Posted on 03/09/2015 5:00:40 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The standoff between state officials and the University of California over its finances and admissions policy grew tense Tuesday as the university threatened to limit enrollment of California students next year unless it receives more money from the state.
UC President Janet Napolitano told an Assembly budget subcommittee that the university will cap in-state enrollment at current levels while continuing to increase the number of nonresident students.
We will not not be admitting students that we dont know that we actually have funding for, Napolitano said.
UC will still increase the number of out-of-state and international students by up to 2,000 next year, a step that the university argues is financially necessary to support slots for in-state students.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
But they will be increasing Muslim Outreach efforts.
Especially from Syria and Libya..
No it not, far far from it: controlled enrollment, special preferences, monopolistic closed market.
Yes, but a contrite heart God will not despise.
So funny .... I don’t think Comrade Governor Moonbeam or Comrade Napolitano will take your suggestion seriously.
This is the most insane article I have ever read in my entire life. This is beyond Orwell. This is Communist Utopia masturbation material.
Then see how feisty the ivory tower actually is.
When my kids went through the UC system 10 years ago, they held out a certain percentage for this. I had a conversation with a woman in admittance. I was furious back then. It’s worse now.
Look again - they are rejecting the students who pay the lower, government tuition, and accepting those who will pay the real cost.
Market forces are at work.
They might be taking about out of country students who will get financial aid at instate prices. Or paid for by taxpayers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC
PO Box 9771
Fresno, CA 93794
You have two groups:
Group A is limited to in state only and pays at rate Y.
Group B is limited to out of state only and pays at rate 2Y.
Group A is restricted from participating in Group B's pay plan and vice-versa.
The number of participants in each group is fixed and being restricted by artificial means (government control).
Your comment regarding free market forces would be correct only if Group A was given the option of participating at the rate paid by group B.
When one controls market forces by government fiat, "free market rules" are no longer applicable.
My comment was that market forces are being applied to Group B. On the path to free markets. They are restricting sales to group A because they do not pay production costs.
But I would say that Group A has been pre paying their share through taxes.
Have a good one!
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.