OT: College For All ballot measure
19,286 Views |
187 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by going4roses
Totally absurd - even socialist countries haven't done this. Who will pay for it?
The People's Republic of California here we come.
The People's Republic of California here we come.
Bad, BAD idea. No 'skin in the game' for college. Need to work for it, in and out of study times.
It's not for the students the money ends up funding bloated pensions and salaries for incompetent teachers and administrators. No skin in the game for them either...
CAL6371 said:
Totally absurd - even socialist countries haven't done this. Who will pay for it?
The People's Republic of California here we come.
I'm just curious if it was People's Republic of California when you went through school under a very similar policy as is being proposed
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
You are absolutely right. The only exception is that most in the late 50s, early 60s did not have access to or abuse student loans. That came a bit later in the mid 60s. I gather you are not of that vintage, but there was a $90 Incidental Fee, then Room and Board...But, do remember, infrastructure at that time was near 100% and money was being spent on dams and roads up the ying ying. The difference is that the state has decided it must become involved in so many other things over the years. Only so many dollars available. Look at what they are doing with "reach" taxes these days just to keep up (actually not even that). Personally, I would love to go back capping expenditures as they were in the late 50s and have low or no tuition. Education is so important to our state's future.OaktownBear said:SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
No - it was highly subsidized at Cal, but there were no quotas, no "everyone deserves to get in" attitude, no "College is for everyone" attitude.. It was ,merit based and no one asked you race, parents' income, etc. I worked my way through college and never got a dime from my parents. It was a good life-long lesson. I strongly believe in strongly subsidizing the University of California system as long as admission is merit based.
Same thing. We both need to remember that the numbers were smaller then, but also the GPAs in HS were not as inflated and there were no AP classes for grade bumps in the unweighted sector.CAL6371 said:
No - it was highly subsidized at Cal, but there were no quotas, no "everyone deserves to get in" attitude, no "College is for everyone" attitude.. It was ,merit based and no one asked you race, parents' income, etc. I worked my way through college and never got a dime from my parents. It was a good life-long lesson. I strongly believe in strongly subsidizing the University of California system as long as admission is merit based.
We had one 4.0 GPA in a HS class of 600 at Menlo Atherton HS at that time a very good college prep school. But we also had 7-8 go to Stanfurd, and about 15 go to Cal. So to say we couldn't get in now, may be true, but not because these weren't good students, but because the numbers of students were so much less for a 27,000 student body at Cal. Believe it or not the top 12 1/2 percent in the state were granted admission (if I recall correctly).
Let me suggest admission in the merit based way could be judged almost solely on a student's class placement in their HS, then have the various high schools rated against each other as to relative performance of their students at Cal in the past.
And it allowed one to work to pay for their own education. My parents contributed less than 10%. Summer cannery work in Sunnyvale, hashing, dish washing during the year paid the tariff. Those were the days.
CAL6371 said:
No - it was highly subsidized at Cal, but there were no quotas, no "everyone deserves to get in" attitude, no "College is for everyone" attitude.. It was ,merit based and no one asked you race, parents' income, etc. I worked my way through college and never got a dime from my parents. It was a good life-long lesson. I strongly believe in strongly subsidizing the University of California system as long as admission is merit based.
Admission is merit based. There are no quotas. Race cannot be a factor in admissions at UC by law. It is damned hard to get in. If anything, it is more merit based now than maybe ever. If affirmative action is your issue, there were a lot more "disadvantaged minorities" at Cal when I was there pre 209, and the GPA disparity was far greater.
I don't know what you are talking about, but I suspect it has more to do with the lack of standards at some media outlets who like to use Berkeley as a punching bag than an lack of standards at Cal.
To be clear, the proposition is about subsidizing the tuition of qualified students. It is only about paying tuition. It doesn't change admissions at all.
Iirc, Prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional years ago. Cal does its very best to get around such propositions and we can see that in the lawsuits filed by Asian students.
Out of curiosity, is the problem we are trying to solve a lack of financial aid for poor deserving students or solve the issue of rising cost of education (not sure how this does it)? I had assumed (most likely incorrectly) that students who can get admitted would already be entitled to financial aid if needed. In addition, my guess would be that the main beneficiaries would be those who could afford tutors, etc. and have the achievements necessary to get into UCs.
I do believe that education is an important long-term investment, but sometimes providing the right answer to the wrong question can be a disaster. So, what is the problem this solves? This seems like taxing the really wealthy to benefit the fortunate. Why not make assistance on a need basis?
I do believe that education is an important long-term investment, but sometimes providing the right answer to the wrong question can be a disaster. So, what is the problem this solves? This seems like taxing the really wealthy to benefit the fortunate. Why not make assistance on a need basis?
You recall incorrectly. It is the law of the land and was upheld as constitutional. African American enrollment decreased significantly and has stayed down (though graduation rates have increased). Personally, I did not like the system that preceded 209 because even if you came at it as trying to give more opportunity to disadvantaged groups, the effect of what they were doing was giving disadvantaged kids a crappy education K-12 and then trying to make up for it by putting them in universities like Cal that they were not prepared for and ultimately failed (the graduation rates of African Americans at Cal at one point was less than half that of the general student population). It was a cop out to cover up the failure of K-12.CAL6371 said:
Iirc, Prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional years ago. Cal does its very best to get around such propositions and we can see that in the lawsuits filed by Asian students.
Cal does not do "its very best to get around such propositions". The UC's response was to modify its admissions policy to take into account a student's ranking within his/her high school class. This is a very reasonable response to the fact that students at many schools have some significant disadvantages, namely: 1 - lack of AP/Honors classes that add an additional grade wait so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.0 where students at other schools can easily max out AP/Honors classes so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.4; 2 - resources for ACT/SAT test prep that are not available to them that are available to others often through their school or because their parents can afford it; 3 - significant grade inflation at middle class to wealthy schools where parents will rip a teacher to shreds for giving little Johnnie Average a B. In any case, taking into account rank within the school is the main thing UC's do to supposedly get around 209.
Seriously, we have a system where one class of students can get 15 A's and 9 B's on their transcript to UC, get a higher UC GPA than another class of students who get 24 A's and 0 B's, and then have someone come along and scream "merit" when the second student gets accepted instead. That is bogus.
I have two kids, both of whom are consistently top of the class. I know they might not get into Cal when they easily would have in my day. If they don't, it won't be because of the kid from Kennedy High that got in with a 3.9 GPA. It will be because there is nothing to distinguish my kids' transcripts from the slackers at their school that are pulling all A minuses while being 50th percentile. That is reality. Those are the students you should take issue with not the kids who work to be the top of their class in a system that scores them lower out of the gate.
Priorities - more guns means less public funding for butter. The obscene level of military and prison system spending is a unique feature of America, and not coincidentally, so are the astronomical tuition levels.
Though I believe we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we probably wouldn't disagree much on the philosophy here. To me K-12 and higher education should be #1 priority. There are things the state funds because it has to. There are things that it funds because of the benefit it gives the population. There are things that it funds because it is a good investment. And there are things that are essentially charities that we fund because we think they are the right thing to do. IMO, higher education is not only a benefit to the population but an investment that returns more than its value to the state. I firmly believe that California is the economy it is today because we invested in educating our populace and providing that employee base to high earning, knowledge based industries. While I think there are many important social programs, I would cut them all if I had only enough money to properly fund UC and State colleges.OdontoBear66 said:You are absolutely right. The only exception is that most in the late 50s, early 60s did not have access to or abuse student loans. That came a bit later in the mid 60s. I gather you are not of that vintage, but there was a $90 Incidental Fee, then Room and Board...But, do remember, infrastructure at that time was near 100% and money was being spent on dams and roads up the ying ying. The difference is that the state has decided it must become involved in so many other things over the years. Only so many dollars available. Look at what they are doing with "reach" taxes these days just to keep up (actually not even that). Personally, I would love to go back capping expenditures as they were in the late 50s and have low or no tuition. Education is so important to our state's future.OaktownBear said:SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
I would gladly pull out the budget from when we fully subsidized tuition. Rather than necessarily capping expenditures, I would say let's test every line item against what the people want. If people want certain things, taxes go up. Plain and simple. Things crystalized for me several years ago when Oakland had budget issues. Their solution was to cut everything that people liked and keep everything people hated to spend money on. Why? Because people would rally to get donations to save the things they liked. But no one would provide funding for what they hated. So, cut the Oakland Zoo because it is popular. And then the community made up the difference. They weren't even nuanced about this being what they were doing. Fund crap. Don't fund what the community wants. This really helped me articulate what the state was doing that I didn't quite have my finger on. So UC gets cut to shreds to save unpopular programs because people will pay for UC because it is a good thing. This is why I have reservations about giving money to UC because I firmly believe every dollar UC raises will be a dollar the legislature believes they can syphon out of their budget to give to something else. Same thing happens with K-12. They are underfunded and now your PTA isn't asking for $20 in dues. They are asking for like $3,000 per kid. And if you don't live in a community that can fund that, too bad.
In short, I understand that the state is spending money on things that it shouldn't be. I agree completely. But the solution to that is to speak out against THAT spending, not push back when a group comes out and says "No! You have to spend money on higher education". Does this group have the right solution? I don't know yet. Having a debate about the How makes sense. Vitriol aimed at the goal because someone doesn't like the state's OTHER spending or because they don't like the title of the Act and they are too lazy to read what it is trying to accomplish doesn't.
I love UC. I earned my way there, but I also appreciate the opportunity it gave me. I think the state's investment in me has returned many times over. I think I that I owe it to the next generation to give them the same opportunity and I firmly believe they will also repay the state many times over.
Could not agree more with paragraph #1. In the second paragraph I find the concept interesting, and also read what has happened is a free enterprise solution. However, I question whether the Zoo would be let to die if the interest did not support it. Also, too much crap has been funded.OaktownBear said:Though I believe we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we probably wouldn't disagree much on the philosophy here. To me K-12 and higher education should be #1 priority. There are things the state funds because it has to. There are things that it funds because of the benefit it gives the population. There are things that it funds because it is a good investment. And there are things that are essentially charities that we fund because we think they are the right thing to do. IMO, higher education is not only a benefit to the population but an investment that returns more than its value to the state. I firmly believe that California is the economy it is today because we invested in educating our populace and providing that employee base to high earning, knowledge based industries. While I think there are many important social programs, I would cut them all if I had only enough money to properly fund UC and State colleges.OdontoBear66 said:You are absolutely right. The only exception is that most in the late 50s, early 60s did not have access to or abuse student loans. That came a bit later in the mid 60s. I gather you are not of that vintage, but there was a $90 Incidental Fee, then Room and Board...But, do remember, infrastructure at that time was near 100% and money was being spent on dams and roads up the ying ying. The difference is that the state has decided it must become involved in so many other things over the years. Only so many dollars available. Look at what they are doing with "reach" taxes these days just to keep up (actually not even that). Personally, I would love to go back capping expenditures as they were in the late 50s and have low or no tuition. Education is so important to our state's future.OaktownBear said:SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
I would gladly pull out the budget from when we fully subsidized tuition. Rather than necessarily capping expenditures, I would say let's test every line item against what the people want. If people want certain things, taxes go up. Plain and simple. Things crystalized for me several years ago when Oakland had budget issues. Their solution was to cut everything that people liked and keep everything people hated to spend money on. Why? Because people would rally to get donations to save the things they liked. But no one would provide funding for what they hated. So, cut the Oakland Zoo because it is popular. And then the community made up the difference. They weren't even nuanced about this being what they were doing. Fund crap. Don't fund what the community wants. This really helped me articulate what the state was doing that I didn't quite have my finger on. So UC gets cut to shreds to save unpopular programs because people will pay for UC because it is a good thing. This is why I have reservations about giving money to UC because I firmly believe every dollar UC raises will be a dollar the legislature believes they can syphon out of their budget to give to something else. Same thing happens with K-12. They are underfunded and now your PTA isn't asking for $20 in dues. They are asking for like $3,000 per kid. And if you don't live in a community that can fund that, too bad.
In short, I understand that the state is spending money on things that it shouldn't be. I agree completely. But the solution to that is to speak out against THAT spending, not push back when a group comes out and says "No! You have to spend money on higher education". Does this group have the right solution? I don't know yet. Having a debate about the How makes sense. Vitriol aimed at the goal because someone doesn't like the state's OTHER spending or because they don't like the title of the Act and they are too lazy to read what it is trying to accomplish doesn't.
I love UC. I earned my way there, but I also appreciate the opportunity it gave me. I think the state's investment in me has returned many times over. I think I that I owe it to the next generation to give them the same opportunity and I firmly believe they will also repay the state many times over.
Paragraph 3 I pretty much disagree with, for I look at matters like the family balance sheet. Yes, I understand a government has options to overspend like I can not, but also realize there is only so much you can tax the population.
And your last paragraph for me is also so true. I too love Cal, and know that the investment they made in me at both Berkeley and San Francisco, has been returned in productive professional work that has given the state a great return. I too feel I owe future generations. So let us get on with it. Yes, I am sure we disagree how and where.
To be clear (because I'm not sure I was). I'm 100% against what Oakland did. Now, it could be in the specific case of the Zoo, you look at your budget and say "I can't afford to fund a zoo. It's a luxury. If the community wants a Zoo, it will have to be funded privately." If that is where you are at, I'm fine with not funding the zoo. What Oakland did was "I have $X. I can either fund the zoo or I can continue to fund this crappy program that no one supports. I'll fund the crappy program because that way I can save both programs." Well, both things shouldn't be saved. I'm pissed off that good programs are underfunded to save bad programs because the legislature banks on private funding saving the good programs.OdontoBear66 said:Could not agree more with paragraph #1. In the second paragraph I find the concept interesting, and also read what has happened is a free enterprise solution. However, I question whether the Zoo would be let to die if the interest did not support it. Also, too much crap has been funded.OaktownBear said:Though I believe we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we probably wouldn't disagree much on the philosophy here. To me K-12 and higher education should be #1 priority. There are things the state funds because it has to. There are things that it funds because of the benefit it gives the population. There are things that it funds because it is a good investment. And there are things that are essentially charities that we fund because we think they are the right thing to do. IMO, higher education is not only a benefit to the population but an investment that returns more than its value to the state. I firmly believe that California is the economy it is today because we invested in educating our populace and providing that employee base to high earning, knowledge based industries. While I think there are many important social programs, I would cut them all if I had only enough money to properly fund UC and State colleges.OdontoBear66 said:You are absolutely right. The only exception is that most in the late 50s, early 60s did not have access to or abuse student loans. That came a bit later in the mid 60s. I gather you are not of that vintage, but there was a $90 Incidental Fee, then Room and Board...But, do remember, infrastructure at that time was near 100% and money was being spent on dams and roads up the ying ying. The difference is that the state has decided it must become involved in so many other things over the years. Only so many dollars available. Look at what they are doing with "reach" taxes these days just to keep up (actually not even that). Personally, I would love to go back capping expenditures as they were in the late 50s and have low or no tuition. Education is so important to our state's future.OaktownBear said:SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
I would gladly pull out the budget from when we fully subsidized tuition. Rather than necessarily capping expenditures, I would say let's test every line item against what the people want. If people want certain things, taxes go up. Plain and simple. Things crystalized for me several years ago when Oakland had budget issues. Their solution was to cut everything that people liked and keep everything people hated to spend money on. Why? Because people would rally to get donations to save the things they liked. But no one would provide funding for what they hated. So, cut the Oakland Zoo because it is popular. And then the community made up the difference. They weren't even nuanced about this being what they were doing. Fund crap. Don't fund what the community wants. This really helped me articulate what the state was doing that I didn't quite have my finger on. So UC gets cut to shreds to save unpopular programs because people will pay for UC because it is a good thing. This is why I have reservations about giving money to UC because I firmly believe every dollar UC raises will be a dollar the legislature believes they can syphon out of their budget to give to something else. Same thing happens with K-12. They are underfunded and now your PTA isn't asking for $20 in dues. They are asking for like $3,000 per kid. And if you don't live in a community that can fund that, too bad.
In short, I understand that the state is spending money on things that it shouldn't be. I agree completely. But the solution to that is to speak out against THAT spending, not push back when a group comes out and says "No! You have to spend money on higher education". Does this group have the right solution? I don't know yet. Having a debate about the How makes sense. Vitriol aimed at the goal because someone doesn't like the state's OTHER spending or because they don't like the title of the Act and they are too lazy to read what it is trying to accomplish doesn't.
I love UC. I earned my way there, but I also appreciate the opportunity it gave me. I think the state's investment in me has returned many times over. I think I that I owe it to the next generation to give them the same opportunity and I firmly believe they will also repay the state many times over.
Paragraph 3 I pretty much disagree with, for I look at matters like the family balance sheet. Yes, I understand a government has options to overspend like I can not, but also realize there is only so much you can tax the population.
And your last paragraph for me is also so true. I too love Cal, and know that the investment they made in me at both Berkeley and San Francisco, has been returned in productive professional work that has given the state a great return. I too feel I owe future generations. So let us get on with it. Yes, I am sure we disagree how and where.
I only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
UC has also put an emphasis on preferences to first generation college students, i.e. the first in the family to go to college. Something like 40% of new UC students are now first generation college students (across most if not all of the UC campuses, including Cal). The figures are so consistent across campuses that one wonders I there is a quota system in place. While ostensibly race-blind, it is likely to have the practical effect of helping underrepresented minorities at the expense of more-qualified students of Euro and Asian descent. In other words it is a proxy for race-based admissions.OaktownBear said:You recall incorrectly. It is the law of the land and was upheld as constitutional. African American enrollment decreased significantly and has stayed down (though graduation rates have increased). Personally, I did not like the system that preceded 209 because even if you came at it as trying to give more opportunity to disadvantaged groups, the effect of what they were doing was giving disadvantaged kids a crappy education K-12 and then trying to make up for it by putting them in universities like Cal that they were not prepared for and ultimately failed (the graduation rates of African Americans at Cal at one point was less than half that of the general student population). It was a cop out to cover up the failure of K-12.CAL6371 said:
Iirc, Prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional years ago. Cal does its very best to get around such propositions and we can see that in the lawsuits filed by Asian students.
Cal does not do "its very best to get around such propositions". The UC's response was to modify its admissions policy to take into account a student's ranking within his/her high school class. This is a very reasonable response to the fact that students at many schools have some significant disadvantages, namely: 1 - lack of AP/Honors classes that add an additional grade wait so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.0 where students at other schools can easily max out AP/Honors classes so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.4; 2 - resources for ACT/SAT test prep that are not available to them that are available to others often through their school or because their parents can afford it; 3 - significant grade inflation at middle class to wealthy schools where parents will rip a teacher to shreds for giving little Johnnie Average a B. In any case, taking into account rank within the school is the main thing UC's do to supposedly get around 209.
Seriously, we have a system where one class of students can get 15 A's and 9 B's on their transcript to UC, get a higher UC GPA than another class of students who get 24 A's and 0 B's, and then have someone come along and scream "merit" when the second student gets accepted instead. That is bogus.
I have two kids, both of whom are consistently top of the class. I know they might not get into Cal when they easily would have in my day. If they don't, it won't be because of the kid from Kennedy High that got in with a 3.9 GPA. It will be because there is nothing to distinguish my kids' transcripts from the slackers at their school that are pulling all A minuses while being 50th percentile. That is reality. Those are the students you should take issue with not the kids who work to be the top of their class in a system that scores them lower out of the gate.
Also, anecdotal reports out of our admissions office indicate that the "holistic" admissions process, which allows preference to those who have overcome hardship, is being used to tilt the playing field in favor of underrepresented minorities. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html
GPA's are not apples to apples but every kid, rich or poor, takes the same SAT or ACT, and those tests are a good measure, however imperfect, of both scholastic achievement and aptitude. UC does not, so far as I know, track or release average test scores by ethnicity so it is impossible to ascertain whether you need higher scores for admission if you are white or Asian. But again, anecdotally, there are some who argue that is true.
So even though 209 is the law of the land here in CA, UC has done a lot to make admission race-based.
I'm sounding mighty Republican in this thread, eh?
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Yep.Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
And when the Prop. 30 income tax was about to expire, it was renewed for another 12 years; the sales tax was not.
Ever wonder why hotel and car rental taxes are so high? The people who vote for them (residents of a city) do not pay them. It is the visitors who pay them.
Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.
But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.
At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.
And that, as you know, is the bloody world of politics.OaktownBear said:To be clear (because I'm not sure I was). I'm 100% against what Oakland did. Now, it could be in the specific case of the Zoo, you look at your budget and say "I can't afford to fund a zoo. It's a luxury. If the community wants a Zoo, it will have to be funded privately." If that is where you are at, I'm fine with not funding the zoo. What Oakland did was "I have $X. I can either fund the zoo or I can continue to fund this crappy program that no one supports. I'll fund the crappy program because that way I can save both programs." Well, both things shouldn't be saved. I'm pissed off that good programs are underfunded to save bad programs because the legislature banks on private funding saving the good programs.OdontoBear66 said:Could not agree more with paragraph #1. In the second paragraph I find the concept interesting, and also read what has happened is a free enterprise solution. However, I question whether the Zoo would be let to die if the interest did not support it. Also, too much crap has been funded.OaktownBear said:Though I believe we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we probably wouldn't disagree much on the philosophy here. To me K-12 and higher education should be #1 priority. There are things the state funds because it has to. There are things that it funds because of the benefit it gives the population. There are things that it funds because it is a good investment. And there are things that are essentially charities that we fund because we think they are the right thing to do. IMO, higher education is not only a benefit to the population but an investment that returns more than its value to the state. I firmly believe that California is the economy it is today because we invested in educating our populace and providing that employee base to high earning, knowledge based industries. While I think there are many important social programs, I would cut them all if I had only enough money to properly fund UC and State colleges.OdontoBear66 said:You are absolutely right. The only exception is that most in the late 50s, early 60s did not have access to or abuse student loans. That came a bit later in the mid 60s. I gather you are not of that vintage, but there was a $90 Incidental Fee, then Room and Board...But, do remember, infrastructure at that time was near 100% and money was being spent on dams and roads up the ying ying. The difference is that the state has decided it must become involved in so many other things over the years. Only so many dollars available. Look at what they are doing with "reach" taxes these days just to keep up (actually not even that). Personally, I would love to go back capping expenditures as they were in the late 50s and have low or no tuition. Education is so important to our state's future.OaktownBear said:SRBear said:
They've got another idea for that money...
However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.
I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.
As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.
I would gladly pull out the budget from when we fully subsidized tuition. Rather than necessarily capping expenditures, I would say let's test every line item against what the people want. If people want certain things, taxes go up. Plain and simple. Things crystalized for me several years ago when Oakland had budget issues. Their solution was to cut everything that people liked and keep everything people hated to spend money on. Why? Because people would rally to get donations to save the things they liked. But no one would provide funding for what they hated. So, cut the Oakland Zoo because it is popular. And then the community made up the difference. They weren't even nuanced about this being what they were doing. Fund crap. Don't fund what the community wants. This really helped me articulate what the state was doing that I didn't quite have my finger on. So UC gets cut to shreds to save unpopular programs because people will pay for UC because it is a good thing. This is why I have reservations about giving money to UC because I firmly believe every dollar UC raises will be a dollar the legislature believes they can syphon out of their budget to give to something else. Same thing happens with K-12. They are underfunded and now your PTA isn't asking for $20 in dues. They are asking for like $3,000 per kid. And if you don't live in a community that can fund that, too bad.
In short, I understand that the state is spending money on things that it shouldn't be. I agree completely. But the solution to that is to speak out against THAT spending, not push back when a group comes out and says "No! You have to spend money on higher education". Does this group have the right solution? I don't know yet. Having a debate about the How makes sense. Vitriol aimed at the goal because someone doesn't like the state's OTHER spending or because they don't like the title of the Act and they are too lazy to read what it is trying to accomplish doesn't.
I love UC. I earned my way there, but I also appreciate the opportunity it gave me. I think the state's investment in me has returned many times over. I think I that I owe it to the next generation to give them the same opportunity and I firmly believe they will also repay the state many times over.
Paragraph 3 I pretty much disagree with, for I look at matters like the family balance sheet. Yes, I understand a government has options to overspend like I can not, but also realize there is only so much you can tax the population.
And your last paragraph for me is also so true. I too love Cal, and know that the investment they made in me at both Berkeley and San Francisco, has been returned in productive professional work that has given the state a great return. I too feel I owe future generations. So let us get on with it. Yes, I am sure we disagree how and where.
Sounds reasonable to me.Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
On the taxing in your first paragraph it is most often done villifying a group (the rich) and continually going back to them for more and more. Why? That's where the money is. The other strategy is to add it in areas where it is not seen readily or seems to the average Joe to be insignificant (gas tax, utility taxes including phone, water bills, etc.).
I think most pro tax people would have a hard time arguing for taxing oil more when they compare the govt revenues from gas taxes (per gallon) versus the oil company revenues (per gallon) which they vilify. Why not vilify the politicians? The strategies to get more and more and more are beyond the pale. As long as the other guy pays it's OK.
California already allocates a percentage of all revenue to Education - I believe 60%. The rest is made up of MediCal and other health spending, prisons, debt repayment and whatever is left over. No wonder our infrastructure is crumbling.
I do believe that higher education should be paid for, and for the most part, it is. But that does not mean that UC education needs to be provided at no cost. The UC already is free for kids whose families make less than a threshold dollar amount - I think $85K per year, and heavily subsidized for those who make less than $150K per year. Making it free for all would simply give a boost to the middle class (who probably do need a boost) but it is not reasonable when you have no money to give money to people who already have a little money.
If you want to cut costs, fine. If you want to slap a limit on professors or administrative salaries, fine. Eliminate all administration. That reduces costs by 25%. That is still too much - reducing tuition by $4000 will not help out the kids who are struggling to stay in school.
The UC is essentially a private school. Very little of the cost of education comes from the state. The state can not afford another 30 Billion per year to fund the UC. So gaining the private contributions and funding for research from outside sources and selling seat licenses, etc is the only way to get by. The state just can not afford it.
There are about 5 different proposals to take highly compensated people tax money, and institute death taxes, and expand state services. Does anyone really think that the very wealthy people who live here will stand by and watch all of their money go away? There is absolutely no way that any of those folks will retain California residences when it is so easy to shelter their income, assets, etc. California is nice, but not that nice. i mean, understanding the new tax law, there is no way the legislature will be raising taxes (which is why this is an initiative - the legislature told these folks no). That is why single payer is dead, why this is dead and why many of the other grand plans are being put on hold.
The new tactic is to put mandates on businesses. Employers will have to raise wages to a new minimum (eliminates tons of Medi-Cal spending since they are no longer eligible), provide health care and provide retirement benefits. That is where the legislature is going - raising taxes is no longer palatable but imposing mandates is the new plan. That eliminates a lot of state spending on social programs, which is a good thing, frankly.
I do believe that higher education should be paid for, and for the most part, it is. But that does not mean that UC education needs to be provided at no cost. The UC already is free for kids whose families make less than a threshold dollar amount - I think $85K per year, and heavily subsidized for those who make less than $150K per year. Making it free for all would simply give a boost to the middle class (who probably do need a boost) but it is not reasonable when you have no money to give money to people who already have a little money.
If you want to cut costs, fine. If you want to slap a limit on professors or administrative salaries, fine. Eliminate all administration. That reduces costs by 25%. That is still too much - reducing tuition by $4000 will not help out the kids who are struggling to stay in school.
The UC is essentially a private school. Very little of the cost of education comes from the state. The state can not afford another 30 Billion per year to fund the UC. So gaining the private contributions and funding for research from outside sources and selling seat licenses, etc is the only way to get by. The state just can not afford it.
There are about 5 different proposals to take highly compensated people tax money, and institute death taxes, and expand state services. Does anyone really think that the very wealthy people who live here will stand by and watch all of their money go away? There is absolutely no way that any of those folks will retain California residences when it is so easy to shelter their income, assets, etc. California is nice, but not that nice. i mean, understanding the new tax law, there is no way the legislature will be raising taxes (which is why this is an initiative - the legislature told these folks no). That is why single payer is dead, why this is dead and why many of the other grand plans are being put on hold.
The new tactic is to put mandates on businesses. Employers will have to raise wages to a new minimum (eliminates tons of Medi-Cal spending since they are no longer eligible), provide health care and provide retirement benefits. That is where the legislature is going - raising taxes is no longer palatable but imposing mandates is the new plan. That eliminates a lot of state spending on social programs, which is a good thing, frankly.
Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
I don't really like their funding mechanism as I question whether it will raise enough money and I think it will be easier to avoid. I'd rather it be paid for out of a straight income tax, and it would be fine with me if it is out of the existing income tax by changing the priority of our spending.
Bottom line, the dramatic increase in public higher education fees has been a barrier for many and a disincentive to all. Right at the point where actually having a college degree is becoming as crucial as having a high school diploma (which was free) used to be. That just doesn't make sense. Personally, I'd be happy to cut a lot of other government spending to enforce the original mandate (which was never repealed but rather avoided in a sleazy maneuver by the legislature).
The problem with the argument that wealthy people will leave California is that the thriving economy that is supported by taxes to provide the best public college education system in the world is producing wealthy people at a higher rate than people would move out. Where did Mark Zuckerburg move to, to create facebook? And why? Because of the nearby colleges producing so much talent he needed.BearGoggles said:Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.
But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.
At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.
And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.
I'm all for changing pensions and tenure. We should get rid of tenure and nobody should have a lifetime pension. We should strengthen social security and college professors should have 401ks. These are complicated issues, though. We have to compete with private universities and we have to keep costs down.
Another issue is sometimes kids are going to 4 year colleges when they should be going to community college to learn a trade. I think community colleges should be a route that is pushed more.
American Vermin
dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Sebastabear said:
It always comes back to taxing "the others", doesn't it? People generally support having some group who's not them pay taxes, but will go apoplectic over their own taxes being raised. We saw that when CA did it's "temporary" (cough) tax increases in 2012 through Proposition 30 which had a slight bump in the sales tax but a large increase in income taxes for very high income earners. There was another ballot proposition at the same time if I recall that would have raised taxes on everyone. Proposition 30 passed and the other one went down in flames. Shocking.
I'm a big believer in subsidized public education. I also believe in adequate medical treatment for all, improving our infrastructure, keeping our population safe, solving homelessness, etc. It's just a question of who pays for it and priorities. As Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Not surprisingly, people on this board - for the most part beneficiaries of subsidized higher education - support subsidized higher education. i'm in that camp for sure.
But the elephant in the room is the massive increase in the cost of delivering public education. The growth of UC administration (i.e., non-teaching positions) has been staggering and far outpaced inflation (true in k-12 and at CSU as well) and the compensation across the board (particularly retirement and other benefits) has grown. Simply put, the costs have far outpaced inflation.
At some point there will be a reckoning in CA - likely the next recession. Tax rates are already high and there is literally no discussion about setting priorities or controlling spending. Tax payers and wealth will move - if they enact an estate tax people will react accordingly.
And the data shows wealthy people are not moving out. Poor people are moving out - wealthy people are moving in. And why? Because California is awesome.
Oh boy. I don't know what to say about this other than this is a cold and callous way of viewing getting rid of the poor folks you suggest are undesirable. Not only are neighborhoods gentrified, states are being gentrified.
Also, isn't this tax an estate tax and not an income or corporate tax? Would you still present those arguments since this is a tax most likely on people who are most likely retirement age and thinking about passing off their estate and not those who are starting tech companies? Just wondering.
I do agree with you that we should provide free education to train those who have been displaced and make them productive members of society in the new economy and that it should be paid by the tech companies who are most benefitting from the displacement of blue collar workers.
Only 20% of Cal freshman are first generation college students. There really is no sneaky getting around of anything. The overwhelming majority of our students come from college educated families, and the largest ethnic group is Asian because that's the highest academically achieving group in California. If Cal were getting around 209 to make admission race based there would be more than a pitiful 3% black student population, which includes all athletes.FuzzyWuzzy said:UC has also put an emphasis on preferences to first generation college students, i.e. the first in the family to go to college. Something like 40% of new UC students are now first generation college students (across most if not all of the UC campuses, including Cal). The figures are so consistent across campuses that one wonders I there is a quota system in place. While ostensibly race-blind, it is likely to have the practical effect of helping underrepresented minorities at the expense of more-qualified students of Euro and Asian descent. In other words it is a proxy for race-based admissions.OaktownBear said:You recall incorrectly. It is the law of the land and was upheld as constitutional. African American enrollment decreased significantly and has stayed down (though graduation rates have increased). Personally, I did not like the system that preceded 209 because even if you came at it as trying to give more opportunity to disadvantaged groups, the effect of what they were doing was giving disadvantaged kids a crappy education K-12 and then trying to make up for it by putting them in universities like Cal that they were not prepared for and ultimately failed (the graduation rates of African Americans at Cal at one point was less than half that of the general student population). It was a cop out to cover up the failure of K-12.CAL6371 said:
Iirc, Prop 209 was ruled unconstitutional years ago. Cal does its very best to get around such propositions and we can see that in the lawsuits filed by Asian students.
Cal does not do "its very best to get around such propositions". The UC's response was to modify its admissions policy to take into account a student's ranking within his/her high school class. This is a very reasonable response to the fact that students at many schools have some significant disadvantages, namely: 1 - lack of AP/Honors classes that add an additional grade wait so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.0 where students at other schools can easily max out AP/Honors classes so that their GPA is taken out of a maximum 4.4; 2 - resources for ACT/SAT test prep that are not available to them that are available to others often through their school or because their parents can afford it; 3 - significant grade inflation at middle class to wealthy schools where parents will rip a teacher to shreds for giving little Johnnie Average a B. In any case, taking into account rank within the school is the main thing UC's do to supposedly get around 209.
Seriously, we have a system where one class of students can get 15 A's and 9 B's on their transcript to UC, get a higher UC GPA than another class of students who get 24 A's and 0 B's, and then have someone come along and scream "merit" when the second student gets accepted instead. That is bogus.
I have two kids, both of whom are consistently top of the class. I know they might not get into Cal when they easily would have in my day. If they don't, it won't be because of the kid from Kennedy High that got in with a 3.9 GPA. It will be because there is nothing to distinguish my kids' transcripts from the slackers at their school that are pulling all A minuses while being 50th percentile. That is reality. Those are the students you should take issue with not the kids who work to be the top of their class in a system that scores them lower out of the gate.
Also, anecdotal reports out of our admissions office indicate that the "holistic" admissions process, which allows preference to those who have overcome hardship, is being used to tilt the playing field in favor of underrepresented minorities. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html
GPA's are not apples to apples but every kid, rich or poor, takes the same SAT or ACT, and those tests are a good measure, however imperfect, of both scholastic achievement and aptitude. UC does not, so far as I know, track or release average test scores by ethnicity so it is impossible to ascertain whether you need higher scores for admission if you are white or Asian. But again, anecdotally, there are some who argue that is true.
So even though 209 is the law of the land here in CA, UC has done a lot to make admission race-based.
I'm sounding mighty Republican in this thread, eh?
Also, just for fun:
The median family income of a student from U.C. Berkeley is $119,900, and 54% come from the top 20 percent.
The median family income of a student from U.C.L.A. is $104,900, and 48% come from the top 20 percent.
The median family income of a student from U.C. San Diego is $82,000, and 40% come from the top 20 percent.
The median family income of a student from U.C. Santa Barbara is $105,800, and 48% come from the top 20 percent.
The median family income of a student from U.C. Davis is $95,400, and 45% come from the top 20 percent.
Berkeley has the lowest % of students from the bottom 40% of all UCs.
Cal has changed in terms of the numbers of first time students and Pell Grant holders. What I hear Cal faculty protesting is that this has come at the cost of the so-called middle class students, as Cal (and others) have raised tuition. The results in a more third world approach of wealthy students in essence subsiding poor students. This reflects California more as well, which is greater income (and particularly) wealth inequality. Somewhat ironic that higher taxes and progressive policies have created higher income inequality than most (but not all) states.
Back in the late ''70's when I went to Cal, the State subsidized everyone that qualified for higher eduction, but Cal and UCLA generally skewed towards middle and upper class students, so in essence the state provided a subsidy for those with means.
Even today, the consumers of public higher education tends to be skewed towards those from higher income families, but higher education still provides opportunities for those who come from more meager backgrounds. I still would argue it is a good investment for the State to make to subsidize those that qualify. Of importance is that higher education does more than simply educate, it provides research, social mobility for some, a better work force, evaluation of policy, etc. College is not for everyone however, and from that standpoint I disagree with the college for everyone mentality. Further, I have no problems funding trade schools or education for those going into alternative paths from college. Investment in human capital (if done correctly) typically is a worth investment.
Back in the late ''70's when I went to Cal, the State subsidized everyone that qualified for higher eduction, but Cal and UCLA generally skewed towards middle and upper class students, so in essence the state provided a subsidy for those with means.
Even today, the consumers of public higher education tends to be skewed towards those from higher income families, but higher education still provides opportunities for those who come from more meager backgrounds. I still would argue it is a good investment for the State to make to subsidize those that qualify. Of importance is that higher education does more than simply educate, it provides research, social mobility for some, a better work force, evaluation of policy, etc. College is not for everyone however, and from that standpoint I disagree with the college for everyone mentality. Further, I have no problems funding trade schools or education for those going into alternative paths from college. Investment in human capital (if done correctly) typically is a worth investment.
Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...FuzzyWuzzy said:
FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.Goobear said:Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...FuzzyWuzzy said:
FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.socaliganbear said:This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.Goobear said:Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...FuzzyWuzzy said:
FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.
calbear93 said:One - that is diabolical. Under the guise of being progressive, adopt policies that force the poor to leave the state and keep the beaches for the rich folks. It may be evil, but it's brilliant. Who knew I was actually the liberal one on this board.socaliganbear said:This is not a thing that is happening in California. The opposite happens in California. As was pointed out above, the poor leave, the affluent keep moving here.Goobear said:Let's tax more. That is the answer...California is in the bottom 10 States in education ranking in elementary school of all the states. So now every kid should go to college? Many of them would fail. Fix that first...California needs to stop thinking taxing will solve all woes. One in 3 people are on medi cal in this state. People with means leave and then what will you have left if this goes on?...Yes a bankrupt state...FuzzyWuzzy said:
FI only read enough to find out how this gets paid for: an estate tax that starts on estates of $7 million (married)/$3.5 million (individual). The rates starts at 12% and quickly shoot up to 22%. These are all people that can afford to move out of state and a lot of them will establish full-time residency elsewhere, with a pied-a-terre in California. I personally think a new tax for this should be more broad-based. Maybe a bump in the sales tax, a bump in the state corporate tax and a partial phasing out of a the Prop. 13 exemption for commercial real estate.
I agree with whoever said that the student needs to have skin in the game. Everyone needs to pay something, and if you can't afford it, you need to get a job.
I do not believe it is right to charge wealthy families more in tuition so that you have the money to provide scholarships for the poor. For example, a school has a revenue need of $20,000 per student. So it sets the tuition at $35,000 so that it can use the extra $15,000 to give scholarships to students who can't afford the $20,000. If we think there is societal value in subsidizing the education of deserving poor students, it should be done on the backs of society at large, not the wealthy families at the same school. This measure would help shift that burden to society at large through a tax (but see my comment above about that tax, which is unfair and pretty easily avoided for the folks who would be taxed).
Like I said, I didn't actually read the whole thing. But it would suck if MY kid ends up paying the highest tuition ever, just before this thing passes.
Second - this is an estate tax. People don't need to pay the extra tax for the privilege of dying in California. They can die just as well in another state.
What is diabolical? Pointing out a fact? I offered no opinion of my own.
Featured Stories
See All
No. 3 Bears Advance To NCAA Championship Finals
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football Spring Practice Day 13 (Free)
by Jim McGill
Ott and Endries Step Up For Cal Football's Reading Challenge
by Bradley Connelly
Cal Football Spring Practice Day 12
by Jim McGill