I wonder: where were these student protests over the past several years while California was pissing away so much money they went broke and had to raise undergraduate fees? Are they willing to barricade themselves into a lecture hall for the cause of fiscal responsibility, or will they just clamor for more and more benefits that the state treasury can't afford?
Most of them were in high school or junior high, and too busy being teenagers and worrying about the things teenagers normally worry about. All they are asking for is the same opportunity their parents had. You know, those people who actually were old to behave like responsible adults, old enough to vote, and actually did vote through all those costly initiatives and tax cuts that led this state to it's current dismal condition.
Compared to their parents, UC students today have to pay more, have to go deeper into debt, and to expect fewer services, and that's not their fault. Just be glad the UC system hasn't instituted the mandatory furloughs that the CSU system has, effectively shortening each semester by more than a week. College level education in this state is an utter mess. They have every right to be upset IMO, even if they are doing the silly protest and all that that college students always do.
What really got me going were the protesters with signs saying education should be offered for no cost. And I'd say the majority of them just jumped onto the fastest moving bandwagon and protested because it was the cool progressive thing to do. They make me glad to hear the prices have jumped. And yes, I do feel it. My sibling and cousins attend UC campuses.
Well, you could argue that there will be greater economic productivity from subsidizing education and allocating college places solely on merit than there is under the existing system, which causes students to graduate with significant debts. This model seems to work quite well for a number of other countries. Ireland does this, and the proportion of young adults (25-34) with degree is ~30 higher than the EU average, at 41%, plus Irish universities are highly rated. There are discussions about reintroducing fees, but I think they need to be seen in the light of Ireland recently getting hit with an economic triple whammy after a period of unrestrained fiscal growth.
Alternatively, one might increase the available tax deduction for interest on student loans, which is capped at $2,500 per annum. I fail to see what economic purpose is served by having students graduate with $40,000 or more of debt when their earning potential is lowest.
That's fine. But I doubt the majority of students out there yelling their hearts out for free education know what's involved in working towards that goal.
Seriously though, something is very wrong with the UC system. I was discussing this over lunch with Mrs Browl, who graduated UCLA in 2003. At that time annual tuition was $3,429. with these newest increases it's now just over $10,000. It kept shooting up about 15% or more each year even as the bull market was in full swing (and money was pouring into state coffers). Now the state is in a fiscal bind and somehow the UC system has managed to rack up $13 billion in future healthcare liabilities as well as massive pension obligations: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21908
Edit: here's some #s on tuition fees to illustrate the point:
I can't help thinking about risk with regard to the financing of education. My mind takes an immediate short cut (as in, my point may not be well reasoned) to commentary I've read that describes how e.g. the move from "traditional" pensions to 401K plans and similar personal investment vehicles has shifted risk from companies to individuals.
In education, it seems (at least, on the surface, in financial figures quoted in the news) that students and their families are being asked to take on more and more risk with regard to students' education. Try viewing the system as having two parties: The student (and their social circle), who benefits from gaining a more competitive (and, depending upon your perspective, personally enriching) skillset; and society, which ostensibly gains a member capable of greater contributions.
With employees and employers, it might seem that the employer/company is better able to take on and to manage risk. Greater financial resources, and greater ability to contract or employ professional advice and to do so in an efficient manner, sharing the benefit of that advice across multiple employees. Instead, financial management has been pushed to the employees; employers' liability has been minimized.
(That's the argument that's been made. In light of developments in the last several years, I'm not sure it's a valid one.)
In education, it seems that society might better be able to carry the risk of initial career choices. But that risk has been pushed increasingly to students.
The idea of society taking on greater risk in managing tertiary education may fall down in that (U.S.) society does not directly tell students what careers to pursue. Thank goodness; I doubt that's what we want. Although it can influence by determining funding differentials including scholarships, government funding of research, etc.
But I'm not arguing for going such a route whole hog (entirely). I'm not really making much of an effective argument at all. Rather, I'm asking, what is the allocation of risk in the U.S. tertiary education system/market. Has it been changing (it seems so, to me), and if so, what are the mechanisms and reasoning behind this?
Lest this question seem merely "academic" (sorry), there is also plenty of public discussion about the effects of these high levels of personal debt resulting from education expenses. New doctors who don't go into primary care not just because specialization pays better but because, even if they are called to primary care and are willing to forgo specialization's larger pay, the need to pay off enormous loans prevents them from making that choice. New lawyers who feel compelled to go the corporate route for similar reasons.
There's also what's been happening to the job market for educators: Instructors spread across three part time jobs at different institutions. Benefits declining or not offered. Traditional, "tenured" positions (whether you like them or not) increasingly rare.
I don't have the answers, and I'm not involved with this enough to have much first hand experience. My perceptions, that form the basis of my question, may be wrong. I hope my question was worth raising, and that I didn't totally munge it in posing it here.
You and the responders to your comment have a notable point about the students' crying over spilled milk, but a 32% increase in fees is quite drastic and shocking! The average cost increase for a public 4-year college is 6.2%[1]
Where were these students in years past? With their head in the same place as Americans that didn't feel the cost of paying for war: because it was all paid with debt, not current revenue. These students are behaving exactly the way most of America is behavior right now. We would like to think that people that are educated enough to be at Berkeley would have preempted the problem, but time and time again, the most base human behavior prevails.
Busy with their high school and without the right to vote? This is the first time those people can say anything officially and be taken seriously. If they don't like what's happening, then I think they're doing pretty well - started to get involved as early as they could.
For a bunch of kids fresh out of high school making their first serious political statement, "the state should give me more free government services" is a rather short-sighted, self-serving expression to make.
I'm quite OKw ith paying some taxes to subsidize their education as long as the colleges are run with sufficient fiscal discipline. The more well-educated people we have the more California's economy is likely to grow. This is why education was so heavily subsidized in California to begin with, and part of the reason (in addition to our copious natural resources) for the state's long-time leadership in science and technology.
to turn you statement around, for a bunch of kids fresh out of high school getting their first dose of political reality, "you are going to be about $50k in debt when you graduate because your elders and betters have screwed up the economy so badly" is a pretty poor payoff for the last several years of academic effort.
Someone who is barely scraping by is a) the least likely to get hit with more tax, b)most likely to derive benefit over the long term from an economy wide rising tide, and c) most in need to subsidized education that could improve their earning power.
I have extensive first-hand experience of barely scraping by, and reject your analogy of 'pointing a gun at someone'. For things like education and healthcare (which liberals like myself believe to be worth public funding), some compare it to sticking up the weakest and poorest and taxing them farther into poverty, whereas the reality is that those services, which are almost essential for economic security and advancement, are stuck behind a big paywall and those who object to the existence of this wall have guns pointed at them. Yesterday, literally so, in the form of riot guns.
High school graduates have the lowest earning power and the highest rate of unemployment. I don't see the social good in saddling them with tens of thousand in debt so that when they graduate they are forced towards the most lucrative offer. That's how we ended up with a shortage of scientists and engineers and a surplus of quantitative analysts on Wall Street.
I am not fresh out of high school, but I still think the state should give them more free government services. I have a lot more use for educated fellow citizens than I have for, say, roads. (It's not socialism when the government builds roads that are free for everyone to use, but it is when we talk about educating people or helping them not die from some disease. I think that is pretty funny...)
I believe he was anticipating the socialism argument from someone, and he was trying to nip it in the bud. You are in the set of "someone" but you are not the only element in that set. Don't take it so personally.
