We can use some good news, can’t we? This landed in my inbox a couple of days ago — and for California families with incomes under $100,000/year — that is, most of us — it is cause for celebration.
LOS ANGELES (July 2, 2013) —On the same day student loan interest rates have doubled due to Congress’s failure to act, California is leading the way on college affordability as Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. today signed the Middle Class Scholarship, landmark legislation by Speaker John A. Pérez that will dramatically cut college fees in California.
“While today’s deadline for Congress to pass legislation preventing federal student loan rates from doubling has passed, they still have the ability to take action so they don’t compound the already harmful situation where student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt in our country.” Pérez said. “They should follow California’s lead and take that action to help keep college affordable.”
In June, Speaker Pérez authored Assembly Joint Resolution 20, calling on Congress to prevent the student loan interest rates from doubling. It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from the Assembly and state Senate.
The Middle Class Scholarship will cut tuition at UC and CSUs by 40 percent for California families making under $100,000 a year and 10 percent for families making under $150,000.
California universities have seen historically high fee hikes over the past 10 years with tuition rates increasing by over 190 percent at UCs and by about 145 percent at CSUs. Students at UCs and CSUs currently pay an annual tuition of $12,192 and $5,472 respectively. This legislation will dramatically lower the college fees to $7,315 at UCs and $3,283 at CSUs beginning in the 2014-15 school year for families making under $100,000 a year.
The state will increase spending on the Middle Class Scholarship each year until it is fully implemented in 2017-18, and it will be paid for through General Fund revenues.
Working with students and families from around the state, Speaker Pérez authored legislation last year to close a loophole that only benefitted out-of-state corporations and fund the Middle Class Scholarship. The Assembly passed that legislation on a bipartisan basis, but the bill died in the State Senate.
This year, the Middle Class Scholarship, Assembly Bill 94, received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and the Assembly.
“This is a great victory for higher education and middle class families in California, and a huge first step in keeping college affordable,” Speaker Pérez said. “For the past 10 years, the middle class has been increasingly squeezed out of our public universities because of skyrocketing tuition rates, forcing students to drop out of college or take on massive student debt that will negatively impact them for years, possibly decades. This legislation will ensure that California maintains a healthy middle class and an educated work force to keep our economy strong.”
It’s not enough — but it’s a great step away from neo-feudalism. (It would be nice if we could start running away from it.)
Yeah, I know I’m Mr. BuzzKill anyway, but where in all this Good News about benefits does it mention anything about the COST? Since it’s supposedly funded from ‘the General Fund” you’d think they’d want us to know, right? I’m not surprised that the Sacto Politicos have gained not an OUNCE of spending control, now that we are ‘saved’ from our financial troubles. An online search reveals the funds are supposed to appear from ‘ closing a loophole that benefited out-of-state corporations only”, so any idea what will happen (as always) when those funds, or associated taxes from the targets shrink, as they restrategize to sidestep the tax hikes or redirect their activity? Gee, I think I see a guy in the mirror who will get to cover the shortfall (again!)
Out of curiosity, do you assign any “cost” to less meritorious students (yes, despite having less rich parents!) not being able to attend state universities because they’re too expensive?
Alternatively, do you see any social benefit to their being able to do so?
Please try your hardest when tackling these questions.
Greg, we could occupy eternity defining with our opinions a social cost to delivering or withholding the maximum amount of Taxpayer funded education to deserving or undeserving students, and I’m sure in a mythical ideal world free of the precarious budget situation that California may or may not have escaped, we would both want to take every measure to develop the greatest potential in all students. If we had a second eternity, we might discuss how many who have postponed university to pursue high (and low) tech endeavors are enriching both themselves and society (Steve Jobs may have led the parade but was not an isolated example) But in this sorry reality we find ourselves in, after California has supposedly just pulled itself back from the precipice of financial disaster, are not the taxpayers entitled to ANY financial context for these worthy goals? Some helpful questions might include the budgeted amount for the program, whether it is capped (if at all) by loophole closing savings, or has set its own goals for participation (with its stated timeline), with taxpayers getting an additional bill for General Fund shortfalls? None of the many celebratory articles from Speaker Perez addressed this at all, and how far can we be from plunging right back into the financial crisis we supposedly escaped, if that is the prevailing mindset? I just feel the public deserves complete info to base their judgments on, even if the decisions are made in Sacramento.
Do you value social mobility? For that matter, do you value social immobility?
Did the rates double? or did a short term deduction end?
Are there ANY students out there making $100,000 per year? Virtually every college student is an adult (older than 17), so what relevance is it how much money his or her parents make?
If the college are looking at the parents’ income, then at what age are the student’s parents taken out of the equation? 20? 30? 40?
I would think that it would depend not on age per se, but on how much support they receive. In my daughter’s case, they looked at our tax returns — and, among other things, they saw that she was a dependent.
Makes sense. Thanks for that Mr. Diamond.