<p>We3-you're either misinformed or just ignorant.</p>
<p>The money for State-funded colleges doesn't just come from the state, it also comes from the government. </p>
<p>And since the government is so badly hurting, they decided that education was the first thing to go.</p>
<p>Psycho'78, I applied within the first couple of days. I had my transcript already ordered a week before, so as soon as I applied it would be there that same week. I have no idea if CSUs have rolling admissions, but I got my decision within four weeks.</p>
<p>If you want to do an impacted major (CSU:</a> CSU Impacted Campuses and Programs), you better get it in NOW.</p>
<p>
<p>If you want to do an impacted major (CSU: CSU Impacted Campuses and Programs), you better get it in NOW.
</p>
<p>I submitted my application last month. However, the thing is I guess I did not submit as early as you. It was still within the deadline, though. I waited because a guidance counselor told me to attend an application/transfer workshop. I probably would have submitted sooner had they not told me to attend.</p>
<p>The thing the freaks me out with this whole crisis is that I will be rejected. I have all G.E./lower-division requirements fulfilled (I am a transfer student) along with a good GPA that is well over the minimum required, but maybe holding off to submit will come back to hurt me.</p>
<p>I guess if it makes any difference, I applied for Fall 2009.</p>
<p>
<p>The money for State-funded colleges doesn't just come from the state, it also comes from the government.</p>
<p>And since the government is so badly hurting, they decided that education was the first thing to go.
</p>
<p>Did I say the Federal govt doesn't/does contribute to education.</p>
<p>You seem to miss the fact that the state govt puts millions of dollars into inane programs that don't benefit CA residents. I gave nine examples where state $s could have been better utilized had (some of) it been diverted to education.</p>
<p>Your vacuous, simple minded comment of "oh federal govt is poor" without specifics does nothing for your credibility and is further diminshed by your ad hominem attack.</p>
<p>You also might want to try reading Vballplayer's query again, namely the 1st sentence. I gave him 9 reasons. Yet you have the galls to only say "oh the fed govt is poor" without substantiating why it's poor. Your argument will surely convince anyone with a critical eye :rolleyes:</p>
<p>You have no idea? Really? Do you ever even pick up a newspaper?</p>
<p>The stock market is at its lowest point since the great depression.
The war in Iraq drains us millions upon millions.
Not to mention the mortgage bailout of $700 million. </p>
<p>Put all that on top of our already huge national debt.</p>
<p>But yeah, the federal government is doing great. It's all California's fault.</p>
<p>Yes, the way CA government works is not the best. Yes, we have problems. But education IS funded by the federal government for the most part (note: for the most part).</p>
<p>
<p>The stock market is at its lowest point since the great depression. The war in Iraq drains us millions upon millions. Not to mention the mortgage bailout of $700 million.</p>
<p>Put all that on top of our already huge national debt.</p>
<p>But yeah, the federal government is doing great. It's all California's fault.</p>
<p>Yes, the way CA government works is not the best. Yes, we have problems. But education IS funded by the federal government for the most part (note: for the most part).
Stock market at lowest point, Iraq, bailouts, national debt....duh. Like people aren't already oversaturated with it. Gee you're such a know it all :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Please tell eveyone again, how you refuted any of the 9 reasons previously mentioned and how they didn't contribute to lower tax revenues for the state of CA which could have been used for education.</p>
<p>Here's a hint. You can't refute those points because all of them lower state CA revenues. Had I initially wanted to include anything about Federal contributions to state income, I would have. Obviously you can't read, because all the points I mentioned specifically mentions CA and how it directly affects CA tax revenues, some of which state legislation uses for education. And you obviously didn't understand or re-read vballplayers because the query asked for "reasons".</p>
<p>Tell everyone again, where was the Federal govt mentioned on those 9 points? </p>
<p>You sure are good at putting words in someone else's mouth when they weren't there in the first place.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Thanks for the poorly veiled comment about me being ignorant, again :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Psycho'78, what is your major? What campus are you trying to transfer to? You could have gotten a guaranteed transfer agreement (minus Pomona, SLO, SDSU).</p>
<p>Well it has a lot to do with declining wealth in the form of home equity. When Arnold Schwartzenegger took office, he didn't reduce spending but things went well because of increasing home values. Now that home prices are falling like a ship from heaven, things are doing poorly. The things you listed contribute in some way, but a good number are moot points (I didn't know there are people who still take the Laffer curve seriously). Home prices is the primary reason.</p>
<p>We3-I'm not trying to refute anything. I'm trying to present a different viewpoint. You can't just ignore the federal government's role in funding education. It doesn't work that way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The stock market is at its lowest point since the great depression.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come on. The stock market isn't doing well, but to say that it's at its lowest point since the great depression is simply absurd. The market is merely back to where it was in 2003 - just 5 years ago. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1)High CA (income) taxes chase wealthy people away to more forgiving states. The Laffer Curve shows that an increase in taxation rate doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in tax revenue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but the real issue is which side of the Laffer Curve are we on? There is no doubt that at some marginal tax rate, increasing the tax rate further will indeed shrink tax revenue as high earners decide to simply stop working. Yet the fact is, California experienced one heck of a boom during the 1990's when Clinton had raised taxes on the top earners. Note, I'm not just talking about increases in capital gains (for which taxes were cut), but also in incomes, especially among the rich. I remember a lot of very very well-paid techies who worked very hard and made a lot of income despite increased marginal tax rates. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I hate taxes. I too would like tax cuts. But not because I think we are actually in serious danger of hitting the Laffer tipping point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
CA imports and protects illegal aliens who contribute little to no tax revenue and suck up a lot of resources: ER as primary care, ESL classes with crappy results, high rates of teen pregnancy and illegitimacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's actually not clear whether the illegals actually increase or decrease tax revenue overall. True, they do consume government resources. But they also expand the economy, hence boosting tax revenue indirectly. They also boost tax revenue directly in that, according to the CBO, 50-75% of illegals are paying income taxes (because they use fake SSN's from with taxes are withheld). Furthermore, many illegals are afraid to utilize too many government services because they fear deportation. Lipman (2006) has shown that illegals as a whole contribute more in tax revenue than they consume. </p>
<p>Personally, I think a far more serious drain on government revenue are the Americans who consume government resources, i.e. those on chronic welfare. Or the hard-core criminals who need to be jailed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3)CA played a part contributing to some of the largest and most devastating parts of the sub-prime mess in places like Stockton and San Bernadino in a time when ads were being run in Spanish by mortgage lenders specifically appealing to people without papers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not at all clear that illegals (or Hispanics in general) have a higher default/foreclosure rate, adjusted for income levels, compared to other homeowner groups. In fact, I strongly suspect that the rate may actually be *lower<a href="again,%20adjusted%20for%20income">/i</a>. Let's be perfectly honest. The illegals come here to work. They frankly have a better work ethic than many Americans do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The silver lining on that cloud is that they can get rid of dead wood faculty and do nothing staffers...the bloated bureaucracy. All those PhD's who have been feeding at the trough for decades and not producing anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Staffers maybe, but I am far less optimistic about the (as you put it) deadwood faculty. After all, once you get tenure, that's it. The game is over. You can never be dismissed (barring some major scandal, i.e. you get caught stealing from the school). Tenured deadwood faculty abound at public and private universities alike. </p>
<p>I think what we really need is a reform of the tenure process. Sadly, I am not optimistic that that will happen in my lifetime.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the legislature should carry out a college "wealth redistribution" program. News reports show huge endowments held by Stanford and USC --- in the billions! If these mega-rich schools were to share their wealth with other California schools that are now in distress, it would be easy to fill the budget cuts and fix the opportunity & financial hardships facing tens of thousands of good students. The rich donors who gave these endowments have enjoyed their tax breaks, at the expense of others. Will Stanford and USC help their fellow hurting students at other schools? It may take some student pressure on the politicians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley had a near $3 billion endowment in 2007. Granted, it's probably less now, but still, Berkeley is clearly one of the richest schools in California. Should we go after Berkeley and redistribute that endowment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The money for State-funded colleges doesn't just come from the state, it also comes from the government.
[/quote]
[quote]
But education IS funded by the federal government for the most part (note: for the most part).
[/quote]
I'm truly ignorant about this and I really wanna know. Didn't realize that federal government contributes the most part of public fundings of state universities.</p>
<p>Aside from research grants and federal financial aids, how much (%) is the federal government contributing to the UC's annual budgets (e.g., day-to-day operations, campus maintenance, faculty and facilitiies, etc.)?</p>
<p>
I am a business major and want to concentrate in information systems/technology. I know business majors are heavily impacted. Unfortunately, I cannot get a transfer agreement. My school of choice is one of those that you listed.</p>
<p>SDSU's website makes it seem like transferring in from a neighboring college is easy, but I am not so sure about that. Even my counselor said I should be accepted since I have everything met. I just do not trust things during these times.</p>
<p>If bad goes to worse, I may have to try my hand at out-of-state colleges. I was thinking of the University of Arizona. I believe their deadline is in May.</p>
<p>GoBlue-I'm not going to lie. I don't know percentages.</p>
<p>However, in the recent town hall meetings held by SSU about the budget cuts, this is what we have been told. (and not very nicely, either.)</p>
<p>The most ridiculous part was being told that it was our fault for choosing SSU. As if they didn't want any students at all. And that the students are at fault for the budget cuts. </p>
<p>Yes, our bursar is somewhat of a jerk.</p>
<p>Blame it on the foreigners that's the American mentality. If people had just stopped and looked at the pattern they could have solved this problem.</p>
<p>guess my out-of-state dreams towards going to USC are out the window...if they weren't already.</p>
<p>i'm gonna need to get like a 1,000 scholarships...tuition is high already</p>
<p>Musab, USC is a private college...this mainly affects public colleges in CA.</p>