A. students come from higher income families, they should pay their fees accordingly and lower income students are protected by financial aid programs. He does however agree that much of the increased income may not be spent on instructional facilities.

Other opinions vary, with one former student president claiming “Brains not bucks needs to be the north star of admissions,” and another expert declaring that despite the increase, students are still getting a good deal with U.C.L.A.

One of the major concerns of protestors, along with the fear that mid-level or lower income families will suffer, is that the money will be misspent. In a statement the President of the UC system Mark Yodof claimed the increase “is designed to provide access, maintain quality and stabilize the fiscal health of the university,” The decision has been shrouded in animosity and, judging from the protests, tensions are running high. Do you support this decision or oppose it? Do you believe that students from higher income families should be taxed accordingly and will students on financial aid remain unaffected by this most recent hike? Share your views and let us know how you feel about this contentious issue.