<p>Effective Summer 2012, the fees are $46 per unit (in state resident). Health Fee is about $20 a semester, some classes have lab/material fees. Parking varies by campus.</p>
<p>Nonresident fees are an additional $176 per unit, with a captial outlay fee of $17 per unit (totals $260 per unit). I don’t know if all the colleges do the captial outlay fee.</p>
<p>I think the Community Colleges could save money with less overhead. In our county there are at least 4 Community College districts–each with their own board/payroll department/etc. I would think some consolidation would generate savings.</p>
<p>The UCs, CSUs and CCs could also start or continue to cut salaries. It is unlikely that many will jump ship in this economy, and if they do, there will be plenty lining up to fill the void.</p>
<p>It seems like the California CCs are below OOS costs in other states so it doesn’t sound like they are inefficient (at least in comparison to other states).</p>
<p>Long-time lurker, first-time poster, etc. I learn a lot from reading CC, and I hope you all don’t mind if I throw in my two cents. I am a professor at a small LAC, but received both my BA and Ph.D. from large, public research universities. I appreciate both models, and know that undergraduates can thrive in both environments. That being said, I’d like to address ucbalumnus’s question about LACs and size:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that the best research universities and best liberal arts colleges are distinguished as such because of the quality communities that they are able to cultivate. The LAC experience is not simply about having classrooms of 15 people, just as the research university experience is not simply about being taught by a truly world-class researcher. Now the type of community that enhances a research university pretty much has to be large. From that large group of people comes the energy and the space for specialized and focused communities of cutting edge research–things that enhance the overall experience at a good research university. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the type of community that enhances a liberal arts college by creating broad interdisciplinary opportunities and allowing for the total support of each individual student pretty much has to be small. Our small student body means that our physical campus is small and we have few administrative layers. This means that faculty from disparate disciplines collaborate on research, share in governance and work together to support students in ways that cannot happen at a large research institution without a LOT of effort (effort that the tenure and promotion process at a research university does not usually reward). Similarly, our student body can meet to discuss campus issues as a whole–they do not do this with the regularity that we faculty do, but it is possible. Because I work in this environment, I can tell you the background and general research interests of every colleague I have. I can tell you the name and a bit of information about nearly 50% of our student body off the top of my head. This level of familiarity, which would not be possible if we were twice as large–let alone five times as large–as we are, creates bonds of trust and reciprocity that allow us to push our students well beyond what they thought they were capable of intellectually and creatively when they arrived here, and it allows us to support our students emotionally as they begin to understand the (usually!) delightful and interesting people that they are in the process of becoming. </p>
<p>Obviously both research universities and liberal arts colleges push students intellectually, but they do so in very different ways, and those ways are dictated in large part by the types of communities that surround each institution. The best research university communities require many people, but the best LAC communities have to remain fairly small. Since some students will do better in the research university environment and some will do better in the liberal arts college environment, we are lucky that we have many excellent examples of each type of institution in this country.</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly agree that we need both LACs and large, public universities. The diversity of offerings and experience is absolutely essential. </p>
<p>I also agree that the amount of remedial work that is allowed at public universities is appalling. I regularly hear from CSU instructors about the number of remedial classes that they offer. Why are we admitting students to any 4 year college with the need for remedial?</p>
<p>However, I do disagree that a 3.0 student would not be interested in research. As we all know, GPA is indicative of many things, but not necessarily a person’s interest in research, their creative ability, etc. </p>
<p>Not coming from academia I wonder why we make such a distinction between ‘research’ universities and others. Isn’t all higher education about higher learning, research, discovery, etc?</p>
<p>It is clear that the CA higher ed system is broken. Wish there was an easy way to fix it.</p>
<p>^^ SLACFac, your comment about the collaboration of faculty across disciplines rang a bell. My dad taught (history) at a LAC from 1949 to 1981. During most of that period, freshmen were required to take an interdisciplinary course, “Contemporary Civilization,” which was described (quoting from a 1985 history of the college, which cites the college catalogs of the period) as “an introduction to the backgrounds of contemporary social problems through the major concepts, ideals, hopes, and motivations of western culture since the Middle Ages.” What is especially interesting, I think, is the disciplines of the professors who taught the course: not only history, philosophy, and religion, which you would expect, but also biology, education, German, physics, political science, mathematics, and psychology (same source). I know that is not an impossibility at a large university - the University of Chicago’s required Great Books program draws professors from different disciplines, for example - but I would think it is highly unusual.</p>
<p>SLACFac, thank you for that perspective. I went to a gigantic public U, and loved everything that it had to offer even the lowly undergraduate. I found it to be an exhilarating place to be.</p>
<p>My daughter was looking for something very different in her undergrad experience. She wanted the intimacy, collaboration, support, and interdisciplinary point of view that only an LAC can offer. Your description of the LAC environment is a very good picture of her college.</p>
<p>Both are necessary, both are valuable. But they most definitely are not interchangeable.</p>
<p>So what should we do for the students who our once-great but now destroyed public school system has failed?</p>
<p>If the situation is as bad as you describe, perhaps it would make sense to make the less-selective public universities into upper-division-only schools, and redirect resources into strengthening and expanding the community college system. Let the student do the remedial work and the foundation courses at a lower cost, living at home. Some will succeed, and some will fail. Let those who succeed move on to upper-division or four-year schools; and let those who do not move on with their lives without the burden of crushing debt. Keep the more-selective schools as four-year institutions for the students who are prepared to start on challenging college work out of the gate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But in many cases - I would suggest the majority - it is an indication of a lack of proven ability to focus on intellectual pursuits, which I would think is a requirement for an effective researcher. Again, let the student prove himself or herself, and then move on to advanced things.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly true, for a single, rare individual. (Steve Jobs and Woz were not exactly academic stars, but brilliant nonetheless.) But the taxpayers built a system for the masses, and the masses (public schools) that mosey along HS with college prep courses earning a 3.0 are barely ready for higher level education, much less research. (Yes, kids a top prep schools with B’s in honors/APs are a lot different lot…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Suggest you take a look-see at the California Master Plan for Higher Education, circa 1960.</p>
<p>The set of talents that lead to an ‘A’ in a high school course only slightly intersect with the talents needed to become a competent creative researcher. I’m referring to scientific research, as I have little knowledge of humanities research. The students I knew who became outstanding researchers were the ones who developed a passion for a particular topic, often at the expense of time spent on homework and other topics. The ones who focused on grades mostly ended up in med school, where they continued to focus on grades. The most ‘successful’ researcher I knew as an undergrad had below a 3.0. He spent all his time in the lab and ended up starting his own company after graduation. He could have retired at 30 after selling the company to a large pharmaceutical firm. Scientific research is about creativity and ingenuity, which are rarely acknowledged or nurtured in high school curricula.</p>
<p>And understand that the concept of research universities was not driven by an overwhelming desire to serve the … young and naive students. The raison d’</p>
<p>I teach at a California community college. Yes, we could raise our fees- they are currently $36 a unit, going up to $46 this summer. They are set by the legislature. Yes, we charge higher rates to OOS (we have a few) and International students - currently, most CCs charge about $220 a unit for both those groups. Yes, the fees are being raised, and will continue to be be raised, at all the levels: CC, CSU, UC. But I have noticed fees are also raised at private schools in a proportionate amount: a 10% hike at a UC being about the same in dollars as a 4% hike at USC, for example.
Speaking about the CCs, we do have a lot of remedial students, 70% at my CC. They are coming out of the high schools woefully underprepared. And I’m sure the HS faculty would say they are coming our of the middle schools woefully underprepared, and so on down the line. And a sizeable percentage are really NOT ever going to succeed at college, no matter how many basic skills classes they take. Honestly, I have been there 21 years, and there is one student I see still wandering the halls, who was there when I started working. She is mentally ill and yet keeps taking classes (or maybe at this point she is just wandering the halls). Also we have seniors who take classes like ceramics over and over, just as a recreational pursuit. I think the state is going to stop allowing these types of students- students are going to have to be in a path towards a certificate, graduation or transfer, there will be a cap on classes and attempts (some take more than 3 times to pass a class, and I am talking Pre-Algebra or Paragraph writing), and no more recreational classes for people who already have degrees. I can see this coming.
I think what we need are more vocational programs, for those who are really not suited for academics.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the system you describe already exists, as our higher education is mostly populated by public universities that are an extension of what high school should be. Students enter with credits purported to be college level work, run to watered down curricula, and are pushed out as fast a possible. In the meantime, we live in a world where high school try and pretend to educate students at a college level through segregating programs such as IB/AP and colleges that have to offer remedial courses to many if not all. The result being that neither is very successful. </p>
<p>We keep trying to reinvent the wheel, but the forces that control our education will not collaborate. Take a look at the Gates Foundation. They tried to reinvent the high schools. Then the teacher prep. Now, the focus is on the community colleges. None of that will ever work until we find the courage to decapitate the enemy of education. And we know whom that is!</p>
<p>PS Fwiw, albeit it will never work, it would not be a bad idea for the UC system to be transformed into a graduate school only, and reinvent the CSU and CC world to educate all undergraduates. Of course, what would happen to the armies of TA, GSI, who are the real workhorses at the UC. The horror. The horror! ;)</p>
<p>Perhaps in California; I wouldn’t know because I haven’t lived there for over 40 years, and then only tangentially and briefly. I can testify that the less-selective Illinois publics get a lot of students who are not ready for college work - and they either take and succeed in remedial courses, which means they take 5, 6 or more years to graduate, or they don’t succeed in them and as a result never make it to sophomore year. A degree from UIC or ISU or NIU or SIUC or one of the others is an achievement, not just the result of being pushed through a watered-down curriculum.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is ideal - as I said above, I think it would make a lot more sense to make them all upper-division schools and expand the CC system. But an implication that a degree from one of these schools is easy to get or worthless is simply wrong.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but Illinois will also graduate hordes of people who think Mongolia must be a disease affecting twin children, need a calculator to return the change of an item costing 12.85, could not put Austria or Vietnam on a map, or could not spell receive or lien correctly, but could recite Pippen’s statistics and know all the words to Lady Gaga’s latest hit. Even with a six-year degree!</p>
<p>And this is not to pick on Illinois --you got enough with Ayers and its ilk-- because the same is true in California or in my home state of Texas. While one would expect those syndromes in the academic deserts in El Paso, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi, it is not different in Austin or College Station.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, that is not exactly what I said or intimated. Worthless is an absolute term; the disctinction and distinction should be about its relative worthiness in terms of costs and investments.</p>
<p>The other question should be if colleges are really expected to teach 3 Rs when they stand for Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic or if they could get started at the level of Relating, Representing and Reasoning. Right now, the king of the Rs is … remedial!</p>