Dollar-wise the fee increase is comparable to increases at other universities (at least it's comparable to Cornell's) but, relatively speaking it is a very large increase compared to UCLA's current costs so I can understand why students would be very upset. Are there any Hatrackers who go to UCLA or are from the area and can provide more insight?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The state is broke, the legislature is seven shades of broken, their constitution utterly sucks. The protests are respectable in that they're truly inspired by a truthfully regrettable condition that spurs them to action, but this isn't something you can productively protest. It's the fallout of california being retarded. They just don't have the money.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to UCLA; I am in fact a third-generation alum. I work at a private college about 40 minutes away from UCLA.
Samp is right about some, but not all, the particulars. Especially since he neglected to mention either our current governor or the two who preceded him. While the issues with the legislature are real, I think the way the last few governors have handled both budget deficits and surpluses has sucked hugely.
The fact remains that this is not an unreasonable change, and much as it sucks for the students, it's a necessary one.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've had 10% tuition hikes for the last six years running at my school, and narrowly dodged an 18% hike this year. With the budget cuts in Michigan, they're talking 15-20% hikes next year.
At some point, "public" universities might as well just stop calling themselves that when they start to cost as much as the private ones. A dose of public money isn't making much of a dent when it comes to actual affordability for the students involved. I'm glad I'm graduating this year. I couldn't afford another semester at my supposedly affordable university.
Public universities are starting to price a large segment of the population out of higher education. Financial aid only does so much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are more and more students, because a greater and greater percentage of the population goes to college. However, the pace of new schools opening is nowhere NEAR matching the rising demand. That's the only reason schools are getting away with double digit percentage increases - the students have few other places to go.
*waves the Let the free market thrive! flag*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same people who always build: idealists with money. There are an astonishing lot of them, in a favorable environment (not favorable for money, necessarily).
People donate money to education causes ALL THE TIME. Sometimes a LOT of money. Redirected to more schools instead of enriching the same few schools with limited enrollment would be a marvelous thing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that people are as likely to give to schools that have no reputation and no accreditation. Having worked in university development, I can tell you that most big gifts are very restricted and it takes a lot of big gifts to run a university. Here, it takes a $2 million dollar gift to endow one professor. Tuition pays for a fairly small percentage (I seem to recall about %30) of what it takes to educate a student. A graduate fellowship would be about $100,000.
Big donors tend to want their name on things. Starting a university would require a lot of enormous gifts with no guarantee that a donor would get any recognition at all. You have to convince faculty and students to come to a place that has no reputation.
Education City in Qatar is one example of doing it right, but they have unheard of amounts of oil money, government support and are not starting their school, they are bringing programs from other schools. And it isn't cheap for the students who attend.
ETA: Also what incentive is there for the numbers of really wealthy needed to fund a brand new university as opposed to one where they already have a sentimental attachment?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see these increases as reflecting someone taking advantage of a supply/demand imbalance. The state has cut funding, and this is one way to make up the short fall. However, that being said, tuition has risen far faster than inflation over the last decade or so, and is probably a perverse corollary to the wider availability of student loans. In the not too distant future this needs to be addressed. I probably rank this just outside my top five crises.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rank education among my top three major crises.
We're so focused on K-12 and fixing the problems there that little is being done to fix the rising cost of higher education.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My top 3 crises (in no particular order) are environment (global warming, water shortages), great recession (particularly resulting unemployment) and health care.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How lovely! I just realized that my previous top crisis - that democracy didn't' work at all and that people were too frightened and sheep-like, and that only the very wealthy could influence government - has been somewhat assuaged.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A much better solution would be for those who don't actually need a college education, not to go. There are any number of students whose only benefit from college is four years of partying with a nice student-loan hangover; let them do something useful with those four years, instead, and leave the higher education to those who'll benefit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Don't need" and "can't afford" are not the same thing. If they were the same set of people, that might be a solution.
Although that might free up some scholarship money. First, though, we would have to convince employers that a degree is not necessary for a lot more jobs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you actually go about persuading those who don't need to go to college that they shouldn't go?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a problem, certainly. A public education campaign, perhaps? Posts on Internet forums? "You want fries with that?" graffitied on suburban sidewalks? Remove government subsidies?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Are there any Hatrackers who go to UCLA or are from the area and can provide more insight?
My sister teaches there in the English department. I'll cruise over to her facebook and see if she's squawking about it. She didn't have to pay any tuition when she attended, but I imagine she's against the hike for obvious reasons. It's supposed to be a public university, and it was cheaper for me than any other option, but it's still tad ridiculous to have a public University where loans are still sometimes necessary to attend. Still, I think the poorest students will still be covered under grants and reductions.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The same people who always build: idealists with money. There are an astonishing lot of them, in a favorable environment (not favorable for money, necessarily).
So, let the free market voluntarily invest in a non-money making venture? I'm sorry, but if it was going to do that, wouldn't there *already* be lots more universities to meet the higher demand? University of California is a great system, it's just starving for funds- nothing about the private sector is going to make that better.
I mean, really I don't know if you have even thought a lot about what you're saying. Do you really actually think that the free market is going to create a wealth of low cost university education? And you think this despite the fact that running a university privately is extremely difficult to capitalize and fund, and even more difficult to actually profit from? That's just weird. You seem to be claiming that the free market is actually going to provide something that the free market necessarily aims never to provide. Would I be wrong in assuming that you might just never be convinced that a large university simply cannot be run for a decent profit? That education is simply not, below the upper echelon of private institutions, a money making venture? How do you propose a for-profit entity can provide an extremely expensive service to a group of people who are unable to pay for it? Say charity, and I'll gladly point out to you that this does not a for-profit institution make.
quote: People donate money to education causes ALL THE TIME. Sometimes a LOT of money. Redirected to more schools instead of enriching the same few schools with limited enrollment would be a marvelous thing.
Well, yes. I suppose if we're talking about Ivy league schools, they don't need *any* donations because they have huge endowments that will float them continuously provided sound financial management. But I suppose the thing I don't really get from your perspective is what is really different about spending tax money to invest in new universities instead of hoping that rich people will donate out of the goodness of their hearts. As you point out, leaving it up to rich people has created a highly selective system where a lot of the money goes to only a few places. Do you have an example of any school in which a wide range of students (not just the very best students) were provided an education or just a place to go to college from charity money? Charity has this funny way of being very, very selective. And how are you going to get these people to donate their money to more places, as opposed to a small few? Are you going to regulate their charitable donations? If people were willing to donate to low cost education, wouldn't they already be doing it? What about the thousands of average students who can't afford university fees? Do they, as average and not necessarily deficient students not deserve a chance at an education? Because the free market *is good* at denying that if it chooses.
Aside from all that, I wonder if you know how much a university actually costs to run? Again, I'm using the university of California here, but let's get to some actual numbers. The entire system educates about 200,000 people in any given year. Its total systemwide endowments are over $10 Billion. Its financial support from the state is $3.3 Billion every year. Its contributions from students, loans and grant programs is, and I don't have the exact numbers here, in the Billions of dollars as well. Charitable donations are in the hundreds of millions, ever year. And this system does what it is supposed to. It educates a range of students, and even it in itself is highly selective compared to any other statewide system in America. And despite all that, it is hemorrhaging money. Do you suppose the private sector or any charity could *ever* come up with that kind of money, ever year, not to mention the countless millions it would cost to put the infrastructure of additional schools in place. There are some things private business does well. Planning for future generations ain't on the list. It's actually on the list of things that private business simply doesn't do.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A much better solution would be for those who don't actually need a college education, not to go. There are any number of students whose only benefit from college is four years of partying with a nice student-loan hangover; let them do something useful with those four years, instead, and leave the higher education to those who'll benefit.
People who wouldn't benefit from a college education is not the same set as people who can't afford a college education. If it were, your solution might make sense.
Education is cheaper per student when there are more students. Students who can pay full tuition - along with their parents who are often alumni and donors - subsidize those who can't. By lowering the number of graduates, you would also reduce your pool of eventual donors and have even less income.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are so wrong about what I said that I am not going to bother answering who lacks basic reading skills, basic knowledge of the subject, and enough self-awareness to realize it. You are a poor poster because you ruin every conversation you are in. Plus, you're mean, stupid, and not worth the effort.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I recognize that you feel attacked by Orincoro's post, but while he obviously disagrees with you and questions your information and deductions, his post is not a personal attack. Yours is. Please dial it way back.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you really actually think that the free market is going to create a wealth of low cost university education?
Low cost, I don't know. I know that there is a huge opportunity for schools to expand their curriculum to match the demand-- look at how many schools now offer distance learning, online, and adult education classes.
The problem with low-cost education is that we tend to think that low cost means low quality. How do you convince tenured professors to teach at a school that isn't as prestigious as one that charges more for education? How do we cut tuition while raising professors' salaries in order to keep them? Isn't it right that more money is directed into education? Isn't it *that* valuable?
quote:Planning for future generations ain't on the list. It's actually on the list of things that private business simply doesn't do.
I don't think you've made a convincing argument. But if this is true, than it is the perfect time for an enterprising individual to come along and make some money from this problem.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
You are so wrong about what I said that I am not going to bother answering who lacks basic reading skills, basic knowledge of the subject, and enough self-awareness to realize it. You are a poor poster because you ruin every conversation you are in. Plus, you're mean, stupid, and not worth the effort.
I accept your concession.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had planned to ask that same thing. I'm proposing basically that there would be no sound business plan to create large universities (large being important for a variety of reasons, like resources, quality of teaching, social environment, etc) because large universities are not short or even medium or long term money-making propositions. Universities, as a rule (please correct me if my conclusion is incorrect) are not profitable. They create enormous wealth in the economy, but nobody running a particular school sees that financial benefit directly. So, though universities are a boon for creating lots of well paid and important (and beneficial) jobs, they are not, as institutions, money makers.
Of course, I'm talking about the public style of education. I think probably you *could* make money if you could capitalize a large private university that charged, say, $100,000 dollars a year, and provided no financial aid. Then of course, you could build an endowment by accepting only the nations elite and rich students, but that would never accomplish the mission of a public university, which is ostensibly (though sometimes less so, practically) for educating a larger range of qualified students.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A much better solution would be for those who don't actually need a college education, not to go. There are any number of students whose only benefit from college is four years of partying with a nice student-loan hangover; let them do something useful with those four years, instead, and leave the higher education to those who'll benefit.
People who wouldn't benefit from a college education is not the same set as people who can't afford a college education. If it were, your solution might make sense.
I'm a bit confused; it seems to me I already responded to this? But to repeat, if supply is constant while demand goes down, prices fall. Further, I do not think there are now many people in the US who are completely unable to get funding for a college degree, given that they want one. The set of people who really, truly cannot afford a college degree is very small.
quote:Education is cheaper per student when there are more students.
Only up to a certain point, and we are well past it. There is only so much to be had from economies of scale. Then you must also consider that the marginal student, the one who takes six years for a four-year degree, is actually consuming rather more in resources than an on-schedule student.
quote:Students who can pay full tuition - along with their parents who are often alumni and donors - subsidize those who can't. By lowering the number of graduates, you would also reduce your pool of eventual donors and have even less income.
Again, the marginal student is not going to be among the big donors, because his college degree doesn't increase his income as much.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your data does not, as far as I can tell, match what I know to be the case here.
And a marginal student (and his or her parents) are quite often good donors. The degree translates into more income; grades not so much. If a student got C's in say communication and had a great time and comes from money, he is going to be a better donor than an A student who doesn't come from money and goes on to be a scientist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if I was trying to enter the college I graduated from now, assuming my parents' pay followed trends, that I would be able to do so.
California is in a heap of trouble, no question; I don't envy anyone who has to shovel their way through the ledgers, let alone try to figure out how to make them balance. But like so many things, cutting education tends to be a short-term solution with long-term consequences. In both public and private sectors, there's a gleeful willingness to ignore long-term consequences.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prop 13 has permanently screwed California.
California's problem is that long-time property owners pay almost no property taxes at all. I used to work in the mortgage department for a large bank. I remember talking to a woman in California who bought her house in the 1950s. In 2008, her house was worth around 300K, not really all that much for California, but not a crack house or anything. She was paying about $300 a YEAR in property taxes. Yes, a year. On the other hand, I talked to hundreds of California homeowners whose houses were worth the same as hers. They paid anywhere from $1800 to $4000 yearly, because of Prop 13.
Seriously, it's like the Grapes of Wrath. The old-time California landowners stickin' it to new guys, the oldest story in the state. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
American education does seem to be rather peculiarly expensive compared to Canadian education. And the price of education in Canada is jumping as well.
quote:I'm just happy to see students finally protesting something. It's about freakin' time.
At my school, we have a small core of students who protest everything fee-hike related (school or not-- they're looking for free education) but a similar core of students that doesn't mind.
However, education appears to still be in the area where grants from various sources cover school costs.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
