<p>
[quote]
Should an education at UC Berkeley cost more than one at UC Santa Cruz? Should a student pay $11,000 in tuition at UC Riverside while his friend is billed $16,000 at UCLA?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is ridiculous that our leaders have to even contemplate this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No its not. College is a product that is affected by supply and demand like any other. They know people will pay more for the “better” UCs and are trying to capitalize on it as sad as it sounds.</p>
<p>Also, UC professors don’t all get paid the same, and salaries affect tuition as well.</p>
<p>My original statement pertains mostly to the fact that the economy has driven our leaders to think of solutions such as these.</p>
<p>It’s obvious that this move can benefit the funding situation (and is somewhat logical). However, this will begin to change the dynamics and opportunities of student life at UCs other than UCLA/UCB/UCSD. I came from UC Irvine and was fortunate enough to have gotten equivalent perks (research fellowships, student amenities, etc.) as any other UC which is why I enjoyed my time and acquired experience that landed me admission to UCLA’s graduate school. Down the line, this could very well change. In addition, this will inhibit the growth of non-flagship schools. Elitist regimes might begin and ruin the job recruitment at these universities.</p>
<p>A better solution would be to charge higher tuition for majors (or classes) that are more resource-intensive. Engineering and science students who spend a lot of time working with costly lab equipment and materials are a hell of a lot more expensive to educate than your average north campus student, where the only significant expense is the salaries of the instructors. The way the current system works is that north campus majors literally subsidize pre-meds, ironic as that may seem.</p>