You're not going to like what I'm about to say, but I'm saying it anyway. The UC regents approved a 32% increase in student fees, so tuition at a UC will increase to approximately $10,300. Knowing that the economy is what it is, and that the UCs are simply following a national trend, I don't think this increase is nearly the tragedy or atrocity that some may believe it to be.
I took a quick look at tuition rates at public universities in different regions throughout the US and this is what I found (all rates are for in-state residents). A year at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus will cost $9120. Tuition at the University of Connecticut is $7632. A year at the University of South Carolina at Columbia will set you back $8756. The University of Texas at Austin has a tuition scale by school major ranging from $10,118 (liberal arts) to $10,801 (social work). And let's not forget a school in the Pacific Northwest- a year at the University of Washington at Seattle costs $7692.
Considering that practically everything is more expensive in California compared to the rest of the country, I'm not surprised that the cost of a public college education is catching up. What else do you expect in an individualistic, meritocratic society that views college education as a privilege, not a right? I'm not going to look for the statistics or crunch any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a public education is somehow proportionate to the state GDP. I'm not bothered by the tuition increase because everything costs more in California. I pay $584 a month to rent one bedroom in a 2 bedroom apartment. And that's with subsidized, on campus graduate student housing. In Minneapolis, I paid $367 to rent one bedroom in a 3 bedroom house. I know someone right now who is paying $750 for a 3 bedroom townhouse in Virginia (that's for the entire townhouse). I think you can see my point here.
I have to say something else that you're not going to like. A couple weeks ago, there was a shooting at Fort Hood, an army base in Texas. Thirteen people died, and 30 were wounded. The shooter was an army psychiatrist who was about to be deployed to Iraq. I do not in any way condone violence, and I realize that this was a tragedy, but I'm just not that surprised. The military is an institution that embodies the belief that conflict can be solved with violence, bombs, force, and death. When faced with a problem that cannot be solved diplomatically, force and violence are acceptable means of resolution. Under some circumstances, war is acceptable, even justified. This is the message that the military represents.
So, now we have an army psychiatrist conflicted and opposed to a deployment that he does not want. Is it any surprise that he turns to violence as a means to resolve his problem? Isn't this consistent with the message that the military sends?
Considering that practically everything is more expensive in California compared to the rest of the country, I'm not surprised that the cost of a public college education is catching up. What else do you expect in an individualistic, meritocratic society that views college education as a privilege, not a right? I'm not going to look for the statistics or crunch any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a public education is somehow proportionate to the state GDP. I'm not bothered by the tuition increase because everything costs more in California. I pay $584 a month to rent one bedroom in a 2 bedroom apartment. And that's with subsidized, on campus graduate student housing. In Minneapolis, I paid $367 to rent one bedroom in a 3 bedroom house. I know someone right now who is paying $750 for a 3 bedroom townhouse in Virginia (that's for the entire townhouse). I think you can see my point here.
I have to say something else that you're not going to like. A couple weeks ago, there was a shooting at Fort Hood, an army base in Texas. Thirteen people died, and 30 were wounded. The shooter was an army psychiatrist who was about to be deployed to Iraq. I do not in any way condone violence, and I realize that this was a tragedy, but I'm just not that surprised. The military is an institution that embodies the belief that conflict can be solved with violence, bombs, force, and death. When faced with a problem that cannot be solved diplomatically, force and violence are acceptable means of resolution. Under some circumstances, war is acceptable, even justified. This is the message that the military represents.
So, now we have an army psychiatrist conflicted and opposed to a deployment that he does not want. Is it any surprise that he turns to violence as a means to resolve his problem? Isn't this consistent with the message that the military sends?
No comments:
Post a Comment