9 ms·
I really have to wonder if a lot of the changes made previously to the student loan system are at all linked to the huge campaign contributions made by the Univ
by druiid 13y ago
I really have to wonder if a lot of the changes made previously to the student loan system are at all linked to the huge campaign contributions made by the University of California system. Basically, any changes that have been made I think benefit greatly the schools (including the rising tuition/costs) to the great chagrin of students. You have a situation where the real people making out here are school administrative types and the students and teachers get the short end. I don't say this lightly, but I do wonder if the nearly $2 million donation each cycle [1] (making them the top contributor in both of the last two cycles) has something to do with how things have worked out.
As a previous (sadly I had to withdraw due to time and work commitments) UCSD student I can tell you that student per-quarter costs went up about 25% over the time I started and the time I left. During that period as well there were certainly no administrators begging to have their pay brought down, only calls to cut teachers, teaching hours, maintenance staff, etc.
During that same time period as well, there was a building boom on campus with no stopping in construction of many new campus housing projects (even some which have consistently NOT been anywhere near capacity), new administrative building and a few new campus buildings here and there (where they can fit them between all of the new administrative buildings and housing projects). Of course this was all going on during the period that UC regents were (and really continue to) say that the state was cutting far too much money and thus the reasoning for raising tuition year-over-year.
So, really I guess my question is: How much did/has money 'talking' in an election cycle contribute to the situation the entire student loan system now finds itself? I'm by far no conservative, but I can't help but personally see this as the public being sold out.
[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
- muzz 13y ago40% of UC Berkeley undergrads pay no tuition [1] These conspiracy theories are really interesting, especially in light of the facts. [1] http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/04/18/campus-announces-2013-14-freshman-admissions-decisions/ http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/04/18/campus-announces-2...
- druiid 13y agoI'm not entirely certain how your link somehow conflicts with the points I raised. They're really entirely separate. The number of students paying no or reduced tuition really just affects that specific group. This exists across any university/institution and as far as I know has for quite some time...