A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
An animal or plant living or growing in a region to which it has migrated. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster</p>
<p>as I said, you are being way too sensitive and touchy about the definition of a particular word. Nothing was implied by my use of that word other than you came to live in this country from another country. As did I when I came from Canada many, many years ago with my parents. As did most of the ancestors of present day US citizens. period.</p>
<p>I don’t know that immigrant is a pejorative - perhaps you mean refugee (economic or otherwise). I know an immigrant couple - they both have Phds; the wife comes from a relatively affluent background.</p>
<p>small nit, but Prop 13 only required that a vote to raise taxes be 2/3rds. The 2/3rds requirement to pass a budget had been part of the State Constitution since the days of Hiram Johnson and the early reformers (circa 1933). But that section was just over-ruled in the past election, and it now takes only a simple majority to pass the State budget. It only requires a 2/3rds majority if that budget includes tax increases.</p>
<p>Not to derail the thread, but as for vballmom (#175), our school district (in N Cal) also has a parcel tax on the ballot, to the tune of ~$100/yr for 4 years; senior citizens can opt out. Our town is affluent, with excellent schools. One would think it’s a no-brainer-- pay an extra $100/yr to keep class sizes down, retain important programs, librarians, GCs, etc. Heck, you could spend $100 at Starbucks in just a fraction of that time. But this is not a slam-dunk in our town-- lots of people are voting no because they believe the school district mismanages money, which is in part why we’re in this mess. (There’s another school district near us that is actually giving their teachers raises!) </p>
<p>I haven’t decided which way to vote, because I have 2 kids still in hs and of course don’t want them denied anything. But why give the district more money to mismanage?</p>
<p>^^ it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get a tax increase, because of the 66% majority requirement. SO, the Regents do the only thing that can be done, and raise fees. Nobody likes it, but until the law is changed, no taxes will be raised, unless Calif voters throw out all Republicans in the legislature and / or pass a state initiative that repeals the 66% majority requirement to raise taxes in the Legislature. FAT chance of either happening</p>
<p>What about freezing salaries and benefits, increasing teaching loads from 2 classes per term to 2.5, cutting admin staff 10-15% across the board, and building endowments? The UCs are very fat. Even moreso at the top.</p>
<p>I was young when Brown was governor previously, but I understand he set in stone the public union agreements for very high pensions we taxpayers simply can’t afford. It is SO different in the private sector here in California.
I do not mean to attack UC, sorry if I gave that impression, except top administrators are sure paid a heck of a lot, as many have pointed out, including with student protests.
Modest fee increases are reasonable in economically challenging times, I think California’s public university systems went a long time without much adjustment upwards of fees, just because there has been recent adjustment/talk of adjustment doesn’t take into account the long history; they will never get up to what we are paying for private universities (believe me, I know)</p>
<p>Goodbye to all the most talented profs. All the ones who can get positions elsewhere will leave. The ones you are probably referring to as the “fat” will be the ones who will stay, since they’ll have a hard time finding jobs elsewhere.</p>
<p>Preach it, menloparkmom! I would add that Prop 13 set the pattern that California has followed for 30+ years. We vote ourselves all kinds of services, but we refuse to pay for them. The only thing that surprises me about this crisis is that everyone is so surprised about it.</p>
<p>Going back the main thread - If UC tuition is double, then USC is a better deal. USC’s list price is the same as other private schools, but it is one of the most generous private schools with very generous merit scholarships (from 1/2 to full pay) besides financial aid. Average middle class not qualifying with high EFC can still benefit if their children has good academic standing such as being a national merit semi-finalist. Typical half of our senior class (at my son’s school) belongs to this group from their PSAT taken at Junior year; and USC typically grant 1/2 tuition for those national merit semi-finalists. </p>
<p>On the other hand, other than a $1500-2000 Regent scholarship, the best/brightest of the UC admitted students will not get any aid unless they have demonstrated need. Again, if tuition doubles, most middle class will be better off with merit generous private schools such as Rice, Pomona, Harvey Mudd, Tufts, Case Western, etc.</p>
<p>I think the bottom line is, avoid student loans if at all possible. Did you see the report on student loans on CBS news last night? Student loan debt is now greater than credit card debt ($800 BILLION). Pretty soon (or maybe already) a college degree is not going to be an investment in the future unless your kid is an engineer. As I mentioned before, my friend spent half a million on her daughter’s education (undergrad through vet school). I imagine a lot of doctors and lawyers spend similar sums. How could that young lady ever pay that back with her earnings? She is still in residency, earning almost nothing…</p>