UC students against unfair policies

[Sarastro]

Over a year ago, I started a thread where I expressed my concerns about the proposed tuition hikes in the University of California system and the implementation of the new policies that would reduce California residents' -- particularly those who belong to minority groups -- access to education. Then, I was rabidly attacked for "speculation," but as it turned out, the "speculation" was nothing but the coming reality. Here, at UC Berkeley, as well as at other UC and CSU campuses, students protest.

Students, faculty and staff across the nation are gathering on Oct. 7 in defense of public education. After California faced a $24 billion budget gap last year and cut $637 million in funding to the UC system, the university took steps to fill its own funding hole, implementing a furlough program and a 32 percent fee increase for students.

Campuses across the system made their own cuts, the impacts of which are still being felt this year. And with the announcement that UC Berkeley will cut some 200 positions in January, a freeze in faculty hiring, a proposal to develop online courses at the UC, a rise in out-of-state student enrollment and the elimination of four intercollegiate athletic teams this year, protesters say they still have much to rally about in regards to the changing nature of the university and public education as a whole.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/110671/live_blog_oct._7_day_of_action

On several campuses of the University of California, which lost $637-million in state appropriations last year, groups also held events to mark Thursday's "National Day of Action to Defend Public Education."

At the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY, demonstrators at a variety of events protested the cuts and their effects on public colleges and universities. One event, a sit-in in a library reading room, drew some 500 participants before the campus police blocked access. The demonstrators banged on desks and chanted "Whose university? Our university!" and several hundred remained in the room as of late afternoon, but there were no reports of arrests, according to the university's News Center.

Other demonstrations at Berkeley included a large outdoor rally and "teach-outs," in which professors held classes outside. IGNACIO CHAPELA, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AT BERKELEY, was one who held his classes outside on Thursday. Mr. Chapela said many students are upset about the university's student-fee increase of more than 30 percent, as well as an influx of out-of-state enrollment, to compensate for lost funds.

http://berkeley.edu/news/in_news/archives/20101008.shtml
http://berkeley.edu/news/in_news/archives/20101007.shtml

[Catison]

Students at UC Berkeley are upset about something?  Stop the presses!!!

But seriously, the UC system lost money.  What did you expect them to do?

[Sarastro]

What did you expect them to do?

Hum, maybe instead of paying the football coach 2.7 million per year and investing tons of money into athletics, they could use this money not to cut so many classes and lay off instructors? After all, we are famous for our Nobel laureates and our scholarship, not for our athletics.

[mc ukrneal]

Hum, maybe instead of paying the football coach 2.7 million per year and investing tons of money into athletics, they could use this money not to cut so many classes and lay off instructors? After all, we are famous for our Nobel laureates and our scholarship, not for our athletics.

But that is probably a revenue generator (it is at most schools), which by cutting would probably have led to even bigger budget problems.

[DavidW]

Brett said it right, you can't really expect anything else from public universities in a state that is deeply in the red.  I'm speaking as a teacher that has been faced with this problem, but you have to accept that if there is no money there is no money.  Sounds unfair?  Life is unfair.  Our collapsing economy is unfair.  But we can only play the cards we're delt.

[Scarpia]

Over a year ago, I started a thread where I expressed my concerns about the proposed tuition hikes in the University of California system and the implementation of the new policies that would reduce California residents' -- particularly those who belong to minority groups -- access to education. Then, I was rabidly attacked for "speculation," but as it turned out, the "speculation" was nothing but the coming reality. Here, at UC Berkeley, as well as at other UC and CSU campuses, students protest.

The UC lost more than 20% of it's base budget of 3 billion from the state.  As far as I know, the UC system has done what it can to mitigate the effects of this devastating budget cut.  Protesting that the UC has no right to cut programs or raise tuition under these conditions only indicates a lack of understanding of arithmetic.   Maybe UC students are not as bright as they think they are. 

[DavidW]

Toucan that is very elitist.  I mean man what the heck? 

[DavidRoss]

The UC lost more than 20% of it's base budget of 3 billion from the state.  As far as I know, the UC system has done what it can to mitigate the effects of this devastating budget cut.  Protesting that the UC has no right to cut programs or raise tuition under these conditions only indicates a lack of understanding of arithmetic.   Maybe UC students are not as bright as they think they are. 

QFT.  If they bothered to learn something about the economic realities of life, instead of gullibly swallowing whatever lefty nonsense they've been spoonfed by teachers who've never had to face the real world, maybe they'd be shouting prayers of gratitude instead of squalling like spoiled brats.

[Scarpia]

Thank you, Mr Scarpia, for this fine display of educated maturity...

The reason the US became the dominant economic power in the world after the second world war is that higher education became available to people who were not already wealthy, which exploited the economic power of a larger fraction of the population.  It also had the effect of improving the lives of a larger fraction of the public.  Your suggestion that higher education is only appropriate for the children of doctors and lawyers is idiotic, as well as contemptible, in my view.

[zamyrabyrd]

In short, the schools of those days educated fewer people but they educated them more thoroughly well than even the best schools of today.

That ought to be the ideal of the schools of today as well.

The problem with a Classical education was having to memorize Latin and Greek syntax rather than grapple with practical knowledge.  This may have been OK for a leisured elite but not very practical for those who had to eventually earn a living.  I am not against transmitting the literary and musical monuments of civilization, am surely a guilty party in this. Still, there is much wasted time in education. Why it has to be so expensive is, to me, a mystery. The Internet, though, will probably change much of the need to sit in actual classrooms and this is already happening.

ZB

[Scarpia]

The problem with a Classical education was having to memorize Latin and Greek syntax rather than grapple with practical knowledge.  This may have been OK for a leisured elite but not very practical for those who had to eventually earn a living.  I am not against transmitting the literary and musical monuments of civilization, am surely a guilty party in this. Still, there is much wasted time in education. Why it has to be so expensive is, to me, a mystery. The Internet, though, will probably change much of the need to sit in actual classrooms and this is already happening.

Certainly there are many things that can be taught well using internet based classes (just as you can learn by staying at home and reading a book) but I'm not sure the internet is necessarily a good replacement for actual Universities where people come together and interact. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The reason the US became the dominant economic power in the world after the second world war is that higher education became available to people [etc.]

Another reason the US became the dominant economic power after WW2 was because our competitors were in ruins. Sure, higher education is helpful, but US economic dominance occurred in an abnormally favorable historical context.

[Todd]

But you have to accept that if there is no money there is no money.

Words of wisdom indeed.  Just wait until the fight for public pensions gets fully underway in every state.

Very few people have the ability to do well enough in good schools & undergo successfully courses of study designed for future lawyers, bankers, doctors, senators, professors - ie, educated middle classes.  And those who do are for the most part the children of doctors, lawyers, etc...

What evidence do you have to support this rather broad claim?  Actual, concrete statistics only please, not wishful thinking.

The Memoirs and correspondences I have read from the XVIIIth, XIXth, and early XXth centuries have suggested to me the educated people of those days were better educated than the best educated people of today.  Not only were they well trained in their professions, they spoke several languages (up to four: Greek, Latin and one or two modern languages. They were knowledgeable in the history of letters and philosophy, the sciences, etc. They thought clearly and coherently and wrote clearly, in a style of writing that was uniform (basically XVIIth/XVIIIth century French or English), but never flat or dull.

Ah, yes, things used to be so much better in the good old days.  Talk about a tired, intellectually lazy "argument."  Speaking multiple languages of no significance is not intellectually impressive, for instance.  Were educated people of old better informed about philosophy or letters?  Really?  So?  What did they know of computer science, nuclear physics, subterranean geology, hydrology, etc.  Given "their" supposed intellectual superiority, why did all of them not attack things like slavery, anti-Semitism, Colonialism, and other horrible practices in their own eras?  Some rather potent intellects defended all manner of horrible institutions and practices.  I suppose that is acceptable if only their education was better.  (Never mind that more than a little of what passed for factual knowledge may have, in fact, been wrong.)  Your statement about the quality of their writing (never flat or dull) is more than a bit wrong.  Out of curiosity, how many memoirs and correspondences of modern intellectuals, leaders, and educated elites have you read?

The reason the US became the dominant economic power in the world after the Second World War is that higher education became available to people who were not already wealthy, which exploited the economic power of a larger fraction of the population.

Incorrect.  The US tertiary education system is indeed a critical part of the overall success of the US in the post-war world, but the US became the dominant economic power because the other great powers impoverished themselves through the war, and the US exploited its position.  The US had been the largest economy for decades before the war, and took on the role of reconstruction financier after the Great War.  The foundation for American global power predates the 40s and 50s and is more reliant on things other than universities.

[Scarpia]

Incorrect.  The US tertiary education system is indeed a critical part of the overall success of the US in the post-war world, but the US became the dominant economic power because the other great powers impoverished themselves through the war, and the US exploited its position.  The US had been the largest economy for decades before the war, and took on the role of reconstruction financier after the Great War.  The foundation for American global power predates the 40s and 50s and is more reliant on things other than universities.

To attribute it entirely to the University system is overstating, but I don't think one can justifiably deny that it was an important factor.  Looking at my own family, before WWII and the GI bill (which allowed members of the armed forced to attend college after discharge) there was not a single ancestor of mine that had gotten as far as graduating high school.  In the next generation 4 out of 5 graduated college, and 100% of their children (my cousins) graduated college.  My grandfather was a barber and without the transformation of the US system of higher education I might very well be one too.

[Gurn Blanston]

To attribute it entirely to the University system is overstating, but I don't think one can justifiably deny that it was an important factor.  Looking at my own family, before WWII and the GI bill (which allowed members of the armed forced to attend college after discharge) there was not a single ancestor of mine that had gotten as far as graduating high school.  In the next generation 4 out of 5 graduated college, and 100% of their children (my cousins) graduated college.  My grandfather was a barber and without the transformation of the US system of higher education I might very well be one too.

Pretty sure you guys are saying the same thing. Reread his first line.

And I agree with both of you, and with those who have tried to explain that you can't make people shit money they don't have.



----------------
Now playing: Andreas Staier - Wq 059 #4 Rondo in c for Keyboard

[Coopmv]

Hum, maybe instead of paying the football coach 2.7 million per year and investing tons of money into athletics, they could use this money not to cut so many classes and lay off instructors? After all, we are famous for our Nobel laureates and our scholarship, not for our athletics.

Pardon my ignorance, which UC campus is in the Big Ten?  I thought SoCal is private?

[Gurn Blanston]

Pardon my ignorance, which UC campus is in the Big Ten?  I thought SoCal is private?

Not at all. They are in the the PAC 10 (or I guess they call it the PAC 12 these days)... No Big 10 in California.



----------------
Now playing:
Andreas Staier - Wq 059 #4 Rondo in c for Keyboard

[Sarastro]

The UC lost more than 20% of it's base budget of 3 billion from the state.  As far as I know, the UC system has done what it can to mitigate the effects of this devastating budget cut.  Protesting that the UC has no right to cut programs or raise tuition under these conditions only indicates a lack of understanding of arithmetic.

Well, the outcome of the Oct.7 Walkout is that the University somehow found extra 300 million dollars for additional funding.

Another reason the US became the dominant economic power after WW2 was because our competitors were in ruins. Sure, higher education is helpful, but US economic dominance occurred in an abnormally favorable historical context.

Some other reasons why the US became the dominant economic power were high corporate taxation (90%) and reinvesting that taxed money back into people, and also we were the biggest manufacturer in the world. Nowadays, corporations enjoy extremely low tax brackets, and every time a president mentions raising taxes for the rich (250K+ per year), ignorant people shout that it is raising taxes for all. We also are not producing stuff any more -- all of manufacturing is outsourced to so-called "Third World" countries, and we just play with our finances and provide services. And this is really scary: while greedy corporations do not want to pay skilled American workers and deal with unions, they outsource and empower economically other nations. I am not saying it's bad -- it is good for economic development and well-being of these countries' citizens -- but what if they decide to stop exporting to us, and nothing is being manufactured here? Not to mention that manufacturing would create the much-needed jobs. So yeah, our economic colonialism is damaging us back.

[Todd]

Before you pan those who have learned foreign languages perhaps you should try your hand at learning at least one.

Goodness gracious, you certainly are a wee bit presumptuous.  I studied German for four years.  You know what, I've never had any reason to use it since I stopped studying it.  I should have spent the time studying something else. 

Now, for more practical, English speaking people, it makes sense to learn Spanish and Mandarin, as those are the other two languages most widely spoken throughout the world.  (Cantonese will help in the business world going forward, too.)  French, German, Swedish (to pick three), and most other languages are of little practical value.  Dead languages like Latin and ancient Greek are of value only to a very small group of academics.  There's no reason for anyone else to study them at all.  One can certainly wax poetic about the great cultural knowledge one gains – not to mention the great, almost religious benefits of being able to read a great classic in the original – from speaking so many tongues, but I'm afraid such talk is exaggerated gobbledygook.  If you believe it, more power to you.

Well, I suppose you could also deride educated people of old for knowing more about classical music than anyone does today (considering what does indeed look like a dwindling public for sophisticated entertainment in our time): but if that's how you feel, why do you post on a classical music site?

Um, okay.

As a matter of fact,

As a matter of fact

Looks like we know your favorite space filler.  Do you use this in conversation when you don't know what else to say, you know, like when people say "uh" all slack-jawed and such.  I guess this makes you look more learned, something you obviously care a great deal about.

I do confess it was amusing to see you put so much learned, well thought out support for some of your arguments.  Pity you missed my point.  It's quite easy to find some specific intellectuals who opposed this, or organized against that, and so on.  But such is not the approach of all the learned souls who have been churned out by the prestigious houses of learning you so revere.  Many, perhaps even most, who presumably benefitted mightily from the great education you write so approvingly of, decided to continue on with the destructive ways of the past.  (Shh, that may be true nowadays, too.)  A great college education can just as easily produce a clod as an intellectual dynamo.  It can also produce pompous people who think they have the corner on historical understanding.  I'm not going to mention any names here.

I must also confess that it's rather amusing to see that I've been so influenced by "ideologically-determined rants of what ultra-democratic party has indoctrinated you[.]"  Whew!  That sent shivers down my spine.  Am I to take it that I'm a mush brained "liberal?"  Perhaps a socialist, even?  I'm so confused.  I've also been called a callous conservative (and much worse, right on this forum!), a libertarian, not to mention a cynic, a skeptic, and any number of other things.  What am I, all-wise toucan?  What am I?

And before you again presume to dogmatically preach at me on the quality of anyone's writing, you need to learn to respect good writers and the civilisations that produce them and their public.

My, my, looks like I struck a nerve.  You apparently fancy yourself some type of heavy-duty intellect, no doubt doing his (or her) fair best to protect the last bastions of decency and culture from the barbarians waiting to thrash it.  One problem.  You're not.  You're posting on the net, a writhing hornet's nest of heathens and half-educated buffoons so clearly beneath your wonderful self.  You're a nothing, so get over yourself.

(Interesting, and predictable, how you failed to produce any concrete evidence to my prior query in your response.)

[Todd]

Some other reasons why the US became the dominant economic power were high corporate taxation (90%) and reinvesting that taxed money back into people, and also we were the biggest manufacturer in the world.

You may want to go back and reread your economic history a bit more.  At no point have corporations (or wealthy individuals) routinely paid 90% tax rates, irrespective of what the top marginal rate was.  Indeed, the Civil War aside, taxes on income didn't exist until the Progressive era, by which time the US had overtaken Britain as the largest economy and New York nearly rivalled London as a financial center. 

Also, your, and others', focus on the magical power of manufacturing has a very neo-physiocratic ring to it.  Manufacturing is important indeed, but it's not as important as you state or imply.