Prop 47, approved in 2014, put a lot of non-violent prisoners back on the streets. Coincidentally (or not) there has been a significant increase in property crimes since then, at least in southern CA. People are getting fed up with repeated burglaries and other crimes which impact their quality of life. I don’t think we’ll see further momentum for emptying the prisons any time soon.
The biggest threat I see to the quality of UC in the future is the ability to attract top talent to the faculty. Beginning in July 2016 new faculty hires will have significantly reduced benefits compared to those hired before that date, although the details haven’t been worked out (http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/compensation-and-benefits/2016-retirement-benefits-advisory-task-force/faq.html). Nothing breeds discontent more than an uneven playing field among ostensibly equally qualified faculty.
@PurpleTitan I think you’re missing my point. It’s not about funding or tuition, my point was about inferior students getting spaces. But since you brought it up, yes, I’m okay with releasing some prisoners.
However, these are entangled. Suppose a public university (UC or otherwise) campus can admit some number of subsidized in-state students which is lower than its capacity (based on relatively fixed or slow changing factors like physical plant and tenure-track faculty). Should it leave the additional capacity empty (which does have some benefits for students who do enroll, but is likely seen as wasteful by those left out)? Or, should it fill the remaining space with a mix of out-of-state students paying more, and some additional in-state students who can be subsidized with the extra tuition that the out-of-state students pay?
Note that private schools face similar budget decisions. Some are explicitly need-aware. Others adjust their admission criteria and processes to produce an expected financial aid profile for the admitted and enrolled class (e.g. increasing or decreasing emphasis on criteria the correlate to high or low financial need – e.g. legacy and early decision can be used to favor those with lower financial need).
@proudparent26 Your comment is a little frightening. Do you honestly believe that a $220 billion bill that is due is not something to worry about if you are a UC administrator hoping for more state support down the road? Medicare and SSI aren’t good analogies. Those are federal liabilities and the US government can and does print money. California doesn’t get to print money. And as those unfunded liabilities keep piling up, they will eat more and more out of the state budget. The UC folks are going to be sad if they are expecting the state to ride in and help them with their budget issues.
I guess it’s not really a surprise that there is a chunk of the population that doesn’t care about looming debt. The Sacramento politicians have done a nice job of playing hide the weasel to crow about surpluses, all the while, there is no plan for dealing with this liability. Other than leaving it to the kids.
@bluebayou, Well, I AM speaking about my state, traditionally 48th 49th or 50th in per-student-spending on the college level. If the recent tax hikes you’re talking about will go to the UCs – awesome. But it sounds like even with those tax hikes the UC system needs more money… and since it’s not going to come from the legislature, the UCs are doing what my state is: throwing out the welcome mat to OOSers with, if not test scores/grades, then with cold hard cash.
You say that like it’s a good thing. Pensions are funded by both employee and employer, and the funds are withdrawn when the worker retires. Underfunded pensions are a huge, tremendous issue for many state governments right now.
Social Security is funded in a pay as you go model, with current workers paying for retired workers. Pension funds are a different model, where the funds are paid into the pension during the worker’s employment years (picture your 401k) the paid out upon retirement. So they’re completely different models.
This article says there’s a 4.7T shortfall in state pension obligations. A big, big issue for everyone since taxpayers will ultimately be forced to pay for some of the shortfall never mind severe cuts that’ll have to be made in other programs and lawsuits upon lawsuits probably ultimately resulting in the cutting of pension benefits. So bad news for everybody except lawyers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/11/20/bad-news-for-state-public-pension-plans/#57a951484324
@ucbalumnus Apparently I’m not making my self clear. I’m okay with out of state students; in fact I hope my kid will be OOS somewhere! But I fully expect him to be academically qualified equally to the in state students. It’s the INFERIOR students at UC’s that bother me. Can’t Berkeley and UCLA find kids who will at least meet the same standards as in state students?
"I think the problem of too many OOS students will start to become self-correcting. Either that or OOS requirements will have to be relaxed even further. "
Nope.
Elite publics like UCB, UCLA, UNC, UM and UVA are extremely popular with OOS students. They have no problem attracting highly academically qualified OOS full payors at the prices they charge. Tuition/room/board/fees of those schools are all about the same. Around $55k, which is a slight discount to full sticker price at fancy private colleges. They can sell as many of those OOS seats at that price as they are allowed to. UNC is the only elite public with a lower price.
The huge-ness of the CA in-state pool prevents UCB and UCLA playing the game that UM, UVA and UNC play – where OOS students pay more and also have higher stats.
UM, UVA and UNC typically get two OOS applications for every in-state application received. So the competition is keener for the OOS seats. UVA, UM and UNC enroll OOS kids who typically just missed HYPS and who are fine paying just a little bit less than what HYPS charge.
UCLA and UCB get more like two in-state applications for every one OOS application. Because California is a gigantic and growing state. So the CA in-state pool is unbelievably wide/deep/competitive.
If UCLA and UCB made the OOS kids hit academic metrics that were as high or higher than the in-state metrics, they couldn’t sell very many OOS seats. Not because the price was too high. But because all those OOS kids would be so well-qualified that they’d be getting into HYPS. Few people will pick UCB or UCLA at $55k over HYPS at $60k.
@Leafyseadragon I think part of the problem is that the full cost of a year at UCLA and UCB is 60k, which puts them into direct competition with all the top schools including ivy and ivy equivalents.
Harvard for 60k or UCLA for 60k? Duke for 60k or UCLA for 60k? In a few years when a full year at UCLA/UCB costs 70k, it’s going to be an even tougher proposition to get the best OOS students.
The point of this thread is that OOS students have LOWER standards for admission. (Let’s be honest, we’re just talking about UCLA and UCB here, right?) So you honestly think that those same kids, with lower stats than in-state California kids, are choosing HYPS or Duke over UCLA? That doesn’t seem logical.
I think you got my point reversed. The high stats kids are choosing higher-rep schools because the cost is the same and they have those options available to them. If you’re a 4.0, 2350 SAT kid and got to choose between Yale vs UCLA for 60k, you’d probably choose Yale. But say UCLA was 30k, now it’s a tougher choice.
Now take a 3.0, 2000 SAT kid from a wealthy family choosing between ASU and UCLA. UCLA for sure because they don’t care about the price. That kid didn’t have the stats to get into a top 10 private school, so UCLA is their best choice.
It looks like a straight up case of economics to me.
For UCLA, from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the non-resident GPAs were 0.01 to 0.06 higher than for residents. From 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, the non-resident GPAs were 0.09 to 0.12 lower than for residents. For the entire range, the average UC-weighted GPAs for both residents and non-residents were 4.06 or higher.
The amount of unfunded government pensions depends on the rate of return on those investments. Currently the unfunded is estimated at about 20 per cent of the total payout for California state pensions. No it does not worry me.
Pension costs in all of California government for 2015 was about 10 per cent of all budget expenses. That does not worry me either and is after unfunded expenses.
@notveryzen Government accounting and business accounting are not the same thing… You shouldn’t try to analyze them in the same vein.
California Government is doing very well. They are stockpiling lots of cash even after paying the unfunded liabilities. Look at it as another government benefit for retired government workers. California choses to limit the amount they spend on UC. I don’t necessarily see that as a good thing
@proudparent26 California’s unfunded pension liability is actually about $700 billion. Not what is reported under standard, outdated pension accounting.
Of course they can, but that’s the rub. The OOS kids don’t want to pay for Merced. They want to pay for the state flagships (and, at roughly the same campus price, who could blame them). Thus, the powers-that-be admit the OOS’ers to Cal and UCLA – to get the money – while forcing the better-qualifed instate students to trickle down to UC San Diego, Davis, Santa Barbara…
The OOS kids going to UCB and UCLA are really smart. Just as smart (or perhaps smarter) than the OOS kids who go to UVA, UM and UNC. The problem for UCB and UCLA is that the CA in-state applicant pool is way too big (and therefore way too strong). So competition for the cheap CA in-state seats is slightly keener at UCB and UCLA than for OOS. For states without such a huge in-state pool (VA, NC, MI), the competition for the pricey OOS seats is keener than for in-state.
Which is a great gig for UVA, UM and UNC. They can sell seats at $55k to kids whose stats are higher than the in-state kids. What would happen if UCLA and UCB tried to impose (as UM, UVA and UNC do) higher standards on their OOS applicants than they do for in-staters? UCLA and UCB wouldn’t sell hardly any pricey OOS seats. Why?
A typical high stat OOS applicant applies to all the public Ivies. They get rejected at UCLA and UCB (due to the huge/strong CA in-state pool) but get accepted at UNC, UM and UVA (due to the smaller/weaker in-state pools). So no seats sold by UCB or UCLA at the high price…
Only the most ultra-qualified OOS applicants get accepted to UCB and UCLA (again due to the strong/huge in-state pool). But those kids (since they are ultra-qualified) are going to get into the finest private schools too. Stanford at $60k will beat UCB at $55k almost every time. But if you get rejected at Stanford and also at UCB, UVA or UM at $55k is pretty attractive.
The price/value proposition of UCB at $25k is incredible. The price/value proposition of UCB at $55k vs. UVA at $55k and UM at $55k is just fine. The price/value proposition of UCB at $55k with admission standards above UVA and UM (which means approaching HYPS)? Nope.
So UCLA and UCB either have to (i) notch down OOS admission standards a tad or (ii) just have in-state students. Which means foregoing all that juicy OOS tuition to UVA and UM. It is a market folks!
It so bothers me that people actually think .09 difference in GPA makes someone better qualified.
Aside from that I get your point. I think its easier to get into UConn OOS and plus they give a lot of merit
aid to OOS students.
For either in-state or out-of-state applicants, UCB and UCLA are not super-selective like HYPS, except possibly in some specific majors. However, the UCs are generally seen as GPA-heavy and test-score-light in weighting the academic factors in frosh admission, which can surprise some applicants who do not know this. The subjectively reviewed criteria (essays, extracurriculars, etc.) are also different enough in what is emphasized and looked favorably on compared to many other schools.
@OnTheBubble 700 billion is not an accurate number. Actuarial determinations need to be made. Put in simple terms the money Calpers brings in is invested. The invested income needs to be factored in to make an actuarial determination which is around 200 billion of the amount that needs to be employer or TP funded. I think the assumption is around a 7 per cent ROI. Figuring in employee contributions initial employer contributions and ROI there is about a 20 per cent pension shortfall. As I said above you can consider that as another government benefit. It doesn’t bother me . I would rather see the money go to public servants than to provide another tax break for the ultra wealthy. The majority of Californians seem to agree with that. That is one of the reasons I like living in California
Not sure I agree, nw. To attract/recruit OOS students, UC began by offering need-based aid. Yes, UC will not waive the OOS fee ($25k), but did offer need-based aid for the rest of the tuition.
Now, I’m hearing rumors that they are offering ‘scholarships’ to OOS students, all of which just brings down the sticker price.
Thus, if they could get folks to pay $60k, why do they have to offer a discount?
