<p>In what may be the biggest financial aid move by a public university, UC Berkeley announced a new financial aid plan that will offer grants to students with family income as high as $140,000.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Berkeley Middle Class Access Plan, or MCAP, caps the total annual cost of an eligible students education from tuition and fees to expenses including room, board and books at 15 percent of family earnings. Families with incomes from $80,000 to $140,000 and assets typical of that range are eligible for the program, which will provide grants beginning with the fall 2012 semester.
<p>Of course, that's hardly a free education. At $140K, the family would still contribute $21K based on the 15% cap. At $80K, though, the family contribution would be $12K; not free, but relatively affordable.</p>
<p>This is a great first step toward a percentage-of-income tuition model, which I believe would be fairer, clearer, and more sustainable than the low-tuition, low-aid model traditionally championed by supporters of public higher education.</p>
<p>I think the inherent issue is $140K is considered middle class in some parts of the country, but in the SF bay area (and I am sure other parts of CA) even a family income of $200K is middle class especially with the economy being the way it is. That is why it isn’t really fair to hike tuition and up the middle class level to 140K …? That is actually low income in CA.</p>
<p>Does the family income take into account family size and cost of living deductions.? I guess what I am saying is in the bay area, a family with 2-3 kids a gross income of 200K (2 parents working), a house to support, it is still a stretch to keep paying UC tuition if that keeps going up 10% every year.</p>
<p>“… even a family income of $200K is middle class especially with the economy being the way it is. That is why it isn’t really fair to hike tuition and up the middle class level to 140K …? That is actually low income in CA.”</p>
<hr>
<p>OMG! </p>
<p>The poor, suffering, delusional upper class! We should all feel SOOO sorry for them. Reminds me of that guy who wrote that letter to the editor a while back about how “hard up” his family was living on “just” a quarter of a million dollars a year, or something.</p>
<p>Hardly “low income,” $140K is TWO TIMES the median income on San Francisco!</p>
<p>Jeez. Please get out of your Lexus and notice what the other 95% are living like. Sorry you don’t get a tuition break. Maybe you should sell your spare Audi.</p>
<p>Quote: Honestly … “What’s a fair price for a college education? 15% of a family’s income for four years seems reasonable to me.”</p>
<hr>
<p>I might have paid several hundred dollars MAX for all fees, tuition, etc. for my four-year degree. That was only 20 years ago.</p>
<p>Now it’s 15% of total family income PER STUDENT after being bled dry by the vampiric health insurance industry.</p>
<p>Only in America do so-called educated people put up with this kind of highway robbery and call it a “good deal” and something to be grateful for.</p>
<p>The water heats, and the comfy frog sleeps.</p>
<p>15% of total family income? Fair? Sure … unless you’ve got more than one child in college, or have to pay 25% of your income for for health insurance premiums, never mind a mortgage.</p>
<p>Honestly … “reasonable” would be what the UC system was designed to be: FREE to all Californians who had the brains and motivation to qualify.</p>
<p>I think the real reason Berkeley put this together is that it’s become FAR less expensive for top academic talent from middle-class backgrounds (i.e the vast majority of top students in the yearly application pool) to attend posh private schools like Stanford, Ivies, etc. that have GREAT financial aid and tuition forgiveness for those under $60-100K family incomes.</p>
<p>Without doing SOMETHING like this, a “public education” at Berkeley was just going to cost way, way too much compared to the top private schools across the country. UCB was going to lose applications, and then up goes the admit rate and down goes the US News ranking.</p>
<p>California USED to have the best schools and universities on the planet. Before the 1% began their takeover in the 1980’s.</p>
<p>Here’s an idea: repeal the non-sense law requiring 2/3 vote in California to raise taxes, charge oil companies taxes to take resources out of our ground (like every other state does), up the top tax rate for the 1% in California, and restore free (or nearly free) public education to all Californians.</p>
<p>Oh yeah … I forgot. That’s “socialism.” Never mind.</p>
<p>Ummm, the median household income in California is about $50,000, and the range of $80,000 to $140,000 is the 70th to 95th percentile of household income. If that is what “middle class” has shrunk to, then the future of the economy and political environment looks less stable, with 70% of the population being “poor”.</p>
<p>Of course, the money has to be found. Rapid growth areas like health care and prisons have devoured greater portions of the budget over the years.</p>
<p>[2011</a> CalFacts](<a href=“http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx]2011”>2011 CalFacts) notes that (over a year) the state pays $11,885 per UC student, $6,987 per CSU student, $5,071 per CCC student, and $11,405 per K-12 student. Adult prisoners cost $46,700 each, and juvenile prisoners cost $208,766 each (and it is generally agreed that corrections does a poor job of rehabilitating prisoners, resulting in a high rate of returning to crime, and prisons are far over their design capacity).</p>
<p>Stop with the financial aid… What the hell, my family pays over $50,000 in tuition to support this. Pay your fair share, and stop burdening others.</p>
<p>This is something expected at any State U, not just Berkeley. Socialized fee depending on the family’s income is the way to go for any government subsidized school. </p>
<p>However, I don’t think this would help raise Berkeley’s value to the middle class. Unless Berkeley starts to recognized that it already is over-populated, it would remain unattractive to those bright middle-class. Somehow, it has to substantially decrease the number of its intake, specially for the transfer applicants. Lowering that from 2,000 a year to say, 250 a year, would make a whole lot of difference for the school. Berkeley undergrad shouldn’t be more than 10,000.</p>
<p>In any case, reducing enrollment would increase cost per student. Berkeley is sized (faculty, staff, buildings, etc.) for the size it is now. Reducing enrollment would mean that there would be unused capacity, which would have to be subsidized from somewhere. Some very well endowed schools can afford to maintain unused capacity[li], but a typical state university under budget pressure cannot afford that luxury.</p>[/li]
<p>[*] For undergraduates, this tends to mean that classes are never full, and changing or declaring major is not restricted.</p>
<p>To those that say a family making 200K (provided they are somehow maintaining the jobs…no gaurantees) is solid upper class in bay area, is WRONG. Try getting a house loan for income of $150K. All you will be able to afford is a condo. I know many families who earn 150K+ but less than 200K with 3 kids (no audi or lexus here), who are not able to get loans or sustain housing loans. They have to rent. </p>
<p>So yes, I stand by that 200K with a family size of 3 is middle class in SF bay area, since those families invested in housing for a better public school district. Maybe you can classify them as the upper-middleclass but they are middleclass and they don’t take fancy vacations. All they do is afford a house in a better school district, send their kids to public schools and day care so that the other parent can work (with the job insecurity hanging on their head).</p>
<p>Is the number of kids going to college taken into consideration? And what happens if by 2 year, one spouse loses their job. A lot of families I know were depending on home equity to get them thro college and home equity is negative now.</p>
<p>honestly this may be better than nothing but it is not going to solve anything. Families making close to 150K will still be paying close to the actual 32K/ year fees. The bottom line - tuition cannot keep increasing 10% every year. Salaries of UC professors/chancellors should not sky rocket when every other industry has had negative raises.</p>
<p>There are houses (not condos) for sale for $400,000 is decent areas, $700,000 in the “top public school district” areas. On the latter house, for a 30 year fixed rate loan at 4% with 20% downpayment, the monthly payment seems to be around $2,700. The old conservative banker’s rule of no more than 28% of gross income on house expenses, the $150,000 income gives $3,500 per month, which should cover the mortgage and property taxes.</p>
<p>Of course, if your tastes are more expensive than your income and wealth level, it is easy to see being squeezed at a 95th plus percentile income level.</p>
<p>Exactly. The average cost to educate the remaining students would skyrocket, unless cuts were made to faculty and staff. But then, large classes would remain. (Not to mention, that the larger classes are generally those taken by the Frosh & Sophs; classes can be a lot smaller for upper classmen, which includes those transfers.) In any event, a smaller student body results, as ucb points out, in an under-used physical plant.</p>
<p>whether one feels wealthy or not is of no interest to the Legislature; they “know” with certainty that everyone over $150k is a ‘five percenter.’</p>