<p>“Why would you cut any UC? Students pay tuition, which adds to state revenue which raises the budget for federal funding for these schools.”
We must also look at the overall cost of supporting a student at a UC. On average, the University earns less money per student than it spends. This is because students who are receiving financial aid are paying less (or no) tuition. The University is supporting these students with their own and the state’s money. Although you are right to say more students increase state revenue, we must also acknowledge that more students increases the University’s and state’s expenses. And in this case, the expenses are outweighing the revenues, UCs are already having a problem supporting their current students.</p>
<p>Less people in these schools equals overcrowding in other schools
Less people in these schools does not necessarily equate to overcrowding in other schools. If the # of students enrolled is simply lowered, there will be no overcrowding.</p>
<p>“which equals less people IN school, which equals less people graduating, which equals less candidates jobs in LA, which equals less state revenue, which equals bad economy.”
Yes less people will be “in” school which does mean a loss of potential future canidates. However, if we just pack more students in classrooms, the educational opportunities for each student diminishes. Although we may have a lot of future graduates, if they are lacking a strong educational background, they will be unable to perform successfully in the “candidates jobs in LA.” Which is better? A few qualified students, or tons of incompetent students building bridges, designing security, running government, etc. You decide, it’s clear for me. </p>
<p>**Not to mention cutting teachers is out of the question with the strength of the unions. **
The teachers are already receiving a huge pay cut and many are leaving to take post in other institutions. The unions have little say in this situation.</p>
<p>“For most people (who are not top of class) education is simply education no matter where it comes from. These are not Ivy’s guys, they are public institutions for the PUBLIC, not for the elite who want to be seperated from other schools in a meaningless (bias) ranking system.”
The CSU’s offer a great education for the public. However, the UCs are like our Ivies. Berkeley and LA, no doubt, are ivies. Their graduate, PhD, and research programs are some of the best in the world. Schools like Berkeley and LA are for the elite. The other mid-upper UCs are better than a great majority of colleges throughout the United States, they house an incredible amount of talented students.</p>
<p>“Who would benefit from a tier system? Who would implement it? How much would it cost? Where is the money coming from?”
Mark Yudof would implement it and the upper UCs would benefit far more than the lower UCs. If one or two UC campuses were cut, the situation for all the other UCs would vastly improve. The money would be coming from the same source as it is coming from now.</p>
<p>“Berkeley cant lobby to become an Ivy, so whats the big debate about? Another seperate ivy system in California?”
Berkeley doesn’t have to lobby for anything. Stanford wrote to USNWR berating it for ranking Berkeley in the 20s. Despite being a public institution, the dean considers the school to be of the same caliber as it’s colleagues in the Ivy league. CSU’s are also a public system in California. UCs are our research universities, they are our ivies, and we need to pacify their current suffering.</p>