<p>*The proposed policy in #15 would be more limiting to students from lower income families. </p>
<p>For example, a student from a lower income family in Oakland who wants to major in architecture may be well prepared to go to a four year school as a freshman, but not be able to get into the local state university that offers the major (Berkeley). </p>
<p>S/he may be able to get into other state universities like the Cal Polys, UCLA, and UCSB, but would not be able to afford to do so under the proposed policy. Going to community college and then transferring would remain as an option, but then the policy could prevent the student from finishing the bachelor’s degree if s/he did not get into Berkeley, even if s/he did get into a Cal Poly, UCLA, or UCSB.*</p>
<p>If the student goes to a CC first, then applies for a transfer, but doesn’t get accepted to the nearby UC (Cal in your example), then aid could be there for another public. But, the first try should be for the local school.</p>
<p>the tax-payer savings from having the student first attend a CC, will then help cover R&B if the student needs to transfer to a school for a major not available locally. </p>
<p>We can all find exceptions that make the idea of limitations sound bad, but it’s worse having no limitations. there can be exceptions made, as mentioned above. That said, most students aren’t majoring in anything that can’t be found at a nearby UC or CSU. </p>
<p>Yes, a policy change would affect lower and middle income kids (those earning under $80k for UCs). But, the truth is, tax-payers really can’t afford to be funding the go-away experience. It’s one thing to help with tuition and fees, but to be funding room and board is just not affordable.</p>