32% increase at California campuses

[byu71]

Maybe it would work - CA prisons are very crowded.

From what I understand, the massive prison population is one of the results of "three strikes and you're out" legislation that was pushed heavily in the 90s (supported by, surprise, the prison-guards union), as well as various prisoners-rights challenges to living conditions (health-care, dental care, occupational & physical therapy, etc.). Plus, guards are well compensated.

For those who think it is a shame to have so many people in prison, what is the alternative.

Almost nightly on the news they report on some crime and often, very often, the perpetrator has a rap sheet a mile long. I sit and wonder how this guy is on the streets. A lot of time the rap sheet involves drugs and so does the new crime. It isn't petty either, someone shot.

[Omaha 680]

More on FixUC

Milton Friedman advocated something similar decades ago to replace what he saw as the unsustainable government financing of education and related price inflation. His model was of course a private system of loans and repayment with percentages of future income agreed upon beforehand.

This public version is a huge step in the right direction, although I do not agree with exempting anyone from repayment.

[Mormon Red Death]

I like the FixUC proposal but it does have some glaring issues to resolve.

- What about those who would have recieved full scholarship or actually have the money to pay for college? Do they still have to pay 5% for 20 years? For the big money sports this would some unintended consequences. Say you are 1st round draft pick for CAL why not just not finish your last semester until after you football days are through (or even get the degree at all).

- Higher paying professions such as Docs and Dentists make out very well. A capped 10k a year is less than half what these professions would pay for a loan of 250k for 20 years @ 5%.

How does the amount work tax wise? do they get a deduction on their taxes?

[Paperback Writer]

I like the FixUC proposal but it does have some glaring issues to resolve.

- What about those who would have recieved full scholarship or actually have the money to pay for college? Do they still have to pay 5% for 20 years? For the big money sports this would some unintended consequences. Say you are 1st round draft pick for CAL why not just not finish your last semester until after you football days are through (or even get the degree at all).

- Higher paying professions such as Docs and Dentists make out very well. A capped 10k a year is less than half what these professions would pay for a loan of 250k for 20 years @ 5%.

How does the amount work tax wise? do they get a deduction on their taxes?

I'm sure there are details to work out. USC and Stanford have to like this being private universities. Take the 4.0 student with a high SAT score. They will have the option of a full-ride at USC or the pay 5% at UCLA upon graduation. Or the 5-star football recruit who has a full-ride at Stanford or pay 5% to Cal Berkeley upon graduation.

As for the high paying professionals, does the 5% rule apply to Medical, Dental, MBA, Law schools? As far as the higher paying professionals getting a break because of the 10K cap, what would these people be paying right now for an undergraduate degree? Assume the student cost of $25K per year; that would be 100K for 4 years (not 250K). Under the 10K cap rule, they would be paying back twice that - 200K. If the 5% plan includes graduate and professional schools, then it's a steal since graduate tuition is usually 2-3 times that of undergraduate tuition.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm sure there are details to work out. USC and Stanford have to like this being private universities. Take the 4.0 student with a high SAT score. They will have the option of a full-ride at USC or the pay 5% at UCLA upon graduation. Or the 5-star football recruit who has a full-ride at Stanford or pay 5% to Cal Berkeley upon graduation.

Or would this 4.0 student with the high SAT score rather go to San Jose State over Harvard?

Public universities in California may have been dethroned as being cheaper than private schools for middle-income students. According to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, schools like Harvard and Princeton provide a cheaper alternative to schools like San Jose State and University of California, Berkeley.

Let's see, SJS costs more upfront with tuition/expenses and then could cost another 5% on the backend? Good luck with that.

California needs to get aggressive about cutting spending for other programs other than education and increasing their tax revenue without increasing the tax rates. e.g. figure out how to attract more companies to the state instead of pushing them to move to Texas. We are more than happy to take California's companies but, the next thing you know, LA Ute will be picking up his family and moving here. We can't have that. So please get your problems fixed over there on the left coast.

[Tim]

Or would this 4.0 student with the high SAT score rather go to San Jose State over Harvard?



Let's see, SJS costs more upfront with tuition/expenses and then could cost another 5% on the backend? Good luck with that.

California needs to get aggressive about cutting spending for other programs other than education and increasing their tax revenue without increasing the tax rates. e.g. figure out how to attract more companies to the state instead of pushing them to move to Texas. We are more than happy to take California's companies but, the next thing you know, LA Ute will be picking up his family and moving here. We can't have that. So please get your problems fixed over there on the left coast.

What up-front charges? The proposed system doesn't include any up-front payments for tuition or fees, etc.

[edward777]

I suppose in the Clinton/Bush/Obama era of America's post-industrial economy young people could always get jobs in:

1) Stripping

2) Porn

3) The US Military

[Uncle Ted]

What up-front charges? The proposed system doesn't include any up-front payments for tuition or fees, etc.

5% would not be enough. The average college grad with a bachelor's or more earns $1.8 million in their lifetime...



5% would be $90,000. UC Santa Cruz is $33,000 per year and that is only considering present value. 5% is not going to cut it and there would be upfront costs (e.g. room and board). I am guessing that colleges that did something like this would seriously consider cutting majors that have lower lifetime earning potential rather than face a financial deficit in the future. Students in these majors may need to apply somewhere else. On the other hand, students that are in majors that have a higher lifetime earning potential would most likely go somewhere else as well (like the private schools mentioned in the article) and just get a standard student loan rather than subsidize these students in low earning potential majors.

Maybe the government should address the real issue of rising tuition costs by using basic economic principles instead of making the problem worse. For example, build more low cost community colleges (create competition and increase supply) rather than providing more government subsidized grants and loans (increasing demand and making "for profit" schools rich).