@ShruggingGalt: Must be gouging because they expect it to be free.
$10K per YEAR is cheap, that is 5k per semester. or less than $1000 per month per semester or $400 per semester hour (at 12 hrs per semester)

November 26, 2009 12:25 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

hk458

Actually its more like $16,000 per QUARTER thats right 16,000 every 2-3 months.
The $10,000 was an increase in quarterly fees. Since your so good at math you should figure out how much that comes to.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

@Michael Belisle: And at the bookstore!

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

@chuloallen: community college in NC is $50/credit hour, so about $150 per course. plus $150 in books...

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

@gStein_is on the new consumerist site: Yes, however several UC campuses compete in prestige to many Ivys. A comparison is only valid if you're discussing lower-division courses, and then transferring.

However, may it be noted transfer students often are disadvantaged at their 4-year institutions since they lack the social networks and institutional knowledge to be competitive with those who entered university their freshman year.

$\"user-pic\"$

lannister80

@chuloallen: 12 hrs? Come on, 15 in standard. Even a better deal.

$\"user-pic\"$

hotdogsunrise

@chuloallen: But it is 32%. That is huge. There's a reason people go to state schools. And a 32% increase, no matter how small the dollar amount may be, may be tough for some students to pay.

Nevermind the law schools in California that are going to be charging $60,000 for out-of-state tuition. Yowza.

$\"user-pic\"$

Alys Brangwin

@hotdogsunrise: It's good that wages will rise that quickly in the same amount of time, isn't it? Why complain?

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

@Alys Brangwin: Sarcasm? I hope.

$\"user-pic\"$

l951b951

@hotdogsunrise: I agree, the percentage increase is pretty crazy.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@chuloallen: It depends on your definition of cheap. According to the UC website, tuition is $8,700 right now. An increase of 32% means $2,784. That's a lot of money, and it could mean that some students can no longer afford to go to UC.

$\"user-pic\"$

veg-o-matic

@chuloallen: It's unclear from the article if that's just fees that are above 10k, not including tuition.

Fees are where most universities make the big money - and which, coincidentally, are not covered by federal student loans.

But yeah, god forbid students take an interest in the governance of their institutions.

A certain large public university I know gives its chancellor a big ol' house on campus property and just advertised a 45K per year position for a housekeeper and menu planner. And yet they continue to raise fees just like UC does, claiming they just don't have money anywhere. They have it, they just don't want to give it up.

$\"user-pic\"$

rugman11

@veg-o-matic: It's unclear from the article if that's just fees that are above 10k, not including tuition.

UCLA doesn't have traditional tuition. Their \"fees\" are tuition. And I can't say this should come as a surprise. The state is billions of dollars in the red. They need money to come from somewhere.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sheogorath

@rugman11:
The cruel irony is that this is, I believe, technically illegal under the California state constitution. The state universities are only allowed to charge the barest minimum, although, as with every other state which has a similar clause regarding state university systems, it's conveniently ignored by everybody.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@rugman11: This is how it breaks down, according to the UC website:

Fees* $8,700
Books and Supplies $1,500
Health Insurance Allowance/Fee $1,000
Room and Board $12,600
Personal/Transportation $2,600

Total Average Estimated Costs *$26,400

So this means that it fees are increasing by 32%, it's most likely tuition since the other fees are not set in stone but are estimations of what things like books and transportation would cost. The only other fee that is set in stone is room and board, which is also quite expensive.

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@pecan 3.14159265: [www.registrar.ucla.edu]

Keep in mind this applies to ALL of the UC campuses (Berkeley, Merced, San Diego, Riverside, Irvine, etc...). So it's not just that they are hiking fees (=tuition) at UCLA. It's everwhere.

It's also that they hiked it mid-year in the 2009-2010 school year already, and now, instead of hiking one step or less, as they generally do, they have hiked it two full steps for next year.

At the SAME meeting of the Regents, however, they ALSO passed, unanimously, an agreement to partner with another group and reopen a hospital which will cost millions to renovate.

Does the hospital do a lot of good community service? Undoubtedly - it is in the midst of a community not served by much medical service. But who is going to pay for it? It's not at all clear. This is a problem.

/UC grad student.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@veg-o-matic: It's tuition and fees together.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

@veg-o-matic: Tuition and mandatory fees are covered by federal student loans.

You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer. Talk to someone at the financial aid office at your school if you need more details. [studentaid.ed.gov]

$\"user-pic\"$

Osi

@chuloallen:

No, 10K is way over priced ,unless you go to a snobby rich kid school .... UCLA does not match that description.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Osi: UC has some of the most distinguished campuses. UC Berkeley and Irvine come to mind. Just because it's not \"privileged\" like Yale or Harvard doesn't mean it isn't an academically distinguished university.

$\"user-pic\"$

ilves

@nova3930: The problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay for an education, but already being in school (having accepted a certain tuition rate/payment per year) and having to suddenly cough up 32% more than usual isn't something anyone would take sitting down. It's one thing if they were protesting prior to entering the school, but being 2-3 years in and suddenly having your tuition hiked by a ridiculous number is a valid point of complaint.

$\"user-pic\"$

lpranal

\"Although the protests probably won't have any effect\"

Wow, pessimistic much? While I don't think they're going to lower tuition just because of this, and maybe hardly any public officials will take notice now, what if just 2 other campuses across the country started doing this? and two for each of those? The inflated price of education is like a powder keg, with enough pissed-off students, who knows, maybe we could actually see some progress.

I don't know if this will change anything immediately, but It sure as hell is better than complacency and sticking our heads in the sand about tuition gouging.

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coffeeculture

@lpranal: It's true though, there was \"outrage\" a few years ago when tuition spiked, but people forgot about it a month later.

In fact, same thing happened earlier this year. Same situation...protests in September, forgotten by October. Brought up again in November, will be forgotten as the holidays roll around.

business as usual... (I'm a UC alum)

$\"user-pic\"$

lpranal

@coffeeculture: @subtlefrog: @huadpe: I don't feel that these are compelling arguments for accepting the state of affairs, namely the acceleration of the increased cost and decreased value of a college education. I'm not saying anyone has the answers yet, but just looking at the numbers should make people upset. If we reach the point where the value of a college degree is almost nil, and it's cost is prohibitive (is this reality really that far off?), we essentially become a zombie culture, with no prospect for anything better than what we have now.

That is to say, I think this is important enough for us to demand action, like the students are doing.

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@lpranal: The UC Regents are appointed by the governor, not elected, so they make their decisions in a vacuum. So in addition to everything everyone else said, they fear not for losing their position as regent. They can vote in whatever they want, despite protests (which have been going on by students and faculty for the past year).

$\"user-pic\"$

utensil42

@subtlefrog: Also, the more fees increase, the more students/families will be responsible for the cost (not the State), which means the Regents will be held even less accountable to the State than they are now.

$\"user-pic\"$

FatLynn

@lpranal: The problem is that the state is bankrupt. It would be very nice if the federal government put more money into education instead of blowing billions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the board of regents hardly has the power to effect that kind of change.

$\"user-pic\"$

utensil42

@FatLynn: The Regents could stop voting themselves raises (against the CA constitution) and take a pay cut instead of raising fees so drastically. /UC grad student.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@lpranal: I agree. It probably wouldn't lower tuition, but there's a very good reason why the students are angry. Per the article, \"The increase would be the eighth since 2002.\" Eight increases in seven years, which means that nearly two graduating classes have seen increases for all four of their years. With the increase for 2010, a full two graduating classes will have seen increases for all for years of undergrad.

$\"user-pic\"$

unpolloloco

@lpranal: California's budget crisis means that there's little chance of any tuition cuts.

$\"user-pic\"$

huadpe

@lpranal: They won't have effect because the state of California is completely broke. The cost of providing the education is well over $10,000/student (probably over 20,000), so the university alone can't possibly lower tuition without a government subsidy.

That subsidy can't be given because the state is out of money. It's not even like they could raise taxes all that much. The state has very high overall taxes already, and raising them much higher would push businesses out, causing tax revenue to be much less than you'd think, and at a sufficiently high tax rate, to fall.

California is very, very, very broke. The only way to fix this is to massively hike taxes or massively cut spending. Since the people in CA have voted down the former measure, the state only has the latter left to it, and this is the result.

$\"user-pic\"$

@huadpe: California's taxes are actually much closer to the middle of the road than people make them out to be, and there are plenty of sources of revenue available. Property taxes have been kept artificially low for decades, and we're the only oil-extracting state that doesn't impose an extraction fee. The problem is that in either the legislature or on the ballot, California requires a 2/3 vote to increase revenue, but just a majority to cut it. The result is a minority that holds the state budget hostage every single year.

$\"user-pic\"$

huadpe

@Darklighter: California has low property taxes, and high income taxes, this is true. Raising property taxes right now is not just politically infeasible, but practically infeasible. California's housing sector is in dire straits. A massive new tax on housing would be incredibly destructive to an already weak tax base.

And, well, forgive me if I'm not excited by the prospect of much higher taxes.

$\"user-pic\"$

FatLynn

I'm very curious to see the alternate proposal put forth by the student. The article does not mention what services they'd like to see cut.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kryptonianjorel

@FatLynn: How about their dean's pay?

$\"user-pic\"$

chuloallen

@FatLynn: In the article it says \"greeted by feisty pickets chanting, \"No cuts, no fees, education should be free\"

Their plan? Free

$\"user-pic\"$

passionflower

@FatLynn: They could start by cutting the raises the Board of Regents gave two dozen UC executives back in August: [www.sfgate.com] Of course, that wouldn't solve the bigger budget crisis but it would be a great symbolic gesture.

I've also know that faculty and staff have proposed alternatives to increasing student fees. And it's not necessarily a question of cutting services--there are many ways to address a budget crisis.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheRealAbsurdist

@FatLynn: My stepdaughter goes to Cal. One of the \"services\" she'd like to see cut is the raises that the Regents voted themselves after voting to both cut classes (and entire departments) as well as raise fees. It's a little difficult to make an intelligent decision about a career path when you enroll (contract) in a particular school and department for a 4-year program only to have the Regents arbitrarily eliminate that department. But thanks so much for the completely uninformed blame the students snark, it helps the discussion so much.

$\"user-pic\"$

utensil42

@FatLynn: The raise the Regents gave themselves is almost spot on the amount our fees are being increased. That's what I'd like to see cut!

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@FatLynn: The Regents of UC refuse to release a full budget, broken down into meaningful detail, to the public. Neatly cutting off attempts to take a chainsaw to the fat.
Delightful, huh?

$\"user-pic\"$

allknowingtomato

My undergrad education cost $40+k per year. In a climate where it snowed for 6 straight months. If students in sunny CA want a free education, they should emigrate to France.

13 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@allknowingtomato: As I pointed out - this is for ALL the UCs - which are all over CA.

Do you know the point of the University of California? This is the land grant university of the state. Any student in CA graduating within the top 10% of their senior class is automatically eligible for acceptance to the University of California. The name carries with it the cache of a private school, but it is a public school. It is to have the price tag of a public school.

In addition, students transfer in ALL the time from community colleges.

Having been at at UC for several years now for my PhD, I can say that the undergrads are high quality kids, who work incredibly hard. Working with high school kids in the area - most of them aspire to a UC education because to them, it means quality, but quality they can afford.

The vast majority of the kids at the UC go there because it isn't too far from home - so they don't pay out of state tuition (one of the Regents' solutions is to admit more out of state kids). It's got nothing to do with wanting sunny weather - and everything to do with cost, family, and quality of education.

I'm sorry you clearly regret your choice of colleges, but don't begrudge someone else choosing a good school for good reasons.

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@subtlefrog:

The word is \"cachet\".

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@Powerlurker: Thanks for pointing out the typo. I am aware of the word.

*facepalm*

$\"user-pic\"$

MoreFunThanToast

@allknowingtomato: I live in California, its sunny everyday here and it never rains, thus making the climate very dry and always susceptible to wild fires.

I'd pay money to vacation in a place that snows. Although I really don't see what this have anything to do with tuition or education. I would safely assume that most of us go to school here because we live here, and resident tuition is cheaper than paying out of state somewhere else.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@MoreFunThanToast: I'm guessing you don't live in San Francisco. San Francisco gets pretty cold, rainy, and windy. A lot. The high for today is 58. That's how cold it is here in DC right now.

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

@pecan 3.14159265: Was it Mark Twain who said the coldest winter he'd ever experienced was a summer in San Francisco?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@JulesNoctambule: He did not. [www.snopes.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@pecan 3.14159265: Shh!
We love that quote, even if it never was said.

$\"user-pic\"$

MoreFunThanToast

@pecan 3.14159265: I live in OC, but I'm originally from Fremont, just went back this weekend and it was SOOO COLD lol

$\"user-pic\"$

Saites

@MoreFunThanToast: Don't call it that.

$\"user-pic\"$

jamar0303

@allknowingtomato: Mine was going to. Then economic disaster struck. Now I've decided to broaden my horizons and study in China. My annual tuition is about US$3750.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@allknowingtomato: They have public universities in Siberia?!

$\"user-pic\"$

ArcanaJ

@Trai_Dep: That would be Durmstrang. And if it was good enough for Viktor Krum...

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@allknowingtomato: No one says they want a free vacation. You chose to go to a school in an area in which it snowed for 6 months straight. These students choose to go to school in California, which, contrary to popular belief, is not always sunny, and is not always warm.

My undergrad education was about the same as yours, when all was said and done. But I went to a private college, and I chose to do so.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@pecan 3.14159265: Wait, nevermind. Mine was not $40k a year. Mine was significantly less. More like $14k a year after scholarships. Boy, those scholarships came in handy.

$\"user-pic\"$

ArcanaJ

@pecan 3.14159265: \"California, which, contrary to popular belief, is not always sunny, and is not always warm.\"

Pish, posh! I live in \"sunny CA\" and it is indeed sunny!

Why, I can look out my window any time of the day or night and see elves and unicorns cavorting with college students and (of course) movie stars across the sunny, candy strewn landscape! We don't have fluoride in the watter here, we have pixie dust and magic! Fairy Godmothers do our dishes and pay our bills! Yup, that's California alright.

$\"user-pic\"$

hotdogsunrise

@allknowingtomato: There are some people who pay big bucks to travel to see snow.

(Right? Maybe?)

Besides, there's nothing better than a snow day.

$\"user-pic\"$

@hotdogsunrise: I would if I had big bucks to spend. I live in Texas.. Last winter I saw my first snow ever. It lasted a couple of hours.. it was a freak insodent.

A snow vacation is very appealing to me.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: Try Colorado. Lots of snow!

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

@allknowingtomato: What does climate have to do with the cost of education?

$\"user-pic\"$

nova3930

Gouging? As if they're being forced to go to college. If they think its so terrible, well, I hear Micky Ds is hiring. They can see first hand if thats the better option.

Between the two of us, my wife and I have ~$200k in loans from college so I really have no sympathy. Suck it up and deal with it as the price for a better life.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@nova3930: And when exactly did you go to college?

The problem is that college is becoming ridiculously expensive, and as Pecan said, outpacing inflation. If students can't even afford to go to a state school anymore - UC isn't a fancy-dancy private school - then what do you do?

$\"user-pic\"$

nova3930

@subtlefrog:

Sept 2001 - Dec 2006, including a semester in grad school.

Yeah, they're hiking tuition and yeah that sucks. However its still well within the bounds of what you can borrow in student loans over four years, not to mention grants and work study programs.

On top of that there's absolutely nothing that says you even have to attend an expensive full 4 year university for the entire 4 years. There are plenty of 2 year colleges out there where you can get you're basics in ~$2000/year or even less in some areas.

What \"protests\" like this smell heartily of is a bunch of snot nosed kids (yes I'm 26 and called them snot nosed kids) with an entitlement complex who aren't willing to make the first monetary investment in their most important asset, namely themselves. To me it looks like they want shit handed to them.

Trust me, having student loans sucks, but the fact that I'm making 5-6X what I would with just a HS diploma makes that monthly payment on my investment well worth it. In <3 years I've made more in increased salary than I spent on an education. Every bit of that increase for the next 40 years, is pure profit.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@nova3930: No one forced you to go to college, either. Your circumstances are different from everyone else's - there are students who can actually barely afford in-state tuition at a public university. Those are their circumstances. Your judgment of that, and subsequent \"I really have no sympathy\" statement is blinded by the fact that you and your wife chose to take on $200,000 in debt in order to go to college.

$\"user-pic\"$

Osi

@pecan 3.14159265: @nova3930:

Uhh, you still believe in that whole \"college degree = a better life, higher pay\" myth?

Sorry, that myth was debunked continuously in the 20th century.

$\"user-pic\"$

bobateaforyouandme

@Osi: I am living proof of that! I still work for retail because I don't have \"the experience\". They want it, but they're not willing to give it. Even for free.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@nova3930: Right, because if you’re offering a chance at a better life, then you have, not just the right, but the imperative to keep raising your fees to exorbitant highs. Just because you spent an assload on tuition doesn’t mean that everyone has to. This sort of rationale is why bad traditions stick around. (Please note that this is a reference to the high cost of tuition in general. UCLA is still relatively cheap.)

$\"user-pic\"$

captainpicard

@AstroPig7, @pecan 3.14159265:

i think your judgement of his statement is flawed. No one forces them to go to THAT college. I am all for higher education but colleges raising tuition is not something out of the ordinary, your going to be in school for 4+ years you have to take that into account. Just because the OP is griping about how other people are griping doesn't invalidate his claim. College (including which one you go to) is a choice, a good choice but a choice none the less. You have the power to change your circumstances (hence they go to college).

I wonder what would happen if schools grandfathered in students at a certain rate for a certain time when it comes to college tuition increases? hrm, interesting.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

@captainpicard: True, but if you're a California resident and you want a good education for a reasonable amount of money, where else do you go?

$\"user-pic\"$

NatalieErin

@captainpicard: Raising tuition is one thing. Raising is well above the level of inflation is another thing entirely.

My boyfriend is at the University of Minnesota, which has had double digit increases every year for the past decade. That easily outstrips increases in average income or available state and federal aid. Students end up taking out private loans, forcing many college graduates into situations where they can't make ends meet because their loan payments are so high.

And if the tuition skyrockets while a student is halfway through school, they might be stuck. Dropping out puts any existing loans into repayment, which they now have to pay at a low wage job. Staying in school means taking on additional loans.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@captainpicard: There are some schools that have graduated tuition levels. I may be wrong, but I think the University of Maryland does this. The price you pay freshman year is the price you pay for the rest of your undergraduate years - this is hedging that tuition won't be cut, but may increase. It's pretty fair, IMO. You graduate high school in 2004, you go to school and pay that price for the next four years. The person who enters college in 2005 pays a little more, probably, but will pay less than the person who enters in 2006.

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

The state is in a huge fiscal crisis. Something has to give. Making the people using the institution actually pay more for it seems like a reasonable decision in that context.

Sometimes, there's just nothing else to cut, and it's not like staff are gonna work for free to give you a free education, right?

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@Erwos: I take issue with this argument because the problem could very well be solved by changing the way the school runs. While I don’t have any knowledge of UCLA’s management, I know that other schools (I’m looking at you, Southern Methodist University) waste millions on sports programmes that go nowhere. While I have no objection to collegiate sports in general, some schools apparently justify their existence by them, and the students suffer in tuition and fees.

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@AstroPig7:

My alma mater (Rice University) could cut its tuition by about $3000/head if it dropped its football program from Division IA to Division III. The student body doesn't particularly care about it and it doesn't seem like the alumni do either as they have had to resort to hanging free tickets on the doors of houses in the surrounding neighborhood to try to fulfill NCAA attendance requirements. The athletic program loses tons of money for very little upside.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@AstroPig7: UC Santa Cruz has no sports program.

$\"user-pic\"$

bhr

@AstroPig7: Football and Mens Basketball are usually money makers for schools. And Title IX mandates that there are equal scholarships for female athletes.

Plus, want to piss off alumni donors just cut the sports teams. Thats the schools identity in most cases.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@bhr: It's also kind of about morale. Sports are a way in which many students from different educational tracks can come together, and a way for alumni to bond.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@bhr: This is exactly my point. Schools are for education, and if they want sports on the side, then that’s not a problem. However, why should anyone have to pay exorbitant tuition to fund a sports programme that in some cases is utterly pathetic? I mentioned SMU because they have a coach who is being paid approximately one million dollars to revitalize their teams, and the results have been exceptionally lackluster. If your sports team is bringing in fans, then go ahead and dole out the big money; otherwise, you’re just wasting your students’ cash and pissing them off in the process.

Basically, if a sports programme is pulling in enough profit, then a school shouldn’t have to raise tuition to fund it. If otherwise, then they royally screwed up somewhere along the way.

$\"user-pic\"$

nbs2

@AstroPig7: June Jones? I have no numbers, but I have a feeling that when he came over from Hawai'i, there was enough excitement among the boosters that a good bit of his salary was \"covered\" by donations.

Is he turning out to be a good fit for the school? Not really. His system plays out better in the WAC than it would elsewhere. The time difference doesn't hurt either.

While programs may not bring in money directly through gate reciepts/merch/etc, you have to think about the donations that bhr mentioned. Sports are the commonality that a lot of people share, and it is easier to feel good about your school when your team beats its rival (regardless of how the rest of the season goes).

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@nbs2: I apologize if it sounded like I was blasting June himself, because he seems like an excellent coach. However, SMU is still raising tuition, and expenditures like this one don’t help the administration’s image. While a lot of their students can afford it (these are Highland Park kids we’re talking about), the rest can’t necessarily do so.

At any rate, I’ve derailed this conversation for long enough. I’m back in school for my bachelor’s degree, and the thought of having to pay for ridiculous excesses just to get a good education is repulsive. As I said before, if your sports programme is good enough, then you shouldn’t have to fund it by gouging your students.

$\"user-pic\"$

zlionsfan

@AstroPig7: Most schools don't. The athletic department's funds are typically separate from the general funds; tuition increases go toward general expenses rather than to the athletic department, unless there are specific athletics fees. The athletic department can also raise money from students by increasing ticket prices (at schools where students pay for tickets; I would guess by now this is the majority of schools).

As mentioned above, at several schools football and one or two other sports (typically men's basketball, although it can vary based on the school) generate excess revenue that is used to help support other programs.

For example, in the 2004-05 school year, UCLA's football team generated a profit of $5.6 million. The men's basketball team generated a profit of $3.8 million.

Across the entire athletic program, students contributed $2.3 million, approximately 5% of the total revenue ($46 million); the description says that this typically comes from items like tickets, but we have no way of knowing how much of this was ticket sales and how much was another source. The university itself contributed $210,000 that year; this comes from things like \"state funds and tuition waivers\", whatever that means. The program as a whole turned a profit of $2455 that year.

Cal-Berkeley didn't fare so well: they recorded a loss of $7.8 million that year. Again, football and men's basketball reported a profit, and the rest of the programs made up the loss. This campus took in $3.2 million from the institution proper and $1.9 million in student fees, and like UCLA, none were listed as being allocated toward football or men's basketball. (It may be the case that neither program needs the money, or it may be the case that the AD shifted funds around to make it appear that the football program is self-supporting.)

Unfortunately, as a private school, SMU was not required to respond to the requests made by the newspaper that compiled this information, so I can't tell you whether your perception of how SMU tuition is spent is completely wrong, exactly on target, or somewhere in between.

Information for the 164 schools that did respond is available here, if you're interested to see how other public schools reported their finances to the NCAA that year.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@zlionsfan: Now that’s good information. Also, because SMU is a private institution, my estimate of June’s salary was based on rumours, but knowing that school, it’s probably accurate.

$\"user-pic\"$

bhr

@AstroPig7: Student still attend games at minor institutions. D3 schools have athletics as well (no scholarships). Colleges have had intercollegiate athletics for centuries.

Alumni come back for games, donate money and rally around a schools teams. $1M for a coach may well net $10M in donations

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@bhr: Colleges also make a lot of money from the community when they attend the games and buy stuff from concessions.

$\"user-pic\"$

captainpicard

@AstroPig7: speculation does nothing and has no bearing on this article.

$\"user-pic\"$

hypnotik_jello

@Erwos: You can blame Proposition 13 in 1978 for that, making the raising of property taxes an untouchable \"third rail\" of california politics.

$\"user-pic\"$

meadandale

@hypnotik_jello:

Congratulations on being the first idiot to bring up this old canard in this thread.

California has a SPENDING problem not a REVENUE problem.

Obviously you don't own property in CA...

$\"user-pic\"$

@meadandale: Nonsense. From the Legislative Analyst's Office:

Real per-capita spending-which adjusts for both inflation and population growth-would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period [1998-99 to 2008-2009], for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

$\"user-pic\"$

meadandale

I'd suggest that anyone living in CA that thinks that we aren't taxed enough puts their money where their mouth is and writes a check to the government to show their committment to the concept that we aren't taxed enough. I'll look forward to seeing your cancelled check.

$\"user-pic\"$

utensil42

@meadandale: I would gladly pay more taxes here in California in exchange for better education and the reinstatement of many services that have been cut (e.g., Poison Control Centers). I am not taxed enough.

$\"user-pic\"$

Techguy1138

@meadandale: Nope. I've lived in many places NYC is one of them, Although the taxes are incredibly high they aren't high enough. No place offers the kind of services for daily life that I've seen here.

It's quite frankly to cheap to live here(LA). THe number of people here far exceeds the infrastructure. We are under constant drought conditions and there is traffic on the 405 at 1am. If this place stopped being so cheap people would be forced to move out and live elsewhere freeing up the roads and water infrastructure.

People who do their best to live here with less tax are leeches. They live in far off places, where they need a larger share of water resources and depend on the states massive transit system. They move to a place where there is a small pocket of education that bucks the general trend so they can try and get better education than they are paying for.

It's nice that the option to live out in the boonies is there but with taxes as high as they are; wouldn't you rather just move from my state? Arizona is very close and has much lower taxes along with great weather. Go there.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@meadandale: There's a Free Rider problem embedded in your observation.
Attend UCLA if you're unfamiliar with the term.

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

@hypnotik_jello: Totally agree. Probably part of the reason why home prices there are insanely outrageous, too.

The citizens of California have been eating their cake and having it, too, for far too long. It's become entitlement, and, no shock, the young adults there see it as their birthright. MAYBE they'll figure it out when the state defaults, but they'll probably be begging for handouts even then.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheMonkeyKing

I know I am going to sound like an ass, but I believe secondary education is always a privilege and not a right.

I'm sorry that the price has gone up unexpectedly. (well, not really, after seeing the plight of Cali trying to reign in their deficits) Used to be some companies offered employment for life, now that's no longer the case. Beyond what our Constitution and Bill of Rights offer us, everything else is ephemeral.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

holytrainwreck

@TheMonkeyKing: Well, no, you don't sound like an ass. Education has to be paid for. Either the student pays, borrows for it, gets bursaries/scholarships, and/or taxpayers chip in.

Some countries consider education a right and as such provide it through taxation, like public school.

The U.S. has decided otherwise because of prevailing ideologies. That doesn't make you an ass, just someone who's opinion differs from mine.

$\"user-pic\"$

admiral_stabbin

@TheMonkeyKing: I don't think that makes you sound like an ass at all. Rather, a pragmatic realist that is grounded in reality. If that makes you an ass to some, then I would advise not putting an exceptional amount of value in what they think.

I do think such a drastic tuition increase is absurd though. If the cost of providing their services increased that much, that's one thing. But covering up for other problems by taxing the lowest common denominator is an epic case of shit rolling down hill.

The moral of this comment is not to stand at the bottom of a hill.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

@admiral_stabbin: No, what I think he's saying is that only rich people should go to college, so they can perpetuate the cycle where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

@TheMonkeyKing: Is that correct? If you can't afford it, it's your own problem, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@ARP:

The irony is that heavily subsided public universities tend to be a surprisingly regressive benefit as it's still the children of the wealthy and educated who disproportionately attend these institutions. While it makes for a good story to talk about the working class student for whom public schools allow a foothold in the middle class, your taxes are still going mostly towards subsidizing the educations of the children of lawyers, doctors, and engineers.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@Powerlurker: So, you're in favor of racial or socioeconomic quotas, I take it?
That's where your thought stream leads.

$\"user-pic\"$

nbs2

@admiral_stabbin: Is it drastic or it is just a long time coming? One of the reasons that the USPS is raises rates on an annual basis now is to void that problem with rate hikes. You can try to provide services and make cutbacks and absorb some debt, but eventually people need to pay more into the system.

Plus, how much money are their alumni donating? The more they donate, the less tuition/fees have to rise. I know that my college and law schools are not getting anything from me. The college has to changes president first, and the law school will never see a penny.

$\"user-pic\"$

DangerMouth

@TheMonkeyKing: I don't think you sound like an ass, but think of the wider implications. Do you want to live in a country with the best fast-food workers in the world, or a country which is consistently at the forefront of industry, technology, science? I can imagine a future where other countries make jokes about 'American call centers' the way we joke today about Indian call centers.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@DangerMouth: Or more colorfully, would you prefer the future America to be closer to Alabama or California? And those were the only two choices.
The simple fact is that China has us beat solid for untrained, rote workers. We need a different comparative advantage, and dumb-but-God-Fearin' doesn't promise much.

$\"user-pic\"$

@DangerMouth: I recall The Daily Show doing a segment on this a month or two ago.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@Darklighter: Whenever I read or hear about students rioting over something, it reminds me of the clip from the Daily Show when students in Paris were rioting (2006, I believe) because the government passed some law that made it more difficult for the students to get jobs.

The clip of the riot played, and then it panned to Jon Stewart, who just looked at the camera and went something like, \"and how wouldn't want to hire these fine, upstanding young people?\"

$\"user-pic\"$

MoreFunThanToast

@DangerMouth: I am slowly coming to the realization that getting my US citizenship might not have been the best decision ever.

$\"user-pic\"$

DangerMouth

@MoreFunThanToast: I have the perception that immigrants on the whole do better than many who've been here a while (because you're more motivated?), but good luck with the whole USA thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

@TheMonkeyKing: I know I am going to sound like an ass.

If you say so, who am I to argue?

$\"user-pic\"$

strawberryjam

The article doesn't say, but it's likely that a salary increase for the regents was voted on as well. It's happened in the CSU system for the past 5 years and is happening in the UC as well.

THAT is the real outrage - that these board members, who are getting compensation upwards of 500k a year or more, feel it's necessary to put through a 5% or 10% \"cost of living\" wage increase for themselves while students are getting shafted with reduced classes, furloughed staff, reduction of school services and higher tuition.

My CSU President was getting paid $412k a year - living in a rural county of less than 80,000. He received a yearly housing bonus of $50k, a $25k car allowance, and received a 12% cost of living increase last year - while our university began cutting majors, classes and services amid yet another 10% tuition raise.

He was given a Vote of No Confidence by the Academic Senate for his behavior and actions throughout the previous year - but was still given a 12% raise.

Why individuals are ever allowed to vote on their own raises is beyond me. Put that to a city-district-county-college vote and see if you DESERVE it.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

tjames

@strawberryjam: \"THAT is the real outrage - that these board members, who are getting compensation upwards of 500k a year or more, feel it's necessary to put through a 5% or 10% \"cost of living\" wage increase for themselves\"

Are you talking about the Regents? They aren't paid. It's right in the bylaws under compensation.

However, I would like to see transparency on the costs of administration and faculty, including retirement plan costs (which undoubtedly are underfunded).

$\"user-pic\"$

hotdogsunrise

@strawberryjam: Ah, but then they never get raises.

NY used to have some of the highest paid judges in the country. Now they are the lowest. No other state pays their judges as low as we do. So, now no one wants to be a judge. Talk about brain drain.

And I have no suggestions for alternatives. Maybe just have no voting and only increase salary based on inflation? I don't know.

$\"user-pic\"$

strawberryjam

@hotdogsunrise:

Perhaps allowing for a raise (with a maximum percent) every 5 years outside of the voting period?

This obviously won't work in every sector - judges, for instance, should get paid a lot more. That's unfortunate in NY.

But where individuals are enrolling in, and paying for a service that is being reduced in benefits while the cost is skyrocketing (100% increase in 8 years) the board members overseeing such increases should not be allowed to vote in their own raises at the same time.

While such raises wouldn't go too far in reducing the deficit, they would help with the morale of the students, staff, and faculty that see everything around them being reduced to nothing.

Everybody must row. Including the administrators. LA Judges giving a day's salary that restores a furloughed day to their court workers is a prime example. Kudos to them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jon Mason

@hotdogsunrise: The people voting on raises should get the average % raise that the organization gets - you cut the salaries of your workers, you get a cut, you raise them you get a raise.

$\"user-pic\"$

strawberryjam

@Jon Mason:

Exactly!

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

Wait will bring it above 10 grand for the first time?

Jesus It was above 10 grand a year for me at a NJ state school (NOT Rutgers) 9 YEARS AGO. Thats with living in NJ and NOT living on campus which made it even more.

Talk about catching up with the rest of the nation there California.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

@Falcon5768: New Jersey != the rest of the nation

$\"user-pic\"$

ArcanaJ

@Falcon5768: Yes, California, attempting to keep college affordable for the masses. What jerks we are.

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@ArcanaJ:

Ironically, the benefits of this policy largely flow to the children of the upper-middle and upper class anyway.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@Powerlurker: Public institutions are far more inclusive of working and middle class families than private ones, especially at an elite level. They're also more merit-based rather than being legacy factories.

There is a strong correlation between economic background and academic success, but it's a stretch to blame public institutions for this. And the solution is to invest more in programs like Head Start, which some decry as \"social engineering\", and doing the exact opposite of what the dastardly UC Regents are doing.

No free lunch, I'm afraid. Pay up or learn to speak Alabamese.

$\"user-pic\"$

AllanG54

Geez, you must have gone to an expensive school. It was only about $7500 at Kean for my son when he went starting six years ago plus books of course but still not 10 grand a year.

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

@AllanG54: Montclair, it was between 4500- 5100 dollars depending on how many courses you took

$\"user-pic\"$

ams199

Wow: \"The university's Blue and Gold program covers tuition, though not living expenses, for students from families earning up to $70,000 - just raised from $60,000.\" So your average middle-class family gets tuition free, as well as all low-income students? That is a great program - I graduated with plenty of student loan debt which would have been almost completely alleviated if this program was in place at my school (in PA).

Seems a shame that those who do make a bit more, have to make up for the shortfall, though.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

NatalieErin

@ams199: I'm not sure if $60,000 a year is your average middle class family in CA, though. Cost of living is pretty high there - average wage might be higher as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

defectiveburger

@ams199: NatalieErin's right. $60K in California is more or less poverty, unless you live in Fresno... Even with this program in place, I've yet to know a single person who's qualified for free tuition in the 5 years I've attended and worked at a UC.

$\"user-pic\"$

NeverLetMeDown

@defectiveburger:

$60k is hardly poverty - it's just about the midpoint. Median household income in CA in 2008 was $61k.

[en.wikipedia.org]

$\"user-pic\"$

Mobius

They are rioting because the residents of California are no longer subsidizing their education as much as they used to. I think I'm going to riot because those students aren't going to buy my lunch today.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

jimv2000

@Mobius: Perspective. I like it.

$\"user-pic\"$

IndyJaws

Wait...isn't it about time to somehow blame Sallie Mae for this?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@IndyJaws:

After we've blamed the illegal immigrants.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

@IndyJaws: I feel like it is, but I'm not sure how to do it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Covertghost

32% price hike is ridiculous, I agree with this protest.

I'd join in, but alas I'm halfway around the country right now.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

jimv2000

@Covertghost: With funding from the state drying up, the money has to come from somewhere. I suppose they could just start closing universities instead.

$\"user-pic\"$

utensil42

@jimv2000: Or cutting the pay of the woefully overpaid administration.

$\"user-pic\"$

ArcanaJ

@Covertghost: It is ridiculous. I doubt a 10% increase would have raised more than irritated grumbles, but 32%? At one go? Damn.

$\"user-pic\"$

W10002

For residents of California, there's always the Cal State colleges...

In all seriousness, this really sucks. I remembered when I started going to one of the UCs in 2002, tuition was about $4000 a year. That's about $1300 a quarter. Now tuition has over doubled in the past 7 years. Talk about major inflation.

I'm kinda glad I graduated before the fees went up so high, but I feel sorry for my sister, who started college this year, and has to deal with the major fee increase at UCSD.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@W10002: And CSU is cutting faculty more than UC - so the quality of education is decreasing faster than that at UC. Class sizes are increasing, classes are being cut, so there is even less likelihood that you'll get courses you need. Some classes (e.g., classes with lab sections) have absolute maximal limits. CSU has less ability to be flexible in adding sections than does UC. So it may be cheaper in the short term, but you may not actually get classes, etc., and the instruction you get will be in class sizes of silly proportions. (Not that UC doesn't already have large class sizes for many classes).

$\"user-pic\"$

strawberryjam

@W10002:

CSU fees have gone up 100% in the past 8 years. And the vast majority of those years, the board members and administrators have voted in wage increases for themselves.

I am SO thankful I graduated last year - otherwise I wouldn't have been able to finish with the increases this year.

elaborate bacon (princessprissypants)

$\"user-pic\"$

@W10002: CSUs are going up too- next semester there's going to be an extra $400+ fee for each course you take in my graduate program. The program is still one of the lowest in the country but if you're like me and you took out the minimum you needed in loans and are working for next to nothing while going to school, the extra $1200 (if you take 3 courses) hurts like hell.

elaborate bacon (princessprissypants)

$\"user-pic\"$

@elaborate bacon (princessprissypants): Actually, it's more than the $1200:

\"Graduate and Other Post-Baccalaureate Programs
6.1 or more $2,481
0 to 6.0 $1,440\"

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

It doesn't help that Yudof, president of the UC system, said some pretty arrogant stuff in a recent interview for the NY Times...

I work for UCSC, and we had to cut something like 20% from my department budget (which includes a bunch of heavily-used services), we had a bunch of people laid off, and we all took pay cuts between 5% (for people on the lower end of the salary scale) to 10% (for people on the higher end). The state is out of money, and protesting at the university won't help...

Also, they asked us to stay home today and not come to the office because students are occupying the building in which I work, so there's their tuition dollars at work.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

creativecstasy

@solipsistnation:

I am a UCSC student and staff member as well. There is no denying this whole situation is a mess on many levels. However the way the occupation of Kerr Hall is being handled is hurting the cause more than helping at this point. Have you seen the list of demands?

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@creativecstasy: Yes, I've seen the list of demands. Some of them are reasonable (if unlikely). Some of them are kind of silly, and a few are totally ridiculous.

Their demands are here: [occupyca.wordpress.com]

Repealing the fee increases, making the budget transparent, keeping the child-care center open, and things like that? Yeah, those are reasonable.

Repeal of staff furloughs? Well, I'd like to see that (and I bet you would too), but I think that's unlikely.

Abolition of all student debts? Heh. Don't hold your breath on that one.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheMonkeyKing

@solipsistnation:
I hope they didn't ask you to spend your paid time off or just make it unpaid leave because of this.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@TheMonkeyKing: Nope, it's \"paid administrative leave.\" For all that \"university administration\" has been demonized, the actual administrators are generally pretty decent. For the most part, we're caught in the budget mess too and are trying to make the most of a bad situation. Part of the problem at UCSC is that we've had a really low budget for years, so we've already been working on shoestring budgets (and doing pretty well with them). That means that there's not much to cut.

Right now we're trying to figure out what to do if it's a long-term occupation and we can't get to our offices for a while. That building also houses the people who do video and audio recording and support classrooms and presentations, so since they can't really go in there now, none of those services are being supported today. (Well, somebody got in early and got some stuff they need, but they aren't opening any outside doors if they can help it so that limits what they can do.)

$\"user-pic\"$

zimmi88

@solipsistnation: I can sympathize with the position UCSC's administrators are in. From my perspective as a UCSC student, I've never felt the administration at UCSC is acting in bad faith or trying to destroy the campus... in fact, it seems many of the administrators are as frustrated about the cuts as students are.

I think finding ways to help demystify and clarify the budget would go a long way to building a constructive conversation, rather than \"F*** THE REGENTS\" and what not. Unfortunately, people tend to skip the dialogue step and go straight to the marches.

Really, if we all want things to change, both sides have to stop yelling at each other and start thinking of ways to lobby the state legislature and work together on the budget... really make it so legislators can see the perspective of the students. Because, really, students have taken on so much of the load already, there's not much left for us to give.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

As long as the public school system and the media continue to brainwash people into believing you CANNOT be successful without a four-year university education, universities will be able to literally charge whatever they want and people will pay it.

I encourage all high school students, and parents thereof, to consider some of the many alternatives that could lead to a successful and prosperous adulthood without tacking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to an 18 year old.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@smartmuffin: And what are those alternatives?

Good luck finding a technical job ANYWHERE without a college education. I've interviewed (and, sadly, worked with) some people who thought they could learn how to program by picking up a \"Learn PHP in 24 hours!\" book. It's not the same thing at all. Some people can manage it; most can't.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@solipsistnation: I joined the military. Selected a desk job. Never been deployed, never been shot at, made a decent salary the whole time. Never had any debt higher than a car payment, never had to ask/beg my parents for money, never had to clip coupons and shop at the dollar store with my friends who were in college at the time.

Obviously that's not for everyone. One of my cousins ended up finding out he was really good at working with his hands. Right now he's working at a cabinetry shop making very decent money. Barely graduated high school. His wife started working at a bank when she was 18. She worked hard, and was good with people, and is now the branch manager at 25. They recently bought a house and had a kid. No college between them. Another one of my cousins is working as a general contractor. Zero college. Does he have a three-bedroom house in an upscale neighborhood? No. But he pays his bills and lives a comfortable life.

My dad worked as a janitor. Many of my aunts and uncles worked retail their whole lives. We're all doing OK. Will the college crowd pass us in net income eventually? Yeah, probably, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. Point is, it's possible.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@smartmuffin: Well, I'm glad you're doing okay.

Are you happy with what you're doing? Is your cousin? Personally, I'd HATE to work at a bank, or at a paper-pushing desk job. That's nice if you're happy with it, but I'd go nuts. Cabinetry is cool, but those aren't exactly common sorts of jobs, and I'd guess that custom cabinet work is getting harder to find right now, with the economy where it is.

If you guys are happy with what you're doing, fine. I may not be terribly ambitious, but I couldn't do any of the jobs you listed for longer than a week (if that).

Getting some kind of college education is pretty much the only way to get beyond service industry jobs, and by removing that option for low-income students, all that happens is that it becomes harder and harder for the poor to stop being poor. Are the employees of your cousin's wife the branch manager buying houses at 25? I doubt it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

Never been deployed, never been shot at

@smartmuffin: Yeah, people should TOTALLY join the military thinking that they'll never have to fight.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@Rectilinear Propagation: If you pick the right service and the right job, the odds of your having to \"fight\" can be quite small, actually.

Obviously there are no guarantees, but not every single person enlisted in the military is used as combat infantry...

$\"user-pic\"$

xipander

I have no degree in the IT industry either and have been the CTO of a _major_ security firm for going on 3 years now. As a matter of fact, when hiring security researcher and analyst as well as coders I make it a point not to hire university trained students. I'm more happy with someone that learned it on their own and help from friends, then an army of people that have the same style and same lack of ability to think outside the box. Most university students I interview can only give textbook responses and have no actual experience other then simulated labs. And heaven forbid one of them experience something that isn't exactly like it says in the book... cause that never happens with I.T....

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@smartmuffin: So, you've lived a Socialist's Paradise, then.
It's pretty rich that you're miffed that someone besides yourself should be helped by the State.

$\"user-pic\"$

NatalieErin

@smartmuffin: It's not just about income - job satisfaction is a factor as well. Personally I consider it more important than income by everyone's mileage varies.

I don't think students should feel pressured to do a job they hate or aren't good at for the rest of their lives because they can't afford college. Nor do I especially want to live in a nation of janitors and farmers - that's a recipe for quickly sliding into a 3rd world type of situation.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@NatalieErin: I find the assumption that non-college required jobs are less satisfying to be based on little evidence, and leaning towards offensive.

My job entails helping our reservists prepare for their overseas deployments. I get plenty of satisfaction out of that. My cousins build things, they get plenty of satisfaction out of that. Anyone who works in any customer-service oriented field can easily find a great deal of job satisfaction.

You can look down on janitors and farming all you want, but it's REAL work that has to be done by SOMEONE, and can usually earn you a liveable wage. The idea that we as Americans are somehow above all that is what has caused a great deal of problems in our society.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@NatalieErin: That's a very good point. Are you actually happy with your work? Humans feel an innate desire to find meaning and structure. We find meaning in work, and when we are unsatisfied with work, our sense of meaning takes a hit.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@solipsistnation: *cough cough* Eight years in IT without one, and I’m not just help desk.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@AstroPig7: Yeah, you could do that 8 years ago, although that was the end of that part of the tech boom. Not so much now that IT stuff has become almost commoditized.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@solipsistnation: I probably should have mentioned that it took me 6 months to get that first job, but it was smooth sailing from there. If I were to enter the market now, then what you said would definitely apply: I’d be sunk without a degree.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@AstroPig7: Yeah, here's my confession-- I also have no degree. I dropped out after 2 years of tech school and worked my way up from tech support. That was in 1994, when tech support was how you got into the industry. These days that's not as much of an option either-- tech support workers tend to stay in tech support.

I wish you _could_ still work your way up like that, since I think tech workers who have spent some time working in a helpdesk have a better handle on how to do tech work well (designing software, running services, and so on), but it doesn't seem to work that way any more.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@smartmuffin: A lot of hiring managers won’t even look at a résumé unless the applicant has a bachelor’s degree. I don’t have one, either, but you’re fighting a steep uphill battle.

$\"user-pic\"$

jimv2000

@AstroPig7: I think that depends on what kind of job you're trying to get. I wish I had done a 2 year automotive tech certificate. I'd be making a bundle, working on actual work, and have almost no loans.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@smartmuffin: Not all education is created equal. Some of the nation's top notch colleges are state schools. Some of the most distinguished individuals working in their respective fields come from state schools, which are around $8,000 in tuition. Yes, that may be a lot for many people, but college is not impossible, and while it should not be looked at as the only way to get to success - however, it should not be looked at as being merely a degree. There are a wealth of opportunities in academia, and in certain fields that are based in academia, you cannot even get someone to answer your phone call unless you have a degree. Any of the science fields come to mind. Natural aptitude does not ever, ever make up for the lack of formal education when it comes to science.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

Yay!
The amount of pet projects, Chancellor's residence's landscaping fees, traveling junkets, etc would boggle the mind.
Rather than slash these areas, they target students and their already poorly-paid staffers and faculty.

And to those from states that don't support their kids, compare/contrast California's growth (largely due to our educational system) to yours. Wouldn't you want ALL of America's kids to be lifted up, rather than dragged down to the economic state of, say, TX, MI, AL or GA? Don't you want America to succeed?

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

subtlefrog

@Trai_Dep: CA has much of the tech industry, but our high schools are sadly lacking - last stats, we were about 48th in the nation in graduating seniors and kids going to college...

So...most of the states you listed are (terrifyingly) ahead of us.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@subtlefrog: Yeah, it's scary how much of a downturn we're facing K-12. And now the neanderthals who did to that have set their sights on our higher education. Then a decade from now, they'll still be blaming the Illegals (and high taxes) for our dire economic state.

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

@Trai_Dep: As a Texan, I'm well aware that our K-12 public education system is not the best in the US, but sites like PSK12.com rank Texas K-12 schools higher than CA (full disclosure, the non-paid info available was for 2003, so it's not the freshest stuff out there.) Texas universities are quite good overall, though the environment in some is skewed heavily to the conservative side.

CA has recently been experiencing growth we don't need, such as growth in foreclosures and people scraping to make the payments on homes that are worth much less than they owe on their mortgages.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@GearheadGeek: Rice and UT are awesome, though!

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@GearheadGeek: Didn't those TX stats for No Child Left Behind (cough - resisting urge to snark) turn out to be faked?

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

@Trai_Dep: the 2003 data on PSK12 probably doesn't have anything to do with NCLB, and they ranked TX 33rd to CA's 46th. Perhaps it's all the fault of the bad old conservatives with Prop 13, but 31 years is a long time to go without FIXING that mistake. Trading on past excellence is what got GM into the position they're in today.

Don't forget the Texas A&M system when you're mentioning the excellent universities in TX... it's not the place to go for a liberal arts education, but they're outstanding in engineering and sciences and offer one of the best veterinary medicine programs in the world.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@GearheadGeek: True, I forgot A&M.
Look, I'm not saying all states should have less education, but that we should demand that all states have more. UofT, Rice, A&M, Cal, UCLA... should be our shared national aspiration (with accordant commitments to make it happen), not our regretful nostalgia.

$\"user-pic\"$

@Trai_Dep: Grrr Trai_Dep, Grrr.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: Don't get me wrong - I think our national future lies in lifting everyone UP, not dragging everyone down to the LCD of say, Alabama. :)
And education is an investment that pays off in multitudes. Our nation needs more of it.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@Trai_Dep: Did you really just suggest California is in better economic shape than Texas?

Really?

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@smartmuffin: We produce Adobe, Apple, Google, ...
Texas produced... Enron.
Our screwed up state funding mechanisms (thanks to Prop 13, which was foisted upon us by - wait for it - Conservatives) don't reflect what CA produces.

We are who we are because of our Cal State and UC system. And we're eating our seed corn by savaging it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@Trai_Dep:

Texas Instruments, Dell, National Instruments, Exxon-Mobil, ConocoPhilips, Whole Foods, Southwest Airlines... Would you like me to continue?

$\"user-pic\"$

@Trai_Dep: And California nearly went completly black when we threatened to withold our delicious Texan electricity from yall.

We have many more companies to offer besides Enron. Shame on you Trai_Dep : P

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@Kimaroo - Fortified with Kittydus Purrularis: Err, if we had the $13 BILLION (or whatever, I'm too lazy to look it up) that Enron, Duke, etc., STOLE from us, along with the temporary \"car tax\" holiday that Arnold stupidly made permanent, we'd be largely solvent. Or at least no worse than the other 49 states.
Love ya hon, but you're on the wrong side if you're defending blatant, billion-dollar fraud. Gray Davis should have mobilized the CA National Guard (we're mellow, but we know how to fight) and we should have invaded Texas (just the bad parts, mind you) and taken ours back.

$\"user-pic\"$

@Trai_Dep: Oh geez, if you think I'm defending Enron you are wrong. No one was hurt more by Enron than Texas/Texans. I'm just trying to say that we have a lot of great companies, Enron is like a rotten tooth that got yanked out years ago.

I'm proud of my state, and a lot of Texans are. We just can't help it.

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

@Trai_Dep: Invading TX wouldn't help you any... we have our own brand of electrical deregulation, but there were enough electrical co-ops and cities who owned their own generation plants that they managed to get exemptions written into the laws for those kinds of market, so dereg basically only screws the DFW and metro Houston. I guess that made it a less popular target for manipulation. Or perhaps they just realized how many of us are armed and within a few hours' drive of Enron HQ...

$\"user-pic\"$

NotChoinski

I certainly hope these protesters are also actively fighting the absolutely-no-taxes-government-is-socialist teabaggers.

Education costs money. Healthcare costs money. Bridges and responsible Energy and public safety all cost money, but god forbid people pay for it or cut out the corporate middleman making obscene profit with crappy deliverables.

Personally, I'd have no problem paying 50% in taxes if my health, housing, and education were no longer an issue

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

lannister80

@NotChoinski: Yeah, but a sudden 32% increase? Why? Did costs suddenly jump 32%? Impossible.

$\"user-pic\"$

TexasP

@lannister80: Actually, yes, they did just jump 32%. The state cut funding to the universities by 10% and UC has only three choices: cut spending, raise additional revenue, or shut down. If they cut spending substantially (or shut down), they will lose their best researchers and students.

One can make a rational argument that UC has been living beyond their means for a long time and should pare down spending over time.

Therefore, the only complete idiots that I see here are students who think it is worthwhile to borrow $100k to earn a liberal arts degree.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

@TexasP: Tee hee. You frustrated accountant types crack me up.

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

They use to riot over social issues. Now they can only get upset over money, theirs. Sad.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Alys Brangwin

@savdavid: The elimination of socially-upward mobility is a social issue! That's the purpose of education, and putting it out of reach of people is taking that right away. Do you think that is a just society?

$\"user-pic\"$

TexasP

@Alys Brangwin:

> socially-upward mobility is a social issue! That's the purpose of education...

Some types of degrees can lead to social mobility, but not all. Personally, I would change that to \"not most\".

I think there's been a financial bubble in the university system fueled by cheap credit and lax lending standards. Sound familiar?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@savdavid: When 32% may mean that you can no longer afford college, that's a pretty important issue, IMO. And when 32% means that students who are actually going at this alone have to take another part-time job to pay for it, that's a pretty important issue, IMO. And it's the eighth increase in seven years.

$\"user-pic\"$

ArcanaJ

@savdavid: I'd say that punitive economic issues are very much social issues.

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@savdavid: Theirs? More likely their parents, or a giant corporations/federal government's money that was loaned to them.

$\"user-pic\"$

tsukiotoshi

@smartmuffin: Sure, but generally they have to pay it back and with interest.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coles_Law

@savdavid: Better than a Twitter hashtag, I suppose.

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

Funny how every protest there is a riot. Did you know protests are planned and given the ok to protest and the police know when the protest is going to happen beforehand? Did you know the police put undercover police dressed up as protesters wearing masks and when they want they start riots by throwing rocks or burning trash cans or hitting their own police in order to give the real police a reason to beat the protesters and clear the streets?

I bet you think I'm making this up.

Agent provocateurs:
[en.wikipedia.org]

USA:

In the United States, the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents pose as political radicals to disrupt the activities of radical political groups in the U.S., such as the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

Caught on tape in Canada dressed up wearing masks with rocks in their hands:
[www.cbc.ca]

There's so much more I don't have the time right now to post so LOOK IT UP NOW. It is real, and it is criminal that they do it.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

@hi:

This is from the canadian protest where they were caught in the act:

\"Police said the three undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents.

Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

Yes dressing up as radical anti-government or anarchists with rocks in your hands will \"prevent any incidents\". How does one actually prevent an incident by dressing up as a crazy anarchist carrying rocks... \"whatcha gonna do with that rock bub?\"

Watch the video:

+ Watch video

$\"user-pic\"$

bhr

@hi: sure sure.. every protest is sparked in to a riot by undercover cops. RIGHT.. It couldn't possibly be that there are people in those groups predisposed to riot are there?

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

@bhr: I know it's hard to beleive at first but watch the video and read the article. But yes they do it at almost every protest.

$\"user-pic\"$

AstroPig7

@hi: I think bhr’s point was that not every protest-turned-riot is the fault of the police (if any are).

$\"user-pic\"$

smartmuffin

@AstroPig7: Indeed. The fact that some protests escalated in violence due to police involvement doesn't mean that all do, and it certainly doesn't mean that this one did.

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

@smartmuffin: I just want people to know that it does happen. And to look for these people and video tape them when you see them at protests. Catch the criminals in the act is all I'm saying.

$\"user-pic\"$

hi

And the reason they do it is to keep people from wanting to protest. To do as they are told and not to question anything. Just like almost everytime someone posts something negative about a company on the web and the company tries to scare them with cease and decist letters ... it's scare tactics.

$\"user-pic\"$

MoreFunThanToast

When I started at UCI the tuition was 6k a year. Considering UC are public schools, 10k a year is not cheap, we go to public schools for a reason.

Also the quality of the education is not getting better but worse. I don't know about the UC but the CSU are getting school wide shut-downs and furlough days for teachers, the students are paying more for less education.

Summer session for CSU Pomona was canceled and many majors were cut from the campuses.

Oh yea, and UCI in the recent years spent 3.6 Million dollars on the renovations for the arts plaza which include this fountain by Maya Lin. 3.6 Million dollars that could go to the up-keeping of our studios and photography lab, but no, they spend it on a piece of water leaking rock.

$\"user-pic\"$

helloashley

Also, I think some have forgotten to note that public schools are the cheapest options for getting a 4 year degree (you can start at a community college but you have to finish at a 4 year uni). So that means that there IS no cheaper option for students--it's not the same as one little private school deciding to raise fees. These increases will guarantee that some students will drop because of increased fees and will never come back./

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

@helloashley: UCs are supposed to be relatively elite. I'm not sure what the fee structure for the CSU system happens to be, but it in a certain light it may be more sensible for the CSU system to have lower tuition by being the second-tier institution.

$\"user-pic\"$

bhr

Maybe if these schools started actually spending their endowments. Rather then spend the 4% a year that they usually do they should start tapping the massive endowments to cover some cost. I know JHU charges 40k/yr-ish and has a $1B sized endowment.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@bhr: Endowments have all taken a hit these days too, since they're mostly invested in stocks and various investment funds. Those have dropped, so endowments are worth less.

$\"user-pic\"$

bleigh

Wow, tuition in NY is still only @ 5k/yr without dorming.

$\"user-pic\"$

Citizen Kang

Go BRUINS!!! Fight the power! When I was an undergrad at UCLA tuition when up almost 4,000%. That's not a typo! It went from being practically affordable (if you ignore that rent in Westwood [for half a bedroom] cost about 4 times the tuition) for a student with a job to outside the reach of a part-time job (requiring student loans). Dollar for dollar it's still the cheapest game in town for a world-class research university ranked in the top 25 (rivaled only by UC Berkeley), but this does not bode well for the democratizing of the socio-economic representation of the student body.

$\"user-pic\"$

Unfortunately, these students are protesting half a year late. They should have started when the legislature was working on their budget deal.

$\"user-pic\"$

krispykrink

Yes it's horrible to get slapped a 32% increase in tuition. But here's the straight up deal:

CA is fraking broke! We're on the verge of total bankruptcy, a complete failed state. Tax revenue is dropping and more people are evacuating the state in record numbers.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

I think one argument that is rarely brought up is that taxpayers in their mid 30s to mid 50s were able to pay little tuition because they were largely subsidized by the taxpayers of their state. Now that those same people - who benefited from such largess - are in charge they are slashing subsidies to these schools. So naturally tuition has risen and risen.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Powerlurker

@johnfrombrooklyn:

They have to slash subsidies because they have no money for them. Thanks to various initiatives, California has very little discretion over a very significant part of its budget.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ken

Tuition is like local taxes, no matter what they are paying, people think they are paying too much.

Compare them to the 10 state schools in the Big 10.
Currently, they are paying less than students at 9 of those schools. After the hike, they will still be paying less than students at 5 of them.

[apa.wisc.edu]

$\"user-pic\"$

chocobo

Where does all this money go? These universities were charging 30-50% less just a few years ago, and they were able to cover all of their costs just fine. Why do they suddenly need so much more?

I understand that costs rise each year, and they have risen more than average in recent years, but that comes nowhere close to explaining these huge tuition increases. So what is the money for? Splurging on new equipment they don't need, or what?

Or are the costs somehow justified? Is it an effort to reduce class sizes at an overpopulated school?

In this economy, people working and teaching at universities should count themselves lucky to be employed...

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@chocobo: The money from a few years ago was from interest on endowments and other investments, which have dropped significantly since then, and in the case of the UC system, from California tax revenue.

Now that California's budget is basically toast, so is the UC budget.

Lemme tell you, we sure aren't splurging on equipment we don't need. We're hardly able to buy things we DO need.

$\"user-pic\"$

Weakly

Let me summarize 90% of the comments here:

WAAAA! I paid a lot for college, so these students should too. No, I haven't considered what might happen to this country if a generation of talented, hard-working students didn't get a college education. I just don't want them taking my money -- I'm still in debt from paying my own college fees!

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

@Weakly: +10

$\"user-pic\"$

Alys Brangwin

@Weakly: P.S. Feel bad for me, not them!

$\"user-pic\"$

gjones77

Don't blame the government, blame the voters.

California is the closest thing we have to an actual direct democracy.

Get 500,000 signatures and your cause becomes a ballot measure that the populace can vote on, once it passes everyone feels good they didn't something to help the environment/homeless/kids/world peace.

Now, once the measure passes and becomes law the government then needs to pay for it, so a vote comes up to raise taxes to fund this new law, and everyone votes no because no one wants their taxes raised.

So, we have a state that wants everything for everyone but no one wants to pay for it.

Recycle this process for a few decades and you have the current California budget crisis.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

I'd be willing to pay $10K/year for tuition. The real gouging is on the housing.

Imagine raking on average over $3000/month on less than 196 sq. ft. of living space, which three students share! That's UC Berkeley for you!

$\"user-pic\"$

vladthepaler

Wow, cheap school (and cheaper students!) Ten grand a year is nothing for a university education.

$\"user-pic\"$

halcyondays

The really sad part is once they finish college there are no jobs for them in California. That state is going down the tubes.

$\"user-pic\"$

Zegridathes

[b2.caspio.com]

For the curious, the link is a database of UC employees' salaries/overtime pay for 2008.

Information like this is, I believe, freely available for any public university.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

GearheadGeek

@Zegridathes: Interesting that you don't get to someone in administration until the 20th-highest-paid employee (a vice chancellor.) The first 20 are coaches and professors, the 2 coaches at the top getting over $2M/year EACH.

$\"user-pic\"$

mdovell

The fact of the matter is although the percentage certainly is high we have to consider a few things here

1) the federal government gives loans to people to be students regardless of if they can pay them back or not. With this being the case schools don't care since they receive the money. If the student doesn't pay it goes on their record not the school

2) The argument of \"Everyone that wants to go to school should\" or \"We need to be competitive\" doesn't jive because the more people that go to school as a percentage of this country the less value a degree has. A bachlors degree for lack of a better term is what a high school diploma was 45 years ago. If this continues people might have to get a masters...heck Target requires a bachlors degree to be a department manager!

I recommend this for advice for school

1) take a year or two off when turning 18...why? because there's probably some dumb thing people do them..the UK has this mentality

2) go to a two year school first...why? if they drop out after two years at least there is something to show for it...an associates looks better on a record than two years at a four year. Besides it's also cheaper

3) Don't live on campus. I'm sorry but paying 4-12K just to live at a place near campus doesn't jive. For that amount you can get a car...having a car and living on campus doesn't work well as they don't allow as much of it... online classes also help

4) Take classes in the winter and summer breaks. Often times they only raise rates at the end of the year. This helps hedge against inflation

5) don't get into any relationships with others at school. It doesn't make that much sense given how people can have opposite schedules

6) Save up money BEFORE going to school. The idea that the government would fund you constantly doesn't work. When you are able to go to school without worrying about working helps because you can finish classes easier. I know this isn't easy but debt these days is not an option.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@mdovell:

At most (if not all) 4-year schools, freshman are not allowed to live off-campus. Also, in many college towns, on-campus living is actually cheaper than living off-campus. In Santa Cruz and Berkeley, for example, rents are fantastically expensive. If you then try to factor in owning a car, you aren't actually saving any money. (Remember, car expenses are more than just the car itself, or even the car and the gas. You have insurance, maintenance, and what could be very expensive on-campus parking.) You could take public transportation, if you live somewhere that has it. Santa Cruz has a huge bike population, but then you'd better have health insurance...

$\"user-pic\"$

NatalieErin

@mdovell: Don't get into any relationships at school? How does that have anything to do with the cost of education?

Humans are social creatures, and most people naturally make friends with those they are around - i.e. classmates, for a college student. Expecting students not to form relationships with their classmates is just bizarre.

$\"user-pic\"$

ninjatoddler

Am I glad I'm done with school.

$\"user-pic\"$

mdovell

\"At most (if not all) 4-year schools, freshman are not allowed to live off-campus.\"

Not in mass...or RI...or CT...or VH and NH. Where I am freshman can drive to school but they aren't allowed a car on campus AND have a dorm...either one or the other.

\"Also, in many college towns, on-campus living is actually cheaper than living off-campus. In Santa Cruz and Berkeley, for example, rents are fantastically expensive. If you then try to factor in owning a car, you aren't actually saving any money. (Remember, car expenses are more than just the car itself, or even the car and the gas. You have insurance, maintenance, and what could be very expensive on-campus parking.) You could take public transportation, if you live somewhere that has it. Santa Cruz has a huge bike population, but then you'd better have health insurance...\"

huh? I'm not sure what the CA law is but in Mass even before the health reform all college students must have insurance...at least I think for full time. If full time you have the option of going on the school plan for more money. full time is usually 12 credits for a undergrad.

Under the topic of relationships I meant in not in terms of friends but significant others. The aspect that people would be able to spend time with each other while maintaining a courseload and work outside of class runs slim.

I'll admit that food on campuses can be cheaper than buying elseware..all you can eat for say $5-8 isn't bad..however since there isn't full kitchens for the most part it limits the chance of preparing your own food anyway. As for public transportation in the northeast at least schools are nearly always near a bus or rail line or both.

Anyone should be able to transfer in a few years of another school. there's nothing wrong with two year schools.

You would be surprised as to what can have the same accreditations with education. Once you can find out what credits are taken it brings down walls

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

@mdovell: Ooh, or you could live off-campus near Clark University. TERROR.

$\"user-pic\"$

solipsistnation

Mm, just because I live in California now doesn't mean that I'm unfamiliar with the East Coast, considering that I spent the last 17 years in Massachusetts, working for a 4-year tech school (not the ones that immediately comes to mind; the other one) and working with college students and so on. I am very familiar with what colleges require, and I can name several that, when I last checked, did not allow freshmen to live off-campus. That's unusual for most 4-year schools.

Also, when I said that if you're biking everywhere you need health insurance, it's because you're likely to be hit by a car at some point. This is another thing that even the most careful bikers run into-- there are some bad intersections in Santa Cruz, and everyone I know who bikes regularly has had at least a minor accident of some sort.

Let me see... You say \"The aspect that people would be able to spend time with each other while maintaining a courseload and work outside of class runs slim.\" This is clearly false and a ridiculous assertion, although it depends on the school. MIT social lives tend to twist into strange shapes to fit themselves around the grueling coursework requirements, but they're definitely the exception there.

And as far as being close to rail lines, well, let me see. You COULD commute from, say, Grafton to Worcester State using rail lines and busses, but it wouldn't be pleasant and if you don't live close to the Grafton station you'd be out of luck. And if you lived in, say, Northboro it would be tougher. Or Barre or Gardner. There are places near Worcester that you can't get to on public transportation at all.

I lived in Worcester for 15 of the 17 years I was in MA. You might recall that the commuter rail only started running a few years ago, and intercity busses were (and still are) relatively expensive. Sure, you could take the Peter Pan to Boston, but that would cost you $20 round-trip... (I did it, and fairly often, because not only was I living in Worcester without a car, but I spent some time having relationships with young ladies at other colleges both closer to Boston and at UMass Amherst, so I'm familiar with both the state of public transportation AND one's ability to have relationships in college.)

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

This is stupid. Why not just raise taxes to cover the increases?

/sarcasm

$\"user-pic\"$

mdovell

\"I am very familiar with what colleges require, and I can name several that, when I last checked, did not allow freshmen to live off-campus. That's unusual for most 4-year schools.\"

Ok so you agree with me then. But what if someone went to school part time? That wouldn't make logical sense to mandate that for all freshman. I'm at the largest public college in Mass and as far as from what I understand freshman can commute but like I said earlier they cannot live on campus AND have a car. There frankly isn't enough space for that and if they tried the traffic would be horrible.

I found this to be interesting although it is down south

[blog.al.com]

From what I understand I would generally assume that residency for dorms would primarily go to those that are full time. As long as someone lives within the state and arrives on time for class I don't see as to why the mileage would matter in this case.

Actually the more I think about it this is a interesting topic it at itself.

[www.spokesman.com]

Just to note to be honest I found MIT to be a pretty open and friendly area when I visited it. It really is a nice place granted it is expensive.

\"Also, when I said that if you're biking everywhere you need health insurance, it's because you're likely to be hit by a car at some point.\"

I understand what you mean I've personally seen someone hit by a car while on a bike and she didn't live.

\"This is another thing that even the most careful bikers run into-- there are some bad intersections in Santa Cruz, and everyone I know who bikes regularly has had at least a minor accident of some sort.\"

I'd say for the most part the USA is not well adapted for bikes. Yes there's cities here and there but relative to say countries in Asia and there's no comparison. Simply putting a mere six inches of space on either side of the road isn't nearly enough space. I was in china and there was a whole lane we're talking a good two meters wide. Of course I found out that bike lane can turn into a bus lane at the drop of a hat...that can you can see rickshaws cutting off tractor trailers....

\"This is clearly false and a ridiculous assertion, although it depends on the school. MIT social lives tend to twist into strange shapes to fit themselves around the grueling coursework requirements, but they're definitely the exception there.\"

I'm not implying a social life. Some people enter college with the mindset that they'll meet a future wife or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend etc. It's not exactly an environment well suited for that. Upon graduation students leave to other areas of the country and planet. It's like watching a game of billiards start with the breaking ball. I'm not doubting for a moment that there are clubs and activities. There is without question a very vibrant and healthy campus life in most colleges.

\"I lived in Worcester for 15 of the 17 years I was in MA. You might recall that the commuter rail only started running a few years ago, and intercity busses were (and still are) relatively expensive. Sure, you could take the Peter Pan to Boston, but that would cost you $20 round-trip... (I did it, and fairly often, because not only was I living in Worcester without a car, but I spent some time having relationships with young ladies at other colleges both closer to Boston and at UMass Amherst, so I'm familiar with both the state of public transportation AND one's ability to have relationships in college.)\"

I think the massachusetts public transportation system works quite well. Is it always on time? No...is it always clean? No. But in terms of price it's still cheaper than say NYC or Philly. I used the commuter rail every other day for a number of years and frankly they cannot collect fares from everyone. I also walked another 3.5 miles home after the stop so I know it isn't totally connected to where people live. Two people collecting money on a train that can hold hundreds of people that has stops every 10-15 minutes... I've seen standing room only plenty of time. Even with the 2nd floor they put on it STILL is packed..

$\"user-pic\"$

SoCalGNX

How many of these people will default on their student loans in the future or drag their heels paying them off?

$\"user-pic\"$

maltboy1

After the protest they all went to Starbucks and complained about the Teabaggers.

$\"user-pic\"$

muycaliente

the problem with this is that if it originates in CA due to their \"economic climate\"..... other states will take this up and ultimately all universities nationwide may do this also....

didn't this happen in Venenzuela not too long ago?

$\"user-pic\"$

kryptonianjorel

How can you be arrested for \" resisting arrest\"? Don't they need a reason to arrest you first...

$\"user-pic\"$

puckstopperga

So this is what it takes for this generation to protest? The Iraq war wasn't enough. The civil rights violations of LGBT people wasn't enough. The genocides in Rwanda weren't enough. But raise my tuition?

Guess college still is very much a place for the super-privileged.

November 24, 2009 3:18 PM

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Coelacanth

I'm sorry, I think Cal students protested all those things, too. Berkeley is known for its protesting.

$\"user-pic\"$

GaijenSoft

It's good to see San Fran going back to it's roots. I think a few hundred of them should create a circle around the pentagon and \"levitate\" it, like the yippies did.

$\"user-pic\"$

notthere56

All you who complain about these students protesting should read about what COULD be done rather than cutting back on services to the people that actually pay for them. There are other ways to organize society. We don't HAVE to have ever-increasing concentration of wealth. We don't HAVE to have ever-increasing government debt to banks. Try webofdebt.com or, without even leaving this site, [consumerist.com]

November 26, 2009 12:27 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

hk458

Just so people know the 32% increase amounts to $10,000 EXTRA!