Why don't wealthy students protest tuition hikes?

beyphy
Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:38:58 +0000

There is nothing to protest against. The State of California is broke. They have no choice but to raise tuition.



pretty much this. I read online somewhere/heard from someone that the UCs are just as good as private schools, and the only reason they were dirt cheap was because the state was subsidizing them. And since the state is no longer subsidizing them, guess what? they’re not dirt cheap anymore #modusTollens

I was actually having a conversation about this was a professor of mine (who’s been very influential in the development of UCLA from what i hear) and he said that the tuition will likely continue to increase until it gets to 18k or so. I brought up the objection that students would have little incentives to go to public schools if they were expensive as private schools, to which he objected that UCLA and Berkeley ‘are among the best universities in the world.’ I’d agree with this, but i strongly doubt i’d be attending UCLA if it cost 18k.

He also noted that even if the state could increase funds, the university would probably keep tuition levels at what they were since it would be such a shock to everyone if they cut tuition by that much only to drastically raise it again.

as to the OP, you should really look up wealthy. Tuiton won’t increase to ‘a billion dollars a year.’ As was noted earlier, wealthy students don’t go to UCs because they’re the best school they were accepted into and can afford, but probably more in regards to the former, or personal stuff like location. But most of the wealthy students who attend UCLA or Berkeley can probably also afford to pay for each of their respective crosstown rivals: USC and Stanford.



Increasing tuition by $10,000/yr might be enough for these kids to choose the other school.



that assumes that private won’t also raise by 10k a year. If one doesn’t get scholarships, then a 22k/yr UC berkeley is still way cheaper than a 50k USC/Stanford w/o scholarships.