People who come over on student visas and then skip out are illegal aliens. They can drain our healthcare system and work under the table without paying taxes. They do not help our economy.
Re #159
Concrete numbers can be seen by running the net price calculators on the various UC web sites. In the absence of merit scholarships, the minimum net price for OOS students is around $31,000. It looks like the example students in the article you linked had net prices larger than that (and the NM one had merit).
Of course, it can be cheaper for those with top end merit. But many schools are willing to subsidize the top students to attract them.
Re #161
Fair enough, we’ll put aside merit scholarships. However a student paying $31,000 OOS is being heavily subsidized by CA taxpayers who support the UC system.
It is unlikely that there are that many such students*, since they need to have high need to have an OOS price that low (meaning that they cannot afford it). Note that one of the article examples had a student who chose Cornell over OOS UCLA because Cornell was much cheaper.
*Yes, a few with cooperative and wealthy divorced NCPs.
And I believe the OOS tuition for the UCs will be increasing 5-8% per year for the next few years.
Re #163
This is what I mean about concrete figures. Probably, unlikely, and believe don’t qualify. I don’t mean to get gnarly with you at all, but I’d like to see a full accounting by UC which shows how much the extra OOS tuition brings in over the entire UC system and how much California taxpayers are subsidizing it (again over the entire UC system). It would also be useful to have an “apples to apples” comparison of cost for a full pay instate resident (including consideration of state taxes paid) vs cost for OOS student.
“*Yes, a few with cooperative and wealthy divorced NCPs.”
I’d like to think that this was rare but I have my doubts.
Probably small in number compared to the number of (in-state) low SES students with uncooperative divorced parents. However, they may be more visible anecdotally to posters here, who are mainly high SES, and most people socialize with similar SES people (so most posters here have little social contact with low SES students and families). Requiring NCP information for financial aid, like many schools do, would stop this type of thing, but would likely cause much greater collateral damage to the state universities’ mission of providing access to higher education to low SES students.
It would be possible to require NCP information from OOS students without compromising the state’s mission to provide access to low SES state residents.
The saddest cases I see on CC are students from “traditional” two parent households who have an uncooperative parents. These students cannot file FAFSA with the lower income parent information since the parents are not separated, and they have no access to court ordered college support since the parents are not divorced so they have to manage on their own.
There are plenty of out of state rich kids who can take the spots of these FP internationals. But the colleges do not prefer them because their board scores and grades are not fraudulent so the school won’t score as high on US News, thereby attracting more FP internationals. What is wrong with this equation?
I was curious about this assertion that full-pay OOS at University of California is subsidized by the California taxpayer, so I looked up some numbers. I found an official budget report for 2013-2014 for the University of California.
Total state funds for fiscal 2012-2013 was 2.4B. Number of students was “over 240k”. That maths out nicely to 10k per student in state funds. I say “nicely” because that’s very close to what tuition was at the time; I think tuition is around 12k for the 2015-2016 school year. Given that OOS full tuition is around 32k, it seems clear to me that OOS full pay is very much a net contributor by a factor of 2x.
^^
A couple of caveats.
Financial aid for OOS comes out of tuition revenue not the state budget. $32 million was spent on financial aid for non-resident students last year.
The above still does not take into consideration past and future taxes paid by CA residents to support the university.
If OOS students are not subsidized, their tuition would be on par with private college tuition, but they are not. UCB’s OOS tuition is $35k, compared to Yale’s $45k. Most other state colleges charge much less than $35k for OOS.
@cmsjmt, your logic makes sense only if Cal spent as much on each undergrad as Yale does. Which it certainly does not. Just look at student-faculty ratios and metrics like that.
Out of state tuition generated 600M. I think any way you slice it, OOS is a net contributor.
Laying past and future taxes at the feet of current attendees is a red herring. Past expenses benefited past students, future expenses will benefit future students. A full-pay OOS will always add money to the till for the years they attend. In other words, if the UC system shut down in 1990, it would have benefited all the students up until then and taxpayers would’ve gotten their money’s worth.
Another way to look at it is, if you kicked out all OOS students today, the UC system would be short 600M or 10% of its core budget.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the principle that CA students should be the primary beneficiaries of the UC system. I just think the numbers are clear that OOS students are a cash cow rather than a net loss. If you want fewer OOS, then give the UC system more money.
Here’s yet another way to look at it. The extra tuition for OOS students is to compensate for the taxes that they and their families have not and will not pay in CA and therefore it should not be subsidized.
I think that rather than automatically giving the UC system more money we need to look hard at where the current money is going and investigate where the system could be improved and savings made…but that takes this thread off in another direction 