<p>
</p>
<p>That often exists at community colleges, which, in addition to the transfer-to-a-4-year-university preparation that is well known on these forums, offer other courses to educate people for jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree but do require additional skills and knowledge beyond the high school diploma.</p>
<p>However, community colleges are having even worse trouble with budget cuts than flagship state universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The M in STEM should not be very expensive to teach relative to other university courses and majors, since math courses generally do not have labs.</p>
<p>Some non-STEM majors may also be higher cost, such as studio and performing art.</p>
<p>However, charging higher tuition for lab courses or lab-heavy majors does exist at some state universities, including UIUC and Virginia Tech.</p>
<p>Floridadad: I disagree with you on so many levels but one thing that really makes me cringe is the part about no subsidized loans for “anthropology degrees.” (I am assuming you would favor only subsidized loans for vocational type jobs and STEM) I have noticed this is an increasingly common talking point for conservatives and it scares the heck out of me. Is it that they think certain degrees will strangle all that liberal bias in academia by choking off creativity etc…?</p>
<p>And I would like to see the statistics you speak of about how taxing the rich to death will make no difference in our deficit. I am also waiting for the job makers, who with their Bush/Obama tax cuts are saving more money, to create some jobs. Yeah, that is working well.</p>
<p>Floridadad: I disagree with you on so many levels but one thing that really makes me cringe is the part about no subsidized loans for “anthropology degrees.” (I am assuming you would favor only subsidized loans for vocational type jobs and STEM) I have noticed this is an increasingly common talking point for conservatives and it scares the heck out of me. Is it that they think certain degrees will strangle all that liberal bias in academia by choking off creativity etc…?</p>
<p>And I would like to see the statistics you speak of about how taxing the rich to death will make no difference in our deficit. I am also waiting for the job makers, who with their Bush/Obama tax cuts are saving more money, to create some jobs. Yeah, that is working well.</p>
<p>Maybe one problem is that our fractured nation no longer agrees on what constitutes the “public good.” </p>
<p>In Virginia, the school my daughters attend/attended, W&M, receives just under 13 percent of its funding from the state. VA has cut its funding 5 times in less than 4 years. Yet in VA, the state recently required the school to accept an additional 50 students, and exerts pressure on admission standards for instate students and in other areas. At what point will the taxpayers be satisfied - 5 percent of a public school’s operating budget? Less? </p>
<p>As to who’s paying for all the worthwhile programs (not using the scare quotes because it seems clear to me that they are worthwhile) - well, it’s pretty much the students and their parents, though that 12 percent is a nice add-in. Taxpayers don’t like paying taxes - period. It doesn’t mean that every tax dollar that’s spent is wasted. Do we want truly high-quality public education? That’s expensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What we are seeing here is that the people want something (access to good cheap universities in this case) but do not want to pay for it, like so many other things.</p>
<p>Part of the issue is more access is seen as less prestigious (perpetuated by current culture through magazine rankings, etc.). </p>
<p>Cal faculty has a blog. One posting talked about two (now sort of competing) needs facing Berkeley and other elite publics: 1. maintaining greatness and 2. maintaining access. The professor thought it was more important to maintain greatness at the expense of maintaining access.</p>
<p>Indeed, UCB, what California has is goal conflict. “Access” is paramount in the minds of the politicians, and thus the Regents. And that is why using UVa and UMich as examples is probably not realistic. Each UC campus is comprised of 33% Pell Grantees by design; i.e., “access” to low income kids. In contrast, UVa (and W&M) is 11%, and Michigan is 16% Pell grantees. But one must also be cognizant of the recent trend at Charlottesville – it was only a few years ago that UVA was 7% Pell Grantees, i.e., a rather wealthy student body in comparison to kids at the Univ of Cal. </p>
<p>While providing much greater access to low income families (relative to other state flagships) may be excellent public policy, all of that financial aid has to come from somewhere.</p>
<p>"@glido, in the short term it does cost more to educate a STEM major. But in the long run it cost more to support an unemployable anthropology major. "</p>
<p>LOL!</p>
<p>BB, here are some additional numbers to support your position. Pell vs Cal grants presents an interesting comparison. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, it also remains interesting how poorly the Pell statistics at the UC correlate with the ethnic distribution of income for the state of California.</p>
<p>The extraordinary rise in college prices have put state governments in a tough spot. Over the last 35 years or so, college costs have gone up roughly 250% after accounting for inflation. Even with a continual state commitment to higher education, the bubble pricing simply isn’t sustainable. At some point, the states need to draw a line and insist on some level of fiscal responsibility from the education system.</p>
<p>Our universities need to go on a diet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we have allowed “fiscal responsibility within the education system” to mimic famous terms such as military intelligence or government efficiency.</p>
<p>PS Fat cats do not follow diets well.</p>
<p>I propose we triple the Defense budget, and quintuple TSA. After all, you can’t be too safe.</p>
<p>Oh, and we need a balanced budget amendment too.</p>
<p>Now that poor non-citizens can participate in the UC Blue and Gold plan via Gov. Brown’s signature on the CA Dream Act, I expect we will be educating a good portion of China’s high schoolers before long. </p>
<p>What do you think this was all about? [Chinese</a> delegation’s visit to Riverside school stirs confusion - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/local/la-me-chinese-school-20111021]Chinese”>Chinese delegation's visit to Riverside school stirs confusion)</p>
<p>
UC is finally upgrading and standardizing their 30 year old payroll systems… I guess that’s a start.
[University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | UC to standardize HR and payroll business processes across locations](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/26575]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/26575)</p>
<p>@Bay, are you just trying to stir up some anti-China sentiment? How do the UC programs suddenly translate into “educating a good portion of China’s high schoolers”</p>
<p>Also, the LA Times article had nothing about U.S./CA taxpayer money funding a school for students from China.</p>
<p>One analyst noted that the decrease in state funding for college is directly porportional to the increase in state spending for medical care. This shift has occurred over the last 2 decades. If we control health care costs, there will again be money available to properly fund public colleges.</p>
<p>Also costs of prisons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not all all, they will be taking advantage of an opportunity handed to them by Gov. Brown. Attend a high school in CA for 3 years, go to UC Berkeley for practically free if your parents make less than $80K per year. How are you going to keep them out?</p>