<p>
</p>
<p>[UC</a> plan sees tuition rising up to 16% annually over four years - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0915-uc-plan-20110915,0,5732440.story]UC”>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0915-uc-plan-20110915,0,5732440.story)</p>
<p>Do you think this will happen, or is it a ploy to spark outrage among voters, much like a high school that drops football and the band when told to cut its budget?</p>
<p>It sounds suspiciously like they’re playing a game of chicken with the state, with the students standing between the cars. Especially given the part where they would “only” raise fees 8% each year if the state kicked in the other half.</p>
<p>I did find it encouraging that the Regents decided to pursue other ways to raise funds, and not keep hammering the students. But what continues to have me steamed is that I never hear the Regents ask whether it’s possible to reduce the costs of delivering their current services. It may well be that the answer is no, but I wish they’d ask the question.</p>
<p>Just a message from the UC administration to California’s Congress that if you continue cutting our budget and not funding pensions, this is what our students will have to bear.</p>
<p>It worked when Berkeley administration threatened and cut 4 varsity sports and boosters came up with the cash to reinstate everything.</p>
<p>It’s necessary to note that it’s not so the UC system that’s crumbing nor is it a “ploy to spark outrage” but more so the United States economy weakening as a result of fiscal and federal policy. It’s not some conspiracy or chicken game but rather the state literally and honsetly not being able to meet the demands of the public. This situation, at least in my opinion, doesn’t look like it’s corruption, chicken, or dishonesty. It is legitimately economic collapse because every infrastructure of the state is reeling hard. In short, it’s hyperinflation, not the UC system imploding. I’m not bringing politics into this. Just pointing out what it means to keep a military industrial complex running in full force since the Iraq invasion and decades before that with foreign country bombing campaigns. I’m not taking sides or saying we shouldn’t have, just pointing out the undeniable cost of foreign occupation on the domestic economy. Look around you, it’s not tuition that’s costing more now, it’s literally every single aspect of human life in the US. </p>
<p>And I know what you guys are going to say next to me, “But it’s California that is in a state of financial emergency NOT THE US!” No, give it a couple more months, perhaps a year or two and California will be the norm of state deficits. If you go to any other state, their economy is lagging too, California’s is just having a bigger bust than usual. The UC system won’t fall from grace any time soon if anyone is worried about that. If anything, it will fall from grace with the nation (much much worse if you ask me).</p>
<p>Of course though, the UC system is reliable and durable, as posters said before me, the University can probably fend for itself, but in all honesty, not forever. The University, as well as other US public offerings to its citizens can’t continue to stay at the same quality for an extended period of time if the government is going to cut cut cut continually with no end in site.</p>
<p>Yet they managed to give large salary increases and bonuses to some of their administrators and the construction on campus goes on and on. It seems that campuses in general are the only places where you see active construction projects these days.</p>
<p>Even at $23k/year in-state tuition, Berkeley and UCLA will find plenty of students to attend. It’s not a lack of funding, it’s the change in source of that funding that is causing the upheaval.</p>
<p>What is worrying though is that UCs are losing their public character. They want to remain great and open…but with these tough economic times, UCs need to make choices whether it’s more valuable to remain great or remain accessible. I think there’s more value in remaining great.</p>
<p>Regarding construction, most of those funds came from bonds approved by voters and private donations. The money can only be spent on capital improvements and it’s necessary to improve/renovate the infrastructure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both.</p>
<p>“If the funding does not increase to help offset rising costs for pensions, healthcare, energy and salaries, 16% annual tuition hikes are likely, the plan says.”</p>
<p>I agree, UCBChemEGrad, that they could fill their classes with good students even at the higher tuition. As you note, though, the traditional role of state universities has been to provide an affordable education to state residents. This will push them beyond OOS rates at many other flagship state universities, and likely set the highest in-state rates in the country.</p>
<p>Didn’t know about the UCB sports ploy, but I’ve seen it done at the HS level when funding votes are coming up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely correct. But it’s the lower tier campuses which really worry the Regents. Do they really think that Merced is worth that kind of money? Riverside (without the med guarantee)?</p>
<p>^ Unfortunately, the poor always suffer most in hard economic times. </p>
<p>I worry about California’s and the country’s future decades from now when there has been a lack of investment in quality affordable higher education.</p>
<p>
Yeah, Cal administrators cut baseball, mens and womens gymnastics and womens lacrosse and demoted the much beloved rugby team to club status…even before a new Pac-12 contract was negotiated. The admin was getting pressure from the faculty about money used to support athletics. Only after they announced the cuts, the boosters and alumni howled and pledged nearly $20 million to save all sports.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why UC Regents won’t put a ballot measure to give Prop. 98 protections to the university system. I’m sure they can generate the signatures and the support, after all the state university system has broad support from both liberals and conservatives (Meg Whitman proposed prioritizing the state college system over the HS and elementary systems budget-wise).</p>
<p>Back in the day, the UC system received 7% of the state budget; now they receive less than 1%.</p>
<p>^^At the risk of getting political, I disagree with the broad support. Prop 98 was pushed by teachers unions who would be against anything that might cut into their ‘share’ of the state budget. And since money is limited, I’d guess they’d be against anything so large that it would contribute to shrinking their slice of the pie. There are millions of kids in K-12, but only thousands in the state college system. The numbers (and voters) just aren’t there, IMO.</p>
<p>Of course, as UC purposely recruits more from OOS, it is reduces its political support – top kids rejected by Cal & UCLA are going OOS and the parents are paying big bucks to support those institutions, including many publics.</p>
<p>Re" pensions, healthcare, energy and salaries"
I mean, WT* is happening. A very nice profession to be in to get guarenteed raises at these universities. They attribute it to energy costs, healthcare and pensions. I thought politicians were crooks. It just continues to happen like clockwork at universities.</p>
<p>Who says professors are guaranteed raises? At the large public university where DH taught and served as associate dean, professors rarely got cost-of-living increases, much less raises. In fact, in our state, on average, a public school elementary/middle/high school teacher outearned professors after just a few years on the job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, the status of higher ed funding is CA is not comparable to the rest of the country. Of course almost everyone is having to cut budgets but the UC system is unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that it’s raised tuition by large %s almost annually for the past few years AND faces the prospect of having to collect even more money from students going forward. Most of the SEC schools resorted to one-time tuition increases of less than 5% … that’s nowhere near the range being discussed by UC officials.</p>
<p>Am I going out on a limb by saying that annual ~10% tuition increases are unsustainable? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>^^^ Please provide a source for your claim that most SEC schools resorted to one-time tuition increases of less than 5%. Because I think you got something wrong there. For example, University of Colorado has raised its tuition over 9% every year for the past three years. More increases are projected in the future. That, plus the school itself gets nearly nothing from the state which perpetually ranks 48th or 49th out of 50 in college level per-student spending, so it hardly has any fat to cut.</p>
<p>I’m sure my remarks that follow will be somewhat incendiary, but they are facts. Berkeley alum and supporter here. Case of one, granted, so not saying this applies to everyone, but is fact for me. My son was squeezed out of admission to Berkeley this past Fall, as compared to his chances just a couple years earlier. due to the significant increase in OOS students that the UC Berkeley headquarters are looking for for high OOS tuition. He had a 4.2 and a 2,170 SAT with tons of EC’s and sports and leadeship. Was he guaranteed to get in ever? No, last year? no. But no-one can argue that his chances were reduced significantly by the change in admissions profile as a result of chasing OOS students at full OOS fare. read the charts then and now. So, instead, my son is going to a private top 25 university where we pay full fare, but about what OOS students pay at Berkeley. I’d have been happy to pay those $ to Berkeley, but instead after being a california taxpayer for decades (and an active and interested UCB alum) nope I don’t get the choice. So from my POV, if the UC’s want to come to the taxpayers with a hand out for more money I will clearly vote and advocate aggressively against it. And I’m not alone. The regents make their decisions, and they need to live with the positive and negative consequences of those. It has been mentioned by others that the policies of the UC system are generating significant ill will from long-time CA taxpayers. Well, there is a lot of truth to that. And for those who say it’s all the state’s fault for not funding, before you conclude that alone you should look at the incredible waste in the UC system, and at Berkeley in particular. It was called out in a major study commisioned by Berkeley itself just a few years ago. Look it up for yourself. If I recall correctly it was in the range of $70MM per year at Berkeley alone. If they’d re-org and cut the fat and waste from the system they’d be much more able to continue to serve the CA tax-payer and their children witout the change in admission profile and ongoing tuition increases. All you UC headquarters trolls that follow this board go ahead and tell me how crazy and how unworthy my kid is so that you can deflect honest criticism of the state of affairs at the UC. You can say whatever you want. There are thousands of parents out there like me, and growing every year. Good luck getting more funding. BTW my son is having the time of his life at his current school and that’s proof everything works our for a reason. I’m happy for him. That does not mean I’m happy to fund the UC system going forward.</p>
<p>^ You’ve just confirmed what bluebayou speculated when Berkeley started admitting more OOS students. Not an unreasonable complaint, but I believe Berkeley needs to do what it can to shore up finances to remain great.</p>
<p>I hope that I am wrong in my speculation! But it is just too logical. Every political decision has unintended consequences, and my guess is that UC figured that such downside was worth the risk, and better than admitting that opening Merced was a waste of hundreds if millions.</p>
<p>Let the chips fall where they may. The results will only be clear in the rear view mirror. But for one I am looking forward to the political fight. I may be an outlier, and probably so. But, the way I see it, the UC beurocrats are playing their hand, and they are going to have to deal with the blow-back. Bring it on. Bring a proposition to the voters, please, so me and thousands of others can flush it down the drain.</p>