$1.4 BILLION cut from UC and CSU budgets

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Thats 1.4x 10^9 or $1,400,000,000</p>

<p>$100 million more if tax revenues do not rise.</p>

<p>"The state’s two-tier system has long been seen as a model of public higher education, with the University of California’s 10 campuses as major research hubs and the California State University’s network of 23 campuses graduating tens of thousands each year. But the cuts, which are the biggest in the state’s history, threaten to erode the system’s stellar reputation."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09uc.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09uc.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"It has been a historically bad couple of years for the University of California and California State University systems. The state’s perennial budget deficits have forced several rounds of tuition increases for UC and CSU students. Both systems have had to cut back on faculty, staff, class offerings, extra curricular activities and events. This week, officials at both UC and CSU are meeting with expectations of further tuition increases and budget cuts, made necessary by a new state budget that slashes $150 million from each system.
...
Cal State Trustees, meeting tomorrow in Long Beach, will vote on a 12 percent tuition hike to be implemented by the coming Fall semester. Over the past two years CSU has lost $325 million in state funding, forcing jobs cuts, pay reduction, cuts in programs and services, capped enrollment and of course several rounds of tuition increases. Tuitions are expected to hit $5,472 next year, double what they were five years ago.</p>

<p>UC Regents, starting three days of meetings tomorrow in San Francisco, will vote on a 9.6 percent increase. The UC system had cut $500 million from its budget over the past two years, increased tuitions 32 percent in 2009 and then an additional 8 percent in 2010. The UC's Office of the President estimates losses over the past few years totals $1 billion, with $650 million in state funding reductions and $350 million in unfunded mandatory costs for employee retirement benefits.</p>

<p>The tuition increases will only cover a portion of the loss to the schools' funds. In the case of the UC schools, the tuition increase of 9.6 percent will only cover about one quarter of the problem, guest Nathan Brostrom of the University of California said, pointing out that after the cuts the school will have an even smaller budget than it did in 1997 when it was offering fewer programs and degrees. Now, fourteen years later, the UC schools are seeing larger class sizes and impacted majors."</p>

<p>Tuition</a> increases, budget cuts expected for California?s ailing public universities | 89.3 KPCC</p>

<p>The three questions I have are:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Should Californians pursue their higher education at out of state or private universities?</p></li>
<li><p>Should out of state students stay away from California universities?</p></li>
<li><p>What will happen to the educational quality and prestige of top ranked universities like UCLA and CAL?</p></li>
</ol>

2

<ol>
<li><p>Not necessarily. But in-state price increases will mean that UC and CSU become less competitive at the margins for students wavering between UC/CSU and some other school. (But beware of the “grass is greener” mentality – some other state universities have similar budget problems, and most are not generous with financial aid to OOS students.)</p></li>
<li><p>Not necessarily, but in practice, an OOS student not willing to pay full OOS price will find UCs to be price-uncompetitive. CSU is less expensive, but OOS students who cannot afford CSU full OOS price are not likely to find CSU a viable option.</p></li>
<li><p>The linked article includes this:</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>Meaning that what gives will be the fees/tuition. In-state fees/tuition will rise as the budget cuts reduce the amount of money available for the implicit in-state scholarship/discount.</p>

<p>They might do more of other things that have already been done, such as discontinuing courses with low enrollment, or discontinuing offering courses during “off” semesters with low enrollment (e.g. a course with 100 students in fall and 20 in spring may be discontinued for spring). Berkeley’s spring admissions appears to be intended to balance out enrollment across fall and spring, since some students graduate or otherwise leave after a fall semester.</p>

<p>Other things that have been done by other universities include charging more for high-cost courses (labs) and majors (those with lots of labs), or additional monetary incentives to graduate as quickly as possible (as Texas does) in addition to existing institutional pressure to avoid delaying graduation. Whether UC/CSU is considering such things is something that only the UC regents and CSU trustees know.</p>

3

<ol>
<li><p>Agree with UCB. But note that many students have already sought out OOS privates. As Cal and UCLA start to climb into the mid-30-thousands, privates become a lot more attractive, particularly those that offer merit money. And it goes without saying that need-based aid at the Ivies and other highly selective schools is so generous that it is cheaper for most kids to attend such a school than it is to attend a UC at instate rates. (yes, of course, they have to be admitted to an Ivy or no-loan Vandy or…, first)</p></li>
<li><p>Concur with UCB.</p></li>
<li><p>My opinion is that it will continue to decline. The Regents only give passing interest to whether Cal remains top public for undergrad education. Instead, (IM)) the Regents are much more concerned with filling seats in UC Merced, their Field of Dreams campus and other socio-economic issues.</p></li>
</ol>

4

<p>I’ve been following this trainwreck for about a year now. I’m so, so glad I chose not to attend a UC.</p>

5

<p>I wouldn’t mind paying higher tuition as long as the quality of education and opportunities after graduation do not suffer.</p>

6

<p>Just some quick thoughts on how UC’s are trying to make up the shortfall in state support:</p>

<p>UCB’s non-resident frosh enrollment will be just a tick under 30% for the fall up from ~ 23% in '10. UCLA’s and UCSD’s will be ~ 18%, up from ~ 14 and 9%. Obviously B can support more NR’s than either UCLA or SD.</p>

<p>Both B and SD have approached the incoming class by reducing in-state students, both assuming less state support of tuition. UCLA approached this year’s incoming class by trying to keep in-state enrollment the same as prevoius years and bumping up its oos and int’l enrollments.</p>

<p>So UCLA, which normally enrolls 4,600-4,800 was estimating a fall enrollment of 5,300, its biggest frosh class ever. One of the reasons given for the increase of frosh was that four-year graduation rates were being exceeded, which I’m assuming were > 70%. But UCLA is more PC than B or SD, so whatever reasons given by the school should be considered in that light.</p>

<p>A funny thing happened though as UCLA undershot its yield rate, I’m guessing for instate students, and is expecting a lot more than 5,300 frosh, so the school is scrambling to add more classes, more beds, etc. So that 18% NR enrollment, I’m guessing UCLA wanted probably in the low 20%'s, but for the surge in instate yield and enrollment for the class of '15. Some of this might be the increased scholarships because of the largesse of Mr. Kirkorian. </p>

<p>So I"m guessing that in-staters still see teh top UC’s as highly desirable, even moreso than ever for UCLA as seen by increased yields of CA students (and could be similarly for B and SD but for their purposeful reductions), and each of the UC’s is increasing NR by large amounts, even doubling the prior year’s %'s for some schools. SB’s is projected at 9% up from 4-5%, etc. Obviously, there are plenty of int’l and some oos who want to experience CA, budget cuts or not.</p>

<p>$650-700M for UC is ~ $65-70M for each campus on average, certainly a lot but actually < than last year. The full tuition payers will help in that regard. I personally prefer more instate students, 85-90%, as I’m not as big a fan of int’l students. And each of the UC’s ideally probably like half and half between int’l and oos students, which B has done a good job of even if in’tls like B more than oos’ers.</p>

7

<p>And one of the reasons why UCLA’s graduation rates may not approach 80% for four years is because engineering students tend to push the limits of unit caps, the average e student graduating with > 200 units, and I think > 210.</p>

8

<p>Just goes to show that the opinions of a few members here do not concur with the opinions of students in the real world. Because in the real world, Berkeley remains quite a strong school academically as viewed by the students. In fact, it will enroll more freshmen students this year than in any year in its entire history. </p>

<p>[Record</a> number of students choose UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/06/30/record-number-of-students-choose-uc-berkeley/]Record”>Record number of students choose UC Berkeley | Berkeley News)</p>

<p>.</p>

9

<p>

Wow, compared to 4,109 freshmen enrollment last year, this year’s class is much larger (even allowing for summer melts). How are they gonna accomodate everybody (e.g., dorms, classes)?</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Can I use this quote the next time you or a few others make claims on CC about what schools are “the best” and what others are not!? </p>

<p>Anyway, UC has been dogged by slashing state funding for at least a decade. I remember many many years ago Berkeley haters predicted its demise and yet it still stands among the best…</p>

11

<p>Why enrolling more OOS students is a good thing? If so, why didn’t Cal do it before in the past one hundred years? This is actually the first time I see the sinking Cal… after about 60% increase in tuition in three years, if I did the calculation correctly. If they keep doing this – to increase 10% per year, they would catch Stanford’s in 10 years.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>The 4109 figure was for fall enrollment of 2010 if that was the actual amount, which means of the total 5253 frosh in '10 per article, 1144 were Spring admits. Expect fairly consistent fall matriculants for 2011, maybe a bit more and say 1500 deferred to 2012 spring term. </p>

<p>From the article:</p>

<p>Year Total Non-R CA-Res
2011 5657 1712 3945
2010 5253 1220 4033</p>

<p>So instate enrollment declined just a bit not the 200 or more I thought would be the case.</p>

13

<br>

<br>

<p>True, but they can’t keep defying gravity indefinitely. Cutting the fat is a good is a good thing, but if you cut deep enough you are going to start carving away big chunks of muscle and bone.</p>

14

<p>And I’m not a big int’l-student fan because they’ll go home. If UC remained strong in CA-resident enrollment, most would come home even if they attended grad school on the eastcoast. Strong instate enrollment means the betterment of CA wrt economy, workforce, etc.</p>

<p>If UC is privatized, or some within the system are, then expect lower instate-res enrollment and for CA’s populace to become less educated, which could lead to more economic woes for the state.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Yikes! UCLA already has forced triples (three students in a dorm room designed for two; note, that the room only has two desks…). Just another reason for OOS buyer-beware. But of course, they already know that since only 57 additional OOS’ers submitted an SIR (less than Irvine & Davis). After summer melt, we’ll see how many of them actually show up in Westwood.</p>

<p>Couple of other interesting notes: SD and Riverside both declined in total Frosh enrollment. SD will enroll ~500 less students and Riverside a staggering ~1300 less.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Quite a prediction drax, since the number of SIRs is only 20 more than two years ago. Add in summer melt, and those 20 could disappear easily. Heck 20+ internationals might not even obtain their visas in time. :)</p>

16

<p>The 4109 was indeed matriculated fall admits (source: common data set). Didn’t realize they placed so many on spring admit.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>From UC and CSU point of view, they are full pay. No implicit scholarship / subsidy of in-state fee discounts, and minimal financial aid costs.</p>

<p>Obviously, this trend is effectively leading to privatization.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously, the original idea of state universities was that a better educated population in the state would be good for the state economy (and later tax revenues to the state government). Attracting the top out of state and international students who may be enticed to stay after graduation and contribute more to the state economy is a bonus.</p>

<p>However, political priorities in the state over the last few decades have favored spending on K-12 (D), health and welfare (D), prisons (R), and tax cuts (R) over post-secondary education. Budget cuts to UC, CSU, and community colleges are not a new trend.</p>

<p>In terms of record numbers of students choosing UC, it may well be that, even with student fee increases, the increasing costs at other universities still leave the cost comparison in favor of UC, for students who do not get into the generous-with-financial-aid-but-highly-selective schools like Harvard and Stanford.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Spring admissions is a presumably a way to balance enrollment between the fall and spring semesters. If a school admits new students only in the fall, it will have unused capacity (classrooms, labs, faculty, etc.) in the spring, since some students graduate or otherwise leave after the fall semester. Accepting students who start in the spring can help balance out the enrollment levels to reduce unused capacity. (Note that FPF only offers a few inexpensive courses – freshman level non-lab courses – for spring admits to take in the fall.)</p>

19

<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/25926[/url]”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/25926&lt;/a&gt;
UC is voting today to increase tuition. CSU increased tuition already.

YIKES!</p>

<p>

Poor don’t pay…rich can afford it…middle class is squeezed.</p>

20

<p>

I was surprised UCLA couldn’t attract more OOSers. Berkeley seems to be the only option that remains attractive to OOS students, in light of its increase.</p>