Kaal posted:

[Citation needed]

The US has some world-class graduate educational institutions available to the rich or extremely talented, but it also has a whole lot of pretty terrible undergraduate education.

Leperflesh posted:

I guess I don't understand how the former causes the latter. Surely if investors are buying non-rental properties and converting them to rental properties, that would be adding units to the rental market and thus a downward pressure on rents?

I can definitely see how it'd drive up property values, since the all-cash offers force financed buyers to substantially overbid in order to make their offer attractive to the seller('s agent).

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Here's the current budget justification: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov13/f6attach.pdf

There story is that the Master Plan forces them to accommodate all eligible CA residents as freshman, and now there are more college-ready students than ever (through improvements in K12 policy and immigration?). Anyway, the state cut funding to levels that couldn't sustain this access, and so the UC is forced to raise tuition or raise standards for admission.

Edit: Basically the UC is screwed -- it is competing with private universities that have tons of private donors and huge endowments. The UC can cut staff or salaries, but that will just make the quality of their universities lower. They can raise tuition, but now the middle class can't afford it. The only way things can go back to normal is if the state robustly increases support.

Kaal posted:

[Citation needed]

The US has some world-class graduate educational institutions available to the rich or extremely talented, but it also has a whole lot of pretty terrible undergraduate education.

ProperGanderPusher posted:

Are there any signs that private schools with very high tuition as a whole are not doing well? Nearly nobody I know (including myself) thought much about the price of college when applying. Our only thoughts was "Meh, whatever, I'll pay it off eventually plus you can't not go to college anyway, right? In any case, I'm not going to a CSU like some pleb." I'm sure things have changed a bit over the last few years, but it's going to take a lot to make teenagers not want to go to college due to financial reasons.

In any case, the private schools that offer generous financial aid (basically just the Ivies and Stanford) can only take in so many people. There will be plenty of brilliant and/or rich kids that wind up going to a UC due to not getting lucky.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Anyway, the only way to reverse the tuition hike trend is to raise taxes or push down costs in one of those other sectors.

quote:

Millions of dollars in new tax revenue earmarked for the University of California system as part of the state’s recently passed Proposition 30 will instead be routed to major financial firms, because of bad bets made by a Wall Street-influenced UC Board of Regents.

...

However, according to a new report written by five doctoral students at UC Berkeley, in the years preceding the 2008 financial collapse, members of the Board of Regents themselves had overseen “a qualitative shift in the financial practices of the University of California” by employing the same kinds of exotic financial instruments that precipitated the meltdown on Wall Street — primarily, bond issuances hedged by interest rate swaps.

...

Like many other ripped-off institutional counterparties to LIBOR trades, UC has standing to sue the banks. But the Regents have not only failed to do so, they haven’t even tried to renegotiate the terms of their agreements, as other institutions have successfully done. The question is, why?

“UC Regents and management have provided no explanation for why they are not re-negotiating or litigating against Wall Street to re-coup losses on these swaps stemming from the banks’ illegal interest rate manipulation,” said Charlie Eaton, a UC Berkeley Sociology graduate student and one of the authors of the reports.

One possible answer is another sadly familiar story: The UC Board of Regents has become what the report describes as a “revolving door with Wall Street.” An increasing number of posts in top UC management and on the Board of Regents have been filled by former Wall Street bankers, the report explains, including a new CFO position created in 2009 and filled by Peter Taylor, who was the Managing Director of Public Finance for Lehman Brothers before he found himself out of a job following the firm’s spectacular collapse. Monica Lozano, a UC Regent, also serves on the Board of Bank of America, a position for which she has received approximately $1.5 million. Bank of America stands to make as much as $28 million from an interest rate swap at UC San Francisco, according to the report. B of A is also one of the banks under investigation for LIBOR manipulation.

quote:

UC Makes a Huge Profit Every Year, Partially at the Expense of Its Employees

“There is no question that the University is in a position afford a wage increase for the clerical employees... Ultimately, the University may or may not prevail in its refusal to provide a wage increase to clerical employees, but the University’s claim that it does not have the money to spend on them is not supported by the evidence.�? (McKay Decision, pages 18 & 19).

UC tells the public that it is having a fiscal crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Arbitrator McKay found, in 2003-04 alone the University had a net income (revenues minus expenses) of $786 million. In the corporate world, this would be termed “annual profit.�? But because UC is a nonprofit, UC calls it simply “annual net income�? – the excess revenue taken in during the year but not spent. This was the best bottom-line number UC has ever had, according to data presented at factfinding. But previous years were also quite profitable for UC. For instance, in 2002-03, UC had a net income of $559 million. (McKay Decision, p. 8).

These profit figures are calculated after taking into account the fact that UC spent between 2 and 2.5 billion dollars on capital projects each of the last two years. In other words, even after spending extraordinary sums on construction, UC is still netting a very high profit.

quote:

Billion Dollar Babies: University of California invests $53 million in two diploma mills owned by a regent

In 2009, Richard C. Blum, then the chairman of the UC regents, spoke at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference, held at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles. The corporate confab was hosted by Michael Milken, the “junk bond king” who went to prison in the aftermath of the savings and loan fiasco of the 1980s.

Barred from securities trading for life by federal regulators, Milken has since recreated himself as a proponent of investing in for-profit educational corporations, an industry which regularly comes under government and media scrutiny following allegations of fraud made by dissatisfied students.

At the conference, Mr. Blum, who is a financier by trade, sat on a panel called “The New University and Its Role in the Economy,” alongside the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Arizona State University. The panel focused on how universities can best serve the corporate demand for tech-savvy employees by recruiting smart freshmen with scientific talent. One panel member urged treating universities as “laboratories of business ideas and products.”

As someone who oversees investment policy decisions for UC’s $63 billion portfolio, and as the largest shareholder in two for-profit corporate-run universities (in which UC invests), Mr. Blum had a unique perspective to share. He advised public universities to attract business-oriented students with clever advertisements, just as vocational schools do. “It’s like anything else,” he told the crowd. “It’s how you market it.”

Marketing strategy aside, Mr. Blum has taken on two seemingly disparate roles— one as an advocate for a nonprofit university, and the other as an owner of two for-profit educational corporations. As a regent, Mr. Blum has approved cost-cutting policies for UC that appear to have enhanced the profitability of his vocational schools. And in 2007, Mr. Blum’s spouse, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), wrote federal legislation that benefited the for-profit college industry.

...

Blum Capital Partners, Mr. Blum’s investment firm, entered the for-profit education business in 1987, when he purchased a large block of shares in National Education Corporation, an Irvine-based vocational school that specialized in awarding mail-order diplomas. He joined the company’s board of directors, and took a seat alongside former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater and David C. Jones, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Two years later, Mr. Blum got in hot water when angry shareholders filed a lawsuit claiming “the company issued rosy financial statements while Mr. Blum and other directors were selling their shares,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The shareholders argued in court documents that Mr. Blum sold $2.7 million worth of shares at about $24 per share after he learned—a day before the public announcement—that the company president planned to resign. When National Education Coropration’s share price bottomed out at $3.50 a share following the leadership change, Mr. Blum then re-invested in the troubled company. According to a 1997 The New York Times report, National Education Corporation was then “battered by accusations that its vocational schools were riddled with fraud.” Fraudulent or not, investing in the corporation’s stock remained a profitable pursuit.

... After his appointment to the UC Board of Regents in 2002, Mr. Blum continued to grow his investment in for-profit education. In June 2005, Blum Capital Partners invested $24 million to buy 5 percent of the stock of Lincoln Education Services Corp.

... Blum Capital Partners pounced, purchasing reams of devalued ITT stock. It soon owned the largest block of stock in the company—a 10 percent ownership stake in 2006.

... Similarly, Blum Capital Partners bought shares of Career Education Corporation following a corruption controversy in 2004.

...

Even as Mr. Blum was buying stock in Career Education Corporation and ITT Educational Services, UC financial records show that the university’s investment managers were actively buying and selling these same stocks—to the tune of $53 million. But UC was not just holding onto these stocks to accrue value over time (as a prudent manager would do). In fact, UC’s external investment managers were day trading them in large amounts, as much as $2 million a trade, thereby affecting the daily price of these stocks.

...

To recap: UC was investing in two for-profit schools that were largely owned by a company run by Mr. Blum, a regent who oversees the management of the university’s stock portfolio as a member of the university’s investment committee. Does this situation pose at least the appearance of a conflict of interest?

Not to UC officials. In response to queries about the propriety of UC’s investments in the for-profit colleges that are heavily associated with Mr. Blum, a spokesperson for UC Treasurer Marie Berggren responded by saying that, “The Treasurer’s Office doesn’t track regents’ holdings in making decisions about security selections, though regents’ holdings are disclosed as a matter of policy.”

In other words, the treasurer does not review the regents’ financial disclosure statements, which are public records, for potential conflicts.

quote:

In addition to ushering in legislation that has directly benefited her husband’s investments, Sen. Feinstein’s official Senate website advertises a link to an online application for Pell Grants that provide tuition for attending for-profit colleges. The link travels to a list of eligible institutions which includes schools owned by Career Education Corporation and ITT Educational Services.

This is not the first time that Sen. Feinstein has used her official position in ways that have helped enrich her husband. In her role of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she oversaw $1.5 billion in projects that were contracted to Mr. Blum’s military construction companies. Through her press office, Sen. Feinstein declined to comment for this story.

quote:

Part Five: Four Case Studies in Conflicts of Interest by UC Regents

Study No. 1: Dimensional Fund Advisors and Apollo Management:
The details behind UC’s $486 million investments in deals in which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Paul Wachter—both UC Regents—had significant interests.
Study No. 2: Glenborough Realty Trust: UC buys a company from Mr. Blum.
Study No. 3: Colony Capital: UC invests in private equity alongside Mr. Blum.
Study No. 4: Janus Capital Group: A remarkable confluence of investments.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

If you go all the way back to the financial crisis / CA's budget crisis 5 years ago, you'll see that the state substantially divested itself from the UC. The state chose K12 / prison / Medicaid funding over UC funding, mostly because of voter demographics (I think). Anyway, the only way to reverse the tuition hike trend is to raise taxes or push down costs in one of those other sectors.

ProperGanderPusher posted:

Are there any signs that private schools with very high tuition as a whole are not doing well? Nearly nobody I know (including myself) thought much about the price of college when applying. Our only thoughts was "Meh, whatever, I'll pay it off eventually plus you can't not go to college anyway, right?

Forceholy posted:

Which explains the push for cutting "unnecessary" programs in universities (hint: everything non-STEM) or offering up alternative routes, like Trade schools. But these only offer temporary solutions to the problem.

tsa posted:

If you don't have cost controls runaway costs is inevitable. Other ways to control it would be to require colleges / students to be able to justify the amount borrowed based on the programs placement rate/ average salary. As an example the only reason low tier law programs still exist is because of borrowed money. If we actually lent money based on a standard risk analysis these loans would not exist- nobody is going to loan someone 200k at an affordable rate when the average salary upon graduation is 50k if they are lucky enough to get a job.

quote:

As for the accountability piece, schools must certify that their gainful employment programs meet federal and state certification, accreditation and licensure requirements. The kicker – while not sufficient to satisfy some ed reform appetites — is that to maintain their eligibility to receive title IV funding, a school’s gainful employment program must meet a minimal debt-to-earnings benchmark.

Colleges whose graduates have average annual loan payments less than 8% of their total earnings, or less than 20% of discretionary earnings, will net a green, or passing, grade for their Gainful Employment program. Colleges whose graduates on average have annual loan payments between 8% and 12% of total earnings or between 20-30% of discretionary earnings will net a yellow grade, or what the DOE weirdly terms “the zone.” Schools whose graduates have annual loan payments surpassing 12% of total earnings and greater than 30% of discretionary earnings will earn a red, or failing grade.

quote:

San Francisco sees sharp rise in property and violent crimes
By JON SCHLEUSS, RONG-GONG LIN II

As San Francisco booms thanks to the tech industry, one side effect has emerged: an increase in crime.

The city saw more than 20% jumps in both the rate of property crime, such as thefts and burglary, and the rate of violent crime, such as robbery and assault, between 2012 and 2013.

The city's elected public defender, Jeff Adachi, said the jump in property crimes is a concern.

"Certainly, we've seen an increase in theft-related offenses, particularly car thefts," Adachi said in an interview Wednesday.

"In San Francisco, you definitely have this tale of two cities. You have a lot of very rich people. The top 5% have a median income of $350,000. And then you have 23% of the population at poverty levels," Adachi said. "When you have income disparities like that, you're going to see crime rates that may reflect that.

"Theft, often, is a crime of poverty, and certainly, the spike in thefts causes us concern," Adachi said.

The rate of larceny and thefts per 100,000 inhabitants jumped 27%. Burglary rates rose 10%, and the rate of motor vehicle thefts was up 8%.

"When we see crime statistics like this, we want to examine why there's a spike and what we can do to address it," Adachi said.

Evidence of increased alertness regarding street crime is evident throughout the San Francisco area. The city's Muni bus service asks riders to stick their phones in pockets and purses, and launched an "Eyes up, phone down" campaign.

"Owls can rotate their necks 270 degrees to see everything around them," Muni says on its website. "Be like an owl."

Smash-and-grab thefts from cars are also an increasing concern, including in Silicon Valley. Restaurants sometimes remind diners to bring their laptops and tablets from their cars.

San Francisco's increase in reported crime was particularly notable as California as a whole saw drops, as did the Golden State's largest cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose. Oakland and Stockton, two large cities that have among California's worst crime rates, also saw improvements between 2012 and 2013, according to the recently released FBI Uniform Crime Report.

In San Francisco, the rate of reported rapes rose by 47%; aggravated assaults, 23%; and robberies, 18%. But the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter fell by 32%, part of a multiyear trend of reduced homicides in San Francisco.

In fact, there were only 14 homicides in San Francisco in the first half of 2014, the lowest number in that time period since 1954, Adachi said. Shootings also are way down: 71 in the first half of this year, down from 370 during the same time period in 2008.

For violent crime, Adachi said the overall numbers have been declining since the early 1990s, which mirrors a national trend of falling violent crime. "There are so many reasons crime rates fluctuate in a given city — what you really want to pay attention to is" the overall trend, he said.

FRINGE posted:

Was there something bad going on or was it just an excuse for the cops to steal a lot of cars?

FRINGE posted:

Was there something bad going on or was it just an excuse for the cops to steal a lot of cars?

Trabisnikof posted:

Stopping illegal street racing is one of OPD's priorities in the area

withak posted:

Both.


edit: Oakland sideshows, for anyone not familiar with the term.

FRINGE posted:

Makes sense. I was imagining that the events were more out of the way.

FRINGE posted:

Still on the cynical track: is there a reason to prioritize that, or just easy robbery asset forfeiture?

e_angst posted:

Does getting your car impounded lead to it being forfeited in California? Here in Texas if you're doing something stupid enough to get the cops to tow you (drag racing, etc) you usually just have to pay the fine to get your car back from the impound.

quote:

Thanks to civil forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors don’t need to charge someone with a crime to seize and keep their property.

quote:

Allowing police departments to benefit from forfeiture proceeds is bad enough. It creates perverse incentives for cops to err on the side of taking property and can lead to mass civil rights violations like those exposed last year in Tenaha, Texas. And forfeiture critics argue that allowing public prosecutors' offices to benefit is even worse, and likely a violation of due process. It's the prosecutors who decide what cases the state will bring in court—their offices shouldn't materially benefit from those policy decisions.

quote:

Compared to most other states, California’s forfeiture laws provide better protections to property owners and do not provide as strong of a profit incentive to law enforcement to take property. For the government to forfeit property in California, it must have, at a minimum, clear and convincing evidence for cash associated with criminal activity and requires a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for forfeiting real property. Furthermore, when an innocent person with an interest in the property seeks to protect that interest, the burden is on the government to show that the owner knew about the property’s illegal use. Law enforcement in California keeps 65 percent of all revenues generated through civil forfeiture.

However, the behavior of law enforcement officials tells a different tale. Given that California places greater limits on state and local governments in forfeiting property, it should not be surprising that it aggressively participates in equitable sharing with the federal government, collecting an astonishing $305 million in an eight-year period from 2000 to 2008. In 2000, California legislators voted to forbid state and local agencies from using the federal equitable sharing loophole except in limited circumstances, but then-Governor Gray Davis vetoed the measure.

quote:

The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.

Shbobdb posted:

So, ahh, where in Oakland should I go to see this poo poo? Ideally within walking distance of 12th and Telegraph, but any Bart Station (W. Oakland, maybe?) works.

e_angst posted:

Does getting your car impounded lead to it being forfeited in California? Here in Texas if you're doing something stupid enough to get the cops to tow you (drag racing, etc) you usually just have to pay the fine to get your car back from the impound.

Rah! posted:

While sideshows are definitely an Oakland tradition, and the biggest ones tend to happen there, its not like you have to be in Oakland to see one.

http://youtu.be/LnExIojT_ZQ
http://youtu.be/y0nKrL_ZgR4

FMguru posted:

What they will do is charge you a small fortune to get your car back. You pay the tower for towing your car. Then you pay the lot for storing your car (better hurry, the charge accumulates every day). Then you pay to process them releasing your call. Plus you have to deal with all the fines and warrants and appearances for whatever you did that led to your car being impounded. Oh and if you can't get the money together in time, it'll be sold at auction after 30/60/90 days or whatever.

Don't get your car impounded.

Grapeshot posted:

makes it pretty clear the police were running them for revenue.

FRINGE posted:

That and the fact that various ones in SoCal I have driven through were being run at 8pm on major roads far from the bar scene.

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Speaking of which I was at the University Town Center in Irvine yesterday looking for a place to live next year. I balked when they said every room was at least 2k/month, even the studios.

rope kid posted:

Welcome to Irvine. Every street in the city will be repaved yearly.

Shbobdb posted:

SD is laughably cheap, what are you talking about? I know people who love downtown for, like, $1100/mo and most people I know pay $500-800.

rope kid posted:

Welcome to Irvine. Every street in the city will be repaved yearly.

etalian posted: