PDA

View Full Version : Some University of California Regents Need to Go Back To School!



mugaliens
2009-Nov-20, 12:48 AM
Earlier today, UC regents voted to increase student fees by 32%, which will push the cost of education to more than 3 times what it was 10 years ago. - Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_us/us_california_university_fees)

That's an increase of 300%. Meanwhile, inflation has only risen 32% in the same period of time. To top it off, administrators have been cutting both majors and programs.

Before the hike, UC President Mark Yudof said the hike may come if the state couldn't meet his request for an additional $913 million.

So, while students and their families are cutting spending to the bone just to stay in school, UC isn't cutting anything, but thinks this is an opportune time for increased spending?

I'm gathering the regents were fairly unanimous in their hatred of Econ 101, so much so they're thinking what little they learned was false, and they're trying to prove it.

Tell you what, Californians - move to Colorado!

Oh, wait - you have been for some time. Silly me.

Veeger
2009-Nov-20, 02:14 AM
Ohio State University did not raise tuition this year (though they find plenty of other ways to suck money out of my wallet). Hard to tell why they make the decisions they do. I think some schools try to attract better staff and "upgrade" their student bodies and raising costs is one to do both which also brings in more research dollars. They can afford to be more selective. OSU for example, has grown much more selective in recent years.

Arnold Layne
2009-Nov-20, 03:04 AM
So what fundamental economic principle do you feel they are ignorant of?

I'm not sure the contents of Econ 101 are what you think they are.

publius
2009-Nov-20, 04:39 AM
Mugs,

I just posted this story in the Black Monday thread.

I guess you can consider it an experiment in the elasticity of demand for their education product. :lol:


-Richard

korjik
2009-Nov-20, 05:23 AM
How are the regents supposed to buy this months Aston-Martin if they dont raise the tuition? I mean, really, are you that cruel to make them have the same car for more than a month?

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Nov-20, 06:02 AM
From my college experiences I found it necessary to expand on an old saying:

Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate.
Those who can't administrate, get appointed to the board of regents/trustees/whatever.

Do you realize that the cost of post-secondary education is going up even faster than the cost of health care? :eek:

Maybe paying for that rather than the Aston-Martin of the Month Club membership, is the reason ... :think:

publius
2009-Nov-20, 06:33 AM
Do you realize that the cost of post-secondary education is going up even faster than the cost of health care? :eek:

Maybe paying for that rather than the Aston-Martin of the Month Club membership, is the reason ... :think:

Yes, it's striking. There's been a bubble in higher education prices. And you can be sure there's Bezzle in that bubble just like any other. And how do the kids pay for it? With student loans (that can't even be discharged by bankruptcy -- many people don't realize that, but it's federal law). It's making debt slaves out of many kids.

For professional degrees and "name brand" institutions, it's unbelievable. THe older brother of a friend of mine became a doctor, a cardiologist. He's in debt for his student loans to the tune of $150K. He met his wife during his residency, another doctor. She's in debt to about $150K as well. They've got a mortage.........

They're making good money, but all its doing is going to debt service. And the latest is apparently he just got sued for the first time for malpractice.


-Richard

korjik
2009-Nov-20, 07:43 AM
From my college experiences I found it necessary to expand on an old saying:

Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate.
Those who can't administrate, get appointed to the board of regents/trustees/whatever.

Do you realize that the cost of post-secondary education is going up even faster than the cost of health care? :eek:

Maybe paying for that rather than the Aston-Martin of the Month Club membership, is the reason ... :think:

My point is: Where does the money go? Since Texas deregulated the state schools, even lesser universities like the University of Houston have radically increased tuitions. I can understand if there is a need now to increase tuition to cover losses in investments, but UoH doubled its tuition rate when the economy was booming. Having been on the campus at the time, I have to wonder where that extra $135 million per year went (math check:~$1500 per student per semester, 36000 students, 2.5 semester per year).

The money isnt going to the faculty, my advisor got a pay cut this year IIRC. It wasnt going to building (odd that there is more building this year than in the last 10 years), power costs were flat most of that period, so where is the money going?

mugaliens
2009-Nov-20, 08:22 AM
I'm not sure the contents of Econ 101 are what you think they are.

Thanks, but I think they are. I got an A.


Mugs,

I just posted this story in the Black Monday thread.

I guess you can consider it an experiment in the elasticity of demand for their education product. :lol:


-Richard

LoL, and Sweet! I'll have a look-see in the morning. Thanks!

Veeger
2009-Nov-20, 11:45 AM
Many, many businesses pass their increasing expenses on to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margins and hence executive bonuses; i.e. banks, insurance companies, utilities. Its not right, but one can understand how that works. The economics which baffles me is how I can go to bed, wake up the next morning and all the gas prices in the county have jumped 12 cents per gallon.

geonuc
2009-Nov-20, 12:10 PM
Earlier today, UC regents voted to increase student fees by 32%, which will push the cost of education to more than 3 times what it was 10 years ago. - Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_us/us_california_university_fees)

That's an increase of 300%. Meanwhile, inflation has only risen 32% in the same period of time. To top it off, administrators have been cutting both majors and programs.

Before the hike, UC President Mark Yudof said the hike may come if the state couldn't meet his request for an additional $913 million.

So, while students and their families are cutting spending to the bone just to stay in school, UC isn't cutting anything, but thinks this is an opportune time for increased spending?

I'm gathering the regents were fairly unanimous in their hatred of Econ 101, so much so they're thinking what little they learned was false, and they're trying to prove it.

Tell you what, Californians - move to Colorado!

Oh, wait - you have been for some time. Silly me.
I notice in this rant that you fail to mention that the state has sharply reduced its support of the university system. I would think that would have been covered in Econ 101.

jrkeller
2009-Nov-20, 12:14 PM
My point is: Where does the money go? Since Texas deregulated the state schools, even lesser universities like the University of Houston have radically increased tuitions. I can understand if there is a need now to increase tuition to cover losses in investments, but UoH doubled its tuition rate when the economy was booming. Having been on the campus at the time, I have to wonder where that extra $135 million per year went (math check:~$1500 per student per semester, 36000 students, 2.5 semester per year).

The money isnt going to the faculty, my advisor got a pay cut this year IIRC. It wasnt going to building (odd that there is more building this year than in the last 10 years), power costs were flat most of that period, so where is the money going?


I was at the University of Texas from 1985-1989 and we got a raise in the cost of tuition. One of the reasons was that UT owned a lot of land that they leased for oil production. The cost of oil dropped significantly, so revenue dropped significantly. So the students ended up with higher bills. Faculty and staff, got like a 2% raise over two years. I suspect that some of UofH's problem might be something similar, investing in poor performing stocks, business, etc.

Fazor
2009-Nov-20, 02:04 PM
OSU for example, has grown much more selective in recent years.
That's what I gathered last time I toyed with the idea of going back to school. Reading through the various physics program information, I doubted I'd even get in if I tried.

Buttercup
2009-Nov-20, 03:07 PM
...and the wealthy get wealthier while overall poverty in the U.S. continues increasing.

I'm generally not one for paranoid or conspiracy-type thinking, but: The more out of reach higher education is for poorer people and increasingly the exclusive domain of the wealthy/powerful... (you get my drift)

Fazor
2009-Nov-20, 03:16 PM
... (you get my drift)
If you're implying that Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel have conspired with these universities to make education harder to obtain, thereby leaving more adults uneducated and more likely to end up sitting at home all day watching cartoons, thus increasing the age span of their viewership in order to sell commercial slots at an increased cost . . . then yes, I agree.

Veeger
2009-Nov-20, 04:54 PM
Was that a run-on sentence?

Fazor
2009-Nov-20, 04:57 PM
Was that a run-on sentence?

That's my new thing in the same spirit as how some people refer to themselves in the third person, or some people say certain phrases with increased frequency . . . though I'm mostly just doing it because I'm bored beyond reason, and being stupid is how I oft deal with boredom.

Buttercup
2009-Nov-20, 05:13 PM
My point was that the more concentrated knowledge (which is power) is in the hands of the privileged few, the more disadvantaged (exploited, pushed around) everyone else will be. I for one am not keen about the elite wielding that sort of power; that only their children eventually can afford college.

It's Lords and serfs in this nation, increasingly. 1% Lords, 99% serfs.

Fazor
2009-Nov-20, 05:29 PM
Yeah, I got that much Buttercup. I don't personally think it's a conscious effort to "keep the serfs down", but that would certainly be a consequence of harder-to-obtain education.

My personal experience hasn't been that universities try to keep out the lowly and the poor. In fact, at my school there were a very high number of students who were in school on grants and scholarships precisely because they were poor. Granted, the opportunities for such assistance are limited, but would they exist at all if 'The Man' was really trying to keep out the 'peons'?

The other reason I can't agree with the schools keeping the elite elite, and suppressing the poor is because a college education does not automatically give someone a good paying job or position of power, nor does a lack of a college education prevent people from making good money. College certainly helps, but it's not an all-or-nothing thing.

mugaliens
2009-Nov-20, 06:10 PM
I notice in this rant that you fail to mention that the state has sharply reduced its support of the university system. I would think that would have been covered in Econ 101.

Apparently you (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/96918-some-university-california-regents-need-go-back-school.html#post1627199)missed this tidbit located smack dab in the middle of my "rant" that you quoted:


Before the hike, UC President Mark Yudof said the hike may come if the state couldn't meet his request for an additional $913 million.


The more out of reach higher education is for poorer people and increasingly the exclusive domain of the wealthy/powerful... (you get my drift)

That's why I'm so excited about open education (http://www.open.ac.uk/). :)

HenrikOlsen
2009-Nov-20, 06:57 PM
That's why I'm so excited about open education (http://www.open.ac.uk/). :)
But note that their prizes are low because they're heavily government subsidized, and would, if run by a university without such funding, likely cost almost as much as regular studies.

I've taken a couple of courses with them and had to give up because as a Dane I'm no subject to those subsidies and paid full prize.

A bachelor's degree would currently cost me about $25.000 and another $10.000 for a master's.
Note for comparison that I come from a country where tuition, even at university level, is free.

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Nov-21, 05:36 AM
{Snip!} Before the hike, UC President Mark Yudof said the hike may come if the state couldn't meet his request for an additional $913 million. {Snip!}
Reminds me of an old National Lampoon cover that showed a cute dog with a pistol pointed at its head, entitled "The If You Don't Buy This Magazine We'll Shoot This Dog Issue". It was one of the most (if not the most) complained-about covers.

korjik
2009-Nov-21, 06:25 AM
I was at the University of Texas from 1985-1989 and we got a raise in the cost of tuition. One of the reasons was that UT owned a lot of land that they leased for oil production. The cost of oil dropped significantly, so revenue dropped significantly. So the students ended up with higher bills. Faculty and staff, got like a 2% raise over two years. I suspect that some of UofH's problem might be something similar, investing in poor performing stocks, business, etc.

Unlike UT, UH was regulated by the state till a few years ago (2001 IIRC). Since then, tuition costs have gone up by at least 10% per semester, even tho it was during some of the biggest economic expansions is history. At least till the bubble burst, but I am talking about the good times, not the recent bad times.

Tropical Storm Allison was a big hit to the school, but even still, there was very little expansion during that time, even tho there was an increase in revenue.

sarongsong
2009-Nov-21, 08:45 AM
...I just posted this story in the Black Monday thread...:eek:
November 20, 2009
...UC lost over $23 billion in investments in the last two years. And one reason why it lost so much money is that it invested heavily in toxic assets and in real estate...the chair of the UC Regents is the former head of Wachovia...the regents, who are the main financial overseers of the university, are...business people...and they are real estate people, they’re investment bankers...
Bob Samuels (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/20/students)

geonuc
2009-Nov-21, 11:12 AM
Apparently you (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/96918-some-university-california-regents-need-go-back-school.html#post1627199)missed this tidbit located smack dab in the middle of my "rant" that you quoted:
No, I saw that, mugs. It doesn't speak to my point. If you want to compare tuition rates over the years at UC, and note that they've gone up quite a bit and further imply that it is due to greed or mismanagement by the school administrators, then I think you owe it to the conversation to note how much the state funding has dropped. Especially if you're also going to denigrate the board with juvenile insults like they're failing Econ 101. All you did was note they are asking for an increase above what they are getting now, or the tuition will rise further. But what you didn't note is that what they are getting from the state now is way less than a decade ago when the tuition was at the lower level you point out.

There may be some honest and valid criticisms that can be brought against the UC administrators for their budget situation, but you haven't provided any.

Tobin Dax
2009-Nov-21, 11:14 PM
I was at the University of Texas from 1985-1989 and we got a raise in the cost of tuition. One of the reasons was that UT owned a lot of land that they leased for oil production. The cost of oil dropped significantly, so revenue dropped significantly. So the students ended up with higher bills. Faculty and staff, got like a 2% raise over two years. I suspect that some of UofH's problem might be something similar, investing in poor performing stocks, business, etc.

That's at least 2% more than any post-secondary faculty is getting right now.

Enrollment is up at many schools, but, as geonuc says, state funding is way down. [B]mugs' (and others') accusation doesn't completely hold up.

mugaliens
2009-Nov-22, 08:28 AM
But note that their prizes are low because they're heavily government subsidized, and would, if run by a university without such funding, likely cost almost as much as regular studies.

Yeah, standard-old yesterday's model of education pricing...


I've taken a couple of courses with them and had to give up because as a Dane I'm no subject to those subsidies and paid full prize.

Why, that's horrible! Start your own free school!


A bachelor's degree would currently cost me about $25.000 and another $10.000 for a master's.

In that system...


Note for comparison that I come from a country where tuition, even at university level, is free.

So why not make it free to the world?

geonuc
2009-Nov-22, 12:01 PM
That's at least 2% more than any post-secondary faculty is getting right now.
Indeed. My wife is a professor in the state university system here and she's had to take 'furlough days' this year. That effectively is a pay cut as she still has to teach all her classes and do all the other things a professor has to do (which are considerable). If anything, her work load has increased, not decreased. The recession had driven enrollment up at the state schools and hiring has not kept pace.

Veeger
2009-Nov-22, 01:28 PM
Indeed. My wife is a professor in the state university system here and she's had to take 'furlough days' this year. That effectively is a pay cut as she still has to teach all her classes and do all the other things a professor has to do (which are considerable). If anything, her work load has increased, not decreased. The recession had driven enrollment up at the state schools and hiring has not kept pace.

She has the same affliction as many of us. Fewer and fewer people doing more and more work for less and less pay. My job is literally 24/7 because we lack people to cover off-turns, weekends and vacations. Not to dimininsh her situation but merely to say, she's not alone.

Tinaa
2009-Nov-22, 02:33 PM
...and the wealthy get wealthier while overall poverty in the U.S. continues increasing.

I'm generally not one for paranoid or conspiracy-type thinking, but: The more out of reach higher education is for poorer people and increasingly the exclusive domain of the wealthy/powerful... (you get my drift)

I disagree. The poor get all sorts of grants and other assistance.

crosscountry
2009-Nov-22, 03:33 PM
I disagree. The poor get all sorts of grants and other assistance.


got?

They may still, but is it possible that fewer are available?


My undergrad University charges 20% more than it did 7 years ago when I graduated, and that was an already inflated private school cost. Grad school is a different story, and I don't have to pay tuition.



One thing I can be proud of is that our congress passed legislation that forces student loan companies to lower their rates. This is good for everyone. Who ever thought it was a good idea to give 18 year old people $25,000 loans with 7% interest was out of their mind.

Tinaa
2009-Nov-22, 06:17 PM
got?

They may still, but is it possible that fewer are available?


My undergrad University charges 20% more than it did 7 years ago when I graduated, and that was an already inflated private school cost. Grad school is a different story, and I don't have to pay tuition.



One thing I can be proud of is that our congress passed legislation that forces student loan companies to lower their rates. This is good for everyone. Who ever thought it was a good idea to give 18 year old people $25,000 loans with 7% interest was out of their mind.


I've been helping my two girls go through the financial aid thing for three years now. Both were not approved because they both had jobs. (At least this is what the financial aid people told them. No job = financial aid.) Never mind that they drive 20+ miles one way to attend and that their jobs are part time in order for them to attend. No, we are doing it the hard way. Pay as you go. And scholarships earned. NO loans.

crosscountry
2009-Nov-22, 07:13 PM
I'm still paying on mine and will be for quite a while. Of course it was worth it though, better than not going to school.

Tobin Dax
2009-Nov-22, 09:26 PM
I've been helping my two girls go through the financial aid thing for three years now. Both were not approved because they both had jobs. (At least this is what the financial aid people told them. No job = financial aid.) Never mind that they drive 20+ miles one way to attend and that their jobs are part time in order for them to attend. No, we are doing it the hard way. Pay as you go. And scholarships earned. NO loans.
I know nothing about financial aid anymore (and the only job I had in college was work study), but that stinks. They weren't even approved for student loans?


I'm still paying on mine and will be for quite a while. Of course it was worth it though, better than not going to school.
I agree. I did a rough estimate on one (smallish) loan to find out that my children will be dead before it's paid off at the current payment rate. I'll have to change that one of these years. :)

crosscountry
2009-Nov-23, 02:25 AM
that doesn't sound smallish to me. They usually calculate the payments to get a return on their investments within 10 or 15 years. Bigger loans require a little longer and bigger payments.

Tinaa
2009-Nov-23, 03:20 AM
We didn't even apply for student loans - yes, I'm a Dave Ramsey fan. Better to work one's butt off now and pay as you go rather than pay all that interest forever. My husband and I are working hard to be debt free. I can't see letting my children get themselves in debt when I'm preaching staying out of debt.

It isn't easy sometimes when we are babying a 10 and 15+ year old vehicles because I won't go in debt for another one, among other things. But I figure it will be worth it in a few more years.

Tobin Dax
2009-Nov-23, 05:17 AM
that doesn't sound smallish to me. They usually calculate the payments to get a return on their investments within 10 or 15 years. Bigger loans require a little longer and bigger payments.
It's not my only loan, and I'm assuming that's the reason for the moment. I'll deal with it when the time is right.

mugaliens
2009-Nov-23, 06:12 AM
I had to resort to a personal loan (parents) to finish school. About $6.3k, total, but I managed to pay it off fairly soon.

crosscountry
2009-Nov-23, 07:28 PM
It's not my only loan, and I'm assuming that's the reason for the moment. I'll deal with it when the time is right.

yea, at the time it was a matter of quality of life. I forfeited some money now for a good time then:lol:

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Nov-26, 06:12 AM
Not only do some California regents need to go back to school, they should be made to go back to school -- and only be allowed to use the sort of resources available to the typical working-class and middle-class student!

TheHalcyonYear
2009-Nov-27, 08:14 AM
Oh I just can't pass this one up. Come on you guys, this has nothing to do with the the California Regents being in touch or out of touch with the students and their needs, nor does it have anything to do with inflation. The fact of the matter is that the great state of California is broke. The state budget shortfall for the current fiscal year is $24 billion; that's $24,000,000,000.00 that has to be cut from the state's budget because California is required by law to have a balanced budget.

It doesn't matter what the California Regents want or don't want, the California State University (CSU) system is now faced with loss of $813 million in funding from the state. This massive loss is uncomfortably close to a billion dollars and cannot be absorbed by the CSU system without major pain. The current plan, from the UC President and recommended by the regents' committee would address the shortfall through:

- faculty furloughs
- the tuition hike
- debt restructuring
- "campus-by-campus" cuts that address ~40% of the short fall

This is going to be a hard time. Tuition is going up, a lot of classes are now going to be web-based, and grants, as well as tuition breaks, are quickly becoming a thing of the past. My grants and tuition breaks are gone, and I face the tuition hike.

There's a bill (AB656) making its way through the state legislature, that would "tax oil companies and direct the money to California's colleges and universities", but whether this will pass and how much money it might generate is unknown. A 4/5's of a billion dollars in lost funding is gunna be hard to make up no matter what revenue might be generated by a new tax.

sarongsong
2009-Nov-27, 09:24 AM
Seems a matter of priorities---but whose?
...the state only contributes about...15 percent of the total [UC] budget, but because of that cut, they say they have to raise student fees. And our argument has been that this is actually a record year of revenue for the UC system, and the problem is they just don’t want to spend the money on instruction...After the UC’s budget was cut by the state, the UC turned around and lent $200 million to the state...“When we lend money to the state, we make a profit from interest. But when we spend money just on teachers’ salaries, that money just disappears.”...
democracynow.org (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/20/students)

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Nov-28, 06:19 AM
Welcome back! ;)

Oh I just can't pass this one up. Come on you guys, this has nothing to do with the the California Regents being in touch or out of touch with the students and their needs, nor does it have anything to do with inflation. The fact of the matter is that the great state of California is broke. The state budget shortfall for the current fiscal year is $24 billion; that's $24,000,000,000.00 that has to be cut from the state's budget because California is required by law to have a balanced budget.

It doesn't matter what the California Regents want or don't want, the California State University (CSU) system is now faced with loss of $813 million in funding from the state. This massive loss is uncomfortably close to a billion dollars and cannot be absorbed by the CSU system without major pain. {Snip!}
So, what was the excuse for tuition and fees going up at obscene rates two or even three times faster than inflation all these years, good years as well as bad? And at all colleges and universities, not just those in California?