Would you buy a used car from this former UC student?

Back in the day, I thought the University of California was overpriced, because the professors lived like (Marxist) kings and taught like fools (boring fools, I might add).  It’s only gotten worse, as the professors still live like kings and teach like fools, but the tuition has skyrocketed, far beyond anything the middle class can pay.  Worse, unless the student is doing engineering, which seems to have escaped political correctness, it’s very questionable whether the students paying these fees to sit at the feet of these foolish Marxist kings (and queens) are getting any benefit from their education.  The latest attempt by UC Riverside students to avoid their tuition obligations would indicate that they are coming in ill-informed and, despite their tuition payments, remaining ill-informed, at least when it comes to economic matters:

With declining state funding driving University of California tuition higher and higher in recent years, a group of students at UC Riverside is proposing an alternative student contribution plan that would allow students to pay for their education once they have a steady, post-graduation income.

The plan, called the UC Student Investment Proposal, would have students cease payments to the university and instead have them pay a percentage of their income after graduating and entering a career for the next 20 years, interest-free. The group behind the proposal, called Fix UC, is composed of members from the editorial board of UC Riverside’s student newspaper, The Highlander, and other student leaders at the Riverside campus.

In a declining economy, with a shrinking job market, why in the world should the people of California take IOU’s from students who are getting degrees in puppetry, womyn’s studies, and other economically useless areas of academia?  After all, as the OWS protests made graphically clear, college graduates are not getting jobs.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • MacG

    You mean like tithing to their ‘Church of Knowledge’ :)

  • MacG

    “After all, as the OWS protests made graphically clear, college graduates are not getting jobs.”
     
    Book don’t you know about their hope in no change for the Second Coming Er, Uh, Election of Obama when he does all of his gangsta sh!t like Cris Rock proclaimed?  Then they will have jobs if not jobs then just other people’s money rained on them like manna from yonder heavens…
     
    At least the people that are talking this Bar Tab approach to funding their education are talking about working.  What hey do not know is that this would work like property taxes did before Prop 13, the unlucky proposition for the Government spender types.  They would remove the ‘free’ market forces that have let the price sky rocket to the level it is.  It is the ability to get outrageous loans that have pushed it to where it is now.  How do they think they will keep tuition in check?
     
    What will happen is that an employer will offer an entry level wage of 50K to those who would make 100K to start to keep that tuition lower and give ‘perks’ to make up the difference EG free parking and transit etc.

  • BigFire

    Basically they’re trying to bring back indenture servitude (otherwise known as slavery).  The collar holder is the high priest of higher education, the UC Regents.  

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    Back in the early ’70s, I worked with a young man who was on a working sabbatical from Yale University. During one of our discussions he mentioned that Yale had a program in which students could contract with the University to pay two or three percent of their annual earnings for the rest of their lives in lieu of tuition payments.

    As it seemed to me a pretty interesting idea, it kind of stuck in what’s left of my mind. These days, it seems like an even better idea considering the state of the student loan industry and its impending future. Admittedly, Yale is heavily and beneficially endowed but the removal of a middleman/men from the business might actually result in some savings. The unrepentant capitalist exploiter in me sees a kind of “invisible hand” moving the University in the direction of educations that produce financial results and, at the same time, allowing the highest earners to provide even more than they would have paid the old-fashioned way. 

    As it stands now, it seems to me that colleges and universities don’t have much of what President Obama has referred to a “skin in the game”. Why we need both a federal and a private sector bureaucracy to get students through college seems a bit misguided to me. 

  • http://bkivey.wordpress.com/ bkivey

    “. . . a group of students at UC Riverside is proposing an alternative student contribution plan that would allow students to pay for their education once they have a steady, post-graduation income.”

    I’m unclear on the difference between this proposal and the current Federal student loan program, where one may defer payments for up to three years if unemployed or in economic difficulty. One may also apply for an outright loan cancellation if employed in one of eight defined professions, most of which are available to ‘studies’ majors.

    The percentage-of-income repayment idea has merit, though. My proposal would be for a sliding scale related to a degree’s usefulness and economic viability. A hard sciences major might pay 5% of income, and the gender studies major would pay 30%. This seems more equitable than forcing taxpayers to fund adolescent flights of fancy.

  • Mike Devx

    > The percentage-of-income repayment idea has merit, though. My proposal would be for a sliding scale related to a degree’s usefulness and economic viability.

    I think any private institution can arrange any payment system they wish.  As long as MY TAX MONEY is not involved!  There is no justification for taking my tax money to provide discounts or free education at a university for any preferred set or class of people.

    I think we’re talking, here, about how our national government can provide freebies to people, or deferred payments for people.  I’m just plain against it.
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The reason why engineering has escaped is because not even a Leftist will trust the bridge they drive on to be engineered by a Leftist delusionist Marxist. They might die, you see.

     They tolerate engineering and leave it alone, because they know what will happen to the elevator they are in if they keep hiring Leftist idiots as engineers.