Joe Mathews pens a blog item with a scare headline on tuition and then suggests we put UC tuition increases on the ballot. Thanks for both helpful thoughts, Joe.PS: You can do better.
Could a 70 Percent Tuition Increase Be in UC's Future?
PropZero blog of KNBC, Joe Mathews, 1-21-11
At the University of California, there's a rule of thumb: for every $100 million that the university system loses in public support, fees (now being called tuition) goes up by 7 percent.
So let's do some facile math. With Gov. Brown proposing to cut $500 million from UC (a 20 percent cut in state support for UC), that could result in a 35 percent fee/tuition increase. UC officials say they won't increase fees now and will look to make cuts. But bank on the fact that in the long-term, the piper must be paid.
And 35 percent may not be enough: UC President Mark Yudof gave an extensive interview to the LA Times this weekend in which he said the $500 million cut actually creates a $1 billion hole in the state budget. If that's true and the math is right, does that mean UC students will see a 70 percent fee increase in the future?
That amounts to a big tax increase on California families. As a candidate, Gov. Brown promised that taxes wouldn't be raised without voter approval. By that logic and math, shouldn't these fee/tuition increases be put to the people?
Article at http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/Fearless-Prediction-A-70-Percent-Tuition-Increase-at-UC-113915134.html
1 comment:
Your logic is tenuous, but it does underscore the radical inefficiency of a state that requires voter approval for taxation.
The question you should be asking is what percentage of a tuition dollar goes to fund pensions?
I must confess that although the tuition increases irritate me, I don't think throwing money into a corrupt system is the solution.
Post a Comment