32% Increase in University Tuition
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by AZDavid,Nov 19 2009, 05:01 PM
Arizona State University had a 21% tuition increase for this academic year. School's attitude, "live with it" or go elsewhere.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 8D_In_Trunk,Nov 19 2009, 04:50 PM
Have you seen the endowments at Stanford, Harvard, and Yale? How is this concept any different versus any other institution (public or otherwise)?
If you want them to educate the next generation of dutiful proletariat, be my guest. However, if you want them to be the source of discourse and discovery that fuels innovation in a free market, accept the fact you're going to have to play ball.
If you want them to educate the next generation of dutiful proletariat, be my guest. However, if you want them to be the source of discourse and discovery that fuels innovation in a free market, accept the fact you're going to have to play ball.
Entirely different feel, is there a business side? Certainly, but they are in the business of education and professional development. The UC's are primarily not, their interests lie in real estate development, and marketable research. Not that other universities aren't involved in these extensively, its just not their dominant interest. For example, the UC's are cutting back on admissions, but both their related and non-related real estate development has been growing exponentially at the same time.
Again, I'd say that's just a reflection of goverment. Up until recently, real estate and ag have been the only industries not fleeing California in droves.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
The one common element that I see in all the posts against the raise in tuition is a complete lack of understanding of there simply ain't no money!
It doesn't matter what's good or what is favorable, if there ain't no money it can't be done!
It doesn't matter what's good or what is favorable, if there ain't no money it can't be done!
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by Malloric,Nov 19 2009, 06:30 PM
The UC's are primarily not, their interests lie in real estate development, and marketable research. Not that other universities aren't involved in these extensively, its just not their dominant interest.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by cougar hunter,Nov 19 2009, 11:35 PM
thats nothing. just because we are a dry campus our president would not let Anheuser Busch build a football stadium for us. then our tuition increased by 30%.
it's not even D1, it's D3. Weak I know, but my uncle is the head football coach and I graduate in 3 weeks, so I have 0 complaints.
it's not even D1, it's D3. Weak I know, but my uncle is the head football coach and I graduate in 3 weeks, so I have 0 complaints.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,887
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by s2000raj,Nov 20 2009, 10:57 AM
I just want to know how California can take a 10% income loan without permission and promise to pay back with interest. What's up with that shit?
Because the state leans so far to the left that its tipping over?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by 8D_In_Trunk,Nov 20 2009, 01:34 AM
Last time I checked, thirty-two percent is greater than thirty percent. That leaves one with a delta of two percent. Now, assuming that this discussion is still about tuition, that leaves us the difference (two percent) of two numbers (in this case, UC/CSU tuition, and the tuition from the fine institution which you attend), which, should be something, and not, "nothing," as you've stated.
You then proceed to give us three facts: 1.) You go to a school that is a dry. I'm assuming you mean it is against policy to imbibe alcoholic beverages. 2.) That your President (and I'll assume some other forces of governance as well) chose not to have Anheuser Busch subsidize, whole, or in part, the construction of a football stadium at the institution which you attend. 3.) That tuition increased by thirty percent after the denial of said offer from Aheuseur Busch.
I understand how the first and second facts are related. I don't see how the third is related. You've shown no causality. If one is saying that the tuition increase is "nothing" because it has nothing to do with the being a dry campus denying Anheuser Busch's offer, then I would say that is correct. There are no affidavits, interviews, press, meeting minutes, etc. showing causality. There is nothing there. To that particular end, I completely agree; it's nothing.
There is no difference between between a Division I school showing ethically consistent deference to a dry campus policy versus a Division III school doing the same. I'd say there's nothing there as well. As you said yourself, it's weak.
You didn't say whether or not your uncle was benefiting, either directly (e.g. salary) or indirectly (better recruitment, facilities, etc.) from the 30% tuition hike. Once again, nothing added to the discussion.
So, in light of all of this, did you actually say anything relevant?
Oh, barring the unforeseen, best wishes on your graduation.
You then proceed to give us three facts: 1.) You go to a school that is a dry. I'm assuming you mean it is against policy to imbibe alcoholic beverages. 2.) That your President (and I'll assume some other forces of governance as well) chose not to have Anheuser Busch subsidize, whole, or in part, the construction of a football stadium at the institution which you attend. 3.) That tuition increased by thirty percent after the denial of said offer from Aheuseur Busch.
I understand how the first and second facts are related. I don't see how the third is related. You've shown no causality. If one is saying that the tuition increase is "nothing" because it has nothing to do with the being a dry campus denying Anheuser Busch's offer, then I would say that is correct. There are no affidavits, interviews, press, meeting minutes, etc. showing causality. There is nothing there. To that particular end, I completely agree; it's nothing.
There is no difference between between a Division I school showing ethically consistent deference to a dry campus policy versus a Division III school doing the same. I'd say there's nothing there as well. As you said yourself, it's weak.
You didn't say whether or not your uncle was benefiting, either directly (e.g. salary) or indirectly (better recruitment, facilities, etc.) from the 30% tuition hike. Once again, nothing added to the discussion.
So, in light of all of this, did you actually say anything relevant?
Oh, barring the unforeseen, best wishes on your graduation.
I was stating that because we are a dry campus, our president would not let AB build a football stadium. This limits the revenue that the football games, and campus as a whole, generate because of no beer sales.
We could then use that beer revenue and use it to finance the three buildings that are currently being constructed. Since we do not have that money, tuition has been raised to cover the cost.
Our president, and co-advisers, chose not to allow alcohol on campus because it would take away from the money we get from the state. Which, from what I understand, is not that much more that if we were to allow alcohol.
The D3 vs. D1 reference was to indicate that we are small and could greatly benefit from AB's contributions.
My uncle could be getting a better salary (I have not asked), but he does not get better recruitment, better facilities, or anything of that nature.
I understand my previous post was lacking in information and structure. Please forgive me, long night last night. I also understand that my use of "nothing" was not the best choice for the context of the post, again please forgive me. I hope this post helps enlighten you some.
I sense sarcasm towards your wishes for my graduation.