UC tuitions going up

[finnpipette]

My point was more that the rich aren't carrying any brunt of the financial crisis, rather than pressing the issue of screwed poor people. I'd personally rather pay more taxes, than see all these programs cut. Other options include raising sales tax, property tax, gas guzzler tax...but arnold doesn't wanna break any of his campaign promises.

It's getting better for the rich and worse for the poor, but in the long run, it'll suck for everyone. Whatever. I guess it's in my "best interest" to let all of these right wing measures through. Then I can pay very little taxes when I'm a doctor, pay almost zero tax on my huge ass house, hire a bunch of immigrants and pay them low wages in return for letting them stay in the country. Sounds good.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by aeromed

But there's a HUGE problem in CA, money-wise. Something has to be done. I'm sure way back when, some people in CA gov't messed up big-time with overspending, and it sucks that we have to pay for their mistakes now. But nobody ever said that life was fair.

We can't keep going the way we've been going. Cuts have to be made. We have to pay more somehow. If that means cutting funds to special interest groups, hospitals, day cares, schools, so be it....it's really sad it has to be that way, but those are the big expenditures in a state budget, and therefore those programs will be initially targeted.

Yup, there is definitely a huge budget problem here but I would argue that it has less to do with "overspending" and more to do with some serious structural problems in the way the state allocates funds and passes budgets. In fact, according to a CBP report I was reading yesterday, state spending grew less in the years since 1989 than in other decades and has fallen in the past 2 years.

Health care, social services and higher education are targets of cuts because they are the only thing that can be touched, since so much of the rest of the budget is tied up by ballot initiatives. Prisons can also be touched but they have a strong union so the legislature has been loathe to do that in recent years. K-14 education is the biggest expenditure in the budget and is protected by Prop 98, so it cannot be touched much, though it looks like Arnold is going to try to save $2 billion there.

A budget of cuts and accounting tricks won't solve the problem. Neither will more and more deficit bond measures or raising taxes. Probably a mix of some tax increases, cuts, and bonds to borrow $ for real investments (not debt payments), like infrastructure, could help. Then we need some serious change...

Some ideas I hear around Sacramento that could possibly help are have a simple majority vote on budget items, instead of the current 2/3 that causes massive delays. Require a balanced budget top be passed, not just submitted. Have a neutral body draw political districts so that there are fewer "safe" seats. The relationship between state and local governments, and the state and local school districts needs to be re-examined, especially in terms of funding. Revise the state's tax system. None of this stuff would be easy, so it will probably never really get addressed because it is not politically popular.

 

[Jalby]

Originally posted by azpremed
K-14 education is the biggest expenditure in the budget and is protected by Prop 98, so it cannot be touched much, though it looks like Arnold is going to try to save $2 billion there.

That;s our problem right there. We have two extra years for school to pay for that other states don't.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by Jalby
That;s our problem right there. We have two extra years for school to pay for that other states don't.

Or you can think of it as a way to protect funding for JC's, which is what it seems to be designed to do. Though community college tuition is rising too, so it doesn't always work.

 

[supersunny]

Originally posted by azpremed


Or you can think of it as a way to protect funding for JC's, which is what it seems to be designed to do. Though community college tuition is rising too, so it doesn't always work.

the per unit cost at california JCs more than doubled.

 

[hamhamfan]

Originally posted by aeromed
So, what do you suggest CA do? Nobody wants the car tax. Nobody wants any taxes. Nobody wants any cuts anywhere. Essentially, nobody is willing to pay anything to fix anything. They all want someone else to fix it.

Definition of nobody: No person; not anyone

I have stated more than once in this post that I am willing to pay more taxes rather than have an increase in tuition. I hope that you are not implying that I am a nobody. That would be pretty callous of you.

The community colleges used to be such a deal... 11 dollars a unit. Even though its still relatively inexpensive, it's saddening to see the prices rise so much.

 

[aeromed]

Originally posted by hamhamfan
Definition of nobody: No person; not anyone

I have stated more than once in this post that I am willing to pay more taxes rather than have an increase in tuition. I hope that you are not implying that I am a nobody. That would be pretty callous of you.

I didn't say "nobody is willing". I said "nobody wants it."
There's a difference there.

"No person wants it." "Not anyone wants it." Is that better?

Obviously, I was not implying that You are a Nobody. But if that's what you have to assume to make your argument and to make me "look like a bad guy", then that's pretty sad.

 

[hamhamfan]

Originally posted by aeromed

I didn't say "nobody is willing". I said "nobody wants it."
There's a difference there.

"No person wants it." "Not anyone wants it." Is that better?

Obviously, I was not implying that You are a Nobody. But if that's what you have to assume to make your argument and to make me "look like a bad guy", then that's pretty sad.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I want a car tax/additional taxes in lieu of additional raises in tuition. Yes, I want to pay the government more money in the form of taxes, just that tuition isn't raised.

I never said that I assumed that you were implying that I was a "nobody". I used the word "hope". Those are also two pretty different words. Also, I never intended to make you "look like a bad guy". You are making direct accusations wheras I didn't. See, you are being the mean one.

 

[aeromed]

Why do I feel like I'm back in kindergarten?

 

[redgrover]

People, if you graduate from a UC Med School or a UC Law (with the possible exceptions of Hastings and Davis, where you still come close), you're guaranteed a bare minimum of a 100k dollar salary. Where on earth are you pulling these "what about the poor!!???" arguments?

Most professional school students don't have their parents pay their debts for them. I attended a top 10 law school this past year, and even some of the richest of the rich were insisting that these kids take on their debts and make due. And who can't deal with debts with a 100k salary? (If you say family practitioners, perhaps Arnold has just solved the physician distribution problem in California and non-coastal counties will finally see adequate healthcare.)

Professional students can bare the price more than anyone. What is more, it places more of a financial burden on the individual schools. Suddenly, if they want to compete with other schools, they have to start raising some of their own funds. My law school at a public institution effectively went private. It receives no funds from the state and derives its income from dividends, fundraising, and tuition. And yes, tuition for in-state students is now 22k per year. 28k for out of staters. The primary benefits it that in-staters have an easier time getting in.

As it is now, UC students pay 21% of the price of their education. Cal State students pay only 13%. Both of these are FAR BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

http://204.3.192.81/02-03budghilites/2002higheredbudget.pdf

For instance, in Montana, technical students pays 18% of their education, the flagship institutions (MU and MSU) require students to pay 38% of the price of their educaiton, and their affiliated 4-year campuses require 25%.

http://www.kaimin.org/April02/4-26-02/news1_4-26-02.html

University of Washington students pay 42.5 percent of the cost of their education, while students at peer institutions average 37.2 percent.

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march99/tuition.html

At Purdue in Indiana, students pay 44% of the price of their education.

So who is getting screwed here? And yes, California schools should cost more than Southern Alabama Med. If you haven't priced the cost of living in those places, EVERYTHING is more expensive in California (and people make more).

And so you raise taxes, and so professors need more money to survive, etc...

So what are you going to do? Slash the UC budgets? Remember, you're building UC Merced right now (oh, couple hundred mill). Remember that Gray Davis allowed 7,100 new students to enter the UC system in 2001. Remember that he has made huge increases in funding without demanding a dime more from the students. Universities across the countries have been increasing tuition, and yet Cali hasn't increased fees in a decade. Are you going to make the poor pay for vehicle registration (and bussiness) when the future-rich pay a very minor percentage of the price of their exclusive educations (an investment in their future)?

California is easily one of the most fiscally irresponsible states in the country. Somebody needs to start picking up the slack. If you haven't realized it, white collar jobs are increasingly leaving the state and going to more progressive technology corridors in Arizona, Colorado, and Virginia, where tax structures and price of living costs don't destroy industry and hinder growth.

I'm guessing that a state that ranks either 1st or 2nd highest in spending on its primary and secondary educational system depending upon the year and can't do any better than 44th in national standardized testing is blowing some serious cash, as well.

 

[UCSBMed1]

Originally posted by redgrover
People, if you graduate from a UC Med School or a UC Law (with the possible exceptions of Hastings and Davis, where you still come close), you're guaranteed a bare minimum of a 100k dollar salary. Where on earth are you pulling these "what about the poor!!???" arguments?

Most professional school students don't have their parents pay their debts for them. I attended a top 10 law school this past year, and even some of the richest of the rich were insisting that these kids take on their debts and make due. And who can't deal with debts with a 100k salary? (If you say family practitioners, perhaps Arnold has just solved the physician distribution problem in California and non-coastal counties will finally see adequate healthcare.)

Professional students can bare the price more than anyone. What is more, it places more of a financial burden on the individual schools. Suddenly, if they want to compete with other schools, they have to start raising some of their own funds. My law school at a public institution effectively went private. It receives no funds from the state and derives its income from dividends, fundraising, and tuition. And yes, tuition for in-state students is now 22k per year. 28k for out of staters. The primary benefits it that in-staters have an easier time getting in.

As it is now, UC students pay 21% of the price of their education. Cal State students pay only 13%. Both of these are FAR BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

http://204.3.192.81/02-03budghilites/2002higheredbudget.pdf

For instance, in Montana, technical students pays 18% of their education, the flagship institutions (MU and MSU) require students to pay 38% of the price of their educaiton, and their affiliated 4-year campuses require 25%.

http://www.kaimin.org/April02/4-26-02/news1_4-26-02.html

University of Washington students pay 42.5 percent of the cost of their education, while students at peer institutions average 37.2 percent.

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march99/tuition.html

At Purdue in Indiana, students pay 44% of the price of their education.

So who is getting screwed here? And yes, California schools should cost more than Southern Alabama Med. If you haven't priced the cost of living in those places, EVERYTHING is more expensive in California (and people make more).

And so you raise taxes, and so professors need more money to survive, etc...

So what are you going to do? Slash the UC budgets? Remember, you're building UC Merced right now (oh, couple hundred mill). Remember that Gray Davis allowed 7,100 new students to enter the UC system in 2001. Remember that he has made huge increases in funding without demanding a dime more from the students. Universities across the countries have been increasing tuition, and yet Cali hasn't increased fees in a decade. Are you going to make the poor pay for vehicle registration (and bussiness) when the future-rich pay a very minor percentage of the price of their exclusive educations (an investment in their future)?

California is easily one of the most fiscally irresponsible states in the country. Somebody needs to start picking up the slack. If you haven't realized it, white collar jobs are increasingly leaving the state and going to more progressive technology corridors in Arizona, Colorado, and Virginia, where tax structures and price of living costs don't destroy industry and hinder growth.

I'm guessing that a state that ranks either 1st or 2nd highest in spending on its primary and secondary educational system depending upon the year and can't do any better than 44th in national standardized testing is blowing some serious cash, as well.

But it is still the best state in the union, and don't you forget that.

How do you know so much about our system, anyway?

And I hope you weren't referring to Davis med up at the top of your post...

 

[aeromed]

Originally posted by redgrover
People, if you graduate from a UC Med School or a UC Law (with the possible exceptions of Hastings and Davis, where you still come close), you're guaranteed a bare minimum of a 100k dollar salary. Where on earth are you pulling these "what about the poor!!???" arguments?

Most professional school students don't have their parents pay their debts for them. I attended a top 10 law school this past year, and even some of the richest of the rich were insisting that these kids take on their debts and make due. And who can't deal with debts with a 100k salary? (If you say family practitioners, perhaps Arnold has just solved the physician distribution problem in California and non-coastal counties will finally see adequate healthcare.)

Professional students can bare the price more than anyone. What is more, it places more of a financial burden on the individual schools. Suddenly, if they want to compete with other schools, they have to start raising some of their own funds. My law school at a public institution effectively went private. It receives no funds from the state and derives its income from dividends, fundraising, and tuition. And yes, tuition for in-state students is now 22k per year. 28k for out of staters. The primary benefits it that in-staters have an easier time getting in.

As it is now, UC students pay 21% of the price of their education. Cal State students pay only 13%. Both of these are FAR BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

http://204.3.192.81/02-03budghilites/2002higheredbudget.pdf

For instance, in Montana, technical students pays 18% of their education, the flagship institutions (MU and MSU) require students to pay 38% of the price of their educaiton, and their affiliated 4-year campuses require 25%.

http://www.kaimin.org/April02/4-26-02/news1_4-26-02.html

University of Washington students pay 42.5 percent of the cost of their education, while students at peer institutions average 37.2 percent.

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march99/tuition.html

At Purdue in Indiana, students pay 44% of the price of their education.

So who is getting screwed here? And yes, California schools should cost more than Southern Alabama Med. If you haven't priced the cost of living in those places, EVERYTHING is more expensive in California (and people make more).

And so you raise taxes, and so professors need more money to survive, etc...

So what are you going to do? Slash the UC budgets? Remember, you're building UC Merced right now (oh, couple hundred mill). Remember that Gray Davis allowed 7,100 new students to enter the UC system in 2001. Remember that he has made huge increases in funding without demanding a dime more from the students. Universities across the countries have been increasing tuition, and yet Cali hasn't increased fees in a decade. Are you going to make the poor pay for vehicle registration (and bussiness) when the future-rich pay a very minor percentage of the price of their exclusive educations (an investment in their future)?

California is easily one of the most fiscally irresponsible states in the country. Somebody needs to start picking up the slack. If you haven't realized it, white collar jobs are increasingly leaving the state and going to more progressive technology corridors in Arizona, Colorado, and Virginia, where tax structures and price of living costs don't destroy industry and hinder growth.

I'm guessing that a state that ranks either 1st or 2nd highest in spending on its primary and secondary educational system depending upon the year and can't do any better than 44th in national standardized testing is blowing some serious cash, as well.

Well said!!

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by redgrover

I'm guessing that a state that ranks either 1st or 2nd highest in spending on its primary and secondary educational system depending upon the year and can't do any better than 44th in national standardized testing is blowing some serious cash, as well.

I may be misunderstanding your statement but California has not led the nation per-pupil spending in about 3 decades. Recently, we were very close to the bottom and while that funding has increased in recent years, we are still far below the national average on per pupil spending. So if you are looking at it in terms of that figure there is not way we rank 1st or 2nd in spending. In terms of sheer size the system has over 1000 school districts and spends over $40 billion/year. There's an interesting article series on where that $ is going in the Sacramento Bee.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/paying_for_schools/

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by redgrover



So what are you going to do? Slash the UC budgets? Remember, you're building UC Merced right now (oh, couple hundred mill). Remember that Gray Davis allowed 7,100 new students to enter the UC system in 2001. Remember that he has made huge increases in funding without demanding a dime more from the students. Universities across the countries have been increasing tuition, and yet Cali hasn't increased fees in a decade. Are you going to make the poor pay for vehicle registration (and bussiness) when the future-rich pay a very minor percentage of the price of their exclusive educations (an investment in their future)?

One other thing I just wanted to clarify. The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) has NOTHING to do with higher education funding. In 1986 voters passed Prop 47 which guaranteed VLF revenue for local governments. So that is where that money goes, usually about 75% goes to city and county general funds and the other 25% goes to support health and social services passed onto to the counties by the state under realignment in 1991. The VLF and its repeal have opened a whole can of budgetary worms, but it has NOTHING to do with higher education funding. That comes out of the state's general fund. And yes, the budget will be cut because there is nowhere else they can cut do to the structure of the state's budgeting. If you are interested you can refer to my earlier posts which go into greater detail on that.

On another note, the Regents today announced that they will not go along with a 40% increase in graduate school tuition because it will damge the UC system.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8104329p-9036683c.html

While I agree with you that UC, CSU, and CCC students pay a relatively low amount of tuition for undergraduate, I am not convinced that is the case for the percentage of professional education. California tuition appears to be in the middle of the pack for med schools. Have you found any numbers that look at the % of education that is paid that only looks at grad/professional education and not undergrad (the figures you provde seem to be for both)?

 

[redgrover]

I may be misunderstanding your statement but California has not led the nation per-pupil spending in about 3 decades.

I looked into the data, and you are correct that Cali ranks low in per capita student funding. As you know, you can "prove" many things with statistics. I got the figure of California public high schools ranking second from a study that used education expenditures to measure efficiency, so I only glanced at the total expenditures chart.

As for the Vehicle Registration Tax only going to local governments, I'm assuming that local governments would normally receive state funding. And that would be less of a priority now(?). I only lived in California for two years, so I'm not sure how money is distributed, but in my home state, a great deal of county money comes from the state.

I would also be interested in seeing how much graduate education costs. Medicine might be harder to measure, as the tie-ins with hospitals start blurring the boundaries between education and business. As for law school, well, the salaries of professors from a number of schools are listed online, and they are pretty hefty.

Still, I think it only makes sense that professionals guaranteed a high salary coming out of school bear the burden moreso than college students.

As I hinted, the state loses money with every new UC student admitted into the system (money to accomodate, to hire new professors, to fund the 80-90% of the education the new student wont' pay, etc...). With Merced coming into existence and the other schools expanding, I don't see how the state can afford to not raise fees a bit.

(And no, to the poster, above, I wasn't referring to Davis med. Davis Law. And Hastings. Both okay schools, but nothing that guarantees you a plum job. Congrats on getting into a UC Med!)

 

[cbc]

I think you fail to understand that most med students are/can not get accepted directly from college, and take yrs off to strengthen application. Most ppl take 2 yrs off, and many more. Now, you increase tuition of these students, and then pay them $30k for residency, with most specialties being 4-6 yrs. Some are 3 yrs, but those generalists get paid 80k starting, which is almost the same as masters in engineering. Debt doubles every decade. Now, by that estimate, if one is to come out directly from undergrad to med, one is looking at 30-32 yrs old, as like i said, most are not directly, so most are looking at mid to late 30s. This is before they've started paying back any loans, and they are looking at 200k. Dont forget that these ppl were cum laude in undergrad, sacrificed most of their lives to books and patients, probably have kids, and forced to drive a third hand civic for 15 yrs. You are going to punish them by giving them more loans, so that they may start living a life at age 40? How are these ppl most abled to carry burdens?

By your logic, the people most capable of carrying the burden would be already-doctors, not students who will be doctors in 10 yrs. Therefore, tax the rich. Not saying this is my logic though.

By Arnold's logic, he should tax everyone (except kids and ppl making <20k) $50-$100/month until the financial crisis is alleviated. I mean, isnt everyone suppose to carry the burden???

Originally posted by redgrover
I looked into the data, and you are correct that Cali ranks low in per capita student funding. As you know, you can "prove" many things with statistics. I got the figure of California public high schools ranking second from a study that used education expenditures to measure efficiency, so I only glanced at the total expenditures chart.

As for the Vehicle Registration Tax only going to local governments, I'm assuming that local governments would normally receive state funding. And that would be less of a priority now(?). I only lived in California for two years, so I'm not sure how money is distributed, but in my home state, a great deal of county money comes from the state.

I would also be interested in seeing how much graduate education costs. Medicine might be harder to measure, as the tie-ins with hospitals start blurring the boundaries between education and business. As for law school, well, the salaries of professors from a number of schools are listed online, and they are pretty hefty.

Still, I think it only makes sense that professionals guaranteed a high salary coming out of school bear the burden moreso than college students.

As I hinted, the state loses money with every new UC student admitted into the system (money to accomodate, to hire new professors, to fund the 80-90% of the education the new student wont' pay, etc...). With Merced coming into existence and the other schools expanding, I don't see how the state can afford to not raise fees a bit.

(And no, to the poster, above, I wasn't referring to Davis med. Davis Law. And Hastings. Both okay schools, but nothing that guarantees you a plum job. Congrats on getting into a UC Med!)

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by redgrover
As for the Vehicle Registration Tax only going to local governments, I'm assuming that local governments would normally receive state funding. And that would be less of a priority now(?). I only lived in California for two years, so I'm not sure how money is distributed, but in my home state, a great deal of county money comes from the state.

I would also be interested in seeing how much graduate education costs. Medicine might be harder to measure, as the tie-ins with hospitals start blurring the boundaries between education and business.

The way revenue is distributed in California is VERY complicated. I work for the state in policy research and I find it hard to follow a lot of the time. Anyway, I have done some VLF research lately so I can tell you about that. Technically, it is not a tax but a fee (initiated in 1935 instead of a property tax). Local governments do receive a good chunk of their funding from the state, and that state money comes from the VLF guarantee. The three biggest sources of revenue for local gov't is sales tax, property tax, then the VLF money. So the fact that the VLF increase was repealed is going to have a huge impact on things like fire and police protection that usually come out of the VLF $ that goes for discretionary spending. The problem local gov'ts face is that even though Prop 47 assures them of VLF revenue, the state gets to determine the level of that funding. So with the crisis they are going to get less. In fact, Arnold also has proposed redirecting 1.3 billion in property taxes from local gov'ts to the state which is going to cause problems for local school districts as well. Local gov'ts are feeling trapped and are putting some stuff on the ballot in Nov. to try to prevent the state from redirecting revenues.

I agree with you that UC's are probably going to have to raise tuition to absorb the losses they will take. What that tuition increase will look like remains to be seen. But from everything I have read and heard the cuts are really destroying the university system (UC, CSU and CCC) in terms of course offerings, access, enrollment, faculty retention, morale, etc. If I can find any data on the cost of educating grad/professional students I will post it. I am not sure how much work has been done in that area. I would think that grad student funding also blurs boundaries due to grants from the feds for research and things like that.

 

[Jalby]

Hmmm.


1. Take away health care from the poor.
2. Don't fix roads and freeways
3. Decrease the number of people in jail by letting non-violent offenders go free
4. decrease K-12 funding
5. Decrease the amount of subsidizing for higher education
6. Raise taxes.

Of those 6 choices, I would put the decreasing of the subsides to higher education as the 3rd best choise behind #6 and #3. It sucks that these people would have an extra 15K if they are in college and an extra 30K of debt if they are in graduate school, but they are the people most able to pay it back. Most doctors and Lawyers make 100+ after school, so comparably it's a bit hard for me to feel too sorry. (not saying I don't feel sorry, but compared to the other choices)

 

[dungadunga]

but we could still raise taxes!
Aren't there certain taxes which fall on the currently wealthy, not on the well-off-in-15-years (which is the medical reality)?

anyways, that sacbee article reference to grad students appears to be referring to non-professional grad students, in which case meders would still be sol

 

[cbc]

Did you get a chance to read my latest post on this thread?

Originally posted by Jalby
Hmmm.


1. Take away health care from the poor.
2. Don't fix roads and freeways
3. Decrease the number of people in jail by letting non-violent offenders go free
4. decrease K-12 funding
5. Decrease the amount of subsidizing for higher education
6. Raise taxes.

Of those 6 choices, I would put the decreasing of the subsides to higher education as the 3rd best choise behind #6 and #3. It sucks that these people would have an extra 15K if they are in college and an extra 30K of debt if they are in graduate school, but they are the people most able to pay it back. Most doctors and Lawyers make 100+ after school, so comparably it's a bit hard for me to feel too sorry. (not saying I don't feel sorry, but compared to the other choices)

 

[Jalby]

Originally posted by cbc
Did you get a chance to read my latest post on this thread?

Nope. You had a lot of numbers, and I generally don't trust the math of people who think bikes can go 60 MPH. I also found it pretty funny that drug dealers tend to follow USC Med students.

 

[hamhamfan]

I don't know why so many of you want us to pay more money. I can hardly afford anything right now (not a literal statement, just saying I can't buy much).

It's not just me either. Last night, I talked with my mom about how I'm going to fund my education. I scrapping my way through undergrad, but professional school seems like it will be a serious challenge. After griping for a while, she told me that her plan is for her to pay for my tuition and then I would pay her back later. If I go through with my mom's plan, the tuition increases will also affect her.

As one person put it, the medical profession is not as "lucrative" as before (of course I'm not saying that people are going into the profession simply for the money). Also, one of my uncles periodically warns me that doctors get laid off. If the trend continues, doctors will have an increasingly difficult time paying off their debts (not that I'm saying it's impossible, just harder).

 

[cbc]

What da heck are you talkin about pric? You're the one who bags on other med schools because of your own insecurities, and expect others to bow down to you. Quit treating ppl like you treat your undergrads when you TAed. First off, I wasnt even referring to that post. And second, when one goes to USC one doesnt need to be followed around to be around thugs. I was trying to logically discuss about california, but once again, you had to be a pric and be offensive. Good luck continuing your ways of impressing people esp impressing girls, your favorite hobby at least in the lab.

Originally posted by Jalby
Nope. You had a lot of numbers, and I generally don't trust the math of people who think bikes can go 60 MPH. I also found it pretty funny that drug dealers tend to follow USC Med students.

 

[cbc]

As much as my math sucks, at least I didnt need to take 2 yrs off to do a masters before I could get into a medical school.

Originally posted by Jalby
Nope. You had a lot of numbers, and I generally don't trust the math of people who think bikes can go 60 MPH. I also found it pretty funny that drug dealers tend to follow USC Med students.

 

[Jalby]

Sorry. I actually read what you wrote, and thought you actually were talking about your latest post on this thread. Now I don't know what you have against me, and I actually tried to ignore it before, mostly b/c you already made an ass out of yourself. Sounds like you are a little bit jealous. Maybe we should just whip them out to finish it. But I'm not going to humor you anymore. If anonymously trashing me makes you feel better, knock yourself out. I can't really help it if some women like me, but it's not like I would actively discourage them.

 

[Hero]

Originally posted by cbc
All I know is, when jalby was a TA at ucla, most students hated him. He went around as though he was the hot shot and ultimate womanizer, but the girls talked trash about him too. He can be demeaning and cocky...

hey now, let's get one thing straight here. Jalby is no "ultimate womanizer." In fact, i get more play than him and that's just sad on so many levels.

And so he maybe cocky but all u gots to do is smack him up a bit and he'll know his place. All i'm trying to say is all UCLA people are idiots.

Cal rules! you all suck!

 

[Hero]

Originally posted by cbc
As much as my math sucks, at least I didnt need to take 2 yrs off to do a masters before I could get into a medical school.

excuse me ass, what's wrong w/ taking 2 years off to do a masters before going to med school?

 

[cbc]

i never said women liked you. what i meant by womanizer is you spent so much energy trying to get some love, but i never meant to say they actually give you any. i WAS talking about the latest post on this thread, and there was no math (unless you consider that math???). Guess what, I happen to not only know ppl from ucla undergrad, but also usc 2nd yr med. Guess what they have to say about you? Maybe you think I am anonymously knockin you, but what good would that do for me? I just hope by reading what I said you might snap out of your egocentrism, arrogance, and become a real empathetic caring person. No caring person/doctor would start a post like this, and when you do, expect responses like these.

Originally posted by Jalby
Sorry. I actually read what you wrote, and thought you actually were talking about your latest post on this thread. Now I don't know what you have against me, and I actually tried to ignore it before, mostly b/c you already made an ass out of yourself. Sounds like you are a little bit jealous. Maybe we should just whip them out to finish it. But I'm not going to humor you anymore. If anonymously trashing me makes you feel better, knock yourself out. I can't really help it if some women like me, but it's not like I would actively discourage them.

 

[redgrover]

Thanks, AZPremed. It sounds like you have an interesting job (if incredibly busy). Where in NorCal are you? It's so gorgeous up there.

I think you fail to understand that most med students are/can not get accepted directly from college, and take yrs off to strengthen application. Most ppl take 2 yrs off, and many more. Now, you increase tuition of these students, and then pay them $30k for residency, with most specialties being 4-6 yrs.

Sure I understand. I took two years off before I began law school. I'm now quitting and going on to medicine. It will have been four years from undergrad to medicine for me. I enjoyed my time in the working world, and I have begun to see my education as an investment. It's very common for law school students to take several years off, as well.

You could be a law student, afterall. Only the top 14 schools are guaranteed 100k salaries (and even some of those students will make less). Most of those students will be told to leave their firm or burn out in three or four years after they begin. And I pity someone who went to what they thought was a decent school like GW or a BU and finished in the bottom half of their class in law. 50-60k/yr after paying 27k/year tuition. Nice, huh?

But in medicine, you're guaranteed six figures unless you refuse to live anywhere but the few locations where physicians are overpopulated.

As for raising taxes in California, the state is already one of the most heavily taxed in the nation. Let's drive some more jobs out, shall we?

California ranks 49th in the country in business climate taxes and is generally one of the 10 most highly taxes states any way you cut it.

http://www.noblankchecks.com/dynamic/downloads/individual_download_file_link_1_english_10.pdf

Come on Bay Area libs. You can take Mississippi.

 

[bell]

Originally posted by Jalby
Hmmm.


1. Take away health care from the poor.
2. Don't fix roads and freeways
3. Decrease the number of people in jail by letting non-violent offenders go free
4. decrease K-12 funding
5. Decrease the amount of subsidizing for higher education
6. Raise taxes.

Of those 6 choices, I would put the decreasing of the subsides to higher education as the 3rd best choise behind #6 and #3. It sucks that these people would have an extra 15K if they are in college and an extra 30K of debt if they are in graduate school, but they are the people most able to pay it back. Most doctors and Lawyers make 100+ after school, so comparably it's a bit hard for me to feel too sorry. (not saying I don't feel sorry, but compared to the other choices)

Even though I hate to admit it, I agree with Jalby on this even though the dude is nuts. I would choose USC over most UCs (actually I am picking USC over the others) but not if they're all as cocky. Ease up--u're sending out bad vibes.

And pre-meds, stop being obsessed with $$$

 

[cbc]

I forgot to mention, there is an internal restriction on this thread, which is, men from schools that have not gone to any final fours or Rose Bowl in more than 70 yrs are not allowed to talk.

Sorry, had to make a come back.

Originally posted by Hero
hey now, let's get one thing straight here. Jalby is no "ultimate womanizer." In fact, i get more play than him and that's just sad on so many levels.

And so he maybe cocky but all u gots to do is smack him up a bit and he'll know his place. All i'm trying to say is all UCLA people are idiots.

Cal rules! you all suck!

 

[LoneCoyote]

redgrover,

I'm from San Francisco. But until med school starts (provided I get in) I work in Sacramento across the street from the Capitol. It is an interesting time to be here to say the least. It is definitely beautiful up here, though Sacramento has a lot more fog and rain than I had expected.

As for taxes, I have seen the figure about how taxed Californians are fluctuate, from 4th in the nation to 19th in the nation, depending on how you measure it and whose numbers you are using. It is largely agreed though that California was an average tax state prior to the .com boom which gave the state a lot more revenue from income taxes. Here are some sources from 2 organizations whose mission is to be nonpartisan and independent in their presentation of the facts.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_TaxBurdenJTF.pdf

http://www.cbp.org/2003/030304whopaystaxes.pdf

 

[LoneCoyote]

There has been a lot of debate on this thread about how much the tuition hikes for professional schools will be, how much professional education is subsidized and other issues. I finally got a paper copy of the highlights of the governor's budget proposal today and thought I would post what information there is. Remember that this is what has been proposed and no one knows what will actually go into effect until after the May revisions of the budget and ensuing debate. I encourage you if you feel strongly about this issue, one way or another, to get your voice out there by writing to your reps, education committee members, and the UC Regents.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt0405/GvBdgtHghlghts/Higher_Ed_w.pdf

To summarize what it says, they are proposing a 25% reduction to the current level of subsidies offered to professional students at UC and Hastings College of the Law since most professional students have higher incomes after graduation. UC and HCL will be given flexibility to determine the fee level for each profession that best addresses all factors including increasing fees to comparable public or private school levels... the State's need for certain professions, cost of instruction, current subsidy level, and potential earnings for each specific professional school.

 

[nikoo]

so what will average uc tuition be for in-state? just tuition, not cost of housing, etc.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by nikoo
so what will average uc tuition be for in-state? just tuition, not cost of housing, etc.

We won't know until the budget is set and UC makes the decision. it is up to them. Arnold has proposed a 40% hike for graduate students and UC has said they will fight that. Some newspaper, the LA Times I believe, reported that a 50% increase for professional schools was discussed. So... it is unknown.

Assuming UC tuition is currently about $16,000, with variance in fees at each school...

40% increase = $22,400
50% increase = $24,000

We'll see what happens. Maybe it will be less than that.

 

[CalBeE]

Originally posted by azpremed
We won't know until the budget is set and UC makes the decision. it is up to them. Arnold has proposed a 40% hike for graduate students and UC has said they will fight that. Some newspaper, the LA Times I believe, reported that a 50% increase for professional schools was discussed. So... it is unknown.

Assuming UC tuition is currently about $16,000, with variance in fees at each school...

40% increase = $22,400
50% increase = $24,000

We'll see what happens. Maybe it will be less than that.

If the 40% or 50% tuition hike comes into effect, UC's out-of-state tuition will be similar to or more than other private schools in California....Unbelievable!

 

[jlee9531]

i cant believe a girl at ucla said that.

that scares me haha. it really does.

 

[CalBeE]

Originally posted by jlee9531
i cant believe a girl at ucla said that.

that scares me haha. it really does.

In case it's not obvious, she's white

I wonder what she thinks all these brands come from: Sony, Nintendo, Panasonic, Toyota, Honda

 

[jlee9531]

this just reminded of when jay leno did his jaywalking thing at ucla undergrad campus....

i was shocked to say the least.