Carla Rivera, a tireless reporter covering higher ed issues, is at it again. This time, in this morning's Los Angeles Times, she covers Jack Scott's recent address at Pasadena City College.
Community colleges chief decries budget cuts' toll on students
excerpt:
"We should be working together to rebuild California and making it a better place for our children," Scott told about 300 students, faculty and community members who gathered in the campus auditorium. "Dreams are necessary to live. If we keep dashing college dreams and denying opportunities for Californians, we're going to lose our best and brightest to other states, which will only further exacerbate our state's economic situation."To read the article in its entirety, click here.
Earlier last week, California State University announced that it will freeze most admissions for spring 2013, with the exception of a few hundred community college transfer students who will be offered admission to eight of Cal State's 23 campuses.
The move will shut out an estimated 16,000 others, most of them would-be transfer students who are likely to remain at community colleges and clog access for recent high school graduates and unemployed workers who have been streaming into the two-year system for job retraining.
Scott said he understood the reasoning for Cal State's actions: State universities suffered $750 million in funding cuts in 2011-12. Meanwhile, community colleges took a $564-million hit. Both systems could lose millions more if a tax measure on the November ballot fails.
*
12 comments:
Where are our students going to go? I've had a number students preparing to transfer express a great deal of concern and fear. Could the transfer center perhaps put out a statement or something that we could use? What are the counselors telling students? How many of our graduates go on to cal States?
I can already see the tears welling up in their eyes because its either school or work.
What's Assemblyman Wagner have to say?
Well this is good news: 64% support Brown's measure.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-poll-20120326,0,7626225.story
5:37, Oh so terrible they'll have to go to work! Condemed for eternity on a real job! Tears are shooting horizontally right out of my face!
What's your "real job," 1:15? Washing your folks' car every weekend in exchange for room and board?
12:36, That sounds like the kind of job those OWS protesters would have, still living at home and all...
Maybe some are, 2:08, but at the least they have the courage and initiative to get out and make their voices heard, out in the open.
Unlike you.
2:08, if they used that same time, courrage and initiative to get out and find a job, they'd be employed and thus wouldn't have to protest anymore. I guess they can't do that because it takes a little more effort. We've enabled a new generation of slugs.
1:36, let’s be clear. The nature of the advocates of the “99%” or “occupy” philosophy has no logical relevance to the correctness of that philosophy. To suppose otherwise is to commit the “ad hominem” (“to the person”) fallacy. The issue whether the “occupy” kids are (or are not) deadbeats, etc., is, I suppose interesting, but it has no bearing on such issues as whether our society has funneled resources toward these 1 percenters, etc. It seems clear to many observers (and I’m not referring to protesters) that the bail out bailed out the very people who are most responsible for the collapse and placed the burden (i.e., the cost of the bailout) on, essentially, the Ninety-nine percenters (plus the 1 percenters).
There is a profound ugliness in the familiar tactic of blaming the Obama administration for our economic woes, when one considers that those embracing the tactic are the ones who elected leaders (e.g., GW Bush) who are most responsible for these woes. You will not deny, will you, that GWB massively expanded government and the debt? Despite having done so, he was reelected by--well, they're called "Republicans." Further, Republicans are as guilty, and in fact are likely more guilty, for embrace of measures (e.g., deregulation) that were crucial to creating the collapse.
At a college blog, one hopes not to have to point out the obvious. Do not confuse or divert the discussion. Get back on track, OK?
The interest rate should have been tweaked in 1999 - 2000 around the dot.com boom and bust. Low interest rate lead to the boom in building that a reasonable person could see as unsustainable. But people didn’t really care because of economic prosperity and free money. We can blame presidents, the 1%, but presidents are a pretty face, 1% are investors. The brains behind economic planning was heavily influenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
Let's not forget the Dodd-Frank team (both dems) who pushed congress to pass nondiscrimination laws so banks had to give home loans to folks who had no ability to pay for them. That, during the dem majority of Congress under Bush since Jan 2007.
You always conveniently omit that part.
Post a Comment