next »

[jonesey]

This could have gone under my other California thread, but this deserves its own:

The University of California Board of Regents was expected to approve a plan on Thursday to raise undergraduate fees — the equivalent of tuition — 32 percent by next fall, to help make up for steep cuts in state funding.

The state allocation for the 10-campus system, one of the leading public university systems in the nation, was cut $813 million, or 20 percent, this year, leading to a hiring freeze, furloughs and layoffs.

The impact on the University of California campuses has been dramatic: faculty hiring is not keeping up with enrollment demand, and many course sections have been eliminated. Instructional budgets are being reduced by $139 million, with 1,900 employees laid off, 3,800 positions eliminated and hiring deferred for nearly 1,600 positions, most of them faculty.

I don't have a terrible amount of sympathy as California's in-state tuition has traditionally been one of the lowest in the country, but a 32% hike is no joke.

Full story in The New York Times.

[wannabeaphd]

I had heard that the hike was only on Student Fees, not Tuition as a whole, and that it amounted to about $2,500. Not that such an amount is negligible, especially to students at a public school, however it's not quite as bad as it sounds. CA in State tuition is an excellent value, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will be able to continue...

[cranefly]

I hope that they have the sense to phase it in, so that students who are already there studying are not hit with a major, unexpected rise in tuition. It would be nice if that is just the price for new students, or if they could off-set it with part time jobs for those students who can't afford the bump.

[untenured]

Not knowing much about California costs, I would surmise that a one-third hike in fees is on a much different magnitude than a one-third hike in tuition.

Still, the change is significant.

Untenured

[concordancia]

Not knowing much about California costs, I would surmise that a one-third hike in fees is on a much different magnitude than a one-third hike in tuition.

Still, the change is significant.

Untenured
I thought CA didn't actually charge tuition, relying instead on these fees, which tend to amount to quite a bit more than fees at other state schools, but still less than most in-state tuition. I am looking at the CSU-CI site right now and these fees were just raised for this school year, and at that particular campus amount to about what I paid in tuition + fees just over ten years ago in a different state.

[untenured]

Good point.  I have no idea.  No doubt others in forumland will enlighten us.

Untenured

[notaprof]

From the LA Times (per year charges)

The fee hike that everyone is arguing about (justifiably so) will come in two steps by fall 2010. Basic UC education fees will rise then to about $10,300, plus another $1,000 for campus-based charges and an estimated additional $16,000 for room, board and books.

[mad_doctor]

At my last school, the people who did stuff like this rewarded themselves with pay raises.  Look out, CA...

[kedves]

That will bring it in line with in-state tuition at other state universities. 

[takapa]

My apologies to Jonesey as the OP; I didn't see this thread and started another one...  The pictures of the police in riot gear with the student protesters were unsettling. 

[navydad]

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I believe that the UC does not charge "tuition" to California residents. It charges "fees". It charges tuition to non-residents (on top of the fees). I think this is a semantic difference at this point and that the terminology is based in the California master plan for public higher education. It gets confusing because what the UC calls "fees" are functionally equivalent to tuition and many media stories use the terms interchangeably. Any UC folks want to validate or correct me here?

[jonesey]

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I believe that the UC does not charge "tuition" to California residents. It charges "fees". It charges tuition to non-residents (on top of the fees). I think this is a semantic difference at this point and that the terminology is based in the California master plan for public higher education. It gets confusing because what the UC calls "fees" are functionally equivalent to tuition and many media stories use the terms interchangeably. Any UC folks want to validate or correct me here?

You are correct.  California charges "fees" and not "tuition" but it's exactly the same thing, just a different term.

[sibyl]

There's a very interesting video story about this on the CHE home page, not protected by login, so we can all see it.  It makes three points not made in print stories. 

First, students protest EVERY regents' meeting, so it's street theater, except that this time you can see protesters throwing things at the police. 

Second, there's also a reference to a video (apparently on YouTube) of campus police tasering a disruptive student in the library, although you never get to see what the student did to provoke the tasering.

Third, Chancellor Yudof says that most students (two thirds?  I forget already) won't pay any extra dollars because it'll be covered by financial aid.

It's a two-minute clip.  Worth the time.