How low will California fall?

[maxiep]

Quite frankly, the state can't afford not do it. Skilled workforce is required to attract businesses that provide employment and tax-income. One of the things holding the metro Portland area down is the lack of high-quality higher education.

The best educated cities have some of the shittiest public universities around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/the-most-educated-cities_n_649305.html#s115253

Look at the public universities in these areas. The top three have schools that suck. Of the top ten, only #4, #7 and #8 can make the case that people stuck around because of the education.

As for Portland, give me a break. It's not held back by poor public universities, it's held back because of its unfriendly business climate.

This has nothing to do with being able to compete - it has anything to do with promoting better education for a more skilled workforce and population.

It's an inefficient way to go about it.

This is a rather short-sighted look at it. The people that live near Stanford and UCLA have seen their property values sky-rocket because of all the businesses that were created because of research and education from these institutes, and the same is right for most areas where the better schools are at. (and btw, I am aware that Stanford is not a public school). The same is true for Boston and MIT and Zurich and the university of Zurich and Haifa and the Technion and just about every place where good schools are around the world.

Once again, you've found a really inefficient way to raise housing values. BTW, you just made the argument that private schools can do the job better than a public one. Your international examples were silly, because those countries finance their university system differently from the US. I'm glad you came around, though.

There are a lot of benefits to helping educate the population - they are not necessarily direct and easy to tabulate - but they are better than the alternative.

The alternative is that we keep our money and put the burden on paying for educating people on themselves instead of the forced panhandling that goes on now. Why is paying for things directly worse than asking for others to subsidize you?

 

[Denny Crane]

Not exactly, Denny. First, a number of roads you use regularly was partially paid for by someone who lives 500 miles away. It's a wash. Second, the road system provides connectivity to everyone in your state, some of which (food, clothing, shelter) is required for everyday life.

500 miles away is still California though. I am in California.

Second, graduates of private universities and out of state schools provide contributions to you as well. Do you subsidize their education? You're resigned to using a "perhaps, maybe, just in case" argument. Not very convincing. There's simply no guarantee nor a way to measure that the people you subsidize will impact your life in a meaningful way nor to properly compensate for that impact across the spectrum. How can you decide how much to compensate someone when they're 18 for something they may or may not do at 50? It's simply easier and more effective to compensate them when and if they make their contribution.

There simply aren't anywhere enough private universities to provide all the contributions society needs. The cost of an education would be so prohibitive that few would be educated. In fact, we need far more universities than we already have.

The payment structure of a public vs. private institution is completely different. The public institution subsidizes tuition and all the ancillary costs to running a university. The private institution may subsidize tuition, but they do so out of their endowment which is privately funded. So why can't public universities do the same?

I'm fine with financial aid, specificially in the form of student loans. If a private university would like to give a grant out of their endowment, that's great. But to ask everyone to subsidize a choice made by a few when there are private options out there seems to me to be both silly and wasteful.

So they both subsidize tuition in slightly different ways. If the taxpayers of a state want to pay taxes to fund the equivalent of an endowment, it's their right. And all 50 states do it.

If they can't stand on their own, then they should fail.

 

[boatsandstars]

OP: Everything you'd ever posted leads me to believe that the right answer in nearly always the opposite of what you post.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

OP: Everything you'd ever posted leads me to believe that the right answer in nearly always the opposite of what you post.

And apparently a majority of Californians agree with that, which is exactly why this state is failing and will continue to freefall.

Green energy is not "sustainable" on its own and is "the future" of this state thanks to Governor Moonbeam and Gavin Newsom, a fucking idealistic douchebag.
Illegals are a huge problem and will continue to be until they crack down on them.
The cap and trade will kill California business and industry
State has a terrible unemployment rate.
The pensions are way underfunded to the point it alone will bankrupt the state.
The government is probably the most corrupt and inefficient of any state in the nation.
We pay the highest taxes and have the worst schools in the country, the most number of people on government welfare programs, which the state seems to want to ENCOURAGE more people to get on.

but yeah, keep on doing the same thing and expecting different results.

 

[maxiep]

500 miles away is still California though. I am in California.

Uh, yeah. I got it. It seems to me you missed my point.

There simply aren't anywhere enough private universities to provide all the contributions society needs. The cost of an education would be so prohibitive that few would be educated. In fact, we need far more universities than we already have.

Again, you're wrong. Universities over the past 30 years have averaged a tuition increase of over 7% while the cost of living has gone up by less than 3% annually. There's simply no reason for that difference in increase. The reason it exists is that so many colleges have no cost control because they can pass on those increases to the students (through subsidized student loans and taxpayers).

Colleges have to change the way they educate people and the internet can be a huge cost leveller. Plenty of private schools are showing it can be done (Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, Xerox, etc.). Force them to compete in the free market and you'll see costs plummet.

So they both subsidize tuition in slightly different ways. If the taxpayers of a state want to pay taxes to fund the equivalent of an endowment, it's their right. And all 50 states do it.

Will it also be California's right to request assistance from the other 49 states when it goes bankrupt? I have no problem with it if the state is living within its means, but California is insolvent. To get its house in order, it needs to make tough choices. You really think Berkeley couldn't compete with Stanford or UCLA with USC if both were privatized? That point speaks volumes about your faith in your university system.

 

[Denny Crane]

OP: Everything you'd ever posted leads me to believe that the right answer in nearly always the opposite of what you post.

This seems to suit you better, perhaps.

http://www.wftv.com/news/25811285/detail.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Uh, yeah. I got it. It seems to me you missed my point.




Again, you're wrong. Universities over the past 30 years have averaged a tuition increase of over 7% while the cost of living has gone up by less than 3% annually. There's simply no reason for that difference in increase. The reason it exists is that so many colleges have no cost control because they can pass on those increases to the students (through subsidized student loans and taxpayers).

Colleges have to change the way they educate people and the internet can be a huge cost leveller. Plenty of private schools are showing it can be done (Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, Xerox, etc.). Force them to compete in the free market and you'll see costs plummet.



Will it also be California's right to request assistance from the other 49 states when it goes bankrupt? I have no problem with it if the state is living within its means, but California is insolvent. To get its house in order, it needs to make tough choices. You really think Berkeley couldn't compete with Stanford or UCLA with USC if both were privatized? That point speaks volumes about your faith in your university system.

mook refuted most of your post with his point about California send out far more in federal tax dollars than come back.

As far as cost of tuition increasing, that is the result of governors and state legislatures cutting funding to the schools.

 

[maxiep]

mook refuted most of your post with his point about California send out far more in federal tax dollars than come back.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I saw nothing in his post that refuted my point that California can neither afford nor should subsidize post-high school education.

As far as cost of tuition increasing, that is the result of governors and state legislatures cutting funding to the schools.

At this point I have to question if you even know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue. Tuition has increased for BOTH public and private universities because they don't have to be cost conscious. Their increases get subsidized by increased limits for student loans and by increased taxes on the population (for public schools).

 

[Denny Crane]

At this point I have to question if you even know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue. Tuition has increased for BOTH public and private universities because they don't have to be cost conscious. Their increases get subsidized by increased limits for student loans and by increased taxes on the population (for public schools).

Oh yeah?

http://www.nbc29.com/story/13468987/state-budget-cuts-could-increase-tuition-at-community-colleges

Governor Bob McDonnell wants to increase the state's number of college graduates by 100,000 over the next 15 years but with more budget cuts looming some community colleges are wondering how that goal can be reached. As the state works to balance its budget, it may mean a tuition increase at community colleges in Virginia.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...budget-cuts-worry-university-faculty-students


Regent universities are still reeling from $134 million in recent state cuts, Miles said, which reflects a 19 percent drop from the beginning of fiscal 2009.

The reductions, among the largest in the nation, have propelled a long-coming shift from public support to tuition revenue as the backbone of school budgets.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/05/new_jerseys_public_colleges_ca.html

With budget cuts, New Jersey's public colleges need flexibility on tuition increases

Starving the schools more is no solution. And given the state’s budget woes, there’s no choice but to lift the tuition cap for one year.

The New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities told legislators at a recent budget hearing that without a cap, the average tuition would rise 7 percent. While this would put extra strain on students and families, there is little choice, given the state’s budget crisis.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/14/580432/unc-tuition-will-rise-sharply.html

UNC system President Erskine Bowles has signed off on tuition increases for the coming academic year, an attempt to mitigate budget cuts recently imposed by the General Assembly.

The state budget approved two weeks ago includes a $70 million cut in the university system's budget, which will be spread among the 16 college campuses and the N.C. School of Science and Math, a residential high school. The budget also allowed campuses to increase tuition by as much as $750 to mitigate the effects of the cuts.

(if you want to see that it's true for all 50 states, go look it up yourself)

 

[barfo]

Universities over the past 30 years have averaged a tuition increase of over 7% while the cost of living has gone up by less than 3% annually. There's simply no reason for that difference in increase. The reason it exists is that so many colleges have no cost control because they can pass on those increases to the students (through subsidized student loans and taxpayers).

Colleges have to change the way they educate people and the internet can be a huge cost leveller. Plenty of private schools are showing it can be done (Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, Xerox, etc.). Force them to compete in the free market and you'll see costs plummet.

I don't think so. The colleges ARE competing in the free market right now - that's why the cost of tuition is going up. The free market says that a degree from a top-ranked school is worth way more than a degree from, say, Oregon State. The free market says people are willing to pay top dollar for a top end education, and more than that, they are willing to donate back to the school the rest of their lives, sometimes many millions of dollars. So there is a huge incentive for climbing as high in the ranks as you can - and the cost of that is you build new buildings and hire high-end researchers and all that. And then you pass that cost back to the students because they are willing and eager to pay for that high-end education.

There is certainly a place for places like Phoenix, but it's an entirely different product they are selling. Phoenix and the UC schools aren't in competition.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There is certainly a place for places like Phoenix, but it's an entirely different product they are selling. Phoenix and the UC schools aren't in competition.

barfo

I don't think I've ever met a person who went to DeVry or Phoenix or similar schools.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I've met a few. some do fine, some don't. bachelor degrees are worthless without work experience or connections, its just a way to get past the automated HR guillotine in many instances. after your first or second job it really doesn't matter where you went to school. diploma mills like U of Phoenix are more expensive I think than UC schools, etc.

 

[barfo]

I don't think I've ever met a person who went to DeVry or Phoenix or similar schools.

Or who admitted to it? There isn't much motivation to name-drop that you went to Phoenix. Doesn't make the cheerleaders run out for smooches.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Oh yeah?

http://www.nbc29.com/story/13468987/state-budget-cuts-could-increase-tuition-at-community-colleges

Governor Bob McDonnell wants to increase the state's number of college graduates by 100,000 over the next 15 years but with more budget cuts looming some community colleges are wondering how that goal can be reached. As the state works to balance its budget, it may mean a tuition increase at community colleges in Virginia.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...budget-cuts-worry-university-faculty-students


Regent universities are still reeling from $134 million in recent state cuts, Miles said, which reflects a 19 percent drop from the beginning of fiscal 2009.

The reductions, among the largest in the nation, have propelled a long-coming shift from public support to tuition revenue as the backbone of school budgets.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/05/new_jerseys_public_colleges_ca.html

With budget cuts, New Jersey's public colleges need flexibility on tuition increases

Starving the schools more is no solution. And given the state’s budget woes, there’s no choice but to lift the tuition cap for one year.

The New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities told legislators at a recent budget hearing that without a cap, the average tuition would rise 7 percent. While this would put extra strain on students and families, there is little choice, given the state’s budget crisis.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/14/580432/unc-tuition-will-rise-sharply.html

UNC system President Erskine Bowles has signed off on tuition increases for the coming academic year, an attempt to mitigate budget cuts recently imposed by the General Assembly.

The state budget approved two weeks ago includes a $70 million cut in the university system's budget, which will be spread among the 16 college campuses and the N.C. School of Science and Math, a residential high school. The budget also allowed campuses to increase tuition by as much as $750 to mitigate the effects of the cuts.

(if you want to see that it's true for all 50 states, go look it up yourself)

Super duper. You've gone to a lot of trouble to find a lot of links that all say the same thing--the cost of post high school education continues to outstrip inflation. Universities have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The government refuses to fund all of the shortfall, so tuition rises. For the record, education is a baseline budgeting item, so when something is "cut" it actually means many times there's a reduction in the percentage increase.

Let's stay on topic. I made the statement that when California is going bankrupt, it can't afford to subsidize higher education for a few who will reap the benefit. I heard last night the illegal immigration in-state tuition case will cost California an additional $200MM. It's simply unjustifiable.

 

[maxiep]

I don't think so. The colleges ARE competing in the free market right now - that's why the cost of tuition is going up. The free market says that a degree from a top-ranked school is worth way more than a degree from, say, Oregon State. The free market says people are willing to pay top dollar for a top end education, and more than that, they are willing to donate back to the school the rest of their lives, sometimes many millions of dollars. So there is a huge incentive for climbing as high in the ranks as you can - and the cost of that is you build new buildings and hire high-end researchers and all that. And then you pass that cost back to the students because they are willing and eager to pay for that high-end education.

There is certainly a place for places like Phoenix, but it's an entirely different product they are selling. Phoenix and the UC schools aren't in competition.

barfo

Thanks for making my case for me. If the best students flock to the "best" schools and there is no constraint on what they can charge, then why do Californians subsidize world-class institutions like Berkeley and UCLA? And for those that can't get into those schools, why not force the lesser schools (The Cal State Chicos, Northridges, etc.) offer a degree for less of a price? In a non-subsidized world, you'll end up with a stratified system with choices for consumers--high cost, high prestige schools and low cost, value schools.

But let's get back on topic, I'm arguing that California can't afford what it wants. It has a wonderful university system that shouldn't require subsidization.

 

[maxiep]

I don't think I've ever met a person who went to DeVry or Phoenix or similar schools.

Really? I've met a ton. Most were people that worked for a while after high school, started a family and didn't want to return to school full time.

 

[barfo]

Thanks for making my case for me. If the best students flock to the "best" schools and there is no constraint on what they can charge, then why do Californians subsidize world-class institutions like Berkeley and UCLA? And for those that can't get into those schools, why not force the lesser schools (The Cal State Chicos, Northridges, etc.) offer a degree for less of a price? In a non-subsidized world, you'll end up with a stratified system with choices for consumers--high cost, high prestige schools and low cost, value schools.

You mean, why have a middle class? Why not just have rich people and poor people?

But let's get back on topic, I'm arguing that California can't afford what it wants. It has a wonderful university system that shouldn't require subsidization.

California has budget problems, certainly. That does not prove conclusively that higher ed should be cut.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You mean, why have a middle class? Why not just have rich people and poor people?

That was an interesting logical leap. I think you would find most graduates of Cal and UCLA are middle class.

California has budget problems, certainly. That does not prove conclusively that higher ed should be cut.

barfo

Do you believe there's a reason to have everyone subsidize an excellent product for the few? You've already stated that great colleges can charge what they want. If private universities wish to subsidize students from their endowment, that's their right. I find it harder to demand that the taxpayers of California or any other state subsidize the few that choose to attend these schools.

 

[jlprk]

SANFORD, Fla. -- A letter sent to the principal of Seminole High School contained what Sanford police believe to be human feces....A hazmat crew responded to the scene, but they were able to determine the contents and clear the scene without having to lock down or evacuate the school.

Didn't the police even stake it out and shoot somebody? What a disappointing police state. Come on, wasn't even a police helicopter used?

 

[mook]

I don't think I've ever met a person who went to DeVry or Phoenix or similar schools.

My oldest brother did. Got an MBA from Phoenix. I'm absolutely serious.

After a year of being unemployed, he started a car repair shop. Again, absolutely serious.

It's doing really badly, despite most of his labor coming from his own 15 year old boy genius son (free!). Again, absolutely serious.

Goddamn, that guy is a fucking tool. I could go on....

 

[barfo]

That was an interesting logical leap. I think you would find most graduates of Cal and UCLA are middle class.

Yes, and you want to put an end to that.

Do you believe there's a reason to have everyone subsidize an excellent product for the few?

I'll put it in terms you can understand: trickle-down economics.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yes, and you want to put an end to that.

I do? Thanks for telling me!

I'll put it in terms you can understand: trickle-down economics.

barfo

So, you'd like the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? Because that's your argument. You want those--the vast majority of whom never attended college--to help pay the way for the smartest and best equipped for future success? I think those people can take some additional debt to pay for it themselves.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'm for public university subsidization. if you get in, are in-state, you should be able to attend the better university at a lower cost. however, I don't think illegals should be even able to attend since they're here illegally. They should be forced to get student visas just like international students.

 

[maxiep]

I'm for public university subsidization. if you get in, are in-state, you should be able to attend the better university at a lower cost. however, I don't think illegals should be even able to attend since they're here illegally. They should be forced to get student visas just like international students.

I like things other people pay for, too. Is there anything your state can't afford?

 

[barfo]

So, you'd like the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? Because that's your argument.

No, that's your argument. Neener neener.

You want those--the vast majority of whom never attended college--to help pay the way for the smartest and best equipped for future success?

Yep. Progressively, of course - the vast majority (a vaster majority than your vast majority) of the money should come from those able to pay.

I think those people can take some additional debt to pay for it themselves.

Because, god knows, more debt is just what this country needs.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think the high schools are more draining

 

[maxiep]

No, that's your argument. Neener neener.

Yep. Progressively, of course - the vast majority (a vaster majority than your vast majority) of the money should come from those able to pay.

My argument is that people pay for what they consume. Your argument is that people get subsidized to be able to more easily afford something they way. Don't forget, kids of billionaires are charged the same subsidized tuition that the kids of poor people are under your plan. I think kids of billionaires shouldn't be subsidized and those that can't afford to pay for school receive grants from the school's endowment and have access to student loans.

Because, god knows, more debt is just what this country needs.

barfo

When you make an investment, most of the time you have to take out debt to do it. Education should be no different. You think it's better that someone who didn't go to college pay for the person who does so they don't have as much debt? We disagree.

 

[barfo]

My argument is that people pay for what they consume. Your argument is that people get subsidized to be able to more easily afford something they way. Don't forget, kids of billionaires are charged the same subsidized tuition that the kids of poor people are under your plan.

That's ok, because in my plan, the billionaires pay enough taxes to subsidize many many other kids. In your plan the billionaire pays only for his own kid.

barfo

 

[crandc]

I do realize the OT forum is a fact free zone and El Presidente has never let facts get in the way of a political point or prejudice.

But the role of the State Supreme Court is to decide if a given policy is or is not consistent with the State Constitution and existing law.

The law as written clearly states that anyone who attends high school in California for at least 3 years is a state resident and entitled to in-state tuition if he/she is accepted at a state college/university. The law makes no exception based on citizenship, just residency. So the State Supreme Court did their job and applied the law.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I do realize the OT forum is a fact free zone and El Presidente has never let facts get in the way of a political point or prejudice.

But the role of the State Supreme Court is to decide if a given policy is or is not consistent with the State Constitution and existing law.

The law as written clearly states that anyone who attends high school in California for at least 3 years is a state resident and entitled to in-state tuition if he/she is accepted at a state college/university. The law makes no exception based on citizenship, just residency. So the State Supreme Court did their job and applied the law.

Yeah, but they're illegals still so should get deported, as such. California schools, then are in fact, harboring fugitives and criminals and knowingly doing so.