To the editor: Ah, for the good-old days, when Californians understood the value of education for everyone. My husband and I, our son, our sisters, nieces and nephews all attended University of California schools in those glory days when Californians "got it." ("A record number of out-of-state students brings windfall for UC system," Aug. 17)
Am I really expected to believe that, with about 30% of UC admissions at the three most competitive schools being non-residents, "no California residents are being pushed out"?
The $400 million gained from having these higher-paying students in UC is a drop in the bucket for California. How much extra would each taxpayer in the state have to pay to make up this amount?
One out-of-state student is quoted as saying that his higher tuition is justified because residents have paid their taxes for years to support these schools. He is bloody well right, and we ought to realize who benefits from educating our youth.
Barbara Rosen, Fullerton
To the editor: As a mother of a high school junior, it has become increasingly frustrating to read articles on UC boosting nonresident enrollment. What began as a necessary measure in difficult economic times seems to be setting a scary precedent.
When UC officials insist that California residents aren't losing enrollment spots, are they talking specifically about the most competitive schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley? Are they redirecting applicants who don't make it into their top choices to lower-tier schools in the UC system?
While I understand the need for universities to adapt to changing times, it is unfair to ask California families — who, according to a young student from Greensboro, N.C., have paid "their hard-earned money" in taxes to support UC — to continue to trust the system to judge its applicants without a hidden agenda.
Lorraine Lopes, Simi Valley
To the editor: While I can understand an incoming freshman believing that "California is a place where you can dream as big as you want to" by attending UCLA, what I cannot understand are the parents who are willing to lay out an additional $92,000 over four years of out-of-state fees so that their daughter can attend.
What is wrong with Indiana University, where she states she was admitted? Its main campus at Bloomington, like UC Berkeley, is considered on par with the Ivy League.
The daughter's quote "It definitely would have been less expensive to go to I.U., but I don't think I would have been as happy" is a clear demonstration of the problem with far too many of our youth today. Our society endorses any cost to make our kids happy, happier, happiest.
Many fine graduates have come from I.U. I don't think Mark Cuban is complaining about his education there.
Cindy J. Schreiber, Thousand OaksCopyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times