Dropouts waste UC budget


What would you think of California giving a student a substantial scholarship to attend college, only to have that student drop out of school after his first year, throwing away thousands of dollars invested by the state?

Unfortunately, that’s the plight of the current California government. As observed in a study by the American Institutes for Research released Oct. 11, state governments spent more than  $1.4 billion in student grants and more than $6.2 billion in state appropriations for colleges.

Those billions also went toward paying for the education of the 30 percent of freshmen college students who did not return for sophomore year.

And guess which state doled out the most dough to the students who gave up on their education? None other than our own California, which spent more than $466 million in taxpayer dollars between 2003 and 2008 on first-year dropouts in public universities. The AIR’s study also found that only about 60 percent of students who enter as freshman actually graduate.

However, the report fails to say why; its goal was not to diagnose the cause of the overspending but to demonstrate how much of taxpayers’ money is wasted upon freshmen who do not return to college.

Although the college dropout rate is a national problem, it is not surprising to see California at the top of the list, surpassing Texas and New York in expenditures by a wide margin of approximately $26 million and $64 million, respectively.

California’s budget woes are notorious; it seems inevitable that efforts to maintain the world-class University of California system would allow lot of money to slip through the cracks.

Unfortunately, the state seems to neglect its major investments: the students themselves.

Students are future taxpayers and voters — the state is aware of that. But with our increasingly diverse and expanding population, the state has focused too much on numbers, and has consequently provided greater quantity of scholarships and grants, not quality.

Too few students with demonstrated financial need receive scholarships extensive enough to pursue their studies full-time without taking a part-time job.

At USC, many of us are fortunate enough to have that blessing, but that is not the case for most of California.

If the primary reason that students are dropping out is because of an increased financial burden, as California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell suggests in the Los Angeles Times, then perhaps the state’s diplomatic tendency to give a crumb to everyone who wants a piece of the cake is ineffective.

What’s more valuable to both individuals and the state: giving 10 people modest to full scholarships or giving 50 people grants that barely cover the cost of books?

Being more selective in doling out scholarships is advantageous for both the state and its students.

Enabling a smaller number of students with a more substantial endowment might increase their likelihood to succeed, which means that tax dollars invested in the student will ultimately yield  higher returns.

If a student is permitted the time to study, network, exercise, be at leisure and be in other activities that are important to the collegiate experience, ultimately the student’s years at college might be better.

This is certainly an issue that California’s higher education system should investigate further.

Perhaps, as O’Connell suggested, “We should do exit interviews with students and learn why they leave education.” At least doing so would be an important first step in evaluating the problem further.

Natalie Millman is a junior majoring in philosophy and English.