ChiefsPlanet - News 32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots (14 Arrested, 1 Tasered)

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots (14 Arrested, 1 Tasered) (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=218436)

32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots (14 Arrested, 1 Tasered)

If repost then please perform a digital rectal exam on Gonzo.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/33UU6MKuWSE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/33UU6MKuWSE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

It's a repost from DC, but I'd rather not do that.

ROFL Big, bad bicycle cop flexing his muscles. What's he swinging? His kickstand?

Some very good posters have gotten digital herpes from DC. That place is the cesspool of Chiefs Planet. All claims of repost should be null and void.
Posted via Mobile Device

College is the biggest rip-off in the world.

Ya, we haven't had a good riot in a while. UCLA already has one of the highest tuitions in the state so a 32% increase does sound like mayhem time.

That one tasered must've been a 10 year old genius Korean girl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare (Post 6275983)

That one tasered must've been a 10 year old genius Korean girl.

Hey, she was surprisingly strong for her body weight.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ily/P74829.asp

Quote:

Capital spending: Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, in his book Tuition Rising, describes a kind of arms race among the nations top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.

But its not just the Ivy League schools that are spending like mad. Colleges that want good rankings with U.S. News & World Reports annual college rankings and other college-rating programs shell out big bucks on ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, bigger and better dining facilities, new gyms and concert halls, apartments instead of dorms for students.

A lot of this spending is fueled by endowment funds, which in the go-go 1990s were swelled by a rising stock market and increased contributions from stock-rich donors. Critics make a good argument that at least some of the largesse should have been used to put a lid on prices.

But schools couldnt have justified this spending if there werent other factors at work.

Faculty: Half to two-thirds of the typical colleges budget goes to paying instructional salaries. So rising paychecks are indeed a factor in higher college costs. But few college profs are getting rich.

The median salary for a full-time college educator is $46,300, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The picture is brighter for those who have tenure: Full professors make an average $76,200, according to the American Association of University Professors.

The tenure system and the lack of mandatory retirement can make it tough to oust high-earning but less productive employees.

On the other hand, colleges are holding costs down by using a lot of non-tenured teachers: graduate students, instructors and lecturers. In fact, only 55% to 60% of the typical colleges staff is tenured or tenure-track.

So blaming higher college costs on the teachers alone really doesnt wash.

If they want to pay their football players as much as USC does the money's got to come from somewhere.

Quote:

The median salary for a full-time college educator is $46,300, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The picture is brighter for those who have tenure: Full professors make an average $76,200, according to the American Association of University Professors.

The tenure system and the lack of mandatory retirement can make it tough to oust high-earning but less productive employees.

On the other hand, colleges are holding costs down by using a lot of non-tenured teachers: graduate students, instructors and lecturers. In fact, only 55% to 60% of the typical colleges staff is tenured or tenure-track.

In our department $76,200 would be a starting salary for an assistant professor. At UCLA, full professors in technical fields would probably average twice the $76,200 number.

Tenure isn't what it used to be. Non-productive faculty with tenure are being flushed from our college. It may take a while, but it happens.

Faculty that get tenured are generally working 60 or more hours per week.

About 70% of our non-laboratory under-gradate teaching is done by tenure or tenure-track faculty. That number has decreased in recent years.

You may be surprised to know that a productive tenure/tenure track faculty member at a research university will spend 30 to 50% of their time teaching and the rest doing research, writing proposals, writing papers, professional service or doing university administration.

UCLA students will pay a little over $10K per year for their tuition with the increase. That is still a pretty good bargain considering the reputation of the school. If you consider the subsidies form the state tax payers and large portion of the school's reputation that comes from outside-funded research, it is a real bargain. They are paying a small fraction of the cost of their education. In terms of the budget of UCLA, I bet tuition makes up less than 25% of it's income.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 6278116)

UCLA students will pay a little over $10K per year for their tuition with the increase.

Seriously? $10K per year total? I can't believe that. I would think this much per semester. What about out of state kids? Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahiMike (Post 6278158)

Seriously? $10K per year total? I can't believe that. I would think this much per semester. What about out of state kids? Thanks.

30K this year, if they get the full 32% increase that would be 40K.

Hey, cdcox, could there conceivably be a model like this?

Step 1. Take a college that has a healthy endowment.

Step 2. Lower tuition and ramp up the entry requirements a little more to get better ACT/SAT scores and other quality indicators.

Step 3. Repeat Step 2 as often as feasible until tuition is free, but the school is ultra, ultra-competitive.

Step 4. Because it's free, put the onus on graduates to contribute over the course of their life to keep the endowment up, which allows the free tuition.

If the school is free and only takes the most elite of the elite, presumably they'd be more successful on average, and presumably they'd be willing to keep the reputation of the school high by contributing heavily. Or maybe you even have them sign a contract when they arrive that they'll donate x percent of their income every year until retirement.

What do you think?