Are you saying gray davis wouldnt have raised tuition?
hmmmmm
UC tuitions going up
- Thread starter Jalby
- Start date
Are you saying gray davis wouldnt have raised tuition?
hmmmmm
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
Its doubtful that Davis would have been able to even if HE had personally wanted to. The democrat's constituency wouldnt support a 40% hike (maybe 5% or so). Remember though, dems would have kept the auto tax around, and would probably have changed some of the taxes around, in addition to cuts in non-social services
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2000
- Messages
- 1,740
- Reaction score
- 22
Originally posted by MDTom
... and to think that when I graduate this coming May from undergrad, I will have the terminator's signature on my college diploma... *sigh* ... at least it will make for an interesting story to tell my kids.
Hahaha... I know! When that finally occured to me, I was out having dinner w/ my hubby and I nearly choked on my food, I was laughing so hard. Eight years I've been working on my undergrad diploma, only to have it signed by a body-builder who's claim to fame includes "Kindergarden Cop" and the line, "I'll be baaaack." Figures.
Nanon
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by scota
Oh crap, the gov. signs cali. diplomas?! I didn't know that! Now I'm even
i consider a 6yr plan
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,261
- Reaction score
- 4
So, I suppose my Diploma will be worth something in the end...
Queue the korny laughing
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 1
I couldn't find it either, weird. I could SWEAR it was just about Baylor. The article didn't make we wonder what would happen at UT-Houston. I even had a conversation with my mom about it and what a huge percentage cut they were getting. Or maybe it said all schools were getting cut, but then when on to mention the 60% or whatever large number it was at Baylor. Wait, maybe they were 60% of Baylor's funding previously and it went down to 30%. Was it something like that? Something about Baylor was big in that article. I was very interested since I hadn't pulled myself off the waitlist yet. As a TX resident, you should be fine Gleevec, its the out of staters who would probably get hurt first.
I already stated we're getting a tuition increase which the students helped decide where the extra money would go (at my school anyways.)
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2003
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 0
the car tax wouldn't have solved the problem. Also didn't it increase registration renewal fees a sh*tload which you have to do every year. In the end something has to give and compromises have to be made. If the state is going to get back on track stuff has to change. I guess we could ignore the problem and see what happens but I'm graduating from a UC and no UC med school will touch me so I don't care. Oh well
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
I am almost positive the article was about all schools. Baylor's funding was going to get cut a bit more than the publics (since its private), while the publics were going to have significant (but relatively lesser) cuts as well. I dont recall those percentages at all, so I cant speak either way about that.
I hope you're right seaworthc. I know Baylor gives like 4k scholarships to out of state students and full rides for urms, so Id hope that some of that would be lowered so Baylor could still give in-state tuition to residents.
But yeah, its weird, I cant seem to find that article anywhere, all I remember was that it was in the Houston Chronicle. I dont have a subscription, so I cant search their archives for it.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,261
- Reaction score
- 4
Straight from the A**es mouth as of today:
Regarding the UC system and Professional Schools:
The governor's proposal also contains a long-term policy goal that academic graduate students ultimately pay 50 percent more in fees than undergraduates.
- Professional school fees: The governor's budget proposes that state support for the operation of most professional schools be reduced by an average of 25 percent, and that student fees fill the gap. Specific figures would vary, but for medicine, law and business administration, for instance, the fee increase would be roughly $5,000 -- without any provision for financial aid, which UC considers a high priority. The Schwarzenegger Administration exempted nursing from its proposal.
All I have to say is WTF!!!
What to do you think your doing Ahnuld??? Leave education the F*ck alone!
Regarding the UC system and Professional Schools:
The governor's proposal also contains a long-term policy goal that academic graduate students ultimately pay 50 percent more in fees than undergraduates.
- Professional school fees: The governor's budget proposes that state support for the operation of most professional schools be reduced by an average of 25 percent, and that student fees fill the gap. Specific figures would vary, but for medicine, law and business administration, for instance, the fee increase would be roughly $5,000 -- without any provision for financial aid, which UC considers a high priority. The Schwarzenegger Administration exempted nursing from its proposal.
All I have to say is WTF!!!
What to do you think your doing Ahnuld??? Leave education the F*ck alone!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by Nanon
Hahaha... I know! When that finally occured to me, I was out having dinner w/ my hubby and I nearly choked on my food, I was laughing so hard. Eight years I've been working on my undergrad diploma, only to have it signed by a body-builder who's claim to fame includes "Kindergarden Cop" and the line, "I'll be baaaack." Figures.
Nanon
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 1
This is probably the first time since the "Dubya" fiasco that I've felt totally screwed by the electory process.
First, it was a unified Republican South and a split rest of the country that put Bush in office, despite the fact that Californians overwhelmingly voted for Gore.
Now it is the Terminator. Northern Californians overwhelmingly voted against the recall, but the more populous, (and more wealthy and therefore Republican) Southern California voted for Arnie. The result? Higher tuitions, and the loss of outreach programs for the UC.
Don't forget about this. The UC has many outreach programs that reach out to underserved populations (especially those in the Central Valley). Without these, a lot of people will fall through the cracks, something that is very unfortunate.
I'll tell you one thing, I bet he won't be re-elected.
First, it was a unified Republican South and a split rest of the country that put Bush in office, despite the fact that Californians overwhelmingly voted for Gore.
Now it is the Terminator. Northern Californians overwhelmingly voted against the recall, but the more populous, (and more wealthy and therefore Republican) Southern California voted for Arnie. The result? Higher tuitions, and the loss of outreach programs for the UC.
Don't forget about this. The UC has many outreach programs that reach out to underserved populations (especially those in the Central Valley). Without these, a lot of people will fall through the cracks, something that is very unfortunate.
I'll tell you one thing, I bet he won't be re-elected.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, Los Angeles residents overwhelmingly voted against the recall. SF and LA (the only two places I'd consider living in ) voted against the recall. Even 45% of hispanics voted for him! For shame...
P.S. if we hadn't repealed the car tax, the state would have an additional $4 billion! And arnold pledged to be "for the children." College students are like children, only bigger.
) voted against the recall. Even 45% of hispanics voted for him! For shame...P.S. if we hadn't repealed the car tax, the state would have an additional $4 billion! And arnold pledged to be "for the children." College students are like children, only bigger
.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 1
I find it hard to believe that every other county voted for the recall. I don't have the data, but I remember reading that Northern Californians voted (percentage-wise) against the recall, and Southern Californians (as a whole) voted for the recall. How else could he have gotten 54% of the vote if only two counties voted for it?
Originally posted by scota
Actually, Los Angeles residents overwhelmingly voted against the recall. SF and LA (the only two places I'd consider living in
P.S. if we hadn't repealed the car tax, the state would have an additional $4 billion! And arnold pledged to be "for the children." College students are like children, only bigger
I dont think LA was overwhelming. I belive it was like 53% anti recall, not exactly overwhelming.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know what data you guys saw, but I heard SF was 80% against the recall, and LA was rougly 75% against the recall! I believe all other counties were for the recall. By the way, I heard this on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2003_special/recall_question.pdf
51% AGAINST recall in LA
better than I thought myself.
check your sources.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 1
Just like I thought...whoever said that "only two counties voted to keep Davis" was full of it.
I counted *15* counties that voted against the recall, out of 58 counties. This is a larger number than I thought, but it still shows that the majority of Californian counties (equally distributed from North to South, I stand corrected ) voted for Arnie.
I hope these people have a lot of kids going to a UC so that they have to suffer for their voting choices.
I counted *15* counties that voted against the recall, out of 58 counties. This is a larger number than I thought, but it still shows that the majority of Californian counties (equally distributed from North to South, I stand corrected
) voted for Arnie.I hope these people have a lot of kids going to a UC so that they have to suffer for their voting choices.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,218
- Reaction score
- 2
I haven't been reading SDN for the last couple days as I was away at an interview. I too am really angry about what is going on and am proud be to a San Francisco voter who voted NO on the recall madness and did not "Join Arnold." But I must say that I had a feeling these hikes were coming. I work for the state in Sacramento right now and the last few weeks have been a time of high anxiety to see exactly what the cuts will be.
But it has been well known that higher ed would take a huge cut. The reason the cuts are coming primarily out of higher education, social services, and health care is that those areas, along with prisons, are the few areas that Arnold and the legislature can cut. Nearly 2/3 of the budget must go to K-12 education as mandated by Prop 98 (1988). And the state is giving schools that $ to replace the $ lost from property taxes when Prop 13 went into place. Add to that all the other numerous ballot initiatives that tie up funding and well over 70% of the budget that cannot be touched (Schrag, Sac Bee, 9/18/02).
I think little will really change until someone takes the initiative to look at the structural problems inherent in the state's finances and make some very unpopular suggestions. It doesn't look like this governor (or legislature for that matter) is going to be the one to do it.
I was at the Capitol for the higher ed committee hearings in Senate on the elimination of outreach programs for UC's and CSU's and A LOT of people turned out to voice their concerns and disapproval. It was very cool to see that. The head of the higher education budget committee is Jack Scott (D-Pasadena), a former president of Pasadena City College. He is on our side on this one and gets what these cuts are doing to the university system.
So I think we need to make some noise. Call/email/fax your state Senators and Assembly members and tell them how you feel about this (see below). And it would be great to see some professional students and future med students turn out for the committee hearings. I'd be more than willing to go and to meet up with anyone else who is interested. Are any campus groups out there planning stuff to do?
Here are some links if people want to learn more about this stuff:
Find your assembly member:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
Find your senator:
http://www.sen.ca.gov/
www.cbp.org (great group that does independent budget analysis)
But it has been well known that higher ed would take a huge cut. The reason the cuts are coming primarily out of higher education, social services, and health care is that those areas, along with prisons, are the few areas that Arnold and the legislature can cut. Nearly 2/3 of the budget must go to K-12 education as mandated by Prop 98 (1988). And the state is giving schools that $ to replace the $ lost from property taxes when Prop 13 went into place. Add to that all the other numerous ballot initiatives that tie up funding and well over 70% of the budget that cannot be touched (Schrag, Sac Bee, 9/18/02).
I think little will really change until someone takes the initiative to look at the structural problems inherent in the state's finances and make some very unpopular suggestions. It doesn't look like this governor (or legislature for that matter) is going to be the one to do it.
I was at the Capitol for the higher ed committee hearings in Senate on the elimination of outreach programs for UC's and CSU's and A LOT of people turned out to voice their concerns and disapproval. It was very cool to see that. The head of the higher education budget committee is Jack Scott (D-Pasadena), a former president of Pasadena City College. He is on our side on this one and gets what these cuts are doing to the university system.
So I think we need to make some noise. Call/email/fax your state Senators and Assembly members and tell them how you feel about this (see below). And it would be great to see some professional students and future med students turn out for the committee hearings. I'd be more than willing to go and to meet up with anyone else who is interested. Are any campus groups out there planning stuff to do?
Here are some links if people want to learn more about this stuff:
Find your assembly member:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
Find your senator:
http://www.sen.ca.gov/
www.cbp.org (great group that does independent budget analysis)
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
Whatever. The price to go to a UC was going up before Arnold came into office. I'm glad that Davis is gone. He tried to pander to the latinos by allowing the illegals to have liscenses. He created the deficit that the state of CA is in. He tripled the car tax. But of course all that doesn't matter until it affects your medical school tuition.Originally posted by UCSBPre-Med1
Just like I thought...whoever said that "only two counties voted to keep Davis" was full of it.
I counted *15* counties that voted against the recall, out of 58 counties. This is a larger number than I thought, but it still shows that the majority of Californian counties (equally distributed from North to South, I stand corrected
I hope these people have a lot of kids going to a UC so that they have to suffer for their voting choices.
Davis was overall a bad governor and the majority of Californians realized this.I'm glad they're raising the tuition particularly for medical students at UCs. They already pay outrageously low tuition compared to private schools, and people are getting mad because instead of 10K a year they have to pay 20K? Ridiculous. People at private schools are paying 35K and UC med students would still have it easy at 20K. Selfish fools.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by Insert
Whatever. The price to go to a UC was going up before Arnold came into office. I'm glad that Davis is gone. He tried to pander to the latinos by allowing the illegals to have liscenses. He created the deficit that the state of CA is in. He tripled the car tax. But of course all that doesn't matter until it affects your medical school tuition.
I'm glad they're raising the tuition particularly for medical students at UCs. They already pay outrageously low tuition compared to private schools, and people are getting mad because instead of 10K a year they have to pay 20K? Ridiculous. People at private schools are paying 35K and UC med students would still have it easy at 20K. Selfish fools.
First of all, many of the problems (the energy crisis in particular) California faces were problems even before Davis was elected! That is, our buddy Pete was responsible for some of those problems. Second, who are you to say that it ONLY becomes a concern to us when UC med school tuition is going up? And finally, the UCs were created so that ALL Californians can have access to them! Private schools are more expensive for obvious reasons. It is foolish of you to compare a UC to a private school. By the way, did the UCs reject you? You sound a little bitter...
I'm more of a democrat, but what you all do not realize is that UC tuition was going to take a hit sooner or later, whether Arnold or Davis was in office. (off the topic, but do you realize now it's cheaper to go to baylor than a UC?) Anyway, everyone is going to have to share the burden. Who's spared by the property tax redistribution? All of us will lose local funding to cops, roads, libraries, fire hoses, teachers. If he increased taxes, we will complain when we are rich doctors that we have to pay more taxes. No one is at fault except ourselves, so stop blaming the govt. Everyone's gotta work harder, vote more judiciously, and complain less. Let's just hope that the economy gets better and so everyone will have a better life. And we are complaining about paying public school tuition to be doctors when kids in middle east are complaining about getting blasted by bombs!!! Share the "burden" and we will eventually get out of all this.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,209
- Reaction score
- 0
A 3-5 % increase in tuition happens every year at most US colleges. Both undergrad and grad. However a jump like 10% or 44% CANNOT be compared to that.
If say UCLA gets a 44% increase in it's grad schools tuition and after that a 10% increase annually, it will just be a matter of years before the tuition for professional schools at UCLA becomes equal to that of Stanford.
I think what is shocking is the tuition increase at Cal State.
In any case the problem that i see is this. Arnold says that if he raised taxes for people who make more than 250,000 a year that would *ONLY* bring in close to 2 billion dollars. However he is trying to cut money right and left from Medi-Cal and the 2 California university systems.
Apart from that he is targetting financial aid also. Furthermore look what he tried to do last month with assistance to the mentaly disabled people and then went back and said "oh it was a mistake".
CA did have problems yes. But he is doing *NOTHING* other than targeting the middle class and low income families. He is destroying the future of thousands of kids. I guess he needs more people to clean the interior of his Hummer fleet with Neimans brushes.
If say UCLA gets a 44% increase in it's grad schools tuition and after that a 10% increase annually, it will just be a matter of years before the tuition for professional schools at UCLA becomes equal to that of Stanford.
I think what is shocking is the tuition increase at Cal State.
In any case the problem that i see is this. Arnold says that if he raised taxes for people who make more than 250,000 a year that would *ONLY* bring in close to 2 billion dollars. However he is trying to cut money right and left from Medi-Cal and the 2 California university systems.
Apart from that he is targetting financial aid also. Furthermore look what he tried to do last month with assistance to the mentaly disabled people and then went back and said "oh it was a mistake".
CA did have problems yes. But he is doing *NOTHING* other than targeting the middle class and low income families. He is destroying the future of thousands of kids. I guess he needs more people to clean the interior of his Hummer fleet with Neimans brushes.
what you guys dont realize is that California state school tuitions hadn't risen in like 10 years!! Even after the tuition raises CA schools are still way more affordable than most other state schools. Its all about perspective my friend.
Yes, 40% is a lot, but 40% of $1,500 still isnt that much for a semester of tuition. comon now!
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,062
- Reaction score
- 1
Interesting discussion...
And BTW, if anyone were to blame, it'll be the advisor team around Arnold. You guys can't possibly expect Arnold to know what the word "tuition" mean, do ya?
I'm curious as to the Out-of-State tuition for UC Med Schools next year, cause if it's getting closer and closer to private schools, then I may as well goto a private school.
And BTW, if anyone were to blame, it'll be the advisor team around Arnold. You guys can't possibly expect Arnold to know what the word "tuition" mean, do ya?
I'm curious as to the Out-of-State tuition for UC Med Schools next year, cause if it's getting closer and closer to private schools, then I may as well goto a private school.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont think that UCLA will be that much of a bargain anymore when you compare it to a private school where the cost of living is lower. Right now UCLA estimates that 1st year will cost $40,000. With 40% increase the budget would be for $49,000. On top of this, I suspect that as a public school UCLA or UCSF or any other UC will not be able to offer the same kind of programs that a private school can.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
I think that is a demeaning statement. To call other people "selfish fools" simply because they want lower public education costs is mean. What have we done to you? You attack our character simply on a bunch of posts that support education.
selfish: Concerned chiefly or only with oneself
First of all, I don't think that we are necessarily being selfish by wanting lower tuition. Lower education costs means that people can more easily pay for their education bills if they enter a UC. Not everyone can or is willing to pay 35k. That's what public education is for. Of course you could argue the merits of publicly-funded schools, but that's another topic on its own. In the end, the public's taxes are helping to train another generation of doctors.
I do care about my family. I help to take care of my siblings and of course I do my chores. I loved my hamster... when she got ill, I did everything I could for her. To call me selfish was a very hurtful thing to say.
fool: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding
Second of all, I don't think we are fools. Or at least, from what I know. How is it foolish to desire lower tuition? I'd rather pay higher taxes than tuition. I don't want to become a doctor because of the money, so taxes later aren't going to be a big deal. I know people who live on 20-30k a year and they tell me they are perfectly fine. In fact, in some ways, I'm jealous that they are so happy and they studied relativy little.
I think I have qualities that prevent me from being a fool. I do have "understanding". I study just fine, and when I debated in school, I was never criticized for being illogical. At the hopsital where I volunteer, I can relate with the patients who are undergoing treatment.
Please don't name-call. I think it is really mean. It really hurt me when you called me a "selfish fool" when I demonstrate qualities that keep me from being a "selfish fool".
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2002
- Messages
- 3,848
- Reaction score
- 3
of course i expect him to know what the word tuition means. he is our GOVERNOR after all. it is really pathetic that we are not concerned enough about electing highly intelligent politicians in this country. i read some poll once saying most people want a president of average intelligence rather than one of high intelligence. how stupid can we get??!
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
I am talking about medical school. Every med student wants to pay less. Unfortunately, not everyone makes a public or UC school. In fact, lots of overqualified people get rejected from UCs every year. These people end up having to go to a private school to pay 35K, while the "lucky" people go to a UC and pay 10K.
Then, in order to help out the CA ecomony, when the governor is raising the UC med school tuition from 10K to 20K, the UC med students get mad and raise hell calling for people to take him out. THAT'S SELFISH. You would still be paying 15K less than those poor people who go to private med schools. Do you think we wanted to go to a private school? Some people end up owing 200K debt while you UC med students owe far less.
So please, don't give me this nonsense about not everyone is willing to pay 35K. You were lucky to make a UC med school and now that you're arguing about a raise in your tuition that still is far less than a private school's tuition, IT IS BEING SELFISH.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
First of all, where did you get this $1500 number. For professional/grad schools, the costs are significantly higher (like the 15-16k range as others have stated). Secondly, 40% of 16k is quite a bit. Thirdly, yes you might be able to absorb such a tuition increase (as you are obviously a Republican, which is made evident by your posts and the fact that you consider several thousand dollars to be trivial-- a fact that is lost on millions of American lower class and middle-lower class families), but others would not.
Finally, Cali schools are more expensive than many of their counterparts after this increase-- this is for both ugrad and grad. And remember, this tuition increase isnt going towards improvement of these schools. This increase is covering the pullout of the state govt, so more than likely, you will see things get WORSE at UCs in terms of funding.
Depending on to what degree California maintains a lower level of funding of its public schools, it might not be long (in relative terms, a couple decades at most) before the UC's lose their reputation due to lack of funding. So the effects of this are not only short-term for tuition, but long-term in regards to the commitment the state has towards its education system.
The UC's rose to prominence as liberal govts constantly pumped money into them, and it paid off with Silicon Valley being located there. Now that conservatism has taken over large parts of Cali, I seriously doubt that the education system will be maintained. You might only see the effects in your wallet now, but they will be more pervasive and drastic than most expect.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
First off, you sound like someone from Cali who got rejected from all the in-state public schools and holds a vendetta, and for that I'm sorry. Secondly, its not selfish to want lower tuition, its simply wanting what was there previously. There is a reason they are called UC public schools, because they are state supported and afford public tuition rates to those that attend the schools.
Frankly, you sound like you're venting rather than making an even remotely logical argument. People choose med schools all the time based on cost, does that mean they are all being selfish? No way. I'm sorry you seem to hold a grudge, but its not constructive to go around calling people selfish for wanting to pay less tuition while rich mofos go around buying new SUVs without a state tax. If anything, Arnold is the most selfish man in California, and I think we will see this CLEARLY once the bond proposal fails and he is forced to show his hand.
I also enjoy how you guys replaced Davis with Arnold, yet they both submit almost the EXACT SAME PLAN (with the exception of the education and healthcare cuts, which were much milder in Davis' budget due to taxes elsewhere). Good job!
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
If you read my post, I am not calling them selfish because they want a lower tuition. I am calling them selfish for crying, complaining, blaming Arnold, and calling for his ousting, when really their tuition will still be significantly less then those who go to private schools. Please, read my statements before you try to knock them because it only makes you look dumb.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2002
- Messages
- 3,848
- Reaction score
- 3
the thing is... it SHOULD be less than tuition at private schools. i have been a california resident for 28 years, and my parents and i have both paid a lot of taxes. i guess we wrongly assumed that this tax money could be paid back to us in a way by going to a state school. i went to private schools for both undergrad and grad school, and now when i finally decide to go to a uc, the tuition is slowly approaching private school levels. i guess it is just bad timing for me.
education should be something that people of all socioeconomic statuses have access to. it is really sad that some politicians don't seem to feel that way.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
Uhhh, whats the difference between:
1. wanting lower tuition
2. complaining about higher tuition (even though its less then private schools)
How is it SELFISH to blame the governor for increasing tuition? It might be misguided, it might be erroneous, or it might be accurate. Its not selfish, please learn the definition of selfish before using it incorrectly (www.m-w.com should be helpful in this)
Also you say "I am not calling them selfish because they want a lower tuition" but "really their tuition will still be significantly less then those who go to private schools." These statements are contradictory. Either you are whining about people wanting lower tuition (relative to private schools) or not-- which is it?
Basically, you still are making no sense. Everyone else in this thread is just as perplexed by your convoluted logic. And the fact is, it is Arnold's fault. He promised during the campaign not to touch education, and look at one of the first things he did. I hope you enjoy the lack of car tax...
And let me ask you, are you a Cali resident that got rejected from all the UCs and was forced to goto a private school? You have a ridiculous amount of animosity on this subject, which I can only attribute to that.
Graduate students pay the same amount as undergrads. How do I know? I went to Cal for grad school and just graduated. Professional students are a minority of the group. My tuition was $1,500 a semester, $3,000 total. Are you going to tell me that tuition (now $5,000) after the hikes is insane? I dont know what state you live in, but I think $5K a year to go to a top public graduate program isnt too shabby. It's also quite convenient for you to apply the 40% (which was the maximum mind you) to the highest tuition, which is for professional schools. We don't know what the increase will be for profssional schools but I can all but insure that the tuition increases will be inversely proportional to the original tuition.
Are you saying that everyone that can afford the tuition is a republican? thats the most asinine comment i've ever heard. I loaned/worked my way through graduate school and will loan my way through medical school. A couple thousand here and there wont change that.
Again, undergrad and non-professional graduate programs at UC's will be around 5k in tuition a year. Give me another public university of the UC caliber that has a lower tuition. Do you even LIVE in california??
If you dont recall, the last two term Governor was Pete Wilson, a Republican. It was under his administration that the UC's fixed their tuition which led directly to the boom in the UC's reputation. I hardly think it was a "liberal" goverment that, to quote arnold, "pumped up the UCs"
I really think you should stop trying to turn this tuition hike issue into a huge political argument while intentionally misleading the SDN community. Noone likes tuition increases, but nothing is for free and inflation is a fact of life. Instead of paying for it gradually over the last eight or so years, we had to pay it in one large increase. I wasn't particularly happy when I got an additional bill for 300 or so dollars during my final year at cal because Gray Davis raised tuition. That 300 dollars was a 15% increase! Honestly, the percentages sound large, but the absolute increases aren't that big. Tuition is going to rise whether we like it or not. Its better to focus on other ways to ensure quality education for lower and middle classes than to spar over who's fault it is that the tuition was raised to being with.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reaction score
- 9
Oh, I was referring to professional education. Just wanted clarification on whether your numbers were for that or for undergrad.
The fact is, most lower and middle class people are having trouble as it is affording the current tuition rates. From your flippant tone of voice regarding thousands of dollars, its obvious you are not only a Republican, but a wealthy one at that. Not everyone has thousands of dollars to throw around.
Also, Wilson was not only a moderate in terms of education (which is commendable), but he was actually constrained by the more liberal state legislature of the time. It is unfortunate that Arnold is not as moderate on this issue as his Republican predecessor.
So congratulations on a couple hundred or a couple thousand not meaning that much to you. If you dont believe that amount of money PER SEMESTER isnt that much, there is no way we can discuss this. Im not speaking for myself as much as I am the people trying to make ends meet, and if you do not see that a few hundred or thousand dollars more a semester is a big deal, there is nothing I can do to change that view and there is no way we can discuss this. At the point at which one person views an increase as trivial and another as significant for some groups, we are in effect debating two different issues then.
The fact is, most lower and middle class people are having trouble as it is affording the current tuition rates. From your flippant tone of voice regarding thousands of dollars, its obvious you are not only a Republican, but a wealthy one at that. Not everyone has thousands of dollars to throw around.
Also, Wilson was not only a moderate in terms of education (which is commendable), but he was actually constrained by the more liberal state legislature of the time. It is unfortunate that Arnold is not as moderate on this issue as his Republican predecessor.
So congratulations on a couple hundred or a couple thousand not meaning that much to you. If you dont believe that amount of money PER SEMESTER isnt that much, there is no way we can discuss this. Im not speaking for myself as much as I am the people trying to make ends meet, and if you do not see that a few hundred or thousand dollars more a semester is a big deal, there is nothing I can do to change that view and there is no way we can discuss this. At the point at which one person views an increase as trivial and another as significant for some groups, we are in effect debating two different issues then.
Those people who's couple hundred here or there wont allow them to make ends meet are still a lot better off the people in other states who's state school's tuition will still be way more than California's after the tuition hikes. Anyone CA resident can easily make it through medical school on Stafford loans ONLY even after the tuition hikes. Thats a FACT.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
I wholeheartedly agree. Gleevec does not live in CA so he really does not know the whole details. Davis increased fees before Arnold came to office to pay for his $38 million deficit. Why else do you think a state which is overwhelmingly democratic ousted a democratic governor. It wasn't because of democrat vs republican, it was because he was just a bad governor.
If UC med students have their tuition raised from 10K to 20K, they should still be happy it's a far cry from 35K in private schools. They will still be at least 60K less in debt. They have no reason to cry about their raise in tuition and say it's Arnold's fault when they still have it better than those who go to private medical schools.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
You make a good point. Why are people complaining. It's just an issue for the leftists to pounce on a republican governor. As you said, financial aid would still make the rich pay more than the poor. That's why I'm wondering why these UC med students are complaining. They still will have far less debt than those at private schools.
Perhaps you dont understand the difference between graduate and professional schools. The tuition for all students, graduate, professional, and undergraduate will be around 5k
For professional schools there is an additional "professional school fee", currently about 10k and about to rise. thats where you get your 15k total.
I also agree with the problem of debt burden. There are alternatives like the HPSP which pays off your loans if you work in rural/underserved areas, most likely the same places the people that cant really afford the tuition come from. Perhaps the state needs programs to encourage those groups to explore options such as the HPSP.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
Dude, the goal is to leave school without any debt. I'm barely scratching through undergrad right now at a UC (I'm called cheap pretty often). Most of my wardrobe is actually my brother's, and the bus is my friend. With medical schools in California already more expensive than undergrad here, it will be difficult to maintain being debt-free. Also, medical school is known for its difficulty. Thus, I don't think I will be able to work much.
I don't think we're saying it's the governor's fault. We're disagreeing with his methods in dealing with the budget.
While I find it nice that I would still owe less than at a private school, I should always try to improve. Why be satisfied with debt when you can have no debt? My life would be so much easier if I took loans, but when I leave undergrad, I won't owe any money.
Agreed that we all want to be debt free. But you'll have to face the fact that unless you have some trust fund or your parents are ballers, you're going to have a large hunk of debt coming out of med school. The avg. debt load is about 125K i believe.
