<p>Do you think student fees will decrease, after the University of California "fixes" their compensation issues?</p>
<p>Now it IS so wrong for them to say the state isn't funding enough, yet at the same time giving $300+ million in extra compensation and unauthorized bonuses!</p>
<p>hmm . . . I don't know. I will read more about it.</p>
<p>And there is a man named something angelides running for governor who proposes to restore student fees to levels before arnold took office. it's going to be interesting how all this will play out.</p>
<p>What was done wrong was that it was conducted in total secrecy.</p>
<p>You can draw a parallel to Bush's domestic "wiretapping" program. Had it been explained, the likehood is it would have been passed in Congress--after all, it doesn't record the content of the calls.
The bruhaha comes from the cover-up.</p>
<p>Same here though. I'd say such policies are for the most part necessary for improvement... instituted correctly. Somehow I doubt many would too strongly protest paying well for excellent managers, after all, talent is often attracted to money.
Then again... if the President of UC saw a need to keep it secret, perhaps it was favoratism and patronage rather than top dollar for top talent.</p>
<p>Given the personalities of the Regents, I doubt there'll be a student fee decrease. To tell the truth, although it may be an unpopular position, I don't think there should be a decrease, if the next President (this one better resign, or he should be thrown out) actually institutes such policies in the way they are meant to be instituted.</p>
<p>Another point: angelides proposes to increase UC and CSU enrollment each by 20%. That is a lot, UCB and UCLA are crowded enough already! So at a glance while I like his platform that he wishes to fully fund california public education, I do not agree that the cost of the UC should decrease at the expense of an increase of 20% in enrollment.</p>
<p>... I need to look at Angelides' platform, but I already don't like the sound of it.</p>
<p>He will intend to fully fund it, and pack it past that funding boost.
I'm not sure how much he has UC Berkeley's interests in mind. He is a populist vote, in the truest sense. What he has envisioned, I don't doubt, is basically the UC system as the slightly higher tier CSU system. More or less a big drop in quality to "bring education to everyone."</p>
<p>I'm reminded of the best intensions and ostensibly benevolent policies of France's employment system leading to disasterous results and unemployment in reality. If what my brief glance at his position is correct and it goes through, there'll likely be a "brain-drain" effect for California.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm not being fair and alarmist, but in terms of political logic, that's his best move that would appeal him to his constituency and give him the most political leverage.</p>
<p>"You can draw a parallel to Bush's domestic "wiretapping" program. Had it been explained, the likehood is it would have been passed in Congress--after all, it doesn't record the content of the calls.
The bruhaha comes from the cover-up."</p>
<p>How do you know that the program doesn't record the content of the call?? At first, after being caught by the NY Times, Bush said his program only targets "terrorists and their know affiliates" in international calls. Then, just a few weeks ago the NY Times busted them again and reported that they were spying on domestic calls too. And now, it has been reported by USA Today (I think) that they have collected the phone records of over 200,000,000 Americans without a warrant. </p>
<p>Do you still think that they are not looking at the content of call made by ordinary Americans? What would stop them? The NSA is the most secretive organization in history, it's unbelievable. The ACLU has recently filed many lawsuits claiming that the Bush Regime's Spying Program has purposely targeted peace and environmental groups and has been spying on their phone calls. And you're trying to tell me that the Congress would approve something so much like Orwell's 1984. Well, on second thought, there is a Republican majority in both houses that doesn't give a crap about our rights, so you might be right when you say that it would pass in Congress.</p>
<p>Lets reserve the NSA debate for another thread.</p>
<p>All right. I looked over Angelides's proposed measures.</p>
<p>He never promises to "fully fund" the UC system, at least not in the way one would normally think of "fully fund." In any case, only 35% of the endowments of UC Berkeley are state funds already--the state would need to massive raise that commitment in order to absorb 20% increase. He proposes to change the California Master Plan for education, the UC system selecting among the top 32.5% of California students and top 55% for CSU system.
Quite obviously, it'll cause a drop in student quality within the UC system.</p>
<p>Next, that he would fully fund? He proposes raising the Cal grants and increase high school counselors. He never promises any money for the university to increase its resources at all. Throwing 20% more students at the system while not promising any increase in resources other than Cal grants at all.
I don't know... perhaps this is good for the majority of students, but for it is harmful for current Cal students, as it'll drop student quality and drop funding per student even more. </p>
<p>Angelides does plan to drop fees though. "Roll back the tax on education." It's catchy, but I'm somewhat suspicious what will be cut to accommodate that roll-back. Can we possibly actually see more students and a DECREASE in total resources?</p>
<p>His initiatives are to help the "majority" of students, not the current UC students. The priority in his mind is to get more students in higher education, not raise the quality of higher education.
An admirable tact, if it didn't hurt us. Also, I'm guessing if UC quality drops, a greater "brain drain" will occur.</p>
<p>Another thing to keep in mind is he still needs to get these initiatives past the state legislature. Who is the world would commit the political suicide to oppose expanding the number of students in higher education? I can guess that rolling back that "tax on education" and raising Cal grants might meet some flak though. If anything, there's a chance for the detrimental without any positive.</p>
<p>This all sounds grim, but despite my comments, I think the university system in California is robust enough that I don't think that even if these measures go through, the results will be apocolyptic. However, my guess is this will drop UC quality, which I think is a step in the wrong direction rather than the right.</p>
<p>btw, "fully fund" must have come from the commercial I saw when I was typing the post.</p>
<p>The other Democrat is steve westlely (sp?). went on his site and skimmed, but couldn't find anything about his platform on higher education.... these two or arnold... hm............i'm watching an interview right now and he say's he will increase federal funding w/out raising taxes... how?</p>