UCLA Students face a 32% Tuition Increase.

[nissangirl74]

Students at UCLA protested today in vain as the board passed a 32% increase in tuition. The Spring semester will go up $585, the Fall Semester will cost $1344 more. Some of these students are working multiple jobs in order to pay tuition now. The increase could force some to drop out completely.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/...tests/

The board of regents claim that there will be more financial aid for those who qualify for low-income assistance but that really doesn't do anything for the majority of the students.

If the education system continues as it is it will be too expensive for anyone to attend, regardless of their income. That benefits no one. If we do not have educated people in our workforce, ALL of our jobs that require higher education will end up overseas.

The people who are going to school online are doing it right, IMO. (It worked for me.) You can go to work, spend time with your family, and get your education on your own schedule. When I took my classes, the fees were substantially more than what I would have paid to go to a traditional brick-and-mortar school. However, with my work schedule and my daughter's schedule, it just didn't fit. It was worth the extra money to me to be able to do it on MY terms, not someone else's. And now, the cost differential is minimal at best.

Are we destined to make every college graduate start their adult life saddled with thousands of dollars of student loan debt?

[srellim234]

It's unfortunate but they have to balance the books somehow. Could there be other avenues to explore to keep the costs down? Absolutely. There are tons of ways they could be reducing costs.

They can also find other ways to increase revenue. One proposal would be tripling tuition for non-U.S. citizens. Another would be to extend out of state tuition to apply for 2 or 3 years instead of 1.

There are tons of more creative ways to bring money into the system without gouging the local resident population for the money. I don't know, maybe UCLA can have a massive bake-sale (joke).

What I'm going to say next is going to strike a nerve with many people here but it fits many of the arguments the conservatives use in the healthcare debate. According to them the government is not capable of running an eficient version of anything so I guess all of those public school students can find education that is better and less expensive at private institutions. Conservatives should be looking and pointing out how cheap private school tuition is (although I certainly don't see it).

Many private colleges are anywhere close to being affordable because the government has provided a competitive outlet. Like a public option in healthcare, the government has not forced anyone to use its product and it is not putting the private options out of business.

[RobPaulson]

LOL and suddenly this is a healthcare debate... cmon now Comparing the two systems is kind of ridiculous. They are totally different.

anyway, it is too bad that this is happening. UCLA probably should have tried a few more things before upping the tuition, but none of us really know how bad of a financial situation they are in.

And the students wont be completely SoL, sure, its unfair and it sucks, but they could always finish their degrees at community or online colleges if relocation is an issue.

I'm a conservative and I'm all for this company (because thats basically what a university is) upping its prices if thats what they think they need to do to stay afloat, its their right. If it is viewed as unfair by the public, people should find other venues of education. They are out there.

[srellim234]

That increase was for the entire University of California system, not just UCLA.

The comparisons of a public run system to protect the long term health of American citizens, be it physical or intellectual health, that will result in less of a drain on the American economy in the long run, is valid.

Most of my response is exactly about the educational system. As a society, should we be providing educational outlets for college education through a public system? How much should the users of that system be obligated to pay as opposed to the taxpayers funding a portion of it? And, again, why are you ok with the government (taxpayers) providing it when private businesses are providing educational services? Why aren't private schools providing things cheaper if they are that much more efficient and competitive?

As a California taxpayer, I ask why are we allowing a portion of our taxpayer funds to pay for foreign citizens, be they athletes or just regular students, to come here and utilize our public school systems to get their education?

[RobPaulson]

The comparisons of a public run system to protect the long term health of American citizens, be it physical or intellectual health, that will result in less of a drain on the American economy in the long run, is valid.

The reason why I spoke out against the analogy is because they are both completely different systems right now. To compare them accurately would take way more time and effort available on these boards. Its like when obama compared nationalized healthcare to auto insurance... it just doesnt work, they are 2 different things. period.

Quote »How much should the users of that system be obligated to pay as opposed to the taxpayers funding a portion of it? [/quote]I don't know, I believe the ideals of the public system are bad and currently dumbing down our youth, so in my eyes the public option here is failing our youth miserably (no child left behind anyone?). However I am not pushing a better agenda, I simply don't have a better, REALISTIC solution.

Quote »Why aren't private schools providing things cheaper if they are that much more efficient and competitive? [/quote]I never said that. I actually put private and public schools on the same level in my statement. If private schools are able to fluctuate their fees as they see fit, to stay in business, why cant the state fun facilities do the same thing when the tax money is not enough?

Quote »As a California taxpayer, I ask why are we allowing a portion of our taxpayer funds to pay for foreign citizens, be they athletes or just regular students, to come here and utilize our public school systems to get their education?[/quote]Agreed, I wonder the same thing.

[smockers83]

I would be curious to know what the history of UCLA's tuition increase is first. If they haven't raised tuition a whole lot in the past 5-6 years, 32% may be fair. Not to those students for large increase, but had UCLA leveled out their increases instead, they'd probably be paying the same amount.

As for financial aid, I know University of Michigan, with any increase in tuition, they match the financial aid pool by that much or more.

[AZhitman]

I hope they burn it down.

Berkeley should follow suit.

[seang]

I hope they burn it down.

Berkeley should follow suit.

NOOOOOOO, they're BETTER than everybody else!!!

[AZhitman]

Probably hard to find matches or a lighter in CA...

You know, they contribute to global warming...

[smockers83]

Or the destruction of SoCal.

[RobPaulson]

Probably hard to find matches or a lighter in CA...

no way man, what ever will all the norml's do

[srellim234]

Republican administration outlawed 'em. They were used to light too many bongs and mj cigarettes by patients with cancer.

[smockers83]

And forest fires.

[rb30dett]

The cost of tuition going up THAT high is absolutly rediculous! Very unfortunate for the students/parents. That's more than likely the highest increase in costs in over a decade. Speaking of Berkley, I wonder how it would go if I went there to finish my BA. I am a Republican and a Marine. Probably pretty bad, I'm guessing. Debates would be endless!