

Big campus protests after University of Calif. OKs 32% tuition hike - Scott_MacGregor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34044243/ns/us_news-education/

======
zenlinux
I know for this particular example the problem is tightly related to
California's state budget problems, but the astronomical increase in the cost
of a college education over the past generation drives me nuts.

It seems like this is one area where market forces can't do their job, because
almost no one seems willing to forgo paying the exorbitant price of a college
education, so there seem to be no pressures for prices to decline or remain
stable. Instead we've changed the culture so most of this generation starts
their working lives with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. If you're not
willing to put up with this, you could very well be shutting yourself out of
the middle class. It's not right.

~~~
spamizbad
I'm not exactly Mr. Free Market, but as far as I can tell the market appears
to be functioning as intended.

People place a _very_ high value on what they perceive to be a good college
education, and this value is typically how much student debt they can acquire.
There are well-known ways to significantly cut the cost of your college
education: going to in-state schools, and conducting the first two years of
your education at a community college. Despite this many people shun in-state
institutions (unless they're in a state like California which has numerous
highly regarded public universities, but then again they're all hard to get
into), and even more laugh the the notion of Jr. College, determining it only
fit for misfits teens and continuing adult education Note: I don't agree with
that assessment, but it serves to illustrate the fact that college has become
so closely tied to social status, making pricey schools all the more
desirable.

As for what's driving tuition upwards, it's probably the fact that the modern
University has become a luxury resort. They've got an array of clinics, career
councilors, psychologists, paid tutors, entire buildings designated for non-
athletic student recreation, bike and jogging paths, numerous social groups,
reasonably well-maintained facilities and immaculately manicured campuses.

Further driving costs upward, besides state budget shortfalls for public
universities, is the fact that they are very aggressive at handing out
scholarships to attract top-notch students, along with the significant amount
of marketing that is conducted to get everyone else to shell out big-bucks for
their undergraduate programs.

And when you look at study after study that shows you're going to earn
significantly more over your lifetime if you get a college education, is it
any surprise people are willing to eat the high upfront costs? Paying $50,000
to a student loan for an additional $10K+/year in earnings potential seems
like a bargain to me. Granted, it's not always going to work out for the best,
but hey you gotta take risks to get ahead.

~~~
jplewicke
Another possible reason for tuition increases is Baumol's Cost Disease (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumols_cost_disease> ), in which the relative
cost of providing a service grows rapidly because it hasn't had productivity
improvements. When the amount of time needed to teach someone how to compose
an essay hasn't changed since before 1960, it's not surprising that it's
gotten more expensive compared to the price of microwave ovens.

Since most of our economic activities experience greater productivity growth
than we've seen in education, it's not surprising that educational
expenditures are growing faster than inflation. I'm hopeful that this will
change as web-based education goes mainstream.

------
abhiyerra
I found fault in the student protests even though these fees are going to
affect me quite a bit next semester. It seems the money being raised is being
spent to keep all the engineering, business, economics, and law professors
around while the other majors are likely going to suffer severe cuts or flat
out closure. I know for the Hacker News crowd those previous majors are likely
the ones that matter most. Unfortunately, Berkeley offers a great deal of
interesting classes where the professors will either leave or they will be
cut. Linguistics and history to name a few personal favorites (Disclosure: I
am a history major) are going to be two such classes. As much as people like
to see a degree in terms of economic potential, of how much money a person can
make with a degree, in the end it is about knowledge no matter what field you
study. In my experience while I felt that computer science taught me a whole
lot about computers, studying history has taught me a lot more about life.

I am not blaming the administration for the fee increases. They might be large
and bureaucratic, but they nonetheless have higher ups that they are
responsible to. The real blame goes to the people of California and its
legislature. All tax increases in the assembly have to be voted by a 2/3
majority while a tax decreases do not. This is near impossible as the
assemblymen and assemblywomen tend to be along hardcore party lines. Further,
adding Prop 13
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_\(1978\)#Negative_effects))
has not helped at all making it near impossible. Ending Prop 13 would give the
state quite a bit in revenue to continue funding higher education and fund
many of the chronic deficits California faces. Unfortunately, even though the
California public views higher education as an important goal they also want
low taxes at the same time which is impossible to sustain (if 8 years of Bush
have taught us anything). Those are opposing goals!

Professor Lakoff is attempting to propose a ballot which will change the tax
initiatives to majority rules. It simply reads, "All legislative actions on
revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." It is called the
California Democracy Act (<http://www.californiademocracyact.com>)

~~~
anamax
> Ending Prop 13 would give the state quite a bit in revenue to continue
> funding higher education and fund many of the chronic deficits California
> faces.

No it wouldn't because local property taxes don't fund higher education and
never have; higher ed has always been funded at the state level.

> Ending Prop 13 would give the state quite a bit in revenue to continue
> funding higher education and fund many of the chronic deficits California
> faces.

You're assuming that CA has a revenue problem. It doesn't. It spends gobs more
than most other states (per capita).

CA has a spending problem. That can't be solved with more revenues.

> . Unfortunately, even though the California public views higher education as
> an important goal they also want low taxes at the same time which is
> impossible to sustain (if 8 years of Bush have taught us anything). Those
> are opposing goals!

The US govt also has a spending problem.

It is possible to not have a spending problem. Texas (among others) manages to
have decent schools and low taxes.

[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
voegli1-2009nov01,...](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story)

~~~
microtherion
> You're assuming that CA has a revenue problem. It doesn't. It spends gobs
> more than most other states (per capita).

CA is pretty much precisely in the middle of per capita spending:

[http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&#...</a>

------
alexgartrell
$10k is a GOOD DEAL for a UC education. Carnegie Mellon's tuition runs 4-5x
that.

And in other "screw the students" news

[http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/21561211/detail.htm...](http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/21561211/detail.html)

tl;dr Pittsburgh Mayor comes up with bad budget, needs cash, screws college
students with 1% tuition tax (1% of $50k is 500 bucks)

~~~
rms
Ravenstahl is an idiot. It's like someone told him "hey, hospitals and
students are really important to Pittsburgh and they don't pay very man taxes"
and he decided the answer was to start taxing students.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this tax is legal and neither do the
universities. If this goes through, Ravenstahl is going to waste a lot of
money defending himself from the inevitable court battle.

~~~
steveklabnik
Luke only cares about old people, and how they vote. This is Pittsburgh! It's
the correct strategy, unfortunatly.

------
mojonixon
Long term, higher education is screwed. There's no real way to improve the
efficiency of 1prof:10-100 students. Most attempts just result in an inferior
product. Increasing productivity in all other areas means that professor and
the resulting education gets more and more expensive (everything else gets
cheaper in comparison).

~~~
ovi256
Long term, haircutting is screwed. There's no real way to improve the
efficiency of 1hairstylist:10-100 clients. Most attempts just result in an
inferior product. Increasing productivity in all other areas means that the
hairstylist and the resulting haircut get more and more expensive (everything
else gets cheaper in comparison).

------
bdr
It would be interesting if, over time, more and more private schools'
endowments allowed them to eliminate tuition, so that in the end public
schools were the more expensive choice.

~~~
yardie
I wish you were joking but my xgf went to a private liberal arts college in
the mid-atlantic. I chose the state school route because it would be cheaper,
I was told. Even though we were similar economically and academically, her
tuition bill was far lower than mine, class sizes were smaller and more
focused, and she got far more help in practically everything.

Unlike my school her school was basically the same size over the last 5
decades (no new buildings, no new mortgages, no new tuition increases). Mine
went on a building spree of new dorms, cafeterias, renovating the stadiums,
new recreation center, and a hotel. When the shit hit the fan they stuck the
students, who weren't even asked about it, with the bill. They were told the
alumni donors and state would pay for it. But donors and the state can stop
paying when they don't feel like it. The students don't have that luxury.

~~~
anamax
> But donors and the state can stop paying when they don't feel like it. The
> students don't have that luxury.

Sure they do - it's called transferring. And for potential students, it's
called going elsewhere.

Yes, students have higher transaction costs, but that's just another way of
saying that they should investigate more before making an initial decision.

To put it another way, did you really think that the free lunch would
continue, that all of the spiffy stuff didn't have costs that you might have
to pay?

Decisions have consequences, even for college students.

------
icefox
I wonder how many of those students voted in the last election.

~~~
krakensden
It wouldn't have mattered. All the tax increase ballot propositions went down
by over a million votes.

Furthermore, because of the way California is gerrymandered, I would be amazed
if any students live in districts that aren't over 60% democratic.

Isn't it grand? You can't vote anybody out, and unless you have over 2/3 of
the districts, you can't do anything worth a damn either, because the parties
live in separate realities.

Here's to the rising tide lifting our boats out this mess...

~~~
absconditus
Why does everyone assume this is a tax issue?

[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=513)

I count only 9 states with higher tax revenue per capita.

