We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

calbear93 said:

---

Do you have a split personality? The whole discussion started with you whining about it. Must you be disingenuous about everything? Ask you other personality why you whine so much?

---

You can't tell the difference between an observation and whining. Explains a lot.

calbear93 said:

---

You do realize this was a personal attack, right?

---

This looks like an observation to me

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Do you have a split personality? The whole discussion started with you whining about it. Must you be disingenuous about everything? Ask you other personality why you whine so much?

---

You can't tell the difference between an observation and whining. Explains a lot.

---

Stop whining. It's not all about you. Stick to the topic.

calbear93 said:

---

We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

---

Which is all well and good. Disagreements in policy are perfectly fine. Of course it helps when you read the Act and have at least a modicum of understanding. And not just rail against racial quotas, forcing college for all, unqualified admits, or whatever other bs argument was thrown around in this thread by people who clearly hadn't read the act.

Personally, I'm for a free UC. It worked before, and we can make it work again. It's an amazing tool of social mobility and an engine of innovation. Where that money comes from is another question. Do we need another tax or can we just cut from somewhere else? All good questions. What we can't keep doing is supporting the UC at a rate of 13% and also allow our ridiculous housing prices to affect students' quality of life on top of that.

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

And no, creating better elementary schools, while great, would not fix the issue that this thread, and act are actually trying to address.

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

---

Which is all well and good. Disagreement in policy are perfectly fine. Of course it helps when you read the Act and have at least a modicum of understanding. And not just rail against racial quotas, forcing college for all, unqualified admits, or whatever other bs argument was thrown around in this thread by people who clearly hadn't read the act.

Personally, I'm for a free UC. It worked before, and we can make it work again. It's an amazing tool of social mobility and an engine of innovation. Where that money comes from is another question. Do we need another tax or can we just cut from somewhere else? All good questions. What we can't keep doing is supporting the UC at a rate of 13% and also allow our ridiculous housing prices to affect students' quality of life on top of that.

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

And no, creating better elementary schools, while great, would not fix the issue that this thread, and act are actually trying to address.

---

I am not sure how this is directed at my post. Did something about what I wrote made you think I haven't read the proposal? Also, I don't recall me discussing this in any aspect other than in economic terms.

If we really want to make this a California benefit for Californians, we all need skin in the game. I think it is always tempting to try to get what you want and have someone else pay for it. If this is for California, don't tie to something that is completely unrelated (e.g., estate tax and charging people who benefit most likely the least). We can either add to the property tax for all owners by the same percentage or charge the entities that most benefit (the tech companies similar to the Obamacare tax on medical device companies).

I am just against providing something by the government for a nonessential item and removing it from market forces. We all could benefit from making gym membership free. We all could benefit from providing free transportation. We all could benefit from providing free organic food. We all could benefit from providing free Wi-Fi. We all could benefit from providing free computers. We all can benefit from making the high quality cultural events (theater, ballet) free. We all can benefit from making top cuisine available for free for all people for people to appreciate life. And we could theoretically tax the top wealthy people just above us. Where do we stop on government providing free things because it would be good (not necessary) for everyone to have? All of those things are good investments and would eventually add to the society. Should the government own all of that?

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

---

Which is all well and good. Disagreement in policy are perfectly fine. Of course it helps when you read the Act and have at least a modicum of understanding. And not just rail against racial quotas, forcing college for all, unqualified admits, or whatever other bs argument was thrown around in this thread by people who clearly hadn't read the act.

Personally, I'm for a free UC. It worked before, and we can make it work again. It's an amazing tool of social mobility and an engine of innovation. Where that money comes from is another question. Do we need another tax or can we just cut from somewhere else? All good questions. What we can't keep doing is supporting the UC at a rate of 13% and also allow our ridiculous housing prices to affect students' quality of life on top of that.

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

And no, creating better elementary schools, while great, would not fix the issue that this thread, and act are actually trying to address.

---

I am not sure how this is directed at my post. Did something about what I wrote made you think I haven't read the proposal? Also, I don't recall me discussing this in any aspect other than in economic terms.

If we really want to make this a California benefit for Californians, we all need skin in the game. I think it is always tempting to try to get what you want and have someone else pay for it. If this is for California, don't tie to something that is completely unrelated (e.g., estate tax and charging people who benefit most likely the least). We can either add to the property tax for all owners by the same percentage or charge the entities that most benefit (the tech companies similar to the Obamacare tax on medical device companies).

---

It's in response to you trying to explain what Goobear was trying to lecture me on, while he didn't actually know what this was about.

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

---

Which is all well and good. Disagreement in policy are perfectly fine. Of course it helps when you read the Act and have at least a modicum of understanding. And not just rail against racial quotas, forcing college for all, unqualified admits, or whatever other bs argument was thrown around in this thread by people who clearly hadn't read the act.

Personally, I'm for a free UC. It worked before, and we can make it work again. It's an amazing tool of social mobility and an engine of innovation. Where that money comes from is another question. Do we need another tax or can we just cut from somewhere else? All good questions. What we can't keep doing is supporting the UC at a rate of 13% and also allow our ridiculous housing prices to affect students' quality of life on top of that.

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

And no, creating better elementary schools, while great, would not fix the issue that this thread, and act are actually trying to address.

---

I am not sure how this is directed at my post. Did something about what I wrote made you think I haven't read the proposal? Also, I don't recall me discussing this in any aspect other than in economic terms.

If we really want to make this a California benefit for Californians, we all need skin in the game. I think it is always tempting to try to get what you want and have someone else pay for it. If this is for California, don't tie to something that is completely unrelated (e.g., estate tax and charging people who benefit most likely the least). We can either add to the property tax for all owners by the same percentage or charge the entities that most benefit (the tech companies similar to the Obamacare tax on medical device companies).

I am just against providing something by the government for a nonessential item and removing it from market forces. We all could benefit from making gym membership free. We all could benefit from providing free transportation. We all could benefit from providing free organic food. We all could benefit from providing free Wi-Fi. We all could benefit from providing free computers. We all can benefit from making the high quality cultural events (theater, ballet) free. We all can benefit from making top cuisine available for free for all people for people to appreciate life. And we could theoretically tax the top wealthy people just above us. Where do we stop on government providing free things because it would be good (not necessary) for everyone to have? All of those things are good investments and would eventually add to the society. Should the government own all of that?

---

I guess I just read Goobear's response and didn't follow all of the prior discussions.

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Do you have a split personality? The whole discussion started with you whining about it. Must you be disingenuous about everything? Ask you other personality why you whine so much?

---

You can't tell the difference between an observation and whining. Explains a lot.

---

Stop whining. It's not all about you. Stick to the topic.

---

Again, your lack of basic comprehension shows

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Do you have a split personality? The whole discussion started with you whining about it. Must you be disingenuous about everything? Ask you other personality why you whine so much?

---

You can't tell the difference between an observation and whining. Explains a lot.

---

Stop whining. It's not all about you. Stick to the topic.

---

Again, your lack of basic comprehension shows

---

Can you please stop with the personal attacks and stay on topic? This isn't your personal ***** fest.

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

We can do both but then we can't do something we are already doing. You and I can disagree on where this falls on the priority list in our world of finite resources. We can always tax the other guy more or those who think free college is important can contribute to any of the private funds that exists to provide scholarship. I think it is dangerous when we (both sides) promote spending other people's money.

---

Which is all well and good. Disagreement in policy are perfectly fine. Of course it helps when you read the Act and have at least a modicum of understanding. And not just rail against racial quotas, forcing college for all, unqualified admits, or whatever other bs argument was thrown around in this thread by people who clearly hadn't read the act.

Personally, I'm for a free UC. It worked before, and we can make it work again. It's an amazing tool of social mobility and an engine of innovation. Where that money comes from is another question. Do we need another tax or can we just cut from somewhere else? All good questions. What we can't keep doing is supporting the UC at a rate of 13% and also allow our ridiculous housing prices to affect students' quality of life on top of that.

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

And no, creating better elementary schools, while great, would not fix the issue that this thread, and act are actually trying to address.

---

I am not sure how this is directed at my post. Did something about what I wrote made you think I haven't read the proposal? Also, I don't recall me discussing this in any aspect other than in economic terms.

If we really want to make this a California benefit for Californians, we all need skin in the game. I think it is always tempting to try to get what you want and have someone else pay for it. If this is for California, don't tie to something that is completely unrelated (e.g., estate tax and charging people who benefit most likely the least). We can either add to the property tax for all owners by the same percentage or charge the entities that most benefit (the tech companies similar to the Obamacare tax on medical device companies).

---

It's in response to you trying to explain what Goobear was trying to lecture me on, while he didn't actually know what this was about.

---

Not lecturing. In the end it is about use of funds. This state has such poor k-12 ratings that the focus should be on that. I also am against raising taxes all the time. The state needs to wake up. I do agree good education is the only way to raise the level of income of the disadvantaged. It needs to start in k-12. Anyway I have enjoyed the back and forth. Debating is great but at some point a comprise is needed. here is another article on our Golden State....

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/11/prescott-ohanian-how-the-golden-state-lost-its-luster/

I am ready for spring football now. Go Bears!

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC. You might fill 4 frat houses with the number of 1% at Cal. Similar at UCLA. To say nothing of the rest of the UCs.

Actually low income kids will receive financial aid here. A lot of it actually. It's that middle that wont. Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly. Combined, this creates a very prohibiting environment. We are asking a lot of people who are ironically not poor enough, when just a few generations back we asked practically nothing, even in relative terms.

BTW Cal has one of the most expensive housing packages in America.

Now, I understand that this is fine for some people. To each his own...

socaliganbear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC. You might fill 4 frat houses with the number of 1% at Cal. Similar at UCLA. To say nothing of the rest of the UCs.

Actually low income kids will receive financial aid here. A lot of it actually. It's that middle that wont. Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly. Combined, this creates a very prohibiting environment. We are asking a lot of people who are ironically not poor enough, when just a few generations back we asked practically nothing, even in relative terms.

BTW Cal has one of the most expensive housing packages in America.

Now, I understand that this is fine for some people. To each his own...

---

Most of this has been caused by property owners like me and you who have benefitted greatly from the skyrocketing real estate value. Wouldn't it make more sense for tax to be on property value? Why just the extremely wealthy who don't even attend UC and won't benefit?

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC. You might fill 4 frat houses with the number of 1% at Cal. Similar at UCLA. To say nothing of the rest of the UCs.

Actually low income kids will receive financial aid here. A lot of it actually. It's that middle that wont. Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly. Combined, this creates a very prohibiting environment. We are asking a lot of people who are ironically not poor enough, when just a few generations back we asked practically nothing, even in relative terms.

BTW Cal has one of the most expensive housing packages in America.

Now, I understand that this is fine for some people. To each his own...

---

Most of this has been caused by property owners like me and you who have benefitted greatly from the skyrocketing real estate value. Wouldn't it make more sense for tax to be on property value? Why just the extremely wealthy who don't even attend UC and won't benefit?

---

That's certainly one way. As I've mentioned before, I'm not even sure I'm for this.

But I certainly would never say a healthy UC won't benefit the 1%. CA IS the 1% and CA's 1% build stuff. And UC provides them with a deep talent pool every single year. Cal alone is a major major benefit to the 1% of this state.

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC. You might fill 4 frat houses with the number of 1% at Cal. Similar at UCLA. To say nothing of the rest of the UCs.

Actually low income kids will receive financial aid here. A lot of it actually. It's that middle that wont. Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly. Combined, this creates a very prohibiting environment. We are asking a lot of people who are ironically not poor enough, when just a few generations back we asked practically nothing, even in relative terms.

BTW Cal has one of the most expensive housing packages in America.

Now, I understand that this is fine for some people. To each his own...

---

Most of this has been caused by property owners like me and you who have benefitted greatly from the skyrocketing real estate value. Wouldn't it make more sense for tax to be on property value? Why just the extremely wealthy who don't even attend UC and won't benefit?

---

That's certainly one way. As I've mentioned before, I'm not even sure I'm for this.

But I certainly would never say a healthy UC won't benefit the 1%. CA IS the 1% and CA's 1% build stuff. And UC provides them with a deep talent pool every single year. Cal alone is a major major benefit to the 1% of this state.

---

Then maybe they should fund Stanford and USC? If education is so worthwhile, why limit to just UCs? Don't graduates of those schools also make California great (ok, maybe they don't)? And even if you could make a strained argument that free UC benefits the 1% in growing their estate, how about the other 99%? Don't they benefit? If we are arguing that those who benefit should pay, shouldn't upper middle class, middle class and even the low income but house rich folks? Is it a matter of ability to pay? If so, I would say more than 1% would be able to pay.

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm for a free UC.

---

But why should the 1-percenters be a able to attend tuition-free? How can that make any sense?

Quote:

---

If you're a working or middle class applicant, being a student in Berkeley is damn near out of reach. It's no surprise that our students have the highest median family incomes of all UCs.

---

The median income in California is $62k a level of which a student would attend UC at no cost for tuition under the Blue and Gold Plan.

How is this proposal any different?

btw: I disagree with your premise that its the tuiiton costs that keep low income kids from Cal. Quite the contrary. The number one inhibiter to Cal and UCLA IMO, is their high admissions standards (high GPA's and high test scores tend towards the wealthy.)

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC. You might fill 4 frat houses with the number of 1% at Cal. Similar at UCLA. To say nothing of the rest of the UCs.

Actually low income kids will receive financial aid here. A lot of it actually. It's that middle that wont. Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly. Combined, this creates a very prohibiting environment. We are asking a lot of people who are ironically not poor enough, when just a few generations back we asked practically nothing, even in relative terms.

BTW Cal has one of the most expensive housing packages in America.

Now, I understand that this is fine for some people. To each his own...

---

Most of this has been caused by property owners like me and you who have benefitted greatly from the skyrocketing real estate value. Wouldn't it make more sense for tax to be on property value? Why just the extremely wealthy who don't even attend UC and won't benefit?

---

That's certainly one way. As I've mentioned before, I'm not even sure I'm for this.

But I certainly would never say a healthy UC won't benefit the 1%. CA IS the 1% and CA's 1% build stuff. And UC provides them with a deep talent pool every single year. Cal alone is a major major benefit to the 1% of this state.

---

Then maybe they should fund Stanford and USC? If education is so worthwhile, why limit to just UCs? Don't graduates of those schools also make California great (ok, maybe they don't). And even if you could make a strained argument that free UC benefits the 1% in their estate, how about the other 99%? Don't they benefit? If we are discussing how they should pay because they most likely benefit, shouldn't upper middle class, middle class and even the low income but house rich folks?

---

Again, I am not making this case. I am however pointing out that the 1% does benefit from a healthy UC.

Quote:

---

Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly.

---

no doubt. and that is my point. This proposal will make college tuition-free. NOT room and board. But UC is already tuition free for many in the 'middle class', at least for those under $80k in income.

Quote:

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC.

---

I assume that you have the data to demonstrate your claim, but still, I'll play. What about top 5%'s? Should they be free? Why?

edited to add, 4% of students at UCLA (and a similar number for Cal) are from top 1%. 20% of students at UCLA are from top quintile in income; 23% of Cal's students are top quintile.

Tell me again, why these students from wealthy families should attend for free?

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

Public funding for higher (above high school) education has always been an implicit subsidy to the upper middle class. The more exclusive the university, the more the subsidy skews to higher income levels. So I am somewhat sympathetic to the motivation of this proposed legislation. However the funding for this endeavor will not pan out. National estate taxes can already be mitigated. Local estate taxes are even worse, since transfer of local residence is easily accomplished and frankly even somewhat natural given retirement processes. This is of course on top of the normal legal trust mechanisms to avoid estate taxes. Proponents of this legislation would be better served if they looked to something like a 1% surcharge on capital gains over $1 million.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly.

---

no doubt. and that is my point. This proposal will make college tuition-free. NOT room and board. But UC is already tuition free for many in the 'middle class', at least for those under $80k in income.

Quote:

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC.

---

I assume that you have the data to demonstrate your claim, but still, I'll play. What about top 5%'s? Should they be free? Why?

edited to add, 4% of students at UCLA (and a similar number for Cal) are from top 1%. 20% of students at UCLA are from top quintile in income; 23% of Cal's students are top quintile.

Tell me again, why these students from wealthy families should attend for free?

---

Just to throw in my two cents, but part of the steep tuition increases was for the top earning families to pay tuition higher than cost, and take the surplus to subsidize a higher income level for "poor" families (i.e., raise the income level eligibility for families of students receiving aide). In some ways most universities do this. At privates like SC and Furd, it more often done through endowments by wealthy alums/donors, but it is the same concept, the wealthy subsidizing some level of students from poorer families. Free tuition for everyone would substitute the taxpayer for the wealthy. That said, Cal might benefit from more wealthy students in the long run, since their families may donate a higher rates.

Not saying this would be socially accepted in California. However, in New Mexico for example, regardless of wealth, the state will pay for your tuition at any New Mexico, Arizona or Utah public college if you maintain a B average in college and you graduated from a New Mexico high school.

Big Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Notice I mentioned "being a student in Berkeley" and referenced housing costs as part of the issue here. Tuition has gone up 300% in one generation, and rents in Berkeley have skyrocketed similarly.

---

no doubt. and that is my point. This proposal will make college tuition-free. NOT room and board. But UC is already tuition free for many in the 'middle class', at least for those under $80k in income.

Quote:

---

Very few 1% actually attend the UC.

---

I assume that you have the data to demonstrate your claim, but still, I'll play. What about top 5%'s? Should they be free? Why?

edited to add, 4% of students at UCLA (and a similar number for Cal) are from top 1%. 20% of students at UCLA are from top quintile in income; 23% of Cal's students are top quintile.

Tell me again, why these students from wealthy families should attend for free?

---

Given that this is about expanding Cal Grant, do you actually think Cal grant will be expanded to cover actually wealthy families? Do you think this is something Ca legislators could get away with?

The great thing about BI is that in this very thread we have folks opposing this because rich people wont benefit, and then just a few posts later we have someone opposing because rich people will benefit.

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

Minimum wage has tripled and tuition has quadrupled since I went to college in the late 90s.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

Minimum wage has tripled and tuition has quadrupled since I went to college in the late 90s.

---

Mid-1960s and late 90's are not the same thing

some interesting thoughts and perspectives on this thread

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

You could maybe work a part-time minimum wage job and maybe put a not so insignificant dent in your Berkeley rent (it's really effing high). Enough to cover your books, bills, food, and materially contribute to your tuition? Not even close. So either you hope your parents make under 80k or are rich. Otherwise you're taking on some serious debt. And that's why grads move back home, because they need to pay back debt...

It's not that kids today are against working for school, tons do it. It's that the share of the pie we're asking them to cover vs the share of the same pie that kids 40 years ago had to cover is much larger. 40 years ago the state covered most of the pie, you just had to take care of the crust.

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

---

You just compared a $2,000 shortfall ($16,770 value today) to a $68k shortfall.

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

---

You just compared a $2,000 shortfall ($16,770 value today) to a $68k shortfall.

---

He basically agreed with you while trying to make a countering point.

socaliganbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

---

You just compared a $2,000 shortfall ($16,770 value today) to a $68k shortfall.

---

He basically agreed with you while trying to make a countering point.

---

"It's doable. 10x harder than when I was in school, but . . . doable!"

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

---

You just compared a $2,000 shortfall ($16,770 value today) to a $68k shortfall.

---

You are oversimplifying by cherry picking. I compared other things as well from the two eras, particularly the fact that with a little more sacrifice, the student today can make a whole lot more money and it is nearly enough to cover his shortfall, just as in my day. Working the same number hours that I did, he will need to take just one more year off from school than I did to work enough to pay for the shortfall. The value of yesterday's money in today's dollars is not relevant. What is relevant is can the student make enough money today to pay for today's shortfall, and I think I've shown that he can. If he busts his hump.

I don't like the idea of a student having to work that much. But the UC costs are a result of an administration out of control. The salaries, benefits, and pensions. And the higher cost of living in Berkeley today. The costs associated with the University could be mitigated with some activity from the legislature and administration but they are hardened socialists and not likely to lower any costs. The property owners are part of the capitalist system of private property, and are not like to lower rents either. Still, with a little more sacrifice and sweat, the student today can pay for his Cal education by working during school and perhaps taking time off to work. They can also work two jobs in the summers and in the years they take off to reduce that time they spend working. it is not for everyone, but it is doable. I will stand by that, unless you prove it wrong.

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Why don't you believe in kids having to work their way through college now? At least to pay part of the expenses. I worked two jobs and worked summers while at Cal, and my parents still paid a good share. I hazard a guess that there are far more jobs for kids now than in the mid-1960s (looking at MacDonalds, Walgreens, and on and on). And the life-lesson you can learn doing that is needed more now than ever before in our history, as we graduate more and more kids who have little idea what to do now that their schooling is finished, and no idea what to do with their time. So they move home with their parents.

---

The concept of working your way through college is just not something that exists any more - at least in the sense that older generations talk about it. The disparity between part-time minimum wage pay and the cost to go to college has grown enormously. Working your way through college nowadays might consist of working to pay for your books. That's really what you are arguing for. Plenty of kids work while in college.

---

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.

Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

---

You just compared a $2,000 shortfall ($16,770 value today) to a $68k shortfall.

---

You are oversimplifying by cherry picking. I compared other things as well from the two eras, particularly the fact that with a little more sacrifice, the student today can make a whole lot more money and it is nearly enough to cover his shortfall, just as in my day. Working the same number hours that I did, he will need to take just one more year off from school than I did to work enough to pay for the shortfall. The value of yesterday's money in today's dollars is not relevant. What is relevant is can the student make enough money today to pay for today's shortfall, and I think I've shown that he can. If he busts his hump.

I don't like the idea of a student having to work that much. But the UC costs are a result of an administration out of control. The salaries, benefits, and pensions. And the higher cost of living in Berkeley today. The costs associated with the University could be mitigated with some activity from the legislature and administration but they are hardened socialists and not likely to lower any costs. The property owners are part of the capitalist system of private property, and are not like to lower rents either. Still, with a little more sacrifice and sweat, the student today can pay for his Cal education by working during school and perhaps taking time off to work. They can also work two jobs in the summers and in the years they take off to reduce that time they spend working. it is not for everyone, but it is doable. I will stand by that, unless you prove it wrong.

---

I propose to prove you wrong and I offer the following as my evidence -

I don't buy it. It was no cake walk to "work your way through college" in the 1960s, but it was doable. Even then, it required ingenuity and energy to do it in 4 years. Usually students who worked during the school year still had to take a semester or a year off to work to foot the entire bill. It looks to me that the same is true today, even though to everyone the amount of money needed to attend Cal looks astronomical, and I can't fathom the costs for private school, just as my parents could not fathom it for me in 1959. I got accepted to MIT, Cal Tech, and Cal, and my father asked about the first two, "How do you plan to pay for it?" So I went to Cal, where it was still too big a stretch for my parents to entirely pay for it.


Today, according to the UC Financial Aid Office, it costs approximately $34K to attend Cal for a year, living in an on-campus apartment, and probably less in an off-campus apartment. $35K in the dorms. So let's say it costs 4 x $35K = $140K for 4 years. If the student works 20 hours a week at Berkley's minimum wage of $14/hr ($15/hr for UC jobs) that is $10,900 for 9 months. Then if the student works at a summer job at the same rate, that is 3 months at 40 hours a week, and is $7,300. So the student earns about $18K a year, or $72K over 4 years, leaving the student a $68K shortfall. The student who wishes to pay the rest by working would need to earn that money before or after college, or by taking time off from school. Hopefully, the student could find work at a higher wage, but even at minimum wage, he would need to work two years at 40 hours a week to make up the shortfall, and pay for his entire education by working. The student would pay a few hundred in income taxes each year, so he or she would have to work a few months more or take a second job in the summers or years off to pay their taxes. It is doable, isn't it?

Comparing that to 1959-1965 when I attended Cal, it looked like this: Room and board was about $1200 for 9 months, UC Fees about $120, books about $100, food $100, personal expenses $200, transportation $100, totaling about $1800 per year. There was no minimum wage until I was heading into my junior or senior year, but I usually made $1.00 per hour during the school year and in the summers. One summer I made $1.25.
So by working 20 hours a week during the school year, I could make $800. In the summer, working 40 hours, I could make $500, totaling $1300 for the year, and leaving me with a $500 shortfall per year and a $2000 shortfall for 4 years. Working at the same $1 per hour, I could have taken off a year and made up the shortfall. As it was, I got lucky. The UC Engineering Dept had a work-study program where students could take a semester off to work for any of a number of California companies. I worked at a defense plant at a better salary for a semester and stretched the job into the following summer, where I made enough to cover my shortfall.

So the only difference I see between then and now is that the student today might have to take one more year off to work than the student of 1960. It is still all quite doable, IMO.

I graduated from CAL in 1975. My parents couldn't afford to contribute. I was admitted as a freshman, but I couldn't see how I could afford the expenses even by taking a quarter off to work occasionally. I decided to attend Ohlone JC in Fremont for the first two years because that was more affordable. No regrets because I received a good lower division education there. I saved money by living in a pick-up camper in the parking lot. I transferred to CAL for my junior year. I still lived in my pick-up camper for another year (got an apartment on the north side for my final three quarters). I parked the pick-up and camper at the Berkeley Marina at night (I got away with that because of all the overnight fishermen at the pier that parked there all night). I drove to the campus early in the morning while parking spaces were still available. I always took a PE class so that I would get a gym locker and the ability to take a shower. I did most of my studying at Moffitt until late at night. I worked part time during the school year and all summer. I graduated with no debt. It was a tougher experience than most would accept, but it worked for me. It can be done, even without financial aid (I never applied for any). My degree has served me well, and I went to graduate school later.

My daughter didn't get into CAL, but she was admitted to Cal Poly SLO. I was able to cash flow all of her college expenses (she had a part time job which paid for personal expenses). I am confident that she and her husband will be able to cash flow my grand kids' college expenses too (along with a little help from grandpa).

I only tell my story because I totally buy into the concept that a student has to have skin in the game. I don't expect strangers - tax payers - to be mostly responsible for a student's success. I feel the same way about it being a family's primary responsibility for taking care of their own elderly relatives, but that is for another discussion.

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Sorry, should have been clearer. It wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the progressive policies that are actually creating more wealth gap and forcing the poor to leave.

---

I'm a big pro housing guy, and one thing I can say from this perspective is that the left and the right are both fully committed to a California that is zoned to be just unaffordable enough. From Marin liberals down to OC and San Diego conservatives. This is the way affluent California has decided to structure the state, no matter how you vote.

Anyway, this notion that California is going to scare away the rich, from a state and culture they have built no less, is silly when you consider that tiny San Francisco has more billionaires than LA. And that LA, SF, and the rest of CA combined have more billionaires than all countries except the US and China.

---

So am I. Housing is one of the main drivers of education, dignity, and safety. And I agree with you that both the right and the left are trying to keep the poor out of their vicinity while blathering on about how moral they are and then crossing the street to avoid the homeless on their way to the gentrified neighborhood and tracking their equity grants from the tech companies. The way we treat the poor and the homeless in this society is shameful (both the patronizing and enslaving attitude of the left and the apathetic attitude of the right). And throwing money randomly is not the solution as long as the solution does not enable them to regain their dignity and ability to be productive. We need better and more affordable housing, better and mandatory training for those displaced, etc. so that we are not creating a society of enslaved takers and benevolent masters. I could be down with contributing my money for a cause that truly bring poor of every color (even white) to a place of self-reliance. This free college for everyone when we already have financial aid is nonsense and warped sense that government is the solution for all our needs (whether we are needy or not).

---

At the risk of reviving an old discussion, what are your thoughts on this recent article from NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html