Audit shows UC admission standards relaxed for out-of-staters

Parents Forum
241

@momsquad, the matter of “US doesn’t train enough tech workers” is a complex one.

Fact is, many math-oriented Americans chose fields outside of technology because they can make a great deal more money in finance. On Wall Street. In investment banking. In law. An economics or engineering professor (even though they’re often on the higher end of the salary spectrum) often makes a lot less than he/she can earn in the private sector.

As long as our numbers-crunchers and bean counters are paid better than tech workers – or teachers and professors! – this will remain the case.

It’s called the free market. And it’s the way America works.

242

I wonder if the GPA comparisons reported in the initial report are adjusted for the differences in in-state vs. OOS gpa computations? In-state students can get honors credit for honors classes that are on the UC list at the specific high school. OOS students only get credit for AP classes and IB classes. That adjustment alone could easily wipe out any difference in reported UC GPAs.

UC admissions at the major campuses continue to be very opaque and unpredictable for in-state students, and much more predictable for OOS students except for engineering. There is something very wrong with that.

243

@katliamom

“As long as our numbers-crunchers and bean counters are paid better than tech workers – or teachers and professors! – this will remain the case.”

Most of these numbers-crunchers and bean counters are referred to as accountants. And generally, accountants certainly don’t make more than those in technology.

244

@StevenToCollege

Oh, the ones in management CERTAINLY do! They also get to decide which techie gets laid off during the inevitable downturn - and how many cheap H1B techies get to replace him/her.

245

@katliamom

You were referring to CFO. Please don’t forget there’s only one CFO in each company.

246

No, I was not. I come from a family of techies. All are engineers. Both parents, three siblings, several in-laws. Not one is now a working engineer. They all went into management for job security and greater pay. They’re all now bean counters. They’ve all seen techie jobs - including expensively educated American engineers - vanish overnight in the wake of outsourcing, corporate buyouts, corporate downsizing, economic turmoil and H1B visa-holding, lower paid competitors.

Spend any considerable time in the tech sector - be it Silicon Valley or aerospace giants - and you will see this for yourself too.

I repeat what I said above: this is the free market. It’s the way America works.

247

Since this is CC, I’ll take this opportunity to point out the importance of the liberal arts in education even for deep techies. Engineers and programmers that have good communication skills (written, oral, interpersonal) are more valuable than straight heads-down programmers and engineers. Companies value techies that have good interpersonal and communication skills as they’re more versatile (and rare!), good for their teams, and can interface more readily with other parts of the company as well as customers.

248

I’m late to this conversation but I have to say Im surprised. In my experience, it’s much easer to attend a state university if you’re from the state…and much harder to get in OOS…of the universities i’m familiar with, their OOS applicants have higher test scores, higher grades, and many times better ECs.

249

@SouthernHope

Interesting…
The article actually suggested that the OOS had higher admission standard than CA resident admits, at least for Berkeley.

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/04/04/class-2020-selective-uc-berkeley-history-preliminary-data-shows/

“In addition, the average unweighted GPA for resident admits was 3.91, while the average for domestic nonresident admits was 3.94. The average SAT score was 2075 for admitted residents and 2237 for domestic nonresidents. Average composite ACT scores were 31 for residents and 34 for domestic nonresidents.”

250

This is not unique to these industries or types of jobs. Also, managers are vulnerable if they are in areas or layers of management that are considered expendable. In addition, both computing and aerospace can have big swings in their industry business cycles.

Also, while managers have more within-company political power, the decisions to downsize, outsource, etc. are typically driven by Wall Street pressure. Finance is an essential part of economic and business infrastructure, but being essential also gives it great power over the economy and other businesses. Perhaps it is not surprising that Wall Street is still commonly an aspiration for many, since it means being in a very well paid seat of power over the economy and other businesses.

Any unfriendly Wall Street pressure (e.g. hostile takeover offers) should be viewed as greatly increasing the risk of job loss for any employee of the company subject to such pressure.

251

University of California admits significantly more California freshman students, makes gains in diversity

UC offers admission to 15% more Californians, particularly Latinos and African Americans

http://universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-admits-significantly-more-california-freshman-students-makes-gains

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-admit-15-20160404-story.html

252

@StevenToCollege The critical auditor’s report analyzes data from admission cycles prior to the class of 2020. UC mended its ways under growing political pressure and after an infusion of cash from Gov. Brown.

One of the most interesting tidbits that was presented in the movie “Inside Job” was the revelation that laid off tech workers from the aerospace industry were largely behind the rise of derivatives and subsequent market bust. It was a strategic game to them.

253

@dstark She did get a spot, and sadly that school, which was 7th on her list of UC schools (and she only applied to because I made her, since I had a feeling UC engineering was going to be a bit unpredictable) is not appealing to her for a number of reason, both personal and academic.

And I can understand the idea of “hey, you got a spot, be happy.” But I think an honest broker can also under the 17 -18 year old’s POV, which is - I worked my butt off. I skipped parties and stayed up late nights and worked over vacation so that I could be a top9% Cali student. And the bargain that was explicit was only that I would get “a” UC, but the bargain that was implied (and often pretty clearly expressed) was that if you are a capable girl into engineering who works your tail off and gets good grades and good test scores, and has good ECs, there will be a good slot at a top university waiting for you.

And to her (and, in most cases, her peers - and also by the stats) UCSC is #7 on the UC list. So to her she is a top 10% student who has been offered (by the UC’s) a 50% school. (I realize this is a simplistic and perhaps shallow way to look at it, and I don’t agree with seeing it this way, but I can also tell you she is not the only one who breaks it down that simplistically.)

And when you add to the equation that other, OOS or privates that are “Top 10%” schools not only offered her slots, but also are in the process of very aggressively courting her, and add to that the fact that few if any of her friends and classmates are going to go to UCSC but a decent number will be going to the other colleges after her, and you end up with a difficult situation for a kid to understand.

And again, I am 100% certain that there are OOS and International students who got into every one of the other UCs with lower stats than her. And that is a bit hard to swallow as a family that has paid +/-30 years of CA income taxes x2.

And even worse, I think it is a form of mortgaging the state’s (and UC’s) future. OOS and international students are not going to support the UC system past the 4 or 5 years they spend here. A small few might relocate, but most will go off somewhere else. The more CA citizens the UCs alienate by denying them more “prestigious” majors and schools, however, the more that feel, like me, “what’s the point?” We will not support further tax increases for the UCs because we have come to see the game is rigged.

Right now, Merced has a very low OOS (0.4%) and Foreign (0.6%) SIR. Riverside is a better (1%/3%), Santa Cruz and SB is decent (approx 7%/10% each). Irvine, Davis, SD are middle-ground: (approx 7%/20+%). UCLA and Berkeley higher.

But given that UCD, UCI, UCSC and UCSB only admit about 50-60% of their OOS and International applicants, they could easily take up some of the financial slack that limiting UCLA and UCB OOS/International admits might cause.

My in-the-head addition puts the number of OOS/International students not accepted at UCM, UCR, UCSC, UCD, UCI and UCSB at about 45-50K. Even assuming there is some double-applications there, if it is only 20k unique applications and 10% SIR, you can drop 2000 OOS/International students out of your UCB/UCLA/UCSD engineering admits tomorrow - without affecting the overall UC budget a bit. With a bit more work, I bet you could easily double that number. It would both improve the UC with the increased admits - more OOS/International exposure, more applicants etc. - and give more CA taxpaying students access to the more “brand name” schools we have all funded for so many years.

It would not be hard to write an program that would tell the UCs just how many extra OOS/International students they would have to admit to yield X number we could then cut out of UCB/UCLA/UCSD OOs/International engineering students. If we are going to dumb-down the standards for OOS/International, why do it at our “flagship” schools?

254

Add to my previous math a small $2000/year increase in the OOS/international tuition, which would still keep it below UMich and UVA and maybe even Wm+Mary, and, with the 4 - 5k OOS/International enrolled, you could add another 8 - 10 million $ a year to the budget. Or admit another few thousand CA kids to UCB/UCLA/UCSD etc.

The other thing that might be worth adding to the UC equation is an simultaneous increase in in-state tuition and in-state need-based aid. If you take a page out of the Harvard/Stanford book and increase tuition a bit - and if you went from say 13k to 16 or 18k - but make sure to increase the financial aid levels to make it a net-zero change for most income levels, if it allowed more CA resident kids to be accepted, it would be a benefit to some that today end up sending kids OOS or private, because 16 or 18k is still lower than most OOS/privates. And as long as the fin aid is topped up so folks now paying 13 don’t pay more, it would increase the in-state enrollment while netting to zero in the budget.

You would have be “need blind” admissions and add enough aid to keep the current tuition levels for most incomes. But a few more in-state kids would be willing to pay the extra.

255

" Yes, it does, quite heavily in some sports, since it is in an NCAA Division I FBS conference."

Of course Cal recruits athletes. Just like every other Pac-12 school (public or private) does.

How else would QB Jared Goff (a top pick in the upcoming NFL draft) or Aaron Rogers or Olympic gold medal swimmer Missy Franklin have found their way to Berkeley?

256

In response to budget cuts, what would you have seen as preferable or less objectionable compared to admitting more non-resident students who pay more than the cost of education?

  • Decrease overall enrollment (both resident and non-resident) while keeping a similar resident to non-resident ratio. (means even fewer seats available for both residents and non-residents)
  • Decrease costs per student, most of which are in employee pay. (difficult politically because every cost has a constituency that will defend it loudly; may also reduce demand if it causes actual or perceived decline in quality from the view of prospective students)
  • Increase resident tuition net of financial aid and scholarships. (not well received in the past, despite compensating financial aid increases for those from middle/lower income families; may also reduce demand)
  • Increase non-resident tuition net of financial aid and scholarships. (may also reduce demand)
257

“And I do think it is appropriate for it to be harder for OOS students to get into a school.”

States are certainly free to make that choice. But that may have an impact on how many OOS seats you can sell at what price.

Let’s say hypothetically that UCB adopted the policy that they would only accept OOS applicants who also got into Stanford. That would certainly raise the OOS admissions bar higher than the IS bar. Next, let’s say that UCB also decides to set its net price for OOS-ers at 100% of Stanford’s net price. UCB probably wouldn’t be able to sell many seats at that price/value/admissions level.

Some high end public flagships are in the enviable position of being able to sell higher priced seats to OOS students who are better qualified than their IS applicant pool – UNC, UVA, UM, Purdue, etc.

Under current market conditions, UCB and UCLA don’t appear to be able to do that. Which is why they are aggressively “interpreting” their statutory authority and why they are getting audited. The IS applicant pool appears to be too big and strong to allow for that given the current number of available seats at UCB and UCLA.

258

@CaliDad2020,

Your blanket statement about the UCs,…I don’t know about that. Aren’t your daughter’s numbers a little light for Berkeley engineeering?

Is your daughter as disappointed wth her admission results as you are?

I see parents who aren’t happy with their kids results, but the kids are happy.

Money issues aside, your daughter got into great schools. You can’t compare different schools admissions policies. Schools admit people in different ways.

I don’t know if you want to pay the money but some people prefer Michigan over MIT.
Of course the weather sucks at those schools compared to California schools.

My daughter preferred Michigan over every California school. Washington too. NYU made my wife nervous. Even in Manhattan. I know your daughter would be going to school in Brooklyn.

18 year old walking around Manhattan? Of course there are 18 year old girls doing that everyday. :). Your daughter got into Michigan engineering. You should be rejoicing. :slight_smile:

259

Indeed, the ratio of California’s population to the number of undergraduates at UC (all nine campuses) is within the same ballpark of the ratio of state population to the two best known state universities in any of Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina. I.e. in California, the “flagship level” cohort of high school graduates fills nine campuses rather than two in some of the other states. This means that, in California, students who want to go to the “top” campus or one of the “top two” campuses (as opposed to any of the nine UC campuses) will find the admissions competition much greater than students in some other states who want to go to the “top” campus or one of the “top two” campuses in those states.

260

@dstark Again, I think I made this pretty clear. The D never “expected” UCB COE or even UCLA (certainly hoped, but never expected.) I think she did “expect” UCI or D (where the average SAT is 200 - 300 pts below hers, even in engineering.) And she certainly never expected to lose a slot to an OOS or international student with equal or worse stats. Obviously, we were all a bit naive.

We are thrilled with her choices from the education perspective, but the financial reality remains. Both my D’s parents are working adults who have paid CA income tax for 30 +/- years each. That’s 60 years of tax paying. It will probably be total 75 - 80 by the time we both retire.

Our family now has to pay about 30-50 k per year tuition versus 13k a year. That’s a fairly big whack on top of the taxes paid. (I think you very well understand this, as do most CA residents.)

I have no prob. with her doing NYC at 18 - I lived there on my own in the 80’s at just a bit older than her - and it was a much rougher place back then. NYC however is the most expensive choice of all and I’m not really ready to break the piggy bank just yet.

Again, we will figure it out and she will do great, but there is a question of fairness, and a question of buy-in. The UC’s have lost our buy-in. Does one family matter? Probably not. But alienate enough families, and the support could erode pretty quickly. Certainly my D (even more than us) sees the system as rigged. She feels like she held up her end of the bargain and got jacked. Will that effect a state of 33 million long-term. Probably not. But for sure she won’t be voting for more UC funding any time soon.