Posted on 08/24/2017 5:01:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin
That would be racist. Sounds too close to another word that ends in igger, and isn't 'bigger'.
ROTFLOL, Hey, Sly, too funny!
https://blogs.voanews.com/student-union/2017/03/02/67-of-international-students-pay-out-of-pocket/
So what are the “fees” for ?
Is it anything like Today when I called the Internet Co. about the $59.99 .net/phone package E-Mail and was told I have a better deal now with the same package for $54.99.
I said “Then why am I paying $100.00 for $54.99 service”?
The Lady said “no Sir, you are paying $54.99 for it.”
I said “No I’m paying $100.00 for it.”
She replies “no Sir, you pay $54.99 for .net, $10.00 for modem, and the rest is taxes and fees.”
I again said “I’m paying $100.00 for it. So it’s like the Girl with the Lemonade Stand with $.25 Lemonade and it costs $2.00 with taxes and fees.”
Again “No Sir”
I said “So we’re still paying for the War of 1812.”
I then hung up.
No, that one was paid off. We’re paying for the Spanish American War ...
OK
damn... only paying $80 and change here in the boondocks and i have fiber right to the house
“Top fundraiser” for whom? Who knows, might be a clue if its for a certain politician.
Your posts is exactly why we cut our Infinity Cable, except our new bill would have been over $255/month. To get this special great rate, they had thrown in HBO/Showtime and 4 other premium channels that we never watched.
I used to be able to get them to lower our rate as a “Senior Citizen”. That stopped last year, and I talked to a clone, of the clone you talked to.
We went to Comcast business and pay $105/month for a high speed internet and two phones, and that includes the taxes.
Our Sling TV costs about $40/month and that will go back to the lower price. We opted for a higher Sling Cost so my wife could get ABC and the Kelly show.
She told me to go back to the basic Sling package as the Kelly show is now just a stage for liberal actors, actresses, singers, ??? and rectums from CNN.
Thanks.
That makes me even angrier at the rotten UC system.
One of our younger female relatives went to a 4 year private school that has very high standards. She made 2 B’s, (the only non A’s in 12 years) and the rest were A’s. She was just graduated from that high school with highest honors.
She could not get into any UC nursing program because of her grade average. If a student went to Oakland or an LA highschool and didn’t riot or attack a teacher, they probably got straight A’s.
Fortunately, she applied to other excellent nursing schools out of state. She was accepted by everyone of those. She is starting her first day today at an out of state 4 year nursing program with an excellent scholarship covering more than 50% of the costs and it is a 4 year program instead of one the 5+ year programs.
She did not cost California Tax payers a penny for her last 4 years of highschool. Her parents, who both work paid a hell of a lot of income, sales, and property taxes during those 4 years. So did her California Aunts/Uncles and Grand Parents.
The UC system is loaded with out state students because of their out of state tuition. Then, there are the rich out of country students as you pointed out. There is no clear % figure on non citizens, aka undocumented UC Students. Were their straight A’s easier to get?
University of Southern California is private, not part of the UC system. I don't think it currently has an undergrad nursing program, but does have a postgrad program for licensed nurses. There has long been a nursing program at the Los Angeles County - USC Medical Center. I think it is run by the county, not USC, but I could be wrong.
Almost 90% of U.C. students are from California. University of California automatically accepts the top 9% of its California freshman applicants.
As a private university, USC is under no such constraints, and they love their lucrative foreign students. Are those students as qualified as their American counterparts? It's a good question.
UCLA admitted just 14.6 percent of California hopefuls this year, even as it became the first American public university to get more than 100,000 admission applications. Berkeley took just 19.7 percent, with out-of-staters eating up many slots that otherwise could go to Californians.
As they previously have, UC officials predicted in-state enrollments would actually rise, noting they have longstanding analyses of how many admission offers are acted on by non-Californians.
Whose UC is it? — still a valid question
By THOMAS D. ELIAS | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: August 8, 2017 at 12:02 am | UPDATED: August 8, 2017 at 11:01 am
As a new school year approaches on the nine campuses of the University of California, it’s fair for parents of prospective students to ask once again, as many have for at least the last eight years, whose UC will it be?
The question first arose during the Great Recession that began about nine years ago, a time when UC began accepting more and more out-of-state and foreign students to help make up for funding cuts inflicted by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators.
Over 12 years, the foreign and out-of-state enrollment at UC — some of whose campuses are routinely listed among the top five public universities in America and the world — rose from 5 percent to more than 21 percent. University administrators were forced to concede the $26,000 in extra tuition paid by the children of Arab oil sheiks and Chinese multi-millionaires and government-subsidized students from myriad other places had a lot to do with their vastly increased numbers at UC.
Meanwhile, the proportion of highly eligible California high school graduates who actually went to UC was falling despite their supposedly being guaranteed a slot somewhere in the university.
About two years ago, administrators began feeling some heat over this, with state legislators threatening to cut the taxpayer contributions to UC coffers unless the trend stopped.
So UC regents voted overwhelmingly in late 2015 for a plan to increase in-state enrollment by 5,000 students in each of the next two years, this fall being the plan’s second year.
This action, proposed by UC President Janet Napolitano, amounted to a tacit admission that the critics were correct.
Since then, there has been a bit of a shift toward higher enrollments of Californians at UC. The system announced as it sent out acceptance offers this spring it would have 2,500 more California undergraduates than it did two years ago. Not exactly the 10,000 promised by the university’s governing board back then, but progress nonetheless.
In fact, UC reported that admission offers to Californians declined this year by about 1,200 from last year, a drop of almost 2 percent. Meanwhile, a reported 31,030 non-Californians got admission offers, a jump of about 4 percent from last year.
Justifiable outcries began immediately. “UC officials are tone deaf and insensitive to Californians and the (state’s) master plan for higher education,” said state Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Roseville. “Californians subsidize UC so that their children may attend and learn to be competitive in this global economy. Instead, UC officials are admitting non-Californians to the detriment of California students.”
What Nielsen said is more true of the primo UC campuses like Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego and Irvine than it is of those at Riverside, Merced and Santa Cruz, which are in somewhat less demand by out-of-staters.
UCLA admitted just 14.6 percent of California hopefuls this year, even as it became the first American public university to get more than 100,000 admission applications. Berkeley took just 19.7 percent, with out-of-staters eating up many slots that otherwise could go to Californians.
As they previously have, UC officials predicted in-state enrollments would actually rise, noting they have longstanding analyses of how many admission offers are acted on by non-Californians.
But there are new questions about the reliability of statements from Napolitano and her staff. A state audit, for example, showed the president’s office squirreled away about $175 million over the last few years in a slush fund, at the same time tuition rose by almost the same amount. That led to great mistrust, which many governors would have resolved by firing the perpetrators.
But, as usual with financial chicanery conducted by officials associated with Gov. Jerry Brown, no one was punished and business carried on, following pious pledges to clean up their act from Napolitano and other administrators.
All of which leads parents of prospective UC students to feel betrayed by and untrusting of a system originally created to serve people like their children.
Thomas D. Elias is a writer in Southern California.
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/08/whose-uc-is-it-still-a-valid-question/
UC says that 83.5% of its undergrads were CA residents as of 2016: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance
(Another point of interest on that page is the graph showing that blacks comprise only 4% of UC undergrads. The University of California is RAAACIST!)
I wonder if the Cal State universities show the same trend toward accepting more foreign/out-of-state students.
“I wonder if the Cal State universities show the same trend toward accepting more foreign/out-of-state students.”
Apparently so, according to the parents of this young woman. They know of similar situations with other young people trying to get into state schools and being turned down in spite of excellent grades.
More unreported real news like, this was before one reporter dared to report the reality.
Anyway, today, our young lady/relative started her college program to be a nurse at a top E Coast school.. She got a $22K scholarship deposited in her account to defer expenses. This was in spite of being “too dumb” to get admitted any Cal U. by having 2 B’ with A’s at a premium private high school and being graduated with highest honors from the private high school.
The other sin of this young lady and others getting turned down may be the sin of having white middle class parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.