Xatal » News

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes shifting California money from prisons to UCs and CSUs

Paul — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:00:10 +0000

Ever since the recent surge of costs for public education in California, there have been precious few signs of relief. Even the protests have died down a lot, and as the new semester/quarter begins, students are being hit with record-high student costs. Many have begun to accept that this is just the way things will have to be.

However, during the protests, one common argument that I heard a lot was that California spends more money on prisons than on higher education. Currently, California spends about 10% of its general fund on prisons and about 6% on the UCs and CSUs.

Luckily, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a proposal that could fix a lot of this: Limit the percentage going towards prisons to a maximum 7%, and set a minimum funding of 10% for the UCs and CSUs.

This shift in funding would begin in 2011-2012 and finish in 2014-2015.

Will this pass?

The first step to this becoming a reality is a legislature vote — 2/3rds of the legislature would have to approve this in order for it to show up on the ballot next fall. Once it’s on the ballot, a majority vote will make it law.

However, California’s legislature is notorious for getting absolutely nothing done. A 2/3rds vote is pretty tough to come by, and so many bills that could and should be passed are turned down. My hopes aren’t too high for the legislature to approve this, but we’ll see.

As for the general public, I believe this proposal would stand a good chance. I think most citizens would agree that more benefit to society can come from better funding to higher education than to prisons, though I’m sure many would question if and how the prison system would manage the cut in funding.

Is this the right solution?

Disregarding California’s current abysmal budget situation, I think this is definitely a step forward. It guarantees the UC/CSU systems a significant amount of money, and helps to secure higher education in the state.

My biggest problem with Schwarzenegger’s proposal is that it allows the UC President (Mark Yudof), UC Regents, and Chancellors an easy way out. Although state funding has caused a lot of the UC’s financial problems, those who run the UC are also to blame for quite a bit of this — raising student costs excessively, prioritizing construction, massive administrative salaries, and all-around forgetting the purpose of public higher education.

Of course, these administrative figures are all in support of this proposal, as it would probably get them off the hook.

What I’d be interested to know is, should this proposal become law further down the road, will the UC system’s student fees drop?

I doubt it.

Readers of this post also liked...

A resolution to the Kerr Hall occupation at UCSC

Paul — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:59:55 +0000

In light of the protests in California over the increases in higher costs, I’ve been following Occupy CA, a blog that’s had pretty accurate information from the student’s side of things over these protests.

Anywho, Saturday night Occupy CA posted that the Kerr Hall occupation at UCSC would probably end that night — administrators had hinted at police coming before midnight. I walked up to Kerr Hall to try to see, but nothing much happened during the time I was there. About 40 or 50 students were outside singing songs to pass the time (in addition to students occupying the building). Midnight came and went with no sign of police, so eventually I headed inside.

As it would turn out, the police came around 7 or 8 AM and then forced their way through. Students were ultimately allowed to leave peacefully without arrest, but not all went as well as it could:

Early Sunday morning, Chancellor Blumenthal and Provost Kliger turned the campus into an effective police state by stationing riot police at all entrances to refuse entry to everyone. In a blatant attempt to create a media blackout as they prepared for the police attack, even a Santa Cruz Sentinel photographer was refused access to the campus for some time. (They had already cut cruznet service, the campus wifi system, in the Kerr Hall area.)

At one point during the confrontation, students and neutral faculty observers were cornered by riot police on an outdoor balcony. As the police advanced towards the students and faculty, one faculty member fell from the balcony, injuring his back. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The student occupiers are very concerned about the well-being of the faculty member and denounce the administration’s use of force that caused his injury.

The police cleared the entry leading to Kerr Hall by pushing through the outdoor crowd, at times striking students in the chest with their clubs. Upon entering the lobby of Kerr Hall, they issued an ultimatum to students that they could leave peacefully and be arrested one-by-one outside. The students refused this outright. The police backed-off and offered to let the students leave without arrest through a rear entry to Kerr Hall; this offer was accepted immediately by the occupiers, who cleared out of the building at this moment.

Over 75 students have already volunteered to help clean the space in Kerr Hall that was occupied; there are concerns, however, that the University will refuse this offer in order to exaggerate costs associated with the occupation. Source

The Administration’s Response

And, sure enough, the university did decline that help. Instead, Chancellor Blumenthal and Provost Kliger posted pictures of all of the damage, mentioning how long cleanup efforts would inevitably take and hinting that they would cost. Nowhere, however, do they mention that those same students they’re condemning had already volunteered to clean things up.

That same letter also thanks the police for handling the situation oh-so-well, as if the police were the heroes of the day. They also thanked those students who did not participate and wish to work for other solutions through dialogue. What they didn’t mention, of course, was that those efforts have been ignored by the UC administration.

UC Berkeley

UC Berkeley has also had its share of administrators being grateful for police violence. I’m not going to go through that whole story, though you can read about it here.

Readers of this post also liked...

Protests continue at UC campuses against higher costs

Paul — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:00:32 +0000

In light of the 32% increase in UC student fees, protests have erupted on at least four of the UC campuses. While these protests have been peaceful, they haven’t been without incident, and many students have been arrested for occupying buildings.

Personally, I stand for those who protest, and I really hope all of this continues to escalate. Whether or not it will, I cannot say, but I do believe the students and faculty who protest are entirely just. Raising the costs so drastically defeats the purpose public higher education, which is meant to be cheap and accessible. For years, the UC system has been a leveling-ground of sorts, where no matter what financial background you came from, you at least had a shot of becoming something. I believe protests should not only occur on campuses, but also at Sacramento where our state legislature has failed us.

So far, four campuses have running protests on them: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, and UC Santa Cruz. Here’s what each campus has been doing:

UC Berkeley

Living true to their famous history, UC Berkeley has taken an active seat in the protests. Cal students took over a lecture hall on campus, and large crowds amassed outside the hall. The protesters inside demanded, amongst other things, that 38 janitors who lost their jobs due to cutbacks be brought back.

Eventually, campus police and local sheriffs entered the building and the students were arrested. Many will be charged with trespassing. Source >

UCLA

The actual meeting of the UC regents to raise fees took place at UCLA, and so massive protests occurred there as well. A ring was formed around the meeting place, and the police had to try to break through to escort the regents to safety. This YouTube video shows the scene well. Two students were tasered by police.

Later, UCLA students also occupied a building on campus. Source >

UC Davis

UC Davis protesters occupied Mrak Hall, an administration building on campus. Students in the building after the closing time of 5 PM were asked repeatedly to leave, and when they refused, riot police came in and arrested 50 of them for trespassing.

Supposedly, campus protesters already have a lawyer. Source >

UC Santa Cruz

Students at UCSC have taken over Kerr Hall, the main administrative building. There, they have held rallies where faculty and students have voiced out about the effects of the raised student fees and the budget cutbacks. Source >

Currently, there have been no arrests, but David Kliger, the head of business affairs here, has clearly hinted that they might be on the way.

There have also been several other gatherings on campus to protest against the increases.

What’s your opinion on this situation and on the protests that have been going on?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Readers of this post also liked...

UC Regents vote to raise UC costs by 32%

Paul — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:25:49 +0000

Hoh boy. I knew this was a likely possibility, but it still hits pretty hard. Today, Mark Yudof and the UC regents have decided to raise student fees by 32% for UC students.

California has been in a pretty big financial crisis due to the recession and other reasons, and the effects have been pretty rough on higher education. Massive cuts have been already made to the UC system, the Cal State (CSU) system, and community colleges statewide. Now, the UC system joins the other two in experiencing giant leaps in costs.

Right now, student fees run about $8,000 for the year — a 32% increase brings that to over $10,000. This, of course, doesn’t include costs of living on campus (or off), which will bring the cost of a year’s schooling to as much as $30,000. Financial aid is given to some, but not to all.

Protests occurred at UCSC and at other campuses as well. Here, both major entrances to campuses were blocked off by students and faculty. Protesters marched up the roads chanting, “Our university!” Tensions and frustration are both pretty high right now.

While I’m not at all surprised that this passed, and while I do understand that higher tuition and/or cutbacks are necessary, I do not feel as if all other options have been exhausted, as they should have been first. To explain this better, here is part of an e-mail I received this morning about the strike and fee increases:

At this very moment the UC Regents are meeting to vote on another proposed student fee increase: now a particularly unbearable 32% over two quarters, last summer 9%. If this increase is approved, the cost of a UC education will have tripled since 2000.

We have been told that such increases are inevitable. We have been told that, like the furloughs, layoffs and cuts to services and departments, this new source of suffering has its cause in the fiscal crisis of the State of California. But one month after declaring an “extreme financial emergency,” and “saving” $170 million by furloughing employees, the University of California chose to take on $1.35 billion in new debt for 70 construction projects. Our fees have been pledged as collateral for these construction bonds. A recent report suggests that some UC administrators are willing to sacrifice affordability to avoid accountability; that they would rather raise fees than receive additional state funding with its requirements of budgetary transparency. The UC administration has made its priorities clear: construction over instruction, buildings over people.

All the while we have been paying more for less. We are paying more for fewer classes, and for classes with larger enrollments. We are paying more for fewer instructors, for closed libraries, for closed department offices, for canceled programs. We are paying more for fewer staff and for staff working longer hours for less pay. We are paying more for a degree it will take us an extra quarter to complete. We are paying more for an institution barricaded against the next generation of high school students, more for an institution which crowds out students of color, which makes those already struggling to get by shoulder the burden of the crisis. What have we received in exchange for these additional fees, if not more faculty or more resources? The answer: more management. In ten years, administrative positions have increased five times faster than the number of faculty. The estimated cost of this excessive bureaucracy is approximately $800 million, enough to pay the fees of over 100,000 students.

The three bolded sections are what hits especially hard. I understand that times are tough and I fully expect it to carry into higher education, but I’m truly disappointed to see that a lot of the same mindsets that got us into the recession are running my university.

Readers of this post also liked...

Article: “Why does college cost so much?”

Paul — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:00:04 +0000

Today I read this article on MSNBC about why college costs so much. The article was an interview with a William & Mary professor who had researched the costs of college with a colleague.

It turned out not to be quite what I expected, however it was still interesting.

In summary, the article claimed that the reason college costs so much these days when compared to other times is because today’s society demands more of college graduates. Better and more effective services are needed to adequately prepare students for the modern-day work force. More technological equipment is needed to stay up-to-date, for example.

In theory, the increase in college costs should be offset by an increase in wages for college graduates.

What do you think?

Readers of this post also liked...

Student suspended for attending his girlfriend’s prom?

Paul — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:24:57 +0000

I subscribe to posts at Blisstree, and this post caught my eye in a big way.

Apparently, a senior at a Christian school is being suspended for attending his girlfriend’s prom because her prom violated the school’s policies of “hand holding, rock music and dancing” (Source).

On the one hand, the student and his parents should have known about the school’s policy, and they were warned appropriately beforehand. As a private school, they can instate whatever policies they want.

However, these rules are blatantly unfair and show that this high school is definitely overstepping its bounds by trying to control the life of a student beyond the classroom.

It is not the school’s business what the students do on their free time. Even if it is a Christian school trying to adhere to Christian values, that still overdraws the line on what it can expect of its students. Students should not have to dictate their personal life outside of school around rules set by their school, especially when those rules are unrealistic to begin with.

The stereotypes it shows are also exceptionally blatant. Holding hands is barely, if at all, sexual in nature. Rock music is not “bad” in any way (as a metal fan, this one really irked me) — yes, there are some bands out there that have more negative messages, but many don’t. And dancing? Dancing has been an activity for thousands of years.

What are your opinions about this?

Readers of this post also liked...

UCs to make admission requirements less steep?

Paul — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:16:55 +0000

According to the LA Times, the UC regents are considering making the admission requirements less steep, mainly by requiring fewer tests and allowing more applications to be reviewed.

The controversy comes in the form of dropping standardized tests like the SAT and ACT — are such tests a good indicator of whether a student is qualified for college or not? Should their importance be lessened, strengthened, or left as it is?

Even if the general admission requirements lessen, that doesn’t mean it will become easier to be admitted. Many UCs, especially Berkeley and LA, are still very tough to get into as it is. All this will do is lessen the admission requirements, allowing more to apply. The number admitted would stay the same.

Personally, I think having more applicants is good, but not requiring several tests will only save students money and time. Avoiding a bad score will help a student’s chances, yes, but in the end the best way to allow more kids to enter college is simply to have more resources devoted to education.

Readers of this post also liked...

Can teachers sell advertising space on tests?

Paul — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:10:29 +0000

Due to extreme cuts in California’s budget, schools are not being given as much money as normal, and so teachers can’t afford to buy all of the paper they need for tests, handouts, and so forth. In order to raise money to afford to print out papers, one teacher has a creative solution: sell advertising space.

According to USA Today, a high school teacher in San Diego has begun selling advertising space on his paper to help meet the costs of supplies.

Could advertisements appear on school assignments soon?

On the one hand, this seems a bit clever — an easy way to make additional money that’s only being spent towards learning materials, not to personal profit. A lot of the messages are from parents, others are ads from business with an inspirational flavor to them. Most high school students

However, this could definitely set a precedent for advertisements on paper — will other teachers begin to do this too? Will tests become a new advertising medium for businesses? Obviously, nobody wants that to happen.

What’s your take on this? Was the San Diego teacher using a reasonable method to handling the cost of materials, or should he have changed his teaching plan and/or spent his own money?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

If you have any comments as well, I’m very interested!

Readers of this post also liked...

The results of the election

Paul — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:46:51 +0000

So luckily, my TA for a discussion section on Tuesday night decided to cancel it due to the election, so I was able to watch the results fully as they unfolded.

As I mentioned earlier, I am an Obama supporter, and at first I was a bit anxious watching the votes come in — while Obama was doing well, he wasn’t winning anything Kerry hadn’t in 2004. But as the night went on, he began to do better and better, and of course he ended up winning it.

Although I disagreed with him on many issues, I do have a good deal of respect for John McCain and I think he was a reasonable candidate. Had McCain been our president for the last 8 years instead of Bush, I think our country would be in a different position than it is now. But, in the end, I feel that Obama’s stances are more along the lines of where we need to go.

The rest of the Western world was pretty in favor of us electing Obama, and I think we’ve begun to redeem ourselves for a lot of what’s gone wrong over the last 8 years.

How Obama will do remains to be seen, but I’m optimistic.

Readers of this post also liked...

Election Day! Who are YOU voting for?

Paul — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:00:34 +0000

So, we finally have come to Election Day in the United States.

This is undoubtedly a big election, one in which a lot more people have been taking interest. Without interjecting too many of my political beliefs, I would guess the surge in interest comes from many believing that the United States is headed in the wrong direction, and so many want to have a voice in what direction the country takes. This election could sport one of the best voter turnouts ever.

There has been a lot of attention throughout this election. The primaries, normally a rather fast process, were drawn out quite a bit (see: Democrats), and the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain’s vice presidential nominee definitely spiced things up a bit as well. A lot is hanging on this election, from decisions about Iraq and the economy to decisions about healthcare and education. There is no doubt that our choice of president will greatly influence what path the country takes for the next four years.

Although it’s much too late for me to encourage people to register to vote, it isn’t too late for me to encourage registered voters to go to the polls. So much is hanging on this election: to simply turn a blind eye is to show a complete lack of care for the potential effects on the lives of many Americans.

I voted already via mail-in ballot, and I personally voted for Obama. I have my reasons, just as voters for McCain have their reasons. I have been following FiveThirtyEight lately, and am a bit curious how accurate their predictions are.

Regardless of who wins, I’m hoping that this election is not plagued by cheating (from either side), though undoubtedly something will come up. I just want an honest election, where the candidate who becomes president is truly what America wanted.

So without further ado, the big daddy:

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.