Hi @CaliDad2020! - I’ll defer to you and the other posters’ knowledge of stats and such on this, but I am fortunate to have worked/interacted with a lot of international students/families over the years, and I’m not sure outside of Cal and UCLA (and then UCSD) that international families are clamoring to pay for a school just because it is a part of the UC system, especially one that is rural, somewhat commuter, and has eight athletic teams that participate in four sports.
There is no market for the lower-tier UCs outside of California, particularly among students with high stats - the most likely population to cross state lines. If UC wants OOS dollars, it simply can’t go to market with Merced, Riverside or heck, even Irvine. There is no amount of wishful thinking that will change this.
If the low in-state prices for Merced & Riverside cannot attract high-stats Californians, there should be no expectation that the much higher out-of-state prices will attract high-stats OOS.
Gator’s suggestion of lowering OOS at the low-tiers may help create a market … but probably not a big enough market, since it’s unlikely the decrease will make UC’s OOS prices competitive with in-state prices in the applicant’s home states. You’ll get some takers, but not many. The UC is great, but to be honest, my state school is a better value than most UC campuses at current OOS rates. I’m thinking this is probably the case for college shoppers in nearly every state, but maybe a handful of really dreadful ones.
“There is no market for the lower-tier UCs outside of California, particularly among students with high stats - the most likely population to cross state lines.”
Let’s be even more direct. These schools and their locations are essentially unknown outside California. Merced, Riverside, whatever … They conjure up absolutely nothing for those of us not in California. Blank slate. Nada. Why you think we would send our kids to those schools OOS is beyond ridiculous. Every state has its own flagships many of which are excellent - and we have our own directional a that at least have recognition in our areas. There’s just not a single compelling reason other than “free” for OOS kids to go to these places.
@fish125 but then you face the question: no one else in the world wants to go, but we should expect CA taxpayers to support it and CA kids to attend?
Really, if the UC’s can’t justify Merced (and to a lesser extent Riverside - although I think that schools rep is growing and with its proximity to CMcK, Pomona etc. it’s going to grow in stature ) as a school anyone wants to go to, why not cut bait, put that money into UCB, UCLA, UCSD, etc. cut the OOS/International enrollment and add that many CA kids?
Ultimately the UC’s can’t have it both ways. They can’t say: We are asking the taxpayers to support and the students to attend a school that is not worth the OOS/International tuition.
They either need to scale the tuition, improve the school’s rep or close the school and transfer that money. Ironically, it is the lack of OOS/International students - and the fact that schools keep that money - that contributes to the lack of certain facilities and perks at those schools. It is actually very strongly in their interest to add international students.
If the legislature does what I think they are leaning toward - and caps per school international/OOS enrollment, the UCs will have no choice but to make Merced, Riverside and Santa Cruz more attractive to OOS/International students (Santa Cruz is already well on its way - and I think Riverside will be able to increase its numbers quickly as well if it wants.)
The other issue is the majors UCB and others are “selling” - mostly their most popular, impacted and “high value” majors. Why do that? There are tens of thousands of OOS/international students who want to attend the UCs. Why should UCB take 299 men and 82 women international applicants (not even counting OOS) into the oversubscribed Engineering majors, as well as 100 inter. male and 47 int. women applicants into college of Chem, and another 99 men and 44 women into Comp Sci in the L+S college, not to mention 118 Women and 75 men in the college of nat. resources. That’s 800 or so valuable UCB STEM degrees sold for 38k a pop.
It make no sense.
@CaliDad2020 - The bigger question to me is it realistic to guarantee spots to 12.5% of qualifying CA high school seniors? This percentage is based on our state’s Master Plan for Higher Education, which was created in 1960 when CA’s population was a little less than 16 million. Now that our population is nearly 40 million, are our nine undergrad UC schools able to support this any longer, especially since many of the UC schools are way above the maximum allowable (per the Master Plan) enrollment of 27,500? (I don’t have an answer for this… just a question!)
@fish125 I don’t know. But it seems clear to me that in a system that was tax-payer built, and continues to be taxpayer funded, that extremely fast rising OOS/International admissions (and the disparity between campuses and use of the additional monies) would be the first issue to address.
Again, higher tuition for OOS/International, better distribution across campuses and majors and more equitable distribution of the funds would all benefit CA resident students.
If the Master Plan needs to be revised, it should be. But that’s a bigger question.
I think many of you are underestimating these schools ability to recruit OOS and international students. They don’t have to compete for the BEST OOS students, only for those with the stats to get in, and the ability to pay.
How many of you are familiar with Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU)? Not many, I would think (unless you follow NCAA basketball!). It’s one of the 12 public universities in Florida. It charges $25K a year for tuition, and has 10% OOS domestic students and 3% international students.
How about the University of West Florida (UWF, I live in Florida and until a few years ago, didn’t even know this place existed). It charges $19K for OOS tuition, and has 9% OOS and 2% international.
Why do OOS students want to come to these schools? Because they are in Florida! California has even more appeal.
And yet Merced can only enroll EIGHT OOS and FIVE International students?! Even the average CSU has 2% to 4 % OOS/international students.
I bet Merced, Riverside, and the other schools could really use that bump in tuition income. However, that’s not going to happen if they keep charging the current rates. It seems like the strategy is to keep OOS enrollment down at these schools, which, really hurts these schools ability to service their students. UCB/UCLA/UCSD, etc. are winners, but schools like Merced and Riverside are losers (as are their in-state students who are denied the additional resources/funding that come with OOS/international students).
@CaliDad2020 I am definitely pro-CA resident students, but as a Bruin parent, if you take away those dollars that the school now depends upon to function, where will the school recoup that money lost, especially when 50% of UC students system-wide do not pay tuition? It makes sense to spread OOS/International students over the nine campuses, but if the students only want to go to one of three schools and those schools’ resources are the ones being used primarily for these students, how do we spread out the monies equitably? I was at a conference in which a president from one of the more popular state schools was speaking. To paraphrase, he asked at what point is a public university still considered a public one when the school is receiving less than 20% of its budget from state funds. Two years ago, UCLA Anderson opted out of public funding for its MBA and MFE programs, and is now completely privately funded. I think the bigger question has to be asked first before we can truly start working on the many, many little questions that definitely need to be addressed.
@Gator88NE - In my area of CA, if you mention FGCU, all our eyes start twitching about a certain 2013 basketball game that knocked my alma mater out of the NCAA tourney!
As a non-Floridian / non-Californian, I hear Florida Gulf Coast and I think - oh, it must actually be on the coast. So at least there’s a beach for my kid. (I don’t know if that’s actually true.) When I hear Merced or Riverside or Irvine or whatever, I have absolutely no clue what those places are like. Are they near a beach? Are they near mountains? Are they upscale areas? Are they downscale? Who lives there? Is this a gorgeous campus or an industrial park? I don’t think you guys understand how much of a “blank slate” these schools are if you’re not in or familiar with California. Just like I can’t imagine you guys are familiar with the fine points of Northeastern Illinois University versus Northern Illinois University. It’s the same thing.
@fish125 Although it is somewhat convenient to use CA state public monies to build up your school, and once you’re up to the point you can live without them, then you dump them?
We’ve had this discussion before, but take my wife and I. We have paid CA state taxes nearly every year of our working lives. I got my first CA taxed job in 1985. She started even earlier.
That’s 30 years of taxes, paid by two income earners every year when we didn’t have kids and now when we do and long after they will graduate college, but much of that time when UCB and UCLA got well above 50% of their funding from the state…
How do we do that accounting? UCB and UCLA and UCSD pay back the money they were given as a downpayment by CA residents?
I’d love someone to pay my mortgage for 30 years, then the year I go to sell it, tell them “I’m paying the mortgage this year, so you don’t get any sale proceeds.”
You can’t tease out “current operating support” that simplistically.
@CaliDad2020 I appreciate your insight! I guess where I get confused is that, at least in my community, when we were told our kids were guaranteed a spot in the UC system, our high school counselors explained that meant Merced (though for my oldest kids it also included UCR and UCSC but that was with the old ELC parameters), so our expectations weren’t high. The issue about accepting OOS/International students has been a hot topic for my kids’ universities for many, many years, and I’ve sat through way too many UC PowerPoint presentations over the years where each school tries to explain the situation. The system does need to be fixed, but it can’t be a quick fix. We will need to thoroughly look at the entire system so it truly benefits our state’s students. And, also, UCB, UCLA, and UCSD by their research reputations alone have uplifted the UC system, I think each of those schools have paid back any down payment by the taxpayers (this one included). UCLA’s HIV research alone has totally transformed our medical world from 30+ years ago.
@Pizzagirl except all the UC’s except Merced and Riverside, and to a lesser extent Santa Clara already have more than enough OOS/International applicants.
UCB, UCLA, UCSB and UCSD are way oversubscribed.
Irvine got 21000 + OOS/International applications for 2016, accepted just over 50% of those in 2015. It is in Orange County and has an awesome pre-med rep. It will not have trouble attracting applicants.
Davis got 19,000 + OOS/International (and is a rural school BTW) and also accepted just over 50% in 2015.
Santa Cruz got 7500 OOS/International in 2015. This is a school in an awesome location with a growing rep and could easily increase that if they wanted.
Riverside and Merced (4500 and 1500 respectively, and oddly had slightly lower admit rates than Irvine or Davis) are the two that are more problematic. But they are equally problematic for CA resident kids. Many CA resident kids prefer any number of Cal State schools to these two campuses.
But the UCs lose nothing if they “overflow” some international students to these two campuses, like they do to UC “top 12%” students.
California residents may still feel that Riverside or Merced are okay options, if that is the only UC that offers them a spot. California residents/taxpayers can also go to a CSU or community college. International students may feel they have more options and would not be as tied to California schools. If an international student is only offered Merced or Riverside, they may very well opt to take their money elsewhere.
@fish125 Except the “downpayment” wasn’t for research, it was for education. Or, to be more precise, it was not “just” for research.
One of the big issues in the audit is how “fudgeable” the monies are at the UCs.
The explosion in OOS/International students has been since 2007 when the tuitions were “unmoored” and each school could use the OOS/International “extra” income for its own campus. The UC “rebenching” or “rebalancing” was supposed to help fix the issue that UCB, with the lowest URM representation, was selling the most seats for the most money - and keeping it to spend on more OOS/International students (and, by default, URM students.)
There are two different education “promises” at work:
The first is the “legal” promise of the 12% - and yes, all of those kids know now that in a worst case scenario, they might get Merced, and a full 15% are put there, even if it is not their choice.
the audit found this:
“The University Has Admitted Fewer Residents to the Campuses of Their
Choice and Increasing Numbers of Nonresidents Have Enrolled in the
Most Popular Majors
In addition to admitting nonresidents who are less academically
qualified than the upper half of admitted residents, the university
also admitted fewer residents to the campuses of their choice over
the past several years. Specifically, the percentage of residents to
whom the university denied admission to their campuses of choice
increased from 23 percent in academic year 2005–06 to 38 percent
in academic year 2014–15.”
The second is a more ethereal promise - that by supporting the UCs and the Master Plan those kids who work hard, do what they are “supposed to” and succeed will get at least an even chance at a UC education they desire. But since 2008 the UCs have changed (lowered) the definition of success that OOS and International students must meet in order to be admitted. Also, the UCs don’t “reassign” OOS or International students to Merced (or Riverside.) CA kids feel the playing field has been tilted against them, and they have some justification for this. Also, the most valuable majors are being sold - on the cheap - to students from other countries. That makes no sense.
As far as the benefit of research, that sword cuts both ways. The State and Federal tax and research dollars - and years of CA resident tuition, also benefited the research at UBC and UCLA - and helped build the med centers that generate so much income etc.
It is not possible, nor correct, to try to now extract those elements of the UC system that work, and distance them from the public funding that helped build them. If CA wants to change its Master Plan and encourage a larger % of OOS and International Students and allow different campuses to have different funding rates, then we should pass that through legislation, not have it happen in secret from the inside out.
There are many possible models we could move to. We could allow In State residents to pay more for UCB and UCLA, and UCSD and UCSB. Many folks would still be better off paying 20k a year to UCLA versus 50k a year to USC or Mudd.
But any of the many possible changes need to be done in daylight. Right now, if the audit is to be believed, so much of the money flow is unknown or unexplained. That is not right for a publicly created and (at least partially) funded institution. If we want to change the system, we first need to know how the system works.
@CaliDad2020 - I’m going to scoot out of this thread because we are just going to have to agree to disagree on some of this, but I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts on the matter. It has made me think!
@Fish125 yeah, trying to untangle this is a full-time job and then some.
Likewise, I appreciate your perspective. I think at the end of the day the UCs still have a responsibility to try to serve CA/CA students first. But it is a very complex system and problem with no easy answers.
Have a great (what’s left of) weekend.
@pragmaticmom That’s just not true for Irvine. It has 21000 + OOS/International applications and will accept less than 50%. At 38k the UCs are still a bargain compared to many privates. And have a great location.
Even Santa Cruz got 7500 OOS/International applications in 2015. The 2016 numbers are for sure higher.
Riverside is moving up, but will take a few years.
Merced is a problem, but to then say it is not good enough for OOS but we expect our CA top 12% kids to go there, well, it seems something is wrong with that story.
California seems to have an interesting system in terms of applications that seems different from most other states with top publics . At least, that is what it seems like in terms of the UC application system? You prioritize your preferences but still might not get one of your top choices? California has such a large population with many kids that seem to have very high SAT’s and GPA’s vying for limited spots at the top schools. It seems inevitable that many kids and families would end up being disappointed at decision time. In Virginia, you apply separately to schools . You have to submit totally separate applications for UVa, W & M, Virginia Tech, etc. Even with that, there are complaints every year from some residents/ taxpayers about the number of OOS and international students and calls for limiting access. I believe applications are totally separate in Michigan (Michigan vs. MSU), NC (UNC vs. NC State), etc. I think Pennsylvania may divert some kids from the main campus to satellite campuses… Most states with attractive instate options (those mentioned plus Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, etc.) are dealing with issues of fairness and access to the best schools. There are just not enough spaces to meet demand , especially in some high demand majors.
@sevmom Applications to University of California campuses and California State University campuses are also totally separate.