32% increase at California campuses

[Moliere]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125866378062556269.html

Not sure this is the best way to close a budget gap. I guess if you can't increase taxes you just increase fees. It's a sad day when college students are the ones paying for the grandiose pensions of public employees.

[statman]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125866378062556269.html

Not sure this is the best way to close a budget gap. I guess if you can't increase taxes you just increase fees. It's a sad day when college students are the ones paying for the grandiose pensions of public employees.

Except they new higher price is still HIGHLY subsidized by the CA tax payers. California is getting in line with most states on their in-state tuition costs. Utah is still VERY cheap. We'll see if it stays that way...

[Surfah]

My kids will be going to a JC for two years and transferring unless they are on scholarship.

[Uncle Ted]

Harvard is now less expensive than Cal State.

Top private schools, with their generous aid, have been among the most affordable options for poor students for a few years, but rising tuition has only recently sent California State University and University of California prices shooting past the Harvards and Yales for middle-class students.

The revelation comes as thousands of college and university students on Monday march to protest budget cuts in Sacramento that have forced up tuition and shaken campuses.

It's almost unthinkable in a state that once practically gave away college educations.

[...]

Consider a family of four -- married parents, a high-school senior and a 14-year-old child -- making $130,000 a year.

With typical aid,¿ the family should expect to pay nearly $24,000 for a Cal State freshman's tuition, on-campus room and board, supplies and other expenses. At Harvard? Just $17,000, even though its stated annual tuition is $36,305.

The same family would pay about $33,000 for a freshman year at UC Santa Cruz.

UC Berkeley, which recently followed the lead of private colleges by boosting aid for middle-class families, would cost $19,500.

[...]

Stanford University is spending twice as much on financial aid this year as it did in 2009, due in part to a 2008 decision to defray tuition costs for families making up to $200,000. A family making $130,000 would pay $25,900, while wealthier families pay nearly $57,000 a year.

Few schools have done more than Princeton University to discount prices for middle-class students. In 2001, it boosted scholarships and removed parents' home equity from the financial-aid equation.

Fewer than a quarter of Princeton students graduate with debt, according to U.S. News & World Report, the lowest number in the country. That compares to 40 percent at Cal State East Bay, 45 percent at San Jose State and 41 percent at UC Berkeley, says the Oakland-based Project on Student Debt.

[Paperback Writer]

Harvard is now less expensive than Cal State.

It does help one to appreciate the affordability of BYU and U. of Utah (for in state students). I expect that this will continue to pressure BYU acceptance rates because it is cheaper to attend BYU than State U.

[mUUser]

What's that, about 2X the U for instate tuition/fees?

We're gonna end up paying around $25k for our daughter's first year at Utah, plus room and board. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to gain state residency after one year, after which the costs plummet.

I wish Utah had a Legacy program like USU and every(?) other state university in Utah.

[Jacob]

Looks like its time for California to get out of the college racket and stop sending so many people to college.

What's the deal with all the unaccredited Law schools out there? Are they state schools or private? When their bar passage rate is below 50% its pretty clear that they need to cut enrollment by about 50%. Stop subsidizing is a good start.

[Paperback Writer]

What's that, about 2X the U for instate tuition/fees?

We're gonna end up paying around $25k for our daughter's first year at Utah, plus room and board. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to gain state residency after one year, after which the costs plummet.

I wish Utah had a Legacy program like USU and every(?) other state university in Utah.

Totally agree about the Legacy program. And I demand a generous one at that - like when the U was known as the University of Deseret. Most of my numerous uncles and aunts and all of my grandparents were/are U alumni. But my parents are BYU alumni as well as my spouse and I. So my kids have to go back three generations to get Legacy consideration for the U. There's a reason why we do genealogy.

Otherwise, a potential U student has to move to Utah and work while gaining Utah residency before enrolling. Why not just recruit/entice the student out of high school with legacy tuition credits?

Some states bordering Texas do just this. Because Texas flagship universities (Texas and Texas A&M) are so selective and because there's a large gap in other public universities; decent schools like OU, LSU, and Arkansas recruit Texas HS graduates with partial scholarships. These bordering universities have learned that they can get better students out of Texas than they can from their home states.

Admit that such a strategy will probably not be popular with Utah residents but may be popular with U. of Utah administrators. The university will get better students which will help with academic rankings. And they will have greater numbers of high achieving alumni.

That's one of my theories of why Texas has been successful compared to California. Texas has low taxes and is business friendly. They don't have the higher education system that California has; but they don't have the associated costs either. So many talented students go out-of-state for their college education which Texas doesn't have to pay for. After graduation, they return to Texas because that's where the jobs are and where family is. Same applies to non-Texans who earn their degrees from Utah, OU, LSU, etc (BYU for both Texans and non-Texans). They have difficulty finding employment in their home states and end up in Texas without Texas having to contribute to their higher education.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Looks like its time for California to get out of the college racket and stop sending so many people to college.

What's the deal with all the unaccredited Law schools out there? Are they state schools or private? When their bar passage rate is below 50% its pretty clear that they need to cut enrollment by about 50%. Stop subsidizing is a good start.

Not a single unaccredited school is public. Off the top of my head, UCLA, Cal, Hastings (a stand-alone UC law school in San Francisco) and Davis are the only public school law schools in California and I can guarantee that the California Bar passage rate is significantly better for people coming out of those schools.

The reality is that the unaccredited schools are gouging the poor suckers who think any law degree is a ticket to riches. And then many of these poor suckers end up not being able to pass the bar.

I've taken two bar exams -- one with a high passage rate and one with a low passage rate. The assumption was that the bar exam with the low passage rate was more difficult. My observation was that both exams had about the same level of difficulty, but the bar exam with the lower passage rate had a lot more dumbasses taking it. Bar exams, like most law school exams with an essay portion, aren't designed to be finished early. The bar exam with the lower passage rate had a lot of early finishers on the essay portion. The exam with the higher passage rate didn't have nearly as many. One state had a substantial number of BYU and Utah grads taking the exam (likely a big majority of the test takers) the other one had the spillover from California's many crappy accredited schools.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Totally agree about the Legacy program. And I demand a generous one at that - like when the U was known as the University of Deseret. Most of my numerous uncles and aunts and all of my grandparents were/are U alumni. But my parents are BYU alumni as well as my spouse and I. So my kids have to go back three generations to get Legacy consideration for the U. There's a reason why we do genealogy.

Otherwise, a potential U student has to move to Utah and work while gaining Utah residency before enrolling. Why not just recruit/entice the student out of high school with legacy tuition credits?

Some states bordering Texas do just this. Because Texas flagship universities (Texas and Texas A&M) are so selective and because there's a large gap in other public universities; decent schools like OU, LSU, and Arkansas recruit Texas HS graduates with partial scholarships. These bordering universities have learned that they can get better students out of Texas than they can from their home states.

Admit that such a strategy will probably not be popular with Utah residents but may be popular with U. of Utah administrators. The university will get better students which will help with academic rankings. And they will have greater numbers of high achieving alumni.

That's one of my theories of why Texas has been successful compared to California. Texas has low taxes and is business friendly. They don't have the higher education system that California has; but they don't have the associated costs either. So many talented students go out-of-state for their college education which Texas doesn't have to pay for. After graduation, they return to Texas because that's where the jobs are and where family is. Same applies to non-Texans who earn their degrees from Utah, OU, LSU, etc (BYU for both Texans and non-Texans). They have difficulty finding employment in their home states and end up in Texas without Texas having to contribute to their higher education.

There are a lot of things wrong with California, but it's UC system is not one of them. The Cal State system, perhaps, but not the UC system. California's world class universities have played a significant role in California being the center of technology and engineering that it currently is.

[Jacob]

The reality is that the unaccredited schools are gouging the poor suckers who think any law degree is a ticket to riches. And then many of these poor suckers end up not being able to pass the bar.

I've taken two bar exams -- one with a high passage rate and one with a low passage rate. The assumption was that the bar exam with the low passage rate was more difficult. My observation was that both exams had about the same level of difficulty, but the bar exam with the lower passage rate had a lot more dumbasses taking it.

This is all certainly true. The passage rate in California for BYU grads, for example, is right around 90%, IIRC, if not higher.

[Paperback Writer]

There are a lot of things wrong with California, but it's UC system is not one of them. The Cal State system, perhaps, but not the UC system. California's world class universities have played a significant role in California being the center of technology and engineering that it currently is.

I'm totally in agreement with you. My dad is a beneficiary (Phd from UCLA). And I don't see hardly any Californians in Texas (at least for the long haul). Although there is a cost of living differential due to cheaper real estate in Texas, California has a lot more to offer in many areas. As a parent of HS aged kids, I wish they had the higher education options in Texas that California enjoys with the UC system. Perhaps I was too praiseworthy of Texas in my post - I'm very critical of it as a parent. My kids have three affordable options for quality higher education: Texas, Texas A&M, and BYU. And BYU is the easiest to gain admittance. That's why I posted about the U. of Utah having a generous Legacy option so my kids would have another quality, affordable option.

I feel Texas has found some type of loophole when it comes to paying for higher education. They have three very strong employment centers: DFW, Houston, and Austin/SA. And haven't made the investment that California has made in higher education. But still Texas thrives because of their strong employment centers that attract out-of-state professionals as well as Texas HS students who accepted partial scholarship offers to OU, LSU, and Arkansas because there wasn't room for them at UT and A&M.

[Katy Lied]

The reality is that the unaccredited schools are gouging the poor suckers who think any law degree is a ticket to riches. And then many of these poor suckers end up not being able to pass the bar.

Who says you need to pass the bar any one of the four times you take it? You can still be rich and famous and USC will give you an honorary doctorate.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'm totally in agreement with you. My dad is a beneficiary (Phd from UCLA). And I don't see hardly any Californians in Texas (at least for the long haul). Although there is a cost of living differential due to cheaper real estate in Texas, California has a lot more to offer in many areas. As a parent of HS aged kids, I wish they had the higher education options in Texas that California enjoys with the UC system. Perhaps I was too praiseworthy of Texas in my post - I'm very critical of it as a parent. My kids have three affordable options for quality higher education: Texas, Texas A&M, and BYU. And BYU is the easiest to gain admittance. That's why I posted about the U. of Utah having a generous Legacy option so my kids would have another quality, affordable option.

I feel Texas has found some type of loophole when it comes to paying for higher education. They have three very strong employment centers: DFW, Houston, and Austin/SA. And haven't made the investment that California has made in higher education. But still Texas thrives because of their strong employment centers that attract out-of-state professionals as well as Texas HS students who accepted partial scholarship offers to OU, LSU, and Arkansas because there wasn't room for them at UT and A&M.

California found itself in a position like Texas is enjoying right now and it made the investment into education. It also invested in other things like hydroelectric power and massive aqueduct projects. Subsequent generations of Californians have continued to benefit from the vision of those Californians from about 100 years ago.

But the current crop of Californians leave much to be desired. The entrenched interests would make it impossible to do what California did 100 years ago. Hell, they can't even get a decent football stadium built in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

[Paperback Writer]

California found itself in a position like Texas is enjoying right now and it made the investment into education. It also invested in other things like hydroelectric power and massive aqueduct projects. Subsequent generations of Californians have continued to benefit from the vision of those Californians from about 100 years ago.

But the current crop of Californians leave much to be desired. The entrenched interests would make it impossible to do what California did 100 years ago. Hell, they can't even get a decent football stadium built in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

Sorry about the misplaced priorities of California in respect to football stadiums. That doesn't seem to be a problem in Texas. Jerry Jones brought Cowboy stadium to Arlington. I've heard Relient Stadium in Houston is a good venue but have yet to visit it. UT, A&M, Baylor, and TCU (probably others) have made improvements and renovations to their stadiums. My community will soon finish a 60+ million 18K capacity stadium for the high school. There's even a NFL stadium, the Alamodome in SA, that doesn't have an NFL team.