This idea already exists. This is why tuition at schools like Yale and other top-tier institutions has skyrocketed over the past couple of decades. Schools give lavish financial aid packages to many students, while charging increasingly penurious rates for those in higher income brackets. The problem with this is that it tends to really squeeze the middle class. Need-based financial aid is a really good thing for the truly needy, but can put up too high a barrier for students from middle class backgrounds.

Public universities, like public schools, should be open to all, with the same low rates for all.

I would like to see your numbers. Who do you count as affluent? What is their percentage in the U.C. system? How much money do you expect to gain?

One does run some real dangers with this kind of thing. Affluent families may have pumped many hundreds of thousands of dollars into the California tax system and very large sums into the federal funds that support state universities. The percentage they get back is much smaller than that of other families.

There has already been a growth in the acceptablity of a me first sort of 19th century social Darwinism among certain sectors of society. In California a large number feel alienated from the new population, more and more go to private schools and have less desire to support the public schools, many elderly feel they got theirs why should they give, people with 2 kids wonder why they should not get subsidies that people with 6 get...

You have a whole set of resentments and attitudes, some justified, some not and a right that plays on claims of Democratic "class war" and incidently this goes over big with lots of people from lower classes. Who are your affluent? In California a family where mom is a cop and mom is a nurse could be bringing in $120,000 easy. Want to shaft them? So double your numbers. I guess you have maybe 5 or 6% of the ppoulation. Most of them are old. Grown kids. Those with kids, smaller families...

So you're soaking maybe 2 or 3% of the college population, getting maybe a thousand per year for each of the other students, not even ten percent of total costs, pissing off alumni, just alienating people whose cooperation would be useful in the difficult times the state faces.

Means texting is supported by Republicans (and by me in some cases) for a number of entitlements, it's opposed by Democrats for a reason. The smaller the benefitted group the less support for the program.

The fact that you haven't even bothered to cobble together some numbers indicates that you don't really care if the potential benefits of this program balance it's potential costs. You just want an easy solution that punishes people you don't like.

I am perfectly willing (given the financial situation) to increase governmental costs on the wealthy, I think they get great benefits from living in this country and this state. But this is a direct slap at their children. It is telling them (who pay more taxes than most and often perform valuable roles such as surgeon) that their kids are less wanted than others. The vengeance of the soccer moms will soon descend.

Excellent idea. I come from a lower-middle class family. I go to Yale, and my brothers go to UCs. They are going into thousands of dollars of debt, while I'm going through college worry-free because of the incredible financial aid package I have.

Public university enrollment (and taxpayer costs) have been increasing too quickly, so something needs to be done to make the market more reasonable. This could be a good start -- but would it just create a huge beauracracy that figures out who can "affort" college and who can't?

I would also drastically increase the entrance requirements.

Here in Finland, which has the reputation of having one of the finest education systems in the world, University is tuition free.

While over here in America, certain groups gain plenty from ensuring the stupidity of the general population.

Since public tuitions are partially subsidized by the government, a comparable tuition is paid by both the Yale student and the Berkeley student. It's simply a matter of the Yale student paying more out of pocket for a private education (and generally higher prestige associated with a Yale degree).

Here in china. chinese college students often worried about the tuition of university because most of their families cannot afford it. actually ,the tuition is only about 500_700 dollars per year,but for many of them who are from countrysides ,it's too high. what's more ,i have to tell you the scholarship is not enough and the number is very limitied.so ,it's unfair to them ,after all,cina is still a developing country

Hi Ian: I just wanted you to know that you're wrong about the impact of your idea on US News & World Report rankings. A school changing financial aid, in the way you discuss, would make no difference to its ranking. And while I understand your point about subsidizing the wealthy, I wonder if you have considered the impact that a low tuition price has on encouraging enrollment applications from disadvantaged children and families not familiar with the financial aid process? At least a low tuition is easy to understand! The financial aid application and process, as everybody from Secretary Spellings on down confirms, is extremely complicated and unpredictable.