<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Byung Kyu Park&#039;s Personal Website &#187; free market</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bkpark.com/tag/free-market/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bkpark.com</link>
	<description>Everything about Byung Kyu Park</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:59:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>UC cuts: it might hurt now, but it&#039;s for the better</title>
		<link>http://bkpark.com/2009/06/03/uc-cuts-it-might-hurt-now-but-its-for-the-better/</link>
		<comments>http://bkpark.com/2009/06/03/uc-cuts-it-might-hurt-now-but-its-for-the-better/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>bkpark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[student fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uc berkeley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://byungkyupark.com/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because the future of UC Berkeley (and the whole UC system) is in private funding. In the last 20 years, private gifts, grants and contracts have increasingly accounted for a larger portion of campus revenues. In 1990, private funds accounted for 7.7 percent of total campus funds, a percentage that jumped to 15.8 percent in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article/105588/increased_role_of_private_funding_concerns_some_ca">Because the future of UC Berkeley (and the whole UC system) is in private funding</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>
In the last 20 years, private gifts, grants and contracts have increasingly accounted for a larger portion of campus revenues. In 1990, private funds accounted for 7.7 percent of total campus funds, a percentage that jumped to 15.8 percent in 2007-08, according to data from the UC Berkeley Campus Budget Office.
</p></blockquote>
<p>And in fact, private funding from willing donors is the only ethical way to fund an education system&mdash;if the system isn&#8217;t paid for by its direct beneficiaries in its entirety.</p>
<p>As for <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21271">what they propose to do with tax dollars stolen from the people</a>, I can&#8217;t say I agree with their goal.</p>
<blockquote><p>
Yudof said the reduction in the state’s General Fund commitment, which totals almost $800 million for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years, would place in jeopardy its historic commitment to provide access to all eligible high school graduates and would force UC to rely more heavily on higher student fees.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Why should UC, as a government institution, actively distort the labor market by giving diplomas those who neither deserve it or want it strongly enough? If there are too many people &#8220;eligible&#8221; for UC attendance&mdash;so many that after accounting for those who go out of state or go to private colleges, UC cannot accept those who want in (if it&#8217;s cheap)&mdash;then it probably means that the bar for &#8220;eligibility&#8221; is too low. After all, it&#8217;s an arbitrary bar set at an arbitrary percentage of GPA with no mechanism for self-correction. I would say lack of funding should play the role of that self-correcting mechanism. Is there not enough funding to accept expected student enrollment next year? Raise the bar now&mdash;so we are <em>not</em> changing the rules in the middle of the game, and we are not over-committing our system to those who shouldn&#8217;t have 4-year college education (or at least haven&#8217;t proven that the public should fund their education) anyway.</p>
<p>Raise the fees, and in fact, publish fee increase schedule for next 4 years, at a slight overestimation. Those to whom the education is worth it (and cannot pay out of pocket) can take out loans to get the education&mdash;their post-graduation salaries would presumably be worth it. If not, then they made stupid choice not dissimilar to running up a credit card debt.</p>
<p>Those to whom the education is not worth it will go into the society and be productive&mdash;until they feel that additional formal education is worth it, if ever.</p>
<p>No natural law of society says that every productive person has to have a college degree&mdash;in fact, some of the most successful people became successful after dropping out of Ph. D. program or even bachelor&#8217;s program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bkpark.com/2009/06/03/uc-cuts-it-might-hurt-now-but-its-for-the-better/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

