Oh, and parents, please “expect a five percent tuition increase per year,” ’cause, you know, what’s another ten thou, right? C’mon, that’s chicken feed!
Those who’d like to yammer about this project are welcome to waste their time come January 22, 2015.
(Man, that Urban School has some expensive tuition.)
Laptop Fee $620
Total Charges $38,720
In budgeting for four years of an Urban education, parents can expect annual tuition increases. The average tuition increase has been 4.2% per year, over the last five years.
For many families, the cost of an independent secondary education may seem overwhelming at first. To assist families in making this important investment in their child’s future, Urban has developed several payment options, including monthly payments, a loan program, and a financial aid program:
Plan 1: Tuition is paid in two installments: Payment 1 by July 1 ($25,260) and Payment 2 by January 1 ($9,650).
Plan 2: Tuition is paid in 10 installments, May to February ($3,491).
Loan Program: A family may borrow up to the total cost of an Urban education, less any financial aid received. The repayment period extends from 24-84 months, and there are no prepayment penalties.”
Here’s the news from the AP’s Tomoko Hosaka:
“Woah. Medill Dean Hamm says the school will soon announce new outpost in San Francisco.”
Does this man look like a liar? I think not.
Look out SFSU and UCB – you’re getting some more competition, looks like…
It’s on. Here’s Gav’s reply to this recent effort from President Janet Napolitano
***News Release*** – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition fees
Contact: Andrea Koskey, Communications Director
“California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition unless the state appropriates additional funds, thereby breaking its two-year old tuition-freeze agreement negotiated in 2013 in exchange for increased state funding:
“The University of California cannot bestow pay raises on its top earners with one hand, while continually taking more from students and their families with the other and deflecting criticism by laying its solution at the door of taxpayers. New funding must be tied to earnest and innovative attempts to reduce the university’s cost structure and promote affordability and accessibility, not threats that reward the status quo.”
The proposed increase to students comes just two months after the same board approved up to 20 percent increases to four chancellors and increased a base salary for a new chancellor by 23 percent of his predecessor. These decisions are not tied to performance or outcomes.
Lieutenant Governor Newsom believes that high-level solutions could be factored in to meet the growing costs. For instance, UC facilities system-wide could save $500,000 per contract if in-house employment was used over outside contractors; another $160 million could be saved if UC offered an Associate Degree to Transfer Program from California Community Colleges, similar to existing program between community colleges and California State Universities; and millions could be saved if the failed IT implementation of UC Path was addressed. That program’s repayment costs have ballooned to $200 million over the next 20 years.
The University of California system has received numerous increases to financial resources including full funding of State’s Cal grant program; expansion of the middle-income fee grants covering one-half of tuition and fee increases for middle-income students from families earning up to $120,000; 20 percent increase in state funding as part of a multi-year stable funding plan; a 5 percent increase from the 2014-15 state budget contingent a tuition freeze through 2016-17; and $50 million to promote innovative models of higher education at the campus level that result in more bachelor’s degrees, improved four‑year completion rates, and more effective transfers between the community colleges and the universities.
MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (Students: 500; Location: 3250 19TH AVE; Grades: 9 – 12; Girls only)
The News of the Day, re: Argosy University:
“Herrera reaches $4.4 million agreement in dispute over for-profit college’s marketing. California Art Institutes’ ownership to settle for $1.95 million; fund returning student and new student scholarships; and re-calculate graduation and job placement rates
SAN FRANCISCO (June 17, 2014) – City Attorney Dennis Herrera today settled an unlitigated claim against California Art Institutes’ parent company in a consumer protection dispute over marketing tactics that allegedly underestimated program costs for students and inflated job placement figures for graduates.
Under terms of the agreement with Educational Management Corporation, the Pittsburgh-based for-profit educational provider will pay San Francisco $1.95 million to settle the dispute; endow a $1.6 million scholarship fund for non-graduating California Art Institute students who wish to return to finish their studies; and offer $850,000 in general scholarships to new students. The agreement—formally an “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance” that is legally binding and enforceable in court—includes provisions for a sweeping array of reforms to Educational Management Corporation’s marketing and reporting practices. The accord, which avoids litigation, includes no admissions of wrongdoing.
“I hope this agreement is a bellwether for other for-profit colleges, highlighting the need to fully inform students about their education costs and job placement prospects,” said Herrera. “In a workplace where so much depends on education and training, students deserve accurate information about the schools they attend—and that’s exactly what California law requires. I applaud Educational Management Corporation for its industry leadership in working with us cooperatively and productively. They’ve shown a commendable willingness to address concerns about their current and former students, and to avoid similar problems moving forward.”
The $1.6 million Returning Student Scholarship Fund will be distributed to students who withdrew from California Art Institute programs between 2009 and today, and will be available to returning students for five years or until it is exhausted. EDMC and the City Attorney’s Office will work together to publicize the fund to reach out to eligible former students. EDMC has also agreed to new methods of calculating the percentage of enrolling students that graduate with degrees, and the percentages of students that are employed and that are employed within their field of study; and to publicize those recalculated figures in their promotional materials. The school also agreed to train advisors to counsel students on the long term effects of student loan debt and default.
As is common with Assurances of Voluntary Compliance reached outside of litigation, the agreement also includes enforcement provisions that compel EDMC to notify the City Attorney of any breaches of the agreement on its part, and a stipulation that a material violation by EDMC will be considered evidence of an unfair business practice that the City could make the subject of a future lawsuit.”