🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7074@public.BTR.COM> rickk@public.BTR.COM (Rick) writes:
>While it may not be popular with many California parents, perhaps the
>problem with the Cal public colleges is that they've taken a low
>cost and low financial aid profile -- which is VERY admirable and
>desirable by all of my values, as long as it's affordable.
>
>As our economy has changed, however, the argument can be made that the 
>approach of other states -- higher tuitions and higher financial aid --
>means that families that can afford $3500-7000 a year in tuition pay that,
>and financial aid is there for those who can't afford it ... instead,
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     There are many students in CA who are eligible for financial aid who
are not getting a dime, because funds are not there.  Furthermore, many 
older, independent, working students are not even eligible; these people are
losing hope of ever working themselves through college as tuitions rise.  

>in California we now have subsidies for the middle and upper middle
>class families (which may not be able to or chose to pay private tuitions
>of $15000+ a year, but which could afford $5,000 ...) ....

    I don't have the exact number, but taking the UC fee hike for next year as
an example, an astounding number of students are paying extra fees so that
former Chancelor David Gardner can have a "pleasant" retirement.


>
>(No flames, please ... simply one way of looking at it ...
    I'm not flaming you, but I hate to see the dream of affordable higher
education die in this country.  We've already lost the economic edge in
manufacturing; If we lose the edge in R&D our standard of living declines
that much further.  Education paid for with public dollars is a far better
investment than anything else the state could be spending money on, especially
prisons.  It costs far more to keep an inmate in prison, than to put the same
inmate in Stanford; think about it....

-John
jscott@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu