Obama on rising tuition

A point Obama made in his SOTU speech and again in a speech at the University of Michigan was to put pressure on colleges to keep tuition from rising by threatening to remove federal subsidies. University of Washington President Mike Young said that Obama doesn't understand public university budgets and dismissed Obama's plan as "political theater."

Obama's plan is focused on increasing campus-based aid and will not affect the vast bulk of federal grants and loans. Since there is no central authority for higher education, the federal government has a very limited control over the real costs and significant gridlock in Congress.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said that tuition increases are needed to make up for drops in state funding. Obama wants state governments to be more helpful, which Coleman agrees with.

Young said that the cost of educating students has actually gone down and that the state authorized tuition increases are only to make up for the state cutting their subsidies.

Obama's speech at the University of Michigan was part of a campaign to promote his SOTU agenda in competitive states.

I did not understand what University of Washington President Young meant about university costs. Were his university's state subsidy cuts greater or less than decreases in the cost to educate? And if they were lesser, what was the point of the tuition increase?

This does seem like a pre-campaign season campaign targeted at younger (college age) voters who are a growing demographic among registered voters. And young people were more likely to vote for Obama in 2008.

I am doubtful that any federal plan to keep tuition from rising can make it through the gridlock of Congress, but I have my fingers crossed for an effective plan to be enacted within the next several months. What are your thoughts, AP Gov folk?

32% Increase in UC Fees

(Link to the story embedded in title)
For those of you seniors who are planning on attending a U.C. next year, be prepared to pay more. Today, the UC Regents finance committee voted to recommend a 32 percent student fee increase, raising the annual price of a UC education to $10,302. This increase has been implemented to make up the $535 million dollar funding gap created by reduced state funding and inflation. As soon as next semester, students will see an incremental increase of 15% in their tuition. The decision by the regents was not welcomed warmly by students. Protests broke out in all the UC campuses, and at UCLA, where the meeting was held, UC riot police arrested 14 people. At UC Berkeley, 1,000 students and faculty members protested in Sproul Plaza. For students, many will struggle even more to pay for their tuition and some may have to drop out. While students with a family income less than $70,000 will have their tuition waived, the increase is still significant for everyone else. The regents acknowledged the effect on students from this fee increase and were reluctant to vote on it, but stated it was necessary to close the funding gap.

As a high school senior with one sibling in college and two siblings who are juniors in high school, I am seriously considering attending a U.C. as its tuition is low enough so that my parents can afford to pay for both my education and the education of my brothers. However, now even a U.C. might be out of reach financially. I feel like this increase could have been avoided if the government did a better job managing its education funds. California has one of the largest public university systems in the nation, and cutting funds from them impacts thousands of students. Instead of reducing the funds to the U.C., the state should have looked to other departments to save money as education is important for the future. California has one of the strongest public university systems, but with the budget cuts to the CSUs and now the U.C.s, things seem to be declining. Hopefully this increase isn't permanent and we will see tuition return to normal soon. What are your thoughts and opinions on this?