Student fees and tuition at UC campuses such as UCLA, pictured above, have… (Los Angeles Times )
UC, then and now
Re "Bring back the idea of free UC," Column, April 11
My husband and I started at UCLA in 1966; our fees were about $80 per quarter. I applied only to UCLA, where I was virtually assured a spot because of my 3.0 grade point average. I had the best education money could buy. Every time fees increased, I feared that tuition would be next and that one of the best university systems in the country would be placed out of reach of most California students.
When my daughter was ready to apply to college, UCLA was out of the question because her GPA was not over 4.0. She went to an excellent private college with sky-high tuition, and although she received a great education by today's standards, it was not as good as the education my husband and I got almost for free.
What a loss for the people of California.
Joanne Polvy Cohen
Somebody must be listening to Michael Hiltzik because I just found out that the University of California system picks up the full cost of tuition for all students whose family incomes are below $80,000 a year. I bet many of the protesters at marches against tuition hikes are from families with incomes under $80,000.
It would be nice if some of the instructors marching with students would teach a seminar examining where the money that should go to UC is going instead: a line-by-line examination of the state budget. A look at salaries, pensions and the workloads for UC employees might be enlightening.
If nonresidents are paying $36,078, how can California residents complain about paying $13,200? That seems like a heck of a bargain.
I graduated from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law in 1959, thanks to the $300 annual tuition, the G.I. Bill and a couple of part-time jobs. Because I came from a family of modest means, I would not have been able to attend a UC law school today, with the tuition at Boalt Hall now $50,164 for California residents and $54,372 for nonresidents.
UC law schools are pricing themselves out of reach for many worthy students, with dire consequences for the future of this state.
Lee R. Petillon
Palos Verdes Estates
Economics in the classroom
Re "Not their fathers' economics," Opinion, April 11
Hooray for these Harvard students and the Institute for New Economic Thinking for confronting the hegemony of right-wing economic ideology.
I received a doctorate in economics in 1966, the heyday of "value-free" economics. My dissertation on unionization of farm workers was criticized by my department as not being economics — not because I did not learn economic theory but because I did not believe economic theology: You shall love the market your god and take no other gods before it.
I taught value-full economics for more than 20 years, exploring the benefits and shortcomings of the free market. The answers to our severe economic problems do not lie in the 18th century but in our creative ability to understand the new globalized world and to craft new responses to it.
I read Eric J. Weiner's Op-Ed article with regret for today's economics students.
In 1980 I enrolled in a class at USC with conservative economist Arthur Laffer, who insisted on teaching various theories, including Keynesianism, monetarism, supply-side and more. His final exam posed an issue to be addressed from all schools of thought and required a rationale for the conclusion. One class was actually conducted at a campus pub.
What a marvelous way to have studied the dismal science.
Supt. Deasy as a distraction
Re "Deasy's teachable moment," Column, April 10
Before speaking, L.A. Unified School District Supt. John Deasy (and everyone else, whether in authority or not) should remember that the words spoken and the manner in which they are uttered may produce negative consequences that outweigh any positive results.
Deasy has some good ideas for improving educational achievement, but his participation in the verbal exchange with teacher Petrena Shanklin in front of her class is an example of counterproductive speaking producing unnecessary negative consequences.
This episode detracts from addressing core problems in the district.
How does someone so smart trip up so grotesquely, particularly when screw-ups of this caliber in L.A. Unified are like tossing hunks of raw meat into the shark tank of the teachers union?
I refer to Deasy's drive-by moment of thug management described by Sandy Banks. Now Deasy refuses to apologize to the teacher and students he victimized with his behavior, needlessly dulling his prior luster as a tough but fair administrator and sharpening the knives of those who, for political and contract negotiating advantage, benefit from a public impression of him as a bully.
Forget about foie gras
Re "Enough already: No more foie gras," Opinion, April 10