All this reinforces the fact that the most elite of UC’s campuses increasingly cater to the wealthy, whether from other American states or from foreign counties like China and Saudi Arabia which — rolling in cash — fund full tuition for many of their young citizens at UC. It’s not that in-state students are not already paying plenty, too. UC tuition has just about tripled over the last decade, increases topping 20 percent in some years. In terms of non-inflated money, in 1980 the value of a median-level California home would buy more than 200 years of UC education. By 2011, it bought only about 30 years… It’s an open question whether and when their parents’ displeasure over this will lead legislators to reduce budget support for UC even more than they already have. That’s why Napolitano & Co. must confront this entire issue, and soon.

Read full article [here].
by Thomas D. Elias, The Appeal Democrat.

Posted: November 29th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

The University of California’s decision to raise tuition generated much controversy. But the California State system could consider what by some measures is an even more radical plan as it struggles with budget constraints and increasing demand from freshmen and community college transfers. Rather than increasing tuition, Cal State has reduced enrollment targets for this fall. And trustees recently discussed the dark scenario of having to stop accepting freshmen.

Read full article [here].
by Carla Rivera, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 25th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

If you like politics, you had to savor the fight last week between Gov. Jerry Brown and UC President Janet Napolitano over tuition increases for the University of California system. It featured two savvy insiders, two governors and two very different views of the university’s future. The battle is far from over. But for now, there’s a clear victor: Napolitano… Yes, you can make a case that the victory is short-lived. You don’t defy a governor as powerful as Jerry Brown without risking payback.

Read full article [here].
by Scott Herhold, The San Jose Mercury News.

Posted: November 24th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

The governor could stick with his 4% raise, understanding that the tuition will increase under the regents’ plan, and accept this as a compromise solution that makes no one happy, especially not students. He could give in and let UC have everything it wants, remembering that much of the campaigning for his Proposition 30 tax increase was accomplished by college students who were led to believe funding would be restored to their schools. That scenario is about as likely as Brown deciding that the California bullet train is a bad idea. He could take revenge by eliminating any increase for UC, which would rightly make him appear petty and vindictive, willing to harm the young adults of this state, and lose academic talent to colleges elsewhere. Or the state can hope for something better from Brown, a recognition that although he’s the expert on cutting budgets, he’s not the voice of authority on what UC needs.

Read full article [here].
by The Editorial Board, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 23rd, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

If the University of California hikes its fees, defying the governor’s tuition freeze, students won’t be the only ones footing the bill. Taxpayers would likely end up paying an extra $45 million next year alone, and at least $250 million more annually by 2019 — for their share of the rising costs. As tuition soars, so does taxpayer-funded financial aid, becoming a larger — though often-overlooked — piece of the UC funding picture… While the state made nearly $1 billion in cuts to the UC system between 2008 and 2012, an analysis of student aid shows the state at the same time increased UC’s Cal Grant awards by nearly $400 million to help students cover their rapidly rising tuition bills.

Read full article [here].
by Katy Murphy, The San Jose Mercury News.

Posted: November 23rd, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

You are debating these proposed tuition increases for one simple reason: When Governor Jerry Brown took office he slashed higher ed. Even now, a few years into Governor Brown’s “modest funding increases,” he still spends less on UC and CSU than Arnold Schwarzenegger did his final year as governor. You should not be arguing how much to raise tuition, but how to mobilize the public support to restore the California Master Plan of low-cost high-quality higher education for all.

Read full article [here].
by Stanton Glantz, AlterNet.

Posted: November 19th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

A report this month by the Public Policy Institute of California says that UC’s tuition increases over the last 20 years are not the result of lavish spending. Institutional expenses, including salaries, have not risen substantially. Rather, the increases have resulted from a steady loss of state support. The governor’s response to UC’s funding proposal has not been helpful. Online courses can be a useful part of a student’s education, but when done right, they don’t save significant money… The [tuition] increases may be necessary to protect the university. But they are not an ideal solution. A better outcome would be for the state to fulfill its historic commitment to excellence and access so that tuition doesn’t have to be raised as much as Napolitano has proposed. Better funding for UC is a wise investment in the state’s future.

Read full article [here].
by The Editorial Board, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 17th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

It’s just common sense: If you’re trying to grab more money from university students and their parents, you should not be dramatically raising the pay of top brass. That’s just dumb PR, losing politics and really bad policy… Here’s another thing that rankles: UC officials note that only about 30% of undergrads from California pay full tuition. The rest receive some financial aid. And half pay nothing. Well, good for them. But those 30% full-payers are forking out more money to help the other 70%. If that’s state policy, all state taxpayers should be footing the bill.

Read full article [here].
by George Skelton, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 17th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

The proposal comes after Napolitano proposed raising tuition by up to 5% per year for five years for all students, including Californians. De Leon opposes the president’s plan and sees a larger increase for nonresidents as one alternative. Out-of-state students already pay about $23,000 annually on top of the in-state tuition of $12,192. They too would be hit with a 5% increase under the UC proposal. De Leon said that Virginia charged 17% more on the out-of-state premium and that California should follow that lead.

Read full article [here].
by Patrick McGreevy, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 13th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.

The report by the Institute for College Access & Success shows that 55% of students who graduated from California colleges had some debt and that it averaged $20,340, far below the national average of 69% of students who graduated with an average debt of $28,400. Only New Mexico produced a lower total loan average for its graduates. (The Institute and the College Board use different methodologies and factors in their surveys.) Strong financial aid in California, especially the Cal Grants, helped, as did the dominance of California public colleges and universities in enrolling more students than higher-priced private schools, according to Debbie Cochrane, the Institute’s research director. A proposal to increase UC tuition could affect future debt, she said.

Read full article [here].
by Larry Gordon, The Los Angeles Times.

Posted: November 13th, 2014, by: admin. Categories: . Awaiting Comments.