<p>^^^: How come? An increase in tuition will bring responsibility to all. Students will understand the importance of making it through in 4 years. Financial Aid will actually improve because UCs will have the funds to support it.
California budget deficit will go down, it’s credit rating will increase, the money saved can be used to accomplish other tasks.
California will flourish and will stop sinking.</p>
<p>California will certainly sink if the taxes are increased over what we have now…</p>
<p>‘Financial Aid will actually improve because UCs will have the funds to support it.’
If Tuition is increased I assure you that the $$ will go to keep classes from being eliminated, and professors / asst professors from being laid off. The idea that more $$ would be available for FA is just a pipe dream. What had you been smoking when you made such an absurd projection??? You clearly don’t understand how the UC system is funded. Your assumption is not based on reality, that’s for sure…</p>
<p>The last time UC tuition was raised, 1/3 of the increase was alloted to FA. You can look this up if you want, I don’t want to search for it again.</p>
<p>For anyone who knows, before the UCs were so generous with FA (Blue and Gold program, for example), did the UCs have trouble filling seats?</p>
<p>POIH, So don’t raise overall taxes - make the top 1% pay what they should. Make giant conglomerates pay the taxes they should (read about GE lately?) As one world renowned economist says, financial and tax systems set up by the rich for the rich have resulted in giving “the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.” </p>
<p>I love this discussion. It’s time we, the middle class, stood up for our schools, our ability for upward mobility, and the very infrastucture, now crumbling, that made America the land of opportunity in the 20th century. Because as things stand now, we have greater inequality in the US than in the 19th century. Progress indeed. Just not for the large percentage of the country.</p>
<p>So what’s the reality? You want to indicate that if taxes are increased the FA will improve. How come!</p>
<p>Reality is that you can only increase taxes to some extent but increasing tuition can provide you a much greater windfall.
Multiple reasons:
Taxes increase will be general and funds will be distributed to many programs and not just UCs.
There is a limit to what the taxes can be increased over what we have now.</p>
<p>Increasing taxes is equivalent to increasing tuition to $16K to $18K but if the tuition is increased to $24K then the additional increase can accomodate improved student services, improved class sizes, improved financial aid.</p>
<p>Which can not be accomplished by increasing taxes at any rate.</p>
<p>katliamom,
One of the reasons CA is in trouble is because it relies on the rich for 40% of its tax revenue. When the economy falters, the rich do too. CA is feeling that now.</p>
<p>Blue #82 Your using “only the best and the brightest” and than putting your meaning to it is like the local news! Distorted to fit your argument. That sentence was in context that the 6 UC needed a 3.8-3.9+ UC GPA-- 1900/28+ test score minimum (Unless an athlete, forget UCB/UCLA), if the student is from a middle class income zip-code. These students can no longer count on multiple admissions, in fact can only count on UCM and UCR maybe UCSC. Being UC elegible with a 3.0 from middle class income zip code would only gain acceptance in UCM. </p>
<p>As the post said UCSD/UCD/UCI/UCSB for middle class zip code High Schools need 3.8-3.9 UC GPA 1900/28+ test scores - boatloads of AP’s- 600plus SAT 2’s to even hope to get accepted to those campus’. These scores don’t even come close for UCB/UCLA; not going to happen even for most 4.4/2100+ kids- it all depends on how they compare within their own high school. Therefore, 3.0 kids who are admitted to any campus beside UCM are from an under performing high school and low income and or URM. No way a 3.6/1800/26 act kid from middle class zip codes gets into any of the 6 top UC’s unless a recruited athlete. And UCSC is going there too.</p>
<p>So either you are not a CA resident, or you have an issue with the UC’s, - But these are the current facts of UC admissions for anyone except URM, low income/under performing high school.</p>
<p>Best and the brightest = 3.0 UC acceptance? Never said it and you know it.</p>
<p>"One of the reasons CA is in trouble is because it relies on the rich for 40% of its tax revenue. "</p>
<p>Bay, could you provide a source? And if that’s the case, why are so many people on this thread upset? Are you implying they’re not paying enough taxes? Surely they’re not “the rich” that are supplying that tax revenue.</p>
<p>First, Jerry Brown isn’t asking to raise taxes, he is asking for an extension of current taxes that are due to expire.
I remember when Governor Gray Davis was the victim of a recall spurred by talk radio claiming that he was trying to triple the car registration fees, when he in fact was just advocating going back to the original tax that had been slashed in a time of budget surpluses (remember those?). That’s how we got Schwarzeneggar.</p>
<p>I’m not sure too many of us would want to be operated on by a doctor who got his/her degree online. Yes, our children will most likely take some part of their education online, but having done so myself (and taught online too), I can assure you it is not preferable unless you just want some units to finish off a degree or you are a professional looking for a promotion etc.</p>
<p>POIH, you clearly are having a hard time reading and understanding what others write. You wrote this:</p>
<p>"You want to indicate that if taxes are increased the FA will improve. " </p>
<p>after copying what I said , which was this:</p>
<p>"If Tuition is increased I assure you that the $$ will go to keep classes from being eliminated, and professors / asst professors from being laid off. The idea that more $$ would be available for FA is just a pipe dream. "</p>
<p>Like I said , NO WHERE did I say anything about raising TAXES, only TUITION . Nor did I " want to indicate that if taxes are increased the FA will improve". where do you get these ideas???
You are making assumptions about what others are saying, instead of CAREFULLY READING what they actually WRITE.
Do you not know the difference between how raising taxes and raising student fees[ i.e.tuition ] are accomplished? Because they are 2 completely different progresses.</p>
<p>UC regents did state that the last increases would not impact FA, that 1/3 would go directly back to FA to cover the increases. Therefore, these tuition increases directly impact mainly the middle class families, not the FA families and not the High income families. So High stat middle class families are being shut out of the UC’s. That’s what all the outrage is about.</p>
<p>But hey, I got mine, my kid will have his in 2012, so what do I care right? Well, I do care. This access to education for middle class families or lack of it is going to have a significant impact on the state. Increasingly the middle class can’t afford a house and can’t afford and/or have child accepted to University system, only the lowest rated CSU and CC, means middle class families will need to live and work in another state. Result? Rich/Poor and nothing in between, much like NYC. Good luck with that model.</p>
<p>kat,
I read it recently in either the LATimes or wsj, but I’m on my way out so the source will have to wait. I’m not implying that anyone is not paying enough taxes. I think we all should pay less taxes.</p>
<p>yes Bay , I saw it. The 2010 increase should not be used as a “set in stone” indication of how FUTURE fee increases will be structured. Not with the kind of budget shortfalls the UC’s are currently and are projected to encounter, despite the 2010 increase.</p>
<p>That’s true for every tuition increases both at public and private and that is the reason to indicate that “Full paying students at public or private subsidized Financial Aid”.</p>
<p>we are not talking just about the LAST increase. but about FUTURE increases. And I specifically was not talking about the past, as the fee increase in 2010 clearly did not solve the UC funding problems. Past increases are not a predictor of future events, not when the fiscal reality continues impose itself on Calif., and how that reality affects the UC system.</p>
<p>and you still have not acknowledged that you miss read my original post, and made incorrect assumptions about what I actually said.</p>