sakky

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/ed...0berkeley.html

tastybeef

omg sakky made a thread.

barrons

Yudof is so out of touch with reality. Re-focusing some campuses is very reasonable and could enhance the UG experience at these schools.

1down, 1 to go

I don't know why they think out of state students will increase next year -- why should anyone pay premium out of state tuition for an educational mess. My daughter was thinking of applying from oos but has decided against.....maybe the internationals won't have heard the bad news and will bail them out.

DougK

Correct me if I'm wrong but the "lower" UC's--Merced, Riverside and Santa Cruz--have made no significant scholarly contributions. Furthermore, I'd imagine the undergraduate students at such institutions have no aptitude nor inclination towards research. The answer is obvious: remove the research component from these universities and if necessary, tap into the endowment until state financing returns to friendlier levels.

Xatal

DougK, get off your high horse.

birdhouse

Some people are more than willing to pay for a UC education...often if money isn't an issue. Just looking at my international roommate, whose parents will easily hop on a plane from Dubai without a care for the price. She doesn't care about the protests at all, or really think about the consequences of the cuts.

DougK

Xatal, neither of my parents went to college--I am on no high horse. The truth is that we are paying for a service that the kids at such universities do not value. It's a win-win; cut non-performing research thereby balancing the budget and catering the curriculum to the students' desires.

Cupola

DougK, you can't be serious. I've known numerous grad students and postdocs - very smart ones, I might add- here at Berkeley who completed their undergrad education at those "lesser" schools you mentioned. You'll find plenty of people, wherever you go, who take their education seriously.

DougK

I'm sure you can pick a few apples but when running government, you have to keep in mind efficiency. Should we spend money on the few Merced kids who'll end up coming to Berkeley or should be delegate that money to keeping brilliant professors on board at Berkeley? Which sacrifice would you like to make?

RML

If a school like Notre Dame, Georgetown, Rice, Emory or Vandi can charge exorbitant price for its undergrad education, why can't Berkeley do the same when it's a more premium same than any of those schools?

Tuition increases are probably the best things that happen to Berkeley.

cavilier

Yes, RML, but Berkeley has long been a haven for students who had the talent but not the money to go to more expensive top tier private universities. The steep tuition increase comes with some loss for social mobility.

Edit: I just remembered an uncannily prescient article I read in The Atlantic during the summer shortly after I accepted my acceptance to Berkeley.

RIP UCB

Xatal

DougK, the whole point of public education is to make it accessible for all, not to favor specific students because it's "more efficient".

RML

^ But Berkeley has to adopt to the current situation. The California budget is stiff, so why would Berkeley exhaust its means the futile way? Berkeley has to wake up to the realities that it cannot rely full funding from the State of California, and therefore, must do some fruitful means on its own to maintain the high level of education it provides. This isn't the 60s anymore, and Berkeley wasn't founded for the poor but for those deserving but bright students, regardless of socio-economic level. If Berkeley can raise funds from the rich students, the money will in turn finance those poor Berkeley students as Berkeley will continue to provide scholarship grants to the poor but very talented students. Let the rich Berkeley students pay the full price and give grants to the poor students. That's sounds equitable for all.

Berkeley has to raise tuition because it's in need of funds and the government as well as the rich alumni aren't helping the institution.

cavilier

That's how private universities determine their tuition, at least in theory. In practice, there are always kids who are stuck in between who can't pay the difference between aid and tuition. It also sucks for children of skilled immigrants (me for example) who started working at a late age so they have high income but low savings.

However charging different rates depending on ability to pay also leads to effective price discrimination. This, coupled with isolating consumers from the cost have been driving up tuition costs at private universities for a long time now.

Using this kind of pricing for public university really is unfair. The rich already pay more in taxes which provide public facilities. Raising their tuition is hosing them twice.