UC Considers Students' 'Delayed Tuition' Proposal

it certainly has some merit. if nothing else UC would have an interest in students a) graduating b) having the skills to get a real job that pays and c) directly have an interest in the state economy producing more people who start new businesses and create new things, instead of just being hippies or whatever.

Of course when I attended UC it didn't cost nearly this much for state residents, and Community Colleges cost $50/max per semester, regardless of class load. Then again, the state wasn't being run into the ground by greedy politicians as much, and people saw an interest in having an educated work force that could do things, instead of just being all whiny and saying "college sux omg" at The Gate.

I think they should take this one step further and just make the Franchise Tax Board collect the money. It's basically an income tax. Which I like.

It's basically shifting the effort of managing student loans from the DoE and commercial lenders directly to the university.  I don't know if they could do a better job than the DoE, but taking commercial lenders out of the equation can't hurt.

I think it's a fantastic idea, but I can think of two big issues...
 - As noted in the article, how is it enforceable, and is it cost effective to enforce it?  Do you just force them to provide their tax return to the school each year for 20 years? etc..
 - If the plan were implemented today, it would wipe out the budget for the schools until people got their degrees, a job, and started paying.  Four years to just start getting 5% of the estimated $50k average starting salary for their graduates (and assuming all got jobs and none went on to do graduate work) is too long.  There is no way for the school to sustain itself in the interim.
 - What kind of effects could this system have on classes offered and such?  If getting a degree in X gets a student a job making $N, whereas a degree in Y gets a student a job making half of $N, would that not be unfair?  Also, would a school start to cater more to X students, offering additional classes at the cost of Y? etc...

Still, if these problems (and others) were properly addressed, it'd be awesome for everyone.  The schools budget would (presumably) increase, education would be more accessible, and banks would stop profiteering as much on students.

I think the four-year income gap could be covered by a bond. It would be just like states borrowing against future tax revenue.

While it's an interesting plan and I applaud the students for actually coming up with a proposal vs just whining and chanting in the park, I'm not sure how this will be a good deal for the university system.


* I see no reason why we need to extend this program to international students even if we are asking for 6% a year (vs 5%). As a CA resident fails to pay back the state for their education, their wages can be garnished. The same is not feasible if the graduate moves back to his home country. IMO, they should be paying a premium/cash -- just like they do now. After all, the CA university system's first obligation is to CA students, not out of state or international students.


* While not as hard as trying to collect internationally, it will be a serious pain for California to collect this owed tuition from US citizens who move out of state. Just take a look and see how hard it is for one parent to collect child support from the "deadbeat" one when the deadbeat moves out of state. Every state is different and getting such money owed is often haphazard at best. I'm willing to bet the same will be true for trying to collect this tuition.


* What's the guarantee that a CA resident graduating in CA will stay in CA? Are we going to make them "promise" to stay in CA for the next 20 years?




This reads like they want the CA University system to make loans to students for their education as an alternative to the existing student loan system currently in place. IMO, the only way you could make this work would be at the federal level (to be able to track graduates moving around) and ONLY for US citizens.


Furthermore,if the govt is paying for your education, the govt should only being doing so for jobs we really need. 

Roughly speaking, tuition costs are nearly the same for an english major as an engineer (maybe 20% different b/c of addt'l lab costs). However, the return on investment for the university will be vastly different for a person making 20K/yr for 20 yrs vs a person making 100K/yr for 20yrs. Why should the university take such an economic hit?

Take a look at the job openings. CA needs more engineers, not english majors. We have enough baristas and aspiring law school candidates. If my tax dollars are going to float someone's education, it should be for the benefit of society.

-mm

I was a liberal arts major and I make over $100k a year. More than most engineers. My career is not in arts, though, it is in finance. It's more about playing the game than it is book smarts.

I think it's a little narrow-minded to assume that society doesn't benefit from English, art, history, philosophy, and other majors.  And it's wrong to assume liberal arts majors all end up as "baristas."  Many move on to other productive fields in society.  And the mere presence of college-educated people elevates society, regardless of their specialty.

But I also think this plan would encourage more engineers, as it would get people to go to college in the first place without worrying about being left destitute by college debt.  Think of all the potential engineers out there who don't go to college or finish college because of the fear of debt or the inability to obtain financing for debt.

I'm not arguing that society doesn't benefit from liberal arts majors. However, from an economic standpoint, they do NOT contribute as much per capita as finance, engineering, and science majors. If the gov't has a limited amount of educational dollars to dole out, I maintain that we should invest in areas that can contribute the most to 
society.

I agree that this program will encourage more people to go to college -- just like a $0 down, no payments for 4 years plan will encourage people to buy more TVs/refrigerators. However, given that the cost to the student will be less for an english degree vs an engineering degree under this program, I believe that it will encourage MORE liberal arts majors than engineers.

For our limited amount of $$$ to invest, I still maintain that we should invest in areas with the most return on investment.
-mm

I would never go for this. 5% of your income every year until close to retirement?? If you earn $100,000 a year you would be paying back the university $100,000. Might as well go Ivy League.

As UC tuition is now in the $60K-$70K range (for four years) that $100K would actually be cheaper than taking out student loans. But whatevs, reality and all that.

Wow- is that for in state students as well? I went to USF and my tuition was $25,000- 30k a year- and you get the benefits of a small, private university (smaller class sizes, for one). Now a state school is becoming just as expensive as a private school? Yet non- citizens get free state money to go to school? 
Reality is jacked.

True, but in the end, you come out with a Berkeley degree, and not a USF one.

Berkeley isn't the only UC school. I do agree that Berkeley is a more prestigious school than USF in certain academia. But how do you explain those costs for UC Riverside?

HVAC training doesn't come cheap

Yes Tyler

UC Bezerkley is $7,500 per semester
UCLA is $14,000 per year
UC Pepperspray is $15,000 per year

Non-residents (that would include those scary non-citizens that you're appalled about) pay double to three-times those figures.

Will the honor system work for International students who leave California and don't feel any obligation to pay back the cost of their education?

No, they would not have the tax option and have to pay like they do now. Is everything so hard?