<p>Yeah, but I think private school students have the mindset that when attending a private university they will be paying top dollar and increases are expected. I know my sister (who goes to USC) didn’t complain because she was provided with additional grant money to offset the increases (and ended up paying less than she did last year). But, I don’t know if that’s the case with all private schools. We’re in that weird middle-class funk. </p>
<p>I believe where the UCs are failing is that in its mission it states that ‘tuition’ is free, that’s why we pay ‘fees’, and that public education is suppose to be affordable and accessible to the public. Privates don’t have that obligation, that’s why there isn’t a student uproar about their tuition increasing. If a private school student cannot afford to pay private tuition price they typically transfer to a more affordable alternative such as a UC. Again, the UC student complaint is that our ‘fees’ are getting too high, UCLA @ ~30k per year, that the median CA resident cannot afford to attend. The UC students alternative when ‘fees’ have gotten too high is to go to a CSU. While a upper middle class student can go from an elite private to an elite public. A lower to middle class student must suffer academic quality by going to a tier 2 school from an elite public school. </p>
<p>The main point is that there should be an affordable QUALITY education available to the public and the privates obviously don’t have to fulfill that mission, the UCs do.</p>
<p>However, there is a debate whether the UCLA can actually provide a quality education, but I won’t go into that.</p>
<p>Go Bears.</p>