32% Tuition Hike at UC campuses...the price of trying to better yourself is ridiculous...

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

I went to CSULA, my first two years summers were free (as long as you finish the quarter with a 3.0) and tuition was about $600.

Around 2002-03 tuition began to increase every year. I know a lot of people that just stopped going to school because they couldn't afford it. Their plan was to go back after saving some cash, but time flies, they get caught up in other things. Most didn't make it back to campus,

.

the good old days

when i started at uci in 2000, tuition was like 3000 a year. by the time i graduated in 2005 it was over 7000. summer school went from like 250 a class to 800.i remember in 2001 or 2002 the state had such a big surplus that they were even contemplating giving everyone a free year of tuition. crazy how bad its gottennow.

regardless i would still pay whatever it costs at a UC now instead of going to a private school. its still better than 40000 a year

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Ah, I just had a wave of relief wash over me.

According to this KRON News report that just came on, students who come from families that make less than 70K/year will not be affected by the raise.

Coming from a broke family FTW!

But thoughts going out to my California brethren

 

[enrique23]

good thing i'm not planning on attending any UC schools
only school i want to go to in cali is USC

 

[bijald0331]

^you still applying to northwestern?

 

[lalakerfan213]

Furlough days ftl

 

[951guero]

Originally Posted by Th3RealF0lkBlu3s

Ah, I just had a wave of relief wash over me.

According to this KRON News report that just came on, students who come from families that make less than 70K/year will not be affected by the raise.

Coming from a broke family FTW!

But thoughts going out to my California brethren

for me too but also

but...thats messed up for the middle class and creates a vicious cycle that the UCs base their "tuition fees", its basically the lower/poor classesand wealthy can only go to college now
This system is slowly killing away the middle class from the UCs, f that Fair should be fair to all that want an education, i truly believe if its 6 digitsthan its a different thing as opposed to 70 gs

 

[onetwothreewick]

Originally Posted by enrique23

good thing i'm not planning on attending any UC schools
only school i want to go to in cali is USC

UC tuition is still $20,000 cheaper than USC

 

[enrique23]

Originally Posted by onetwothreewick

Originally Posted by enrique23

good thing i'm not planning on attending any UC schools
only school i want to go to in cali is USC

UC tuition is still $20,000 cheaper than USC

USC gives really good financial aid though

Originally Posted by bijald0331

^you still applying to northwestern?

yeah i'm still applying there.
its one of my top choices.

 

[onetwothreewick]

Originally Posted by 951guero

Originally Posted by Th3RealF0lkBlu3s

Ah, I just had a wave of relief wash over me.

According to this KRON News report that just came on, students who come from families that make less than 70K/year will not be affected by the raise.

Coming from a broke family FTW!

But thoughts going out to my California brethren

for me too but also

but...thats messed up for the middle class and creates a vicious cycle that the UCs base their "tuition fees", its basically the lower/poor classes and wealthy can only go to college now
This system is eraing the middle class from the UCs, f that Fair should be fair to all that want an education, i truly believe if its 6 digits than its a different thing as opposed to 70 gs

Yeah, I'm in that situation because while my dad makes enough from his current job it disqualifies me from any good financial aid and I'dreally be grateful if I could get some because we're not in the best of financial situations. Gotta get my grind on for scholarships.

I'm assuming your username is your area code...you go to UCR?

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

They need to stop

I know people cannot afford this...this is ridiculous...cmon California.

 

[tsamshox]

Once again the middle class gets shafted......

 

[tmak15]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

The idea of a public university system, particularly those that charge low tuition rates like the UC and the CSU systems (California has two completely separate university systems as well as a separate community college system) was meant to make education more equal and more accessible to those who are not rich or even middle class. Unfortunately the way it is executed is very unfair, to students and to taxpayers.

It is unfair to students because tuition is only one part the cost of education for a student. While paying less than $10,000 annually for tuition, in an age where private schools charge about $30,000 and even many public school like UT or Michigan charge $20,000 or more, the make up of the students' families in Universities throughout California is more affluent than the general public and this is especially true at a handful of UC schools.

The fact that wealthy parents can afford private school and public school in areas where most of the parents could afford priavte schools, makes the public schools compete and provide a good service while usually spending less per pupil than lower performing schools, where the parents are generaly unable to have private school as an option and must suffer monopoly public schools. Lower tuition costs are meaningless if your high school did not prepare in and equip you to not flunk out if you are admitted.

Lower tuition costs are also not very important when the majorit yof UC and CSU school are near the coast and/or in major cities where the cost of living is high. Rent is very expensive in the Bay Area, on the Central Coast, in Isla Vista, In Los Angeles County (especially in the places where UCLA students live but it costs plenty for CSUN, CSULB and CSULA off campus housing), in Irvine/New Port Beach and in San Diego or La Jolla. Simply having low tuition does not address the problems of poor students being stuck in bad government monopoly schools and being unprepared for college and once they get into a good school not having the means to live there.

The tax payers are also the losers because the workin cglass, in effect help to pay for middle class and wealthy students' higher education. Because sales tax, speciall surcharges on tobacco and alcohol vehicle registration and other fees tend to tax a a large rand larger share of your income the small it gets, many of the State's eans of generating revenue are regressive taxes. They take the money from these regressive taxes and than subsidize the education of every single UC and CSU student. If that money only went to help those, who would be financially unable to attend a university without that government help, that would be very understandable. Unfortunately, by having all students pay tuition that covers only a fraction of the cost of education means that affluent students are getting a subsidy from all tax payers.

The State of California should raise its rates to match the cost of that student's education, so between 25,000 to 35,000, depending on the campus, should be the initial fee and then you can get it reduced depending on your family finances. If you are very poor, your tuition rate should be zero and you should get financial aid to help pay for the cost of getting a place to live in a dorm or a place off campus in these high rent California cities. If your family is very affluent, you should have to pay the full price of tuition. Those who pay 20 to 20 thousand for high school education and are totally willing and able to pay 30 thousand annually if their kids went to Pepperdine, LMU, Occidental College or USC, should have to pay for something that bebenfits their children tremendously.

By charging 30 thousand to affluent students, there would be more money to cover the costs of students whose tuition is far below the full cost of education and would generate more money in order to really help poor students bein gable to have very low tuition rates and to help them pay the enormous costs of simply living in the high rent cities where most public universities, in California, are located. By generating money from more affluent students, the burden on tax payers would be reduced and poorer Californians' taxes would not go to subsidize those who do not need any subsidies.


Cliff Notes: The way public university education is financed is un fair to tax payers and to students. It is unfair to students because having low tuition does not address the costs of livin gand the inadaquet prepartion that pooer k-12 students recieve. It is unafir to tax payers because the students at public universities are disproptionately from upper middle class and wealthy families yet their tuition is 10 thousand dollars, a third or so of the cost to the university of educating that student. That means that every UC or CSU students is having at least two thirds of his or her education is paid for by tax payers and many taxes in California tax the poor and working class more heavily than they tax those with high incomes.

The fees should be raised on wealthy students and reduced for lower incomes students.

THIS, GREAT POST

 

[presequel]

Originally Posted by 951guero

Originally Posted by presequel

^ serious

ya'll complaining about what the rest of us have had to do for years, TAKING OUT STUDENT LOANS.

i sympathize with ya'll, i really do, but then i read its raising tuition basically by $2000? THATS IT? sure it adds up over the years, but it aint that much in the big scheme of things.

Easy for someone to say bro, but if you dont mind me asking..it seems 9by the twitter, 350z thing on your sig) that your middle/upper middle class
Thats a blessing man but you gotta look at it this way, not everyone is as fortunate as many people that can afford private schools, those 2gs go a long wayyyy for a person that aint as well as others

Yeah its true, it really is easier to say than actually doing it. My sister and my brothers went through the uc/cal state system, I was the onlyone who went private (art school). so i realize the big difference in pay. I don't mind you asking, and truth is my family was low/middle class (keywordwas), but my parents worked hard to get their kids in school, we worked hard to get any financial aid/scholarships we could in return. Anything on top we tookout student loans.

my art school cost about 36k a year, tuition alone. including supplies that could be 40k+. now there was no way i could afford to goto a school like this, butthis is a school i wanted to goto because i felt this was the best way to setup my career/life. i also had a full ride scholarship at a less prestigiousschool, but i chose to go the harder route and ended up taking near 100k in school loans (federal and private loans). Luckily for me, my risk ended up workingout as i graduated and got a good paying job. 3 years out, im already making more than what my parents were making when i was growing up. I am very lucky and iknow that isnt the case for everyone. Im just trying to say that if I let money get in the way of what I wanted to achieve or where I wanted to go, I would notbe where I am right now, or be able to go where I want to in the future.

Thats why i said an extra 2k a year aint that much in the big scheme of things. I was thinking over the course of a few years after college, being that theperson makes good use of the education system (using it to their advantage, not hoping that it does the work for them) that they can pay that off. I think thatthe price of college is way too much, and it sucks, but I don't think it should hold any of us back. I'm understanding toward those who have absolutelyno means to receive financial aid, or not qualified to take out loans. But for those that are qualified, and choose to leave college or use it as an out andblame the system, its much harder for me. Yeah no one wants to be paying back student loans for years, but those that use that as a crutch to preventthemselves from moving up the ladder is kinda ridiculous.

Hope you get where i'm coming from.

 

[ham city]

Originally Posted by TmAk15

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

The idea of a public university system, particularly those that charge low tuition rates like the UC and the CSU systems (California has two completely separate university systems as well as a separate community college system) was meant to make education more equal and more accessible to those who are not rich or even middle class. Unfortunately the way it is executed is very unfair, to students and to taxpayers.

It is unfair to students because tuition is only one part the cost of education for a student. While paying less than $10,000 annually for tuition, in an age where private schools charge about $30,000 and even many public school like UT or Michigan charge $20,000 or more, the make up of the students' families in Universities throughout California is more affluent than the general public and this is especially true at a handful of UC schools.

The fact that wealthy parents can afford private school and public school in areas where most of the parents could afford priavte schools, makes the public schools compete and provide a good service while usually spending less per pupil than lower performing schools, where the parents are generaly unable to have private school as an option and must suffer monopoly public schools. Lower tuition costs are meaningless if your high school did not prepare in and equip you to not flunk out if you are admitted.

Lower tuition costs are also not very important when the majorit yof UC and CSU school are near the coast and/or in major cities where the cost of living is high. Rent is very expensive in the Bay Area, on the Central Coast, in Isla Vista, In Los Angeles County (especially in the places where UCLA students live but it costs plenty for CSUN, CSULB and CSULA off campus housing), in Irvine/New Port Beach and in San Diego or La Jolla. Simply having low tuition does not address the problems of poor students being stuck in bad government monopoly schools and being unprepared for college and once they get into a good school not having the means to live there.

The tax payers are also the losers because the workin cglass, in effect help to pay for middle class and wealthy students' higher education. Because sales tax, speciall surcharges on tobacco and alcohol vehicle registration and other fees tend to tax a a large rand larger share of your income the small it gets, many of the State's eans of generating revenue are regressive taxes. They take the money from these regressive taxes and than subsidize the education of every single UC and CSU student. If that money only went to help those, who would be financially unable to attend a university without that government help, that would be very understandable. Unfortunately, by having all students pay tuition that covers only a fraction of the cost of education means that affluent students are getting a subsidy from all tax payers.

The State of California should raise its rates to match the cost of that student's education, so between 25,000 to 35,000, depending on the campus, should be the initial fee and then you can get it reduced depending on your family finances. If you are very poor, your tuition rate should be zero and you should get financial aid to help pay for the cost of getting a place to live in a dorm or a place off campus in these high rent California cities. If your family is very affluent, you should have to pay the full price of tuition. Those who pay 20 to 20 thousand for high school education and are totally willing and able to pay 30 thousand annually if their kids went to Pepperdine, LMU, Occidental College or USC, should have to pay for something that bebenfits their children tremendously.

By charging 30 thousand to affluent students, there would be more money to cover the costs of students whose tuition is far below the full cost of education and would generate more money in order to really help poor students bein gable to have very low tuition rates and to help them pay the enormous costs of simply living in the high rent cities where most public universities, in California, are located. By generating money from more affluent students, the burden on tax payers would be reduced and poorer Californians' taxes would not go to subsidize those who do not need any subsidies.


Cliff Notes: The way public university education is financed is un fair to tax payers and to students. It is unfair to students because having low tuition does not address the costs of livin gand the inadaquet prepartion that pooer k-12 students recieve. It is unafir to tax payers because the students at public universities are disproptionately from upper middle class and wealthy families yet their tuition is 10 thousand dollars, a third or so of the cost to the university of educating that student. That means that every UC or CSU students is having at least two thirds of his or her education is paid for by tax payers and many taxes in California tax the poor and working class more heavily than they tax those with high incomes.

The fees should be raised on wealthy students and reduced for lower incomes students.

THIS, GREAT POST

Really though.

 

[brian cushing]

Yeah USC financial aid is pretty good. Right now it's kinda down though because of the recession.

I know I pay a pretty big amount for tuition because I attend a private university, but I could definitely sympathize with these public school students. A lotof you private school kids that are saying that a $2000 hike is nothing compared to what you pay, you gotta realize that some of these public school kids choseto go to their respective schools because they were relatively cheap. Now that they're in school and see a 32% increase in tuition, it's understandablethat they're mad because it kind of goes against their decision in the first place. Some could've gone to other schools if they knew their tuitionwould increase by such a significant percentage.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Originally Posted by HAM CITY

Originally Posted by TmAk15

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

The idea of a public university system, particularly those that charge low tuition rates like the UC and the CSU systems (California has two completely separate university systems as well as a separate community college system) was meant to make education more equal and more accessible to those who are not rich or even middle class. Unfortunately the way it is executed is very unfair, to students and to taxpayers.

It is unfair to students because tuition is only one part the cost of education for a student. While paying less than $10,000 annually for tuition, in an age where private schools charge about $30,000 and even many public school like UT or Michigan charge $20,000 or more, the make up of the students' families in Universities throughout California is more affluent than the general public and this is especially true at a handful of UC schools.

The fact that wealthy parents can afford private school and public school in areas where most of the parents could afford priavte schools, makes the public schools compete and provide a good service while usually spending less per pupil than lower performing schools, where the parents are generaly unable to have private school as an option and must suffer monopoly public schools. Lower tuition costs are meaningless if your high school did not prepare in and equip you to not flunk out if you are admitted.

Lower tuition costs are also not very important when the majorit yof UC and CSU school are near the coast and/or in major cities where the cost of living is high. Rent is very expensive in the Bay Area, on the Central Coast, in Isla Vista, In Los Angeles County (especially in the places where UCLA students live but it costs plenty for CSUN, CSULB and CSULA off campus housing), in Irvine/New Port Beach and in San Diego or La Jolla. Simply having low tuition does not address the problems of poor students being stuck in bad government monopoly schools and being unprepared for college and once they get into a good school not having the means to live there.

The tax payers are also the losers because the workin cglass, in effect help to pay for middle class and wealthy students' higher education. Because sales tax, speciall surcharges on tobacco and alcohol vehicle registration and other fees tend to tax a a large rand larger share of your income the small it gets, many of the State's eans of generating revenue are regressive taxes. They take the money from these regressive taxes and than subsidize the education of every single UC and CSU student. If that money only went to help those, who would be financially unable to attend a university without that government help, that would be very understandable. Unfortunately, by having all students pay tuition that covers only a fraction of the cost of education means that affluent students are getting a subsidy from all tax payers.

The State of California should raise its rates to match the cost of that student's education, so between 25,000 to 35,000, depending on the campus, should be the initial fee and then you can get it reduced depending on your family finances. If you are very poor, your tuition rate should be zero and you should get financial aid to help pay for the cost of getting a place to live in a dorm or a place off campus in these high rent California cities. If your family is very affluent, you should have to pay the full price of tuition. Those who pay 20 to 20 thousand for high school education and are totally willing and able to pay 30 thousand annually if their kids went to Pepperdine, LMU, Occidental College or USC, should have to pay for something that bebenfits their children tremendously.

By charging 30 thousand to affluent students, there would be more money to cover the costs of students whose tuition is far below the full cost of education and would generate more money in order to really help poor students bein gable to have very low tuition rates and to help them pay the enormous costs of simply living in the high rent cities where most public universities, in California, are located. By generating money from more affluent students, the burden on tax payers would be reduced and poorer Californians' taxes would not go to subsidize those who do not need any subsidies.


Cliff Notes: The way public university education is financed is un fair to tax payers and to students. It is unfair to students because having low tuition does not address the costs of livin gand the inadaquet prepartion that pooer k-12 students recieve. It is unafir to tax payers because the students at public universities are disproptionately from upper middle class and wealthy families yet their tuition is 10 thousand dollars, a third or so of the cost to the university of educating that student. That means that every UC or CSU students is having at least two thirds of his or her education is paid for by tax payers and many taxes in California tax the poor and working class more heavily than they tax those with high incomes.

The fees should be raised on wealthy students and reduced for lower incomes students.

THIS, GREAT POST

Really though.

Good.

Cali is broke. Bad.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by dirtyxcanto

i'm transferring out...

Me too, and I was basically almost a senior this semester.

 

[crumbs]

no me importa

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by TmAk15

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

The idea of a public university system, particularly those that charge low tuition rates like the UC and the CSU systems (California has two completely separate university systems as well as a separate community college system) was meant to make education more equal and more accessible to those who are not rich or even middle class. Unfortunately the way it is executed is very unfair, to students and to taxpayers.

It is unfair to students because tuition is only one part the cost of education for a student. While paying less than $10,000 annually for tuition, in an age where private schools charge about $30,000 and even many public school like UT or Michigan charge $20,000 or more, the make up of the students' families in Universities throughout California is more affluent than the general public and this is especially true at a handful of UC schools.

The fact that wealthy parents can afford private school and public school in areas where most of the parents could afford priavte schools, makes the public schools compete and provide a good service while usually spending less per pupil than lower performing schools, where the parents are generaly unable to have private school as an option and must suffer monopoly public schools. Lower tuition costs are meaningless if your high school did not prepare in and equip you to not flunk out if you are admitted.

Lower tuition costs are also not very important when the majorit yof UC and CSU school are near the coast and/or in major cities where the cost of living is high. Rent is very expensive in the Bay Area, on the Central Coast, in Isla Vista, In Los Angeles County (especially in the places where UCLA students live but it costs plenty for CSUN, CSULB and CSULA off campus housing), in Irvine/New Port Beach and in San Diego or La Jolla. Simply having low tuition does not address the problems of poor students being stuck in bad government monopoly schools and being unprepared for college and once they get into a good school not having the means to live there.

The tax payers are also the losers because the workin cglass, in effect help to pay for middle class and wealthy students' higher education. Because sales tax, speciall surcharges on tobacco and alcohol vehicle registration and other fees tend to tax a a large rand larger share of your income the small it gets, many of the State's eans of generating revenue are regressive taxes. They take the money from these regressive taxes and than subsidize the education of every single UC and CSU student. If that money only went to help those, who would be financially unable to attend a university without that government help, that would be very understandable. Unfortunately, by having all students pay tuition that covers only a fraction of the cost of education means that affluent students are getting a subsidy from all tax payers.

The State of California should raise its rates to match the cost of that student's education, so between 25,000 to 35,000, depending on the campus, should be the initial fee and then you can get it reduced depending on your family finances. If you are very poor, your tuition rate should be zero and you should get financial aid to help pay for the cost of getting a place to live in a dorm or a place off campus in these high rent California cities. If your family is very affluent, you should have to pay the full price of tuition. Those who pay 20 to 20 thousand for high school education and are totally willing and able to pay 30 thousand annually if their kids went to Pepperdine, LMU, Occidental College or USC, should have to pay for something that bebenfits their children tremendously.

By charging 30 thousand to affluent students, there would be more money to cover the costs of students whose tuition is far below the full cost of education and would generate more money in order to really help poor students bein gable to have very low tuition rates and to help them pay the enormous costs of simply living in the high rent cities where most public universities, in California, are located. By generating money from more affluent students, the burden on tax payers would be reduced and poorer Californians' taxes would not go to subsidize those who do not need any subsidies.


Cliff Notes: The way public university education is financed is un fair to tax payers and to students. It is unfair to students because having low tuition does not address the costs of livin gand the inadaquet prepartion that pooer k-12 students recieve. It is unafir to tax payers because the students at public universities are disproptionately from upper middle class and wealthy families yet their tuition is 10 thousand dollars, a third or so of the cost to the university of educating that student. That means that every UC or CSU students is having at least two thirds of his or her education is paid for by tax payers and many taxes in California tax the poor and working class more heavily than they tax those with high incomes.

The fees should be raised on wealthy students and reduced for lower incomes students.

THIS, GREAT POST

QFT a true Chicago economist.

 

[bgl2687]

I'm so blessed I got to go to college for free. Not a penny out of my pocket or my parents pocket. Even books were paid for.

 

[cornzilla]

Originally Posted by presequel

Originally Posted by 951guero

Originally Posted by presequel

^ serious

ya'll complaining about what the rest of us have had to do for years, TAKING OUT STUDENT LOANS.

i sympathize with ya'll, i really do, but then i read its raising tuition basically by $2000? THATS IT? sure it adds up over the years, but it aint that much in the big scheme of things.

Easy for someone to say bro, but if you dont mind me asking..it seems 9by the twitter, 350z thing on your sig) that your middle/upper middle class
Thats a blessing man but you gotta look at it this way, not everyone is as fortunate as many people that can afford private schools, those 2gs go a long wayyyy for a person that aint as well as others

Yeah its true, it really is easier to say than actually doing it. My sister and my brothers went through the uc/cal state system, I was the only one who went private (art school). so i realize the big difference in pay. I don't mind you asking, and truth is my family was low/middle class (keyword was), but my parents worked hard to get their kids in school, we worked hard to get any financial aid/scholarships we could in return. Anything on top we took out student loans.

my art school cost about 36k a year, tuition alone. including supplies that could be 40k+. now there was no way i could afford to goto a school like this, but this is a school i wanted to goto because i felt this was the best way to setup my career/life. i also had a full ride scholarship at a less prestigious school, but i chose to go the harder route and ended up taking near 100k in school loans (federal and private loans). Luckily for me, my risk ended up working out as i graduated and got a good paying job. 3 years out, im already making more than what my parents were making when i was growing up. I am very lucky and i know that isnt the case for everyone. Im just trying to say that if I let money get in the way of what I wanted to achieve or where I wanted to go, I would not be where I am right now, or be able to go where I want to in the future.

Thats why i said an extra 2k a year aint that much in the big scheme of things. I was thinking over the course of a few years after college, being that the person makes good use of the education system (using it to their advantage, not hoping that it does the work for them) that they can pay that off. I think that the price of college is way too much, and it sucks, but I don't think it should hold any of us back. I'm understanding toward those who have absolutely no means to receive financial aid, or not qualified to take out loans. But for those that are qualified, and choose to leave college or use it as an out and blame the system, its much harder for me. Yeah no one wants to be paying back student loans for years, but those that use that as a crutch to prevent themselves from moving up the ladder is kinda ridiculous.

Hope you get where i'm coming from.

Excellent post, yeah $2000 might seem like a lot right now but in the long run it will pay off only if you want it to. It's crazy cause I go to UCLA and Isee a bunch of student who complain about the tuition increase and yet they barely show up for class. I mean why complain if you aren't even takingadvantage of what you have. Some people can't even get into college and here they are wasting a perfect opportunity, by getting drunk and partying all thetime.

 

[djprestige21]

Great post Rex.

Only problem with a sliding tuition scale is private schools such as Stanford, USC, Columbia, and the majority of Ivy League schools will be more accessible tothe upper class as lower and middle class students with the academic ability who deserve the acceptance will drop. Parents who are going to pay full tuitionwithout the aid of the state will opt to send their kids to a private school if the tuition is going to be in the same range especially since the spots willopen up with the academic competition bracket shrinking to just the upper class.

The barrier between the lower class and higher income families will grow even more bold. Rich families will stay rich while their degrees carry amassed meritcompared to the lower class.

 

[Original Playa Records]

I bet ya'll coming out of college with 100K in loans. That's crazy in Cali. Boycott college.

 

[ro0ts]

100K in loans? After the increase UC tuition will be $10,300.

This 32% increase is in addition to what was it... the 8% increase for Winter quarter and the increase before fall as well? I'll thankfully be done with UCsystem in June. I'm sure the budgets were approved without a thought years ago, but it's interesting seeing multi-million dollar renovations startingup around campus amidst all of this.

 

[nawlinsjunkie]

enrique23 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by onetwothreewick

Originally Posted by enrique23

good thing i'm not planning on attending any UC schools
only school i want to go to in cali is USC

UC tuition is still $20,000 cheaper than USC

USC gives really good financial aid though




if you only saw what they offered me