This is disgusting!! The Regents should be fired and sent packing. How fair is it that they raise their own salaries when there is such a huge deficit in the UC system. They should at least take a pay cut and help the problem instead of making it worse. Once again, this will fall to the backs of the taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. I say a revolution may be in order!!

One of the head regents is the majority stockholder of the For Profit College Corp…, ill bet I know which way his vote goes! Greed sons of bs. I bet thier salaries go up soon too.

SHAME ON YOU REAGENTS!! We as a country are falling farther and farther behind in the global economy and yet decisions are being made to make education even more unattainable. SHAME ON YOU REAGENTS.

Of course they will pass this…they have presidents of schools that need their increases so they can continue to ripoff their students..you kn ow how it is,,,,

Yet another lifeline being ripped further away from the middle class. Without the middle class, kiss all that is good about this country good-bye!

UC systme is a joke. The Regents & Professors have been sucking the life out of the students. How about firing the Regents as well as some of the lazy professors that don’t give a damn about the students. Our students once again are flipping the bill so that they can continue to get an inferior education anyway.

If you want the biographies of these pompous idiots, visit this web-site. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regbios/welcome.html
You can also direct your comments on the web-site. I doubt the Regents will view anything on CBS.

Fascinating! The UC systems cannot afford to give students a break, yet the UC presidents get pay raises of up to $100,000, plus car and housing allowances. Plus, illegals get subsidized tuiton. It’s almost not worth it to go to school in this state.

Well the students could boycot the school system. With no students there is no tuition money. What is one semester worth to a student. A life time of debt. There is power in numbers. Shut down the school system for 6 months and tuition will drop.

I have to laugh, the mush head college students back Obama……… get used to it…….

The University of California (UC) and the middle class of California are at a crossroads. Undergraduate tuition has tripled over the past decade and students now contribute more to their education than they receive in state support. As a result, the current outmoded system of financial aid needs to be revisited, simplified and made relevant to an educational market that demands accountability on an individual level. The first step in this process should be to be to cut headline tuition by one-third across the board.

Currently, one-third of the fees and tuition collected at UC are recycled in the form of financial aid. With headline tuition set to increase to more than $12,000/year, that means that roughly $4,000/year or $16,000 over four years is collected from one student and given to another at the discretion of the university.

Few would view this as fair. While most Californians support the premise of equal access for all qualified, bright students regardless of income and background, they also reject the notion of equality of outcome.

In terms of access, the university has done an admirable job instituting programs that work. These include early outreach to educate students on the importance of a university education and to address problems of perceived access. There is also Eligibility in Local Context (ELC), which gives applicants ranked in the top 4% of their high school class admission to the UC. But on the issue of cost, the university has substituted access for outcome to dangerous effect.

Take an example of two students: one from an upper middle class background and another from a lower income group, both of whom attend the same UC campus, in the same program, with the same earning power upon graduation. Now, suppose that all of the first student’s tuition earmarked for financial aid is applied to the second student in the form of a transfer payment which is grant or “gift aid” that does not have to be repaid. Upon graduating, the first student would end up with a significant debt load, while the second student would generally be better off as a result of a smaller debt burden and increased financial flexibility.

As in any system there are winners and losers. Under the current system some students receive large grants from the university; for others it spells disaster in the form of hefty loans that need to be repaid. Underpinning the entire system is the backstop of federal loans that means that practically all students can attend—at a cost.

The problem is becoming more acute as the stakes increase. Because organizations such as the UC generally favour keeping power rather than divesting it and because the nature of university funding has shifted, little has changed. But equally importantly, the current system has yet to be challenged on its erroneous assumptions.

First, the current system assumes that it is the University’s place to force some students to directly subsidize others—in effect, determining wealth and debt levels upon graduation. Second, it assumes that some students can rely upon their parents to pay for their education even though is no legal obligation for them to do so; even though the parents’ capacity to pay may be impaired; and even though the parents might not be willing to do so. Third, it assumes that fees levelled at the individual level have the same impact as state-wide revenue generated over a dispersed and large number of taxpayers.

These assumptions and the system they support mask a growing danger to the middle class student. As tuition skyrockets, it is true that the pot of money for financial aid increases in absolute terms. But this obscures the increasing relative danger, and cost, to the individual student. For if you fall through the cracks now you can end up paying more than $16,000 to subsidise someone else’s education. That’s $16,000 that you, not the taxpayer, and not your parents will have to pay back. And each year, this number marches inexorably higher.

The UC would counter that it has established generous redistribution guidelines by fiat, for example its Blue and Gold program. While its intentions are good this program covers the recipients of the money and not the payers. Moreover, it wholly misses the point. There is no reason to believe that the University is best placed to decide who to impoverish and who to enrich. Why run an elaborate system of redistribution when its abolishment would reduce costs and increase transparency?

Previous generations enjoyed generous funding through state largess. In the past, revenue for the university flowed from state taxes which distributed the burden over a vast pool of millions of taxpayers. The burden was diffuse, it imposed a relatively small cost on the taxpayers of California and it generated vast benefits. This is no longer the case. Like it or not, the individual is now responsible for funding his or her education.

Students are being asked to shoulder ever more responsibility: they are entrusted to choose an appropriate college, to choose a career and to decide on how to finance their education. Yet at the same time, perversely, the university claims the right to force one group of students to explicitly subsidise another, even when access is not at issue. The time has come to call an end to such practices. While a stronger case exists for leaving general revenue streams at the discretion of the university, the current shell game of financial redistribution should end

Fantastic article. I appreciate your attention to this subject and I learned a great deal

I do like the manner in which you have framed this challenge plus it really does provide me a lot of fodder for thought. Nonetheless, through everything that I have observed, I just simply hope when the actual remarks pack on that individuals remain on point and don’t embark upon a soap box associated with some other news du jour. All the same, thank you for this outstanding piece and whilst I can not concur with the idea in totality, I value the standpoint.

Black Cigarettes…

Since the MSM is totally skewed, what blogs/websites have you found that give you information that the MSM ignores?….