The history of UC tuition since 1868

Michael Drummond/Senior Staff

The University of California, originally consisting solely of UC Berkeley’s campus, has the distinction of being California’s first public university. At the UC system’s inception, tuition was free for California residents. Over the years, student fees increased, and by the 1970s, the university moved away from free tuition for residents. Here is a look back at how the cost of education has changed since the UC system was first created.

1868: The Organic Act charters the University of California. It creates the UC Board of Regents as a governing body and roughly outlines the board’s financial and admissions responsibilities. It states:

“For the time being, an admission fee and rates of tuition such as the Board of Regents shall deem expedient may be required of each pupil; and as soon as the income of the University shall permit, admission and tuition shall be free to all residents of the state.”

1897: Financial aid is established for “needy and deserving students.”

1921: Though tuition is still free, California residents are now required to pay an “incidental fee” of $25 per year to cover services not related to instruction. Tuition for nonresidents is $75 per year.

1956: Incidental fee is $84 per year. Tuition for nonresidents is $300 per year. Tuition is still “free” for California residents.

Clark Kerr

Dale Winling/Creative Commons

1960: The California Master Plan, largely developed by Clark Kerr, supports keeping the UC system tuition-free for California residents but maintains that fees should be charged to cover costs coming from areas such as laboratories, health and athletics.

“The two governing boards reaffirm the long established principle that state colleges and the University of California shall be tuition free to all residents of the state.”

1968: Registration fee for all students is $300 per year. Nonresident tuition is $1,200 per year. Tuition is still free for all California residents.

1970: In a symbolic move away from free tuition for residents, students must now pay an additional “educational fee.” The fee is $150 per year for undergraduate students and $180 per year for graduate students.

1974: The state funds approximately 32 percent of the total UC budget.

1975-76: Annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total $630. Annual tuition and fees for nonresident UC undergraduates total $2,130.

1985-86: Annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total $1,296. Annual tuition and fees for nonresident UC undergraduates total $5,112.

1995-96: Annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total $4,354. Annual tuition and fees for nonresident UC undergraduates total $12,053.

2004: Then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, then-UC President Robert Dynes and then-CSU Chancellor Charles Reed strike a private deal, called the Higher Education Compact, to increase reliance on private student fees.

“In order to help maintain quality and enhance academic and research programs, UC will continue to seek additional private resources and maximize other fund sources available to the University to support basic programs.”

Tony Zhou/Staff

2004-05: The state funds approximately 16 percent of the total UC budget.

2005-06: Annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total $7,434. Annual tuition and fees for nonresident UC undergraduates total $25,254.

2009: The UC Board of Regents votes to increase tuition by 32 percent, pushing annual costs to more than $10,000. UC students protest by occupying buildings.

2011: The Occupy movement rocks UC campuses. Incorporated in Occupy’s message is discontent with budget cuts and rising tuition.

2011: For the first time, the total amount UC students pay in tuition exceeds the amount of funding the UC system receives from the state.

2011-12: Annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total $14,460. Annual tuition and fees for nonresident UC undergraduates total $37,338.

2012-13: 42 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduates receive loans, with an average loan amount of $4,867. Undergraduate students owe an average of $19,468 by graduation.

Ariel D. Hayat/Staff

Ariel D. Hayat/Senior Staff

2012-13: Tuition is now “the largest single source of core operating funds.” Students contribute nearly $3 billion in tuition and fees, versus the $2.38 billion the state contributes.

2013: Approximately 64 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduates receive financial aid, including grants, scholarships, work study and loans.

Now: After a three-year tuition freeze, the UC Board of Regents voted Nov. 2o to increase student fees by up to 5 percent over the next 5 years.

Image Sources: Image 1, edited by Lilia Vega

Contact Lilia Vega at [email protected].

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Paula Adams

    European countries give free tuition realizing that an educated workforce creates more wealth. It’s a great return for their investment.

  • Oybama

    How about a log scale graph showing tuition (including fees) on a yearly basis. The data provided in this article is very difficult to use for comparison.

  • freddynono

    This article fails to mention that over half of all UC undergrads pay no tuition at all. My source: the UC admissions website.
    “It costs less than you think
    Most families pay less than the full price of attending UC. In fact, more than half of our undergraduate students pay no tuition at all. Over two-thirds of UC undergraduates receive grants and scholarships, with an average award of around $16,300.”

  • Sugarsail1

    Amazing, people pay to be brainwashed…the communists had to have the Americans show them how to do communist re-education the profitable right way. The irony is so thick.

  • Stephen Pavlov

    If all those students don’t think they should have to pay for their education why do they think everyone else has to pay for theirs?

  • Leftcoastrocky

    How about an article with a graph of the out-of-state tuitions through the years (especially 1970). Thanks

  • ladygadget

    But when there was no tuition for resident students, many of us were on Cal Grants and Federal grants as well. So if you want to do that calculation, be sure to include that in your stats. Also, I may be mistaken but I haven’t seen any reference to Prop 13. That had a huge impact on all aspects of education funding here.

  • Justin Peterson

    Perhaps the Left would be better served by framing its drive for no or low tuition as a return to “tradition.” It is amazing that was once a standard policy is now viewed as wildly unrealistic. A testament to how good the Right is at marketing, and how bad the Left is.

    • Foul_Ball

      It’s been more than marketing. They changed the country by design. They’ve been squeezing government for so long that it would take some drastic revenue increase to reverse the trend. And that is going to take a complete change in voting patterns.

      The right has been fairly coherent in their philosophy — government is bad; the left is mostly a collection of different interest groups without a coherent philosophy, although they agree on some issues but not consistently across the board.

      • Frank Smith

        We also have many Democrats that are basically Republicans with a D after their names. And that list includes Chuck Reed (Mr. Pension Reform), Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. All of these folks like throwing missiles into Syria, universal healthcare designed to enrich big pharma and big insurance, big bank bailouts, uncapped H1B, etc. The Left is dead and gone. The DNC rigged the primaries so the real Left never had a chance.

  • Lippyone

    Free tuition sounds good, but isn’t California already $152 Billion in debt (most of all states), where will the money come from?

  • Lippyone

    Free tuition sure sounds nice but isn’t California over $600 Million in debt now?

  • Doug Kneeland

    UC tuition started as an anti-student political initiative by Ronald Regan shortly after he became governor. I was a student at UCSB where a Regents meeting was held (not sure if it was 1967 or 68) to vote on Reagan’s tuition proposal. It was approved, although it started as a small, relatively symbolic amount. I recall Reagan and other Regents taking a walking tour of the university, and virtually every student lined the sidewalks screaming, “Our position is no tuition!” Reagan loved it because it was all on film and it supported his popularity, which was largely based on his “strong man” opposition to student protests against the Vietnam War. Other states soon jumped on the bandwagon. We can thank Ronnie for ending the idea of taxpayer-subsidized public university education in the US, and for starting the current student loan crisis.

    • Foul_Ball

      I don’t recall the details, but I always suspected that it was a political reaction to student activism, particularly at UC Berkeley. I recall one of Reagan’s jokes about, “Hippies not playing football because they can’t put spikes on their sandals.” It was the same anger and bitterness of some people that elected Nixon.
      But I also think it was in response to the massive legal immigration into California. Santa Clara County was the fastest growing county in the USA for a long, long time. And that immigration was not poor people. It was middle class people who now live in San Jose, the East Bay along 680 and the North Bay.
      And remember Reagan privatizing the California mental health system, which resulted in 100s of 1000s of handicapped people being dumped on the streets of our cities. A few of Reagan’s privateer buddies made bucks and the mentally ill got shafted.
      And people who voted for Reagan in California or for president and are now whining about the shrinking middle class have to take a look in the mirror. You are the root cause of the USA’s current economic problems….

    • Dave

      Best President ever! I just wish he would have moved to completely eliminate government schools altogether. It would be much better to have a direct deduction one’s income tax for education than have the government involved. The quality of education would certainly improve if the government were removed.

      • Stephen Pavlov

        How about people just pay for the services they use? The only alternative to take money from everyone else by force irregardless if they use the service or not.

      • Paula Adams

        Well, at least he’s not the worst President ever. I will give you that but not a mm more.

  • CCProf

    One big problem has been the explosion of spending in California on prisons. This spending is crowding out funds that could go to reduce tuition at public colleges and universities.

    The prison guards union is very powerful in California. They want more and more prisoners. It’s time to end the drug war and reduce prison populations.

    In the 1980’s the tuition was not so crazy at UC campuses. Then California and the nation decided to get serious about the drug war. Now tuition is crazy at UC campuses.

    • keithsoulasa

      Prop 47 fixed this for the most part. Too bad instead of rehabilitation we just dumped inmates on the street, so their has been a modest untick in crime.

      Vote next year , more reform is needed to really end the drug war!
      Tax it, fund the schools again!

  • Earthian

    They only way I know to change this would be to create democratic legislatures at the state and national levels. That means proportional representation (PR), along with public financing of elections. New Zealand did it in the period from 1986-1996, adopting the German system of MMP. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands all did it. Finland adopted PR in 1906. It’s about time for the U.S. to implement the features of modern democracies. Then maybe our kids would be smarter than our bombs.

    See my articles:

    • Foul_Ball

      Yes, sounds nice. But how do you go about it? Wouldn’t it require amending the constitution? Good luck with that.

  • ErikKengaard

    Someone ought to really study the factors behind the rise in tuition (and fees) since 1968. Prior to 1968, starting in 1869 (100 years) “tuition” was zero, and in 1968 fees were about $200 per year – easily affordable even for students who worked their way through (as I and many others did in the 1950s).

    Christina Marie Kersey in 2012 made something of an effort in her 2012 Master’s thesis, but it falls short of what is needed.
    Probably the biggest single factor is the change in population from one that had not yet filled up the available residential land with housing, a moderately well off middle class whose taxes covered much of K12 and college expenses for their 2.8 children, much less welfare, and much less cost for prisons.

    The changes, especially population, not only resulted in less state support for UC, but also caused a great increase in the cost of living. Today’s students would be amazed to learn how affordable Berkeley rent was in the 1950s.

    • Guest

      Get rid of student loans for public education!

      The excessive increase in college tuition mimics the real estate prices peaking in 2006 which was due to easy loans. Anytime that anyone can get a loan easily, it increases demand. When demand is increased, then the price is increased.

      The more student loans that are available to just about anyone, the more the college tuition will increase due to demand. This bubble will burst when the students in debt who graduated with a degree or were not able to finish their degrees find out that they could not find high-paying jobs to pay back their excessive loans.

      Then at this point, the government will step in to bail out the banks again, then offer refinancing, debt consolidation or student loan bailout for those who owe money. At this point, the student loans will no longer be offered as easily. This results in decreased college tuition fees.

      Therefore, the better solution is for the government to give 100% funding to the public colleges so there is free tuition for California residents. Do not offer student loans to subsidize public college education for students wanting to earn a degree for the first time. Student loans should only be offered to those going to private colleges not public colleges, and to those out-of-state residents going to public colleges.

      Public colleges offering 2 year degrees and 4 year degrees to college students earning them for the first time should be free for state residents.

      • ErikKengaard

        Tuition at UCB was free, for 100 years. Tehn LBJ opened the borders, millions of poor needing welfare came to California, and state revenue could not cover both the welfare, and the K12 education for children whose parents didn’t pay enough in taxes to cover their costs.

        • Foul_Ball

          No, ErikK, Santa Clara County was already the fastest growing county in the USA in the 1950s early 1960s, before LBJ became president. And it wasn’t illegal immigrants. It was middle class folks like my family. Among my parents friends, it was always a joke about how none of them had been born in California.

          And housing prices were already rising. My parents paid $20,000 for a house in East San Jose in the 1963. The house had originally sold for $5000 in 1951.

          In the early 1960s, in the Bay Area, they were building many new high schools and elementary schools to keep up with the population boom. They could close some of them in the 1980s when the number of school-aged children decreased.

          You are looking for a simple scapegoat for a complex problem.

          • ladygadget

            The increase in population post WWII was due to migration from the East coast and midwest. Many brought here because of military experience. Why go back to blizzards, high humidity and/or tornadoes when you can live where (in their experience) in California where there is basically no seasons.

    • Devin_MacGregor

      Rent up to 2001 was pretty reasonable. During the energy so called crisis rents were jacked up and then with the housing boom rents just skyrocketed. Even though post bust housing prices have declined somewhat rents did not. My rent more than doubled from 2001 through the bust.

      • ErikKengaard

        In 1958 a brand new 2 bedroom, 1 living room bath and kitchenette apartment, with garage parking, on Ridge Road rented for $135 a month. That would be about $1,100 today.

  • Mark Talmont

    Comments below seem kind of “BayAreaCentric”. Outside of the wealthy enclaves the formerly-middle-class in this state is pretty much gone. This will be more apparent within a few years, 2016 federal SS disability bellies up, only a matter of time before Jerry’s funny money accounting is revealed for the fantasy it is (PERS is underfunded by $200 Billion and has been run by crooks to boot–web search PERS Buenostoro Villalobos)
    As for education expense, this is one field that has been seemingly immune from the real productivity revolutions that have influenced most of the rest of the economy (though most of the benefits captured by the “1%” and NOT reinvested in anything that will help most of the rest of us).–take a look at and wonder “why can a modestly-funded independent do this and the Frankenstate blows billions and your get ever-more-invasive federal top-down management with no actual hep? The very concept of “productivity” seems not to apply to education. Those physically occupying the education space seem “dug in” to stop anything that might affect their personal circumstances–why are they so holy deserving of some special “protected” status? Half of what goes on in education could be put online and with greater end-result effectiveness.

  • Guest

    How can a middle class college student who does not qualify for financial aid afford a $15,000 to $20,000 a year college? Working 20 hours a week at $9 / hr. Take home net at about 70%, that is $7056 a year for a part-time work. That is impossible. Government loan is limited. Parents get by feeding the middle-class family from paycheck to paycheck. Only the poor, the illegals and the rich can afford college. It did not used to be this way. College used to be free.

    College is a societal investment and every citizen should invest in free education. Then those citizens who benefited from free education will pay back later through taxes to help the next generation. It is a cycle of life. The taxpayers should pay for college based on INCOME.These individuals benefited from college whether they graduated or not. They made a ton of money because of college education and they need to pay back through taxes so the next generation can go to college and earn money like they do.

    This type of college payment structure has created a huge income gap. The children of the middle class families cannot afford to go to college so they become uneducated and poor. The poor and illegals have free college so they move up. The rich get richer. Therefore, there is this big income gap between the rich and the poor like in the third world countries. This is very wrong. Children of the middle class are getting the short end of the stick and they cannot afford to go to a public university at all.

    Convert all community colleges to state colleges that offer 4-year degrees free to all California residents if the UC, CSU and CCC will play this tuition and student fees game to support only the poor, illegals and the rich. The middle class are being shut out of this public university education completely. And no one gets it.

    • Guest

      $150,000 income for family of 3 children in college. 35% of $150,000 go to the government, so take home pay is $97,500 a year. That is $8125 a month minus $3000 for mortgage = $5125. Minus $250 a month for property taxes = $4875. Minus $750 a month for utilities such as phone, tv, high cost of water and electricity, Internet = $4125. Minus $200 a month for car insurance and minus $1300 a month for health insurance deductible costs including prescriptions = $2625. minus $400 a month for gasoline on 2 cars = $2225. Minus $50 a month for life insurance = $2175. Minus $450 a month for one car loan = $1725. One student decides to use the bus fare to get to college. Minus $200 a month for car repairs/maint/home repairs/maint = $1525. If there is an $800 car repair, money is short. Allocate $100 a month each child for college. Anytime that anything breaks with a 35 year old house and appliances, that is added cost. No vacation, No birthday parties, No retirement funds. The cost of grocery tripled. Butter used to be $2, now it is $4.99 so you have to wait till it goes on sale. Even a bottle of Head and Shoulders to combat dandruff is $10 a bottle. You buy groceries at the dollar store. The middle class of today is different from the middle class of yesteryears. Just search Youtube for “middle class”.

      • Guest

        You underestimate taxes at 35%. Federal and state taxes plus social security, health insurance, and 401k will total closer to 50%. Property taxes in California are much higher than $250/mo if you bought your home recently; I’d double that to $500. A family making $150K per year likely gets health insurance through their employer.
        Having said that, I totally disagree with your “no vacation, etc” conclusion. Sure, you aren’t flying off to Hawaii for a week, but shorter trips like camping, Disney, and even jaunts to Baja are possible. Birthdays don’t have to break the bank if you don’t teach your kids rampant consumerism. If you’re making 150K and not participating in a retirement fund, you’re crazy. Two working adults averaging 75K each and neither have a 401K or pension? Unlikely.
        It’s tough, but at 150K, it aint that tough if you opt out of rampant American consumerism and make rational choices on your transportation and food. Put the $5 coffee down and stop defining people based on their car and cell phones fer crying out loud.

        • Guest

          There are no retirement funds because we are paying $12,000 per semester for college for three children – one in ccc and two in public universities/ccc out of OUR RETIREMENT FUNDS which is now GONE. The employer’s premium for health insurance for the entire family costs $16,000 a year and that does not include the co-pay. One parent works two part-time jobs that amount to 40+ hours a week because no one wants to hire full-time anymore. Our family has not gone on vacation since 2009. We never go to Starbucks or any ready-made coffee shop. No one is a coffee drinker nor an alcohol drinker here. We have no pet. We eat one can of SPAM for the entire family each week. We make a $8 spaghetti for entire family all the time. We buy the clearance food at the store that is about to go bad. There are no more college funds and no one will graduate from college. Water can cost up to $300 a month. The family car we bought when they were younger uses 12 miles to a gallon today so it is unusable. My son would make money and all his money would go to gasoline. So we bought 10+ year old 30 mpg cars for the kids for $2200-$3000, but a repair costs $800 for the entire brakes. $2800 for transmission repair. We have a pending repair on the car that will cost another $900. Never buy an old cheap car. Just buy a new one and pay the monthly bill. It is much less probably and that was what we finally did for the one car. There is car registration that needs to be paid like $280 for this one old car. The youngest college student just rides the bus. The two older college students go to two colleges because they cannot afford to be full-time at the public university, half-time at CSU and half-time at CCC so they still qualify for health insurance and student discount car insurance. You think that the parents are still working full-time. I went to this FREE training program and all I met were people mostly from UC systems that were either laid off or working part-time. They were like in their 50s with college kids also. NO ONE WOULD HIRE THEM EVEN IF THEY ARE MORE THAN QUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE OLD. There were younger people in the class and they could get jobs easily for the same positions the older people are applying for. We are thankful that one parent can find two part-time job even with NO BENEFITS at all. Once the employer hacks the employment hours of an old employee, that is history for the employee. You go from middle class to poverty quickly. If you try to repair a broken bathroom and kitchen, that is $5000 to remodel a bathroom and $12,000 to remodel a kitchen. We do our own home repairs but we do not know how do to plumbing and replace kitchen sinks with huge holes or a shower with walls that are disintegrating with holes everywhere. Those cost money. Our kitchen floor was all destroyed with missing tile and my son replaced the kitchen tiles with cheap tiles from home depot. Our garage door has been broken since 2000. We just repaired our refrigerator for $150. Our oldest college son tried to move out for one year, find out he cannot afford it and moved back to the house. He was working full-time while going to college full-time. He only slept 4 hours or less a day, then went into depression. He could not qualify for the military because he sought counseling from a psychologist on how to handle college and work life when he was really depressed. The military is picky nowadays. So, for crying out loud one college kid owns a 1998 car. He used to own a 2002 car for which we bought for $5K and did over $4000 of repair but we gave up on it. The other college kid owns a 2001 car that needed a lot of repair and we already spent $3K in repairs. And the other college student has the gas guzzling family car which he does not use so he rides the bus. Their cell phones were $9.99/mo from Verizon Wireless family plan until they were kicked them out of the plan. Life is not perfect. Life is full of repairs unless everything is brand new around you. It is tough to ride the bus if you are running to two colleges around town and have a job to go to.

          • Guest

            We bought a $2200 2002 Saturn car for the oldest college kid and the engine just died. That was a complete waste of money. Used cars are a big waste of repair money.

          • AnOski

            Not all used cars are rubbish: check consumer reports re. reliability next time. Should’ve bought a Toyota or Honda. *(Used) Saturns are a big waste of (repair) money.

          • Guest

            Well…The $5K 2002 Honda Civic bought from a dealer cost us over $4K of repairs over time with transmission problems, check engine light problems, etc. We finally gave up and sold it for $4K. We lost a lot of money. The $3300 2001 Toyota Corolla bought from an owner cost us $3K of repairs with brake job, engine problems, check engine light, etc. There are still pending problems with the Toyota. Basically, every month, there was at least a $600 repair. So we figure, it we are going to spend $600 – $900 a month in repairs, why not buy one of the parents a new car for $430 a month to replace the 1998 car, then one of the college students can have the 1998 car which requires a lot less repair than the other cars. So one of my eldest students decided to just buy a motorcycle to get to work and school because got tired of unreliable cars and repairs and high gas prices. Guess what? He had an accident on the freeway and strangers called 911 emergency ambulance to get him to the hospital. He went to the emergency hospital to get treated. The emergency cost him $3000 to pay for ambulance, emergency doctor, tests, every little thing they could charge for that emergency. It seemed like everyone was an emergency contractor with never ending bills coming in. He was in severe debt. So no motorcycle anymore.

          • AnOski

            Sounds like you didn’t have a mechanic look over the cars first? Got a used Prius here a few years ago, no trouble / 20,000 miles travelled.

          • Guest

            The point of this all is also I would like to know how these neighbors of ours and many people here get FREE money from the government to fund all their kids with FREE school breakfast, lunch, before and after school care for K-12, free college, free groceries, free board and care for their elderly, free healthcare, yet they own convertibles, ski jets, brand new cars, designer clothing, cell phones, own more than one property, big screen TV. they go on vacations, they drink beer, they go watch sports events at the stadium, etc. Then their college children are living out of the area far away to go to a UC. How do the children even get the money to live out of county and pay tuition fees? Everyone else seems to qualify for free money. So whenever I read a story of these poor people even with military parents struggling to make ends meet and go to college, I just go B.S., you have been given FREE everything in life from the minute you were born. It seems like the right formula is one parent join the military, another parent is a government employee with lifetime pension, get free housing, make enough money so you are classified as in poverty or funnel the money to another country, then free money comes pouring in K-12 until college.

          • Guest

            Or the right formula is just being poverty level to qualify for free money and free college, Whatever. The middle class is just trying hard not to reach poverty level but this is getting harder to achieve if it is harder to fund college. Hopefully, free college for California residents happens again. Have a happy new year.

          • MsLand

            Where in CA? I will move there in a flash.

          • Paula Adams

            The intent of the law and will of the people was a free college even in 1863.

          • Barbara Talbott

            Bought an Accord in 2011 with 130k miles, it now has 270k miles on it and has only required fairly minor repairs. I am fearful it will just fall apart one of these days, like in a comedy where the entire body falls apart at once. Until then, it keeps getting me to work and back.

          • MsLand

            I bought a $15 hundred dollar 1995 Buick LeSabre with 110 thousand miles on it and it runs pretty well.

        • Guest

          You do not understand what it is like to be middle class, old with health issues with an old house needing repairs. Even with health insurance deductibles chosen instead of co-pays, one visit to a specialist like endocrinologist for thyroid issues costs $700 out of pocket. OUT OF POCKET. If the co-pay is chosen, the premium costs $16K a year. So either way, the family needs to save at least $16K for health care costs for the entire family with health issues like thyroid issue, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, glaucoma, diabetes, heart issues, tumors, disorders, alzheimer’s for grandparents, etc. This is not American consumerism. Life is full of repairs whether it is the CAR, HOME or the BODY HEALTH. This consumerism that you are talking about are all repair costs because everything is OLD. There are a lot of OLD families where there is only one parent working FULL-TIME because the other parent works part-time in multiple jobs because of lay-off reduced hours, etc. Life may be perfect for you with no repairs, no illness, full-time workers but not all families are like yours.

          The people in poverty can get away with free college because the college kids fully qualify for college and they all graduate within 4-5 years. While the people in poverty get welfare. I saw a welfare lady in the grocery store with 3 children. She went to her car parked in front of our old 2002 car. She was driving a BRAND NEW SUV Honda. Our neighbor was in welfare and his kids were in the FREE 6-to-6 program and they own a convertible car and jet skis outside their house. How do they do it???? The poor people are the ones with CONSUMERISM not the MIDDLE CLASS. Because the poor people get FREE MONEY!!! Our parent do not qualify for FREE GOVERNMENT assistance for Alzheimers. All the poor people get FREE Alzheimer’s care while she pays $2500 a month for Alzheimer’s care when she sold her house. She will run out of MONEY and that is NOT consumerism.

          You are very OUT OF TOUCH!!!! The poor people are the ones that can afford consumerism. There was a family with 3 children begging for money in the streets. I gave her 5 dollars because I hate to be in her situation. Next thing I know, she was in the store buying her kids JUNK food at an expensive store while I go to the dollar store to buy one dollar food. That upset me greatly.

          The middle class people GET NO FREE MONEY to waste on crap like the poor people do.

          • Kevin Q

            I don’t believe any of your stories are true. You seem to know too many rich people on welfare. I think you are either making it all up or there is much more to these stories. Furthermore it sounds like you want poor people to be begging in the streets because it fits your narrative of what a poor person is. The fact is that they are just like everybody else and do misspend money sometimes and also don’t have the choices that people with more money do.

          • Stephen Pavlov

            All those things you mentioned cost more when they are taxed more. Nothing is free. Everything is taken from someone. Having the government subsidize your expenses ( educate kids you decided to have) necessitates a higher tax rate which raises the cost of all those things you mentioned. It’s a vicious cycle.

          • Paula Adams

            While you can afford a nice house, these people can’t. While you fork over 100k down payment for a home, all these people can afford is a down payment for a nice car.

      • invernessfalls

        dandruff is a middle class problem

      • Kevin Q

        Your comment makes no attempt to be rational. At $150K you are not waiting until butter goes on sale. Get real. Also, you are not paying 35% income tax if you make $150K. You would be paying 25% but only on that portion from $75K to $150K and ONLY after you take all your deductions so your effective tax rate would be closer to 15% or so. Recheck your tax return. You are not paying as much as you say.

        • paoburen

          Many people do not understand how marginal tax rates work. It is sad because lots of anger results from this misunderstanding.

          Effective tax rates and top marginal rate are entirely different numbers!

        • Paula Adams

          Yes, if you itemize, which is what property owners do, you will get quite a bit back as compensation for medical bills.

      • undrgrndgirl

        now try that on 30K a year!

      • Paula Adams

        Wow! You can afford to send 3 kids to college! I can’t afford having even one child, let alone sending them to school. And you own a house here too? Obviously, you have no idea how well you got it.

  • Guest

    Well…At the UC system’s inception, tuition was free for California residents. Much of the additional 30% which are student fees added on top of the HIGH tuition fees are for the club-ification of the public universities. They have turned public universities into country club memberships. The children of the middle class families cannot afford to go to the public universities. You are completely SHUTTING OUT the middle class students! Only the poor, illegals and the rich can go to a public university. CHILDREN OF MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES HAVE NO HOPE IN LIFE BUT TO LIVE IN POVERTY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD COLLEGE. THEY HAVE ZERO FUNDING. ZERO. NONE. ZIP. NADA. ZERO.

    These public universities are shutting out the middle class. The one and only solution is to STOP funding the UC and CSU and create state colleges offering 4-year degrees that are completely free for California residents. All community colleges will be converted to STATE COLLEGES offering Bachelor’s degrees free to California residents. Then junior colleges offering 2-year degrees for free to California residents will be created. We do not need spas in public universities. We just need the 2-year and 4- year degrees to make California residents qualify to land professional jobs and do great work at their professional jobs.

    • Sean Maddox

      I’m tired of your running this same dumb and completely unsupported argument over and over in this thread. You’re right, the middle class is getting slammed form both sides, and it is not fair or right in a number of ways, but to pretend there is no hope at all, that all middle class people are doomed to poverty is a little much. My parents were the image of middle class, suburban life. The point being is I worked my way through college. They didn’t give me a dime, and I didn’t get a dime. I went to a CC for my GE, while working part to full time jobs, to ensure I pulled no loans for basic courses, transferred to a lower end CSU knowing I would be getting a masters anyways. By then I was a legal adult, and yes I was able to get cal grants for 2 years of my BA without a loan. I then went on to my masters,but by then my wife made to much for me to get Cal Grants, so I took out loans. However, I hammered out my degree as quickly as possibly. I ended up with 30 grand in debt, but I have now paid it off at 31, have a masters, and already have eight years of experience in my field. I support free tuition, but I have to say some of this is just poor choices and management on the student/family side (Why are families sending their kids to UC and CSU for basic GE? It’s ridiculous, and we shouldn’t subsidize a dollar of it. This is just one example of subsidizing poor choices). If tuition is free, which again I support, we will have to rethink and restructure how students move through the college system in California.

  • Strykr32

    “Tuition is now “the largest single source of core operating funds.”
    Students contribute nearly $3 billion in tuition and fees, versus the
    $2.38 billion the state contributes.”

    Not exactly…Since UCOP asserts approximately 60% of UC systemwide students are receiving Cal Grant which fully funds tuition, then (0.60)($3,000,000,000) = $1,800,000,000 of the $3 billion is funded by the state, so the state contributes $2.38 + $1.8 billion = $4.18 billion while students contribute $3 billion – $1.8 billion = $1.2 billion. So, the state contributes 4.18/5.38= 78% of core operating funds while students contribute 22% of core operating funds. Under the 1960s Master Plan, UC did not fund room and board. UCOP states that 33% of all tuition goes towards “return to aid” which funds room and board for students receiving Cal Grant. So, (0.33)($1,800,000,000) = $595 million of the Cal Grant funded tuition and (0.33)($1,200,000,000) = $396 million of the student funded tuition or a total of $991 million actually is not to pay for educational costs but for living expenses, a burden UC did not undertake under the 1960s Master Plan.
    Therefore if students did not have to pay for “return to aid” their aggregate tuition could decrease from $1,200,000,000 to $804,000,000. If the $595,000,000 of Cal Grant Funding that pays for room and board was then applied to the educational function to subsidize the tuition of all students rather than the room and board of students receiving Cal Grant, there would be a further significant decline in tuition. Aggregate tuition paid by students would then decline by $595 million from $804 million to $209 million. So tuition required of students would decline from $1.2 billion to $209 million. Applying this ratio(209 million/1200 million = 0.17) to tuition charged, $14,460(0.17) = $2,458 tuition. The number of students eligible for Cal Grant would also decrease substantially as a very sizable segment of far more academically qualified middle class students not eligible for Cal Grant and currently being economically deprived of a UC education would then displace less academically qualified students who are eligible for Cal Grant. It is foreseeable that tuition levels could sink to less than $2,000 per year with the present level of state funding being distributed more equitably to all students to fund their education. The Master Plan never included the right for any student eligible for Cal Grant to be able to attend any UC regardless of location while economically depriving middle class students of a UC education. The general idea was that tuition was subsidized for all and those who were less well off attended a UC or CSU near their home or worked their way through school if attending a UC not near their home. This is a superior model to the current one which economically deprives middle class students not eligible for Cal Grant of a UC education and also deprives even fairly well off students who are not classified financially independent until age 24 regardless of whether in fact they are financially independent, if their parents will not fund a UC education.

    • ErikKengaard

      Well said! Wish the media did as well as you in explaining things.