From today’s SF Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Audit-shows-UC-admission-standards-relaxed-for-7215364.php
no surprise to many of us who have been following this for years. Back when UCOP published admit data by campus online, it was rather easy to back into the numbers for the OOS cohort.
The actual report is at http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-107.pdf .
No surprise in the context of budgetary issues. Resident enrollment is limited by the amount of in-state tuition subsidy (resident tuition is supposedly about $10,000 less than the cost of education) and financial aid. Any extra capacity left after reaching the budget limit for resident enrollment can be filled by non-residents (whose tuition would be about $13,000 more than the cost of education during the years in question, if the claim that resident tuition is about $10,000 less than the cost of education is correct) rather than being left empty.
Of course, there are other budget options that can be used to increase seats for residents, and it can get political about who has to take the hit:
- Increase state subsidy. (of course, could require cuts in other state spending, or state tax increases)
- Decrease costs, most of which are in employee pay. (may also reduce demand if it causes actual or perceived decline in quality from the view of prospective students)
- Increase resident tuition. (may also reduce demand)
- Increase non-resident tuition. (may also reduce demand)
- Reduce resident financial aid. (may also reduce demand)
- Reduce non-resident scholarships. (may also reduce demand)
Replying mostly to follow this thread. I’m a California state tax payer, and this makes me furious. UNC-CH has a cap of 18% out-of-state students, and therefore the OOS kids are generally much better qualified. It’s a bitter pill to swallow that the UC institutions are actually being filled with inferior students than our own.
The LA Times write-up quotes Napolitano stating that tuition would have to increase $2500/year to offset a reduction in OOS students. I suspect many families who actually pay tuition (50% pay nothing) would accept this increase to gain fair access to all campuses. Heck, we paid almost $2700 extra per year just for the campus health insurance plan! The article also claimed that an audit found no excess pay for administrators, but I wonder if they looked at the total size of administration vs. pay/individual. The silver lining of restricting access to UCB and UCLA has been the rise in stats of students enrolling at the other campuses.
Cutting costs is something that most people support in the abstract, but can be a hard political fight when specific line items are suggested, since each cost has a constituency (both whomever it serves and whomever it employs) who will fight attempts to cut it.
For example, the mere suggestion of eliminating the division-level administrative structure of the College of Chemistry at Berkeley and moving its two departments into other divisions (Chemistry to the College of Letters and Science and Chemical Engineering to the College of Engineering) resulted in apparently fierce opposition and concern (including on these forums).
A similar story is true about UVa in that the OOS kids have (much?) higher stats than instate kids.
Ding, ding, ding. I’m one of those who wrote to the UCOP that this is/was a bad idea. The College of Chem is world class, and is partially responsible to why Cal has a world class reputation. (Hint: the periodic table of elements.)
In comparison, across the Bay, the chemists and physicists at that Junior University are still looking for Stanfurdium. 
btw: I vote to eliminate Merced.
The ballot initiatives in California removing flexibility from the legislature, the additional funding requirements caused by millions of illegal immigrants, the large prison population, deteriorating infrastructure, state pensions, and the enormous debt of California all make additional state subsidies highly unlikely. Further tax hikes will just drive more businesses and residents to Nevada and Texas (look at Connecticut for another example of how not to run a state). California voters have only themselves to blame for electing the Willie Brownish bozos for 50 years.
The UC’s are acting quite rationally to stagnant funding. I am amazed how high the in-state admission rate is considering the funding issues.
I could have told you this without wasting the time and effort on an audit. It was well known at my kids’ east coast private high school. Those out-of-staters pay the bills with their fat tuition payments.
There are a lot of schools that supplement with OOS students and their wallets. Many of the California kids attend U of Colorado and we welcome their California money.
@Leafyseadragon, NC funds UNC better (for now) than CA funds UCs. If you’re really furious about it, petition your legislator to raise your taxes or let out more prisoners.
UVa is even more poorly funded by VA than the UCs, but its pretty small for a public school and has a pretty big endowment (for a public), so it has a higher per capita endowment.
But is the division-level administrative structure that is the College of Chemistry essential or useful to maintaining the world class status of the Department of Chemistry and Department of Chemical Engineering, compared to if they were moved into the College of Letters and Science* and College of Engineering** respectively? Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but it does not seem like there was much actual evaluation of the benefits of having that division-level administrative structure relative to the cost of such before the fierce opposition rose up.
with world class departments in many liberal arts subjects including other sciences like biology, math, and physics
*with world class departments in many engineering subjects
“The legislature raised taxes? How dare they? Let’s pass a ballot initiative to keep them from doing so again.”
“The legislature wants to cut prison spending? How dare they? Let’s find money elsewhere - the UC system could use a few cuts.”
“The UCs want to raise in-state tuition? How dare they? Tuition should remain exactly what it is now.”
“The UCs want to cut administrative costs? How dare they? These administrators make the chemistry professors at Berkeley great - we can’t afford to lose them.”
“Why can’t the UCs accept more hardworking California students?”
Even a decrease of 1% is a decrease; getting admitted to your choice campus is a huge issue in California, and it looks like they used this as a tool to increase OOS enrollment, while denying residents access to the top 3 campuses. This year, 25% of UCSD’s incoming freshman are international (not OOS/International, but International). Transfer students lower the overall undergraduate % of international students to only 19%.
The question, we can’t answer, is how much of this was due to the UC’s hand being forced by budget cuts, vs. a simple grab for OOS/International revenue? Could they have increase both In-state and OOS enrollment?
I think this person makes a valid point of UCB/UCLA/UCSB vs. the UC System.
When ready both the Auditors and UC’s reports, keep in mind how they use systemwide data vs. the impacts on the most selective UCs.
OTOH, admitting OOS students with lower qualifications reduces the academic competition for in-state students who are admitted to UCB, UCLA or UCSD. 
If we can’t answer the bolded, then “it does not seem like there was much actual evaluation of the benefits of having that division-level administrative structure relative to the cost…”.
Those of us who have been around UC long enough soon recognize that many/most UC decisions are not based on an ‘evaluation of costs and benefits’ but rather, what is politically expedient. It should then be no surprise that the ‘fierce opposition rose up’: it it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Alternatively, conduct a real analysis. But we know that ain’t gonna happen since a politician heads the system. Just read Janet’s responses: NONE of them actually address specific facts in the report; instead, like any good politician, she turns the question into a talking point.
Of course, the real downside, is that the increase in OOS students will lead to a reduction in instate political support. As more and more instate kids get rejected by Cal and UCLA in favor of the OOS’ers, those kids will attend an OOS school themselves, or perhaps a private; in any event, the parents’ allegiance will now be elsewhere.
btw: take a look see at some of the L&S departments at Cal that have dropped significantly in rankings…
Really, those two cannot be separated. Budget cuts will limit the number of students who can receive in-state tuition subsidies. Filling otherwise-unused capacity with out-of-state students makes more sense than wasting the capacity. Also, some additional out-of-state students’ tuition can subsidize additional in-state students’ tuition subsidies*, although such added in-state students may not necessarily be as many who were cut due to budget cuts.
*If the claimed cost of education numbers are correct, 1 more out-of-state student paying list price can subsidize about 1.3 in-state students paying list price or about 0.6 in-state students receiving high financial aid, within the capacity constraints of the campus.
Of course, such examples show why costs at college and universities (not just UC) have a lot more upward pressure than downward pressure. So no one should really be surprised at rising costs.
@bluebayou Interesting aside on support for the UC’s. It seems most members of the state legislature are NOT graduates of the UC’s, but attended the CSU’s, so there is some natural antagonisms in play. The UC’s will attempt to work legislature issues through the staff, who are mostly UC graduates and are more accommodating.
I got that bit of info from a recent speech by Robert Birgeneau, the ex-chancellor of Berkeley. The speech/interview was related to the funding challenges at public research universities.
That’s a very different relationship than what we have in Florida, where most of the state legislature are graduates of UF, FSU or FAMU (recently the other 9 public universities have started to be represented in the legislature).
Probably because those three were the only Florida public universities before 1956. That year, California already have 12 public schools that would become part of the modern-day CSU system, but only 4 public schools that would become part of the modern day UC system.