Arnald's Budget Rejects 7,600 UC Applicants

If they get bumped to JC, that still costs the state money. In fact, they will have to raise JC budget. So the savings, will be far less than the Univ. budget cut figure. JC costs less, but instead of vitiating the quality of student's education - more expensive in the long run to society - freeze staff salaries, and cut non-essential programs.

Waggie, why don't you hook Arnold up with TraderBrad and get him to manage Arnolds' personal accounts. He'll resign the Gov seat and have to go back to hollywood.
 
Quote from waggie945:
I am not arguing with you regarding your point that a UC student's education is subsidized and that out-of-state students pay three times a resident student does in tuition.

My point is that there wasn't a surge of applications that necessitated this. It wasn't the demand side of the equation in comparison to last year's incoming freshman class that caused a change in adhering to the 1960 California Master Plan.
More...
In a completely egalatarian word, I'd agree with you.

And presumably you're correct that applications didn't surge - but the supply side definitely faltered. There's not an unlimited amount of money to do everything

SO, if they don't have the money to keep subsidizing all these students (which as far as the limited information currently available suggests were probably below some new entrance line they drew in order to limit enrollment to a level they could fund) - where do you suggest they get the money??

Should they jack up taxes even more to cover the cost (7600 * $14000/ea = an extra $106.4 million needed just to subsidize those freshman's first year tuition) in a state that's already suffering due to high taxes and cost of living?

Maybe if Davis, et al hadn't screwed up the state's finances it wouldn't be an issue - but, it is.

BTW, according to the article, they're NOT saying they can ONLY go to a JC or that they can't go to any other California college - it only says the UC system.

They're telling them that if they go to a JC (presumably another 4 year college would do as well) for two years (thereby getting most of their General Ed and basic subjects out of the way so the state doesn't have to pay $28K+ per student so they can take english and history classes) that they'll be admitted to UC to finish out and graduate (and that assumes they finish in 4, lots stick around for 5 or 6 years in college - thus costing taxpayers even more).

Quote from waggie945:
Without an opportunity to attend a very distinguished institution such as CAL or any other 4 year California university, you have taken away the dreams of a lot of kids and not rewarded them for their good study habits and discipline.
More...

Except that it doesn't really matter where you "attend" - it only matters where you graduate. The kid who attends a CSU or even a JC for a couple of years and then transfers to a UC campus to finish off - will GRADUATE from a UC campus.

And as noted above, it doesn't say they can't attend other California schools - it only said the UC system is affected. I didn't see a mention of the CSU campuses - or is there a presumption that only the UC campuses are good enough (and frankly the kid the one person mentioned in the article with the laudable 3.9 GPA but only a 1210 SAT isn't rocking my world as a drop everything and be sure to send him only to the best - going to a CSU or JC before transferring to UC isn't exactly the end of the world, especially when it involves the taxpayer's nickel).

With the first two years usually consumed to a great extent by classes having little or nothing to do with your major - why is it essential that taxpayers shell out all that extra cash so they can take Anthro/English/Psych 101 at UC (and then promptly forget it).
 
The problem with your point of view and suggestion regarding "just taking general ed classes the first two years" is that engineers and many other people in highly quantitative fields need to be in their major and undergrad school, immediately, not 2 years later!

CAL is infamous for its rigorous engineering program.
Why else do you think that 42% of the undergrad population is Asian?

Trust me, they aren't majoring in Anthropology or any other liberal arts curriculum.
 
waggie,

Let's take you at your word and not quibble that many of these would-be UC students don't have any "birthright" to a UC education because they weren't born in California or the US. Let's also ignore the fact that the vast majority of them would likely not be majoring in science or engineering. You criticize the Governor for this, so my question to you is what would you do? Raise taxes? Cut other budget items? I'm sure Arnold would love to hear some good ideas.
 
I never said or implied that these students are not deserved of an education at the University of California. If they are American citizens, they should have the opportunity to attend if they meet the admission requirements.

If they are non-residents and out-of-state, they pay thru the nose for their tuition. Enough said.

As for the recent 30% tuition hike last Summe; that was not so surprising and I agree with the increase. The tuition in the UC system has been far too cheap for far too long. Hell, when I graduated from CAL I was paying $930 per year in tuition. It was a steal, and it still is compared to some of the "private" schools out there that are WAY over-rated. Can you say UOP or St. Mary's? Santa Clara? $32,000 for what? Give me a break.

As for what should Arnold have done, I believe that the UC system was the last place that such deep cuts should have been made, especially since this is the fourth consecutive year that cuts have been made.

My Solution:

The State Government should take 25% of the Indian Casino's share of gambling winnings ( and race track operators ) just like the state governement's back in New Jersey and Connecticut do. At present, the state of California gets no share whatsoever.

http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2004/jan09a.htm
 
waggie - wasn't suggesting that they were majoring in Anthro or English and I understand your thought about engineering or other technical majors perhaps wanting to maximize their time at the school they'll graduate from.

But there's still a question of whether it's absolutely essential (not just desirable) that engineers/etc. HAVE to be at UC for the full 4 years. Would it be nice? Probably. But it would also be nice if the state had the money, which apparently they don't.

UC takes transfers from other colleges all the time. In the finaly analysis (while perhaps not their optimal choise) the students in question could enter a program at another college (and bonus for taxpayers, they're still going to get a bunch of those required GenEd classes out of the way too) and still transfer to UC in a couple of years and finish out.

Is it their most desirable? No. Is it doable? Yes.

The practicality of the state not having the money to subsidize everyone trumps whether they everyone gets to go a UC campus.
 
Per the article that was linked:

1. California has a $14 BILLION budget shortfall

2. The UC campuses receive $2.9 billion/year from the state

3. The proposal is to cut 8% from the state funding to UC ($372 million) - representing about 2 1/2% of the statewide shortfall

4. The article didn't say the 7600 students involved were necessarily already accepted to UC, only that they wanted to cut this year's enrollment by 10% (down 7600 from the about 76,000) and that those students would presumably be able to meet the current eligibility requirements.

The cuts don't necessarily seem unreasonable.

And if the objection to this is that this proposal somehow violates the student's rights as California residents to attend a state school if they meet the eligibility, then what if the state did one or both of the following:

1. Raise the eligibility requirements - if you want to go to UC at taxpayer expense, you need a higher combo of GPA/SAT

2. Rather than cutting enrollment, cut the per student subsidy (i.e., raise the share of the $20K+/year tuition resident students pay) enough to equate to what they would otherwise save by cutting enrollment.

Either/both seem like they'd accomplish the same net result but remain consistent with the tenet that you get to go to a state school provided you meet the requirements and can pay the resident tuition.

How about that?
 
I understand exactly what you are saying.

I just think its a shame though that these kids got screwed out of attending a UC through no fault of their own, especially when the number of applicants was roughly the same, or in fact down a couple of thousand from the previous year.

Trust me, there is no Junior College in the state that will give a student the big time feeling of competing with other students on the level of a UC system institution . . . Not from a teaching point of view, an infrastructure or resource point of view, social or athletic point of view.

Competition pushes you to be your best.
CAL-Berkeley is one of the most competitive schools you could ever wish to attend. The majority of undergrad classes that are core pre-reqs are graded on a curve, hence it is "survival of the fittest" when it comes time to gain admission into your undergrad major and school. A JC will simply breed mediocrity, 9 times out of 10, in my opinion.
 
Quote from waggie945:
My Solution:

The State Government should take 25% of the Indian Casino's share of gambling winnings ( and race track operators ) just like the state governement's back in New Jersey and Connecticut do. At present, the state of California gets no share whatsoever.
More...
Frankly I agree with you that all these Indian casinos should have to cough of their share just like any other casino does. And it's ridiculous that just because a store is owned by a tribe (even though the store itself isn't on the reservation) that they get to avoid paying taxes. In the same way, they're also getting away with opening casinos off-reservation and calling it an "extension" of the reservation and not subject to normal rules and taxes. That's a load of BS and the states aren't doing enough to curb that abuse.

But doesn't the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allow Indian casinos and let them avoid taxes?

When did NJ and CT get to tax their Indian casinos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top