@ucbalumnus The Riverside and Merced part of the equation is small and long term, but if you look at the explosion in nonresident enrollment at Irvine, for instance, who for many was a “less desirable” campus 12 or so years ago, you can see how easily certainly Riverside, which is relatively close to the Claremont McKennas and even LA, could up its nonresident attendance.
But its also clear you have established opinions on these issues that no amount of facts will affect. You only see two possible options - increasing nonresident enrollment at UCB and UCLA at the expense of 2700 UC students, or abolishing the 9% rule.
I’m afraid, if that truly is how you see this issue there is little I can do to help you understand it more completely.
No, that is not what I wrote. It is just that you have not made any realistic recommendations, and have somehow managed to spin the “top 9%” rule into something bad when it can only be an advantage for California residents.
Really, an actual solution needs to begin with realistic expectations. The prevailing political expectations are:
A. Keep in-state tuition low.
B. Keep in-state financial aid good.
C. Reduce state funding (to avoid tax increases or cutting other things in the state budget).
D. Limit out-of-state enrollment to small percentages at “desirable” campuses.
E. Provide a “quality” educational experience (both academically and non-academically).
F. Cut unnecessary expenses.
Now, everyone agrees with (F) on a macro level. But one person’s “waste” is a another person’s “necessity” for (E), so working on (F) and (E) is a necessary, but probably unpleasant and contentious, task that must be done.
But that alone probably is not enough (e.g. cutting something non-essential like intercollegiate athletics at UCSC will be only a tiny percentage of the budget there). What do people consider among (A), (B), (C), (D) as being the most important? Which of these should be compromised? If that can be agreed on, then actual solutions are easier to find (although still potentially politically contentious). But it appears that there is serious lack of agreement, because most people apparently believe that all of (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) can be done simultaneously without having to make hard decisions.
@ucbalumnus So why put out strawmen I never even came close to suggesting. I get it. You like more nonresident students at UCB and UCLA. It’s ok. You are allowed to like the UCs moving in that direction.
I think that UCB and UCLA made a cash grab under cover of budget shortfalls.
The first thing that needs to be done is reverse the 2007 change that allowed campuses to keep their OOS/International tuition. As soon as they have no direct reward for putting students with lower standards in those seats, then you have some checks and balances.
There is no reason we have to keep those levels. There are many plans out there and there will be a lot of political wrangling.
But to posit things like the only choice is status quo or getting rid of the 9% rule is silly. And there is little to be gained discussing this with someone who sees things in that kind of simplistic duality.
What would you like to see the OOS, international percentages ideally be at UCB and UCLA? I do think it is harder in states that had lower percentages to begin with to start jumping up quite a bit. Some states are increasing their OOS percentages more than others.
It really is different from state to state. UVa has always been able to be up to 1/3 OOS so there have not been dramatic spikes in OOS students. The controversy in Virginia is more that some citizens feel that we should lower the percentages of OOS to more like 25% , particularly at UVa, W & M (which only has to be 65% instate by state guidleines), and Virginia Tech. Even 25% sounds higher than what some of you might be comfortable with in California? As @PragmaticMom noted , OOS and international students do bring diversity to campus. UVa has always wanted OOS students for what they can add to the university community. I had a link that I had trouble with but the video is easy to find on Youtube. Put in “2009 UVa finals address” and it will pop up. It was a commencement address by Harvie Wilkinson. The first 2:57 lays out some of the philosophy , issues about caps, etc. I thought it was too political to get into and I’m sure there were members in the audience that did not agree with him about not decreasing OOS limits, but I didn’t hear anyone boo him !
It is you who are putting out the strawmen (like “the only choice is status quo or getting rid of the 9% rule”) and misinterpreting others’ writings. Enjoy your ranting.
Or do you really want to suggest something other than somehow magically getting more non-residents to pay full non-resident tuition to UCM* and UCR when even residents seem not to want to go there? What of (A) through (F) in #701 do you think should be prioritized and deprioritized?
*Note that UCM even offers WUE discounted tuition (1.5 times resident tuition) to non-residents with high enough GPA (usually 3.6, but varies by major), but it is hard to imagine too many takers since the WUE cost of attendance is still around $41,000.
@sevmom on the diversity issue, obviously it does bring some, but California is, by many measure, the most or certainly one of the two or three most diverse states in the US. And a large % of international students come from China. UCSD for example went from 28 freshmen from China in 08 to 432 in 2011. And that’s only increased since 2011. South Korea is also strongly represented. 35% of UCB’s international students are from China/Taiwan. China/Taiwan, South Korea and India make up over 50% of the international undergrad.
Which is not to say those students don’t bring great stuff to campus, but if we are looking for increased diversity UCB has no undergrads in 2015 from Oman or Morocco, Barbados, Honduras or Uruguay, Bolivia or Barbados. Botswana, Mozambique and Uganda are also not represented at the undergrad level. Africa and Latin America are seriously underrepped.
In fact, the international breakdown at UCB is:
Africa: 71
Asia: 2480
South Central Asia: 267
Europe: 395
“Near East”: 43
Canada: 211
“Latin America”: 62
I think most schools probably do have a high concentration of their international students from Asia. UCB is definitely a very prestigious school in many Asian countries. From the figures I see, more students at UVa are also from Asia (China being the most represented). I just found some pretty detailed info from UVa about their breakdown as well. My son had a suitemate from England as a first year. http://www.virginia.edu/story/global http://www.virginia.edu/uvaglobal/maps/index.php?mapType=citizenship
“…we are looking for increased diversity UCB has no undergrads in 2015 from Oman or Morocco, Barbados, Honduras or Uruguay, Bolivia or Barbados. Botswana, Mozambique and Uganda are also not represented at the undergrad level.”
These countries are under-represented in probably every American campus, no? It should not be a surprise that poorer countries that do not have a middle class can’t afford to send students to study abroad.
Unless you are suggesting California tax payers subsidize students from these countries, this kind of diversity you favor will be out of reach. For this reason, international admissions can’t be used to promote diversity. It’s primary function is to generate revenue. For now, a big source of that revenue is China and east Asian countries whose middle class can afford education abroad.
@sevmom it’s not surprising, but if you are arguing in favor of more nonresident students to provide diversity, it’s just not that compelling an argument when 35% of your students come from 1 country and 50% + from 3. What the UCs have mostly done through the huge influx of nonresidents is increase the population of certain countries that were already pretty well represented.
And to be clear. I have nothing again international students, Chinese students, Virginia students, Bolivian students or Antarctic students.
But I really think it is odd that folks don’t see that the rapid change that the UC’s have undergone, with very little public oversight or input, as a huge change in how they serve the students and families of CA - which is, much as it makes some folks sad, their mandate.
Perhaps if your son had gone to Virginia Tech for engineering and those CA students had gone to Davis or SD the what, 25k each a year? they would have saved - or 300 grand total - could have gone to something a bit more interesting than flying across the country.
Again, everyone has a right to their own idea of how the UCs should be configured. But it is dishonest not to see that they have changed significantly in the past 7 or 8 years.
It is dishonest to ignore that the GPA of the CA admits have risen at all UC campuses while the admit rates have dropped.
It is dishonest to ignore that the acceptance rate for nonresidents has increased. The applications have increased. And the nonresident stats have dropped.
It is dishonest to pretend that the UCB and UCLA resident population has not fallen while the resident population at Merced has multiplied.
It is dishonest to pretend we have the same state budget issues we had in 08 (we have many issues, but they are not the same.)
Those numbers are just facts. It’s silly to deny them.
What anyone wishes to do with them is their own issue.
@PragmaticMom see my post above. Sevmom suggest diversity as a good reason for increasing the international population at the UCs. I think that for the most part the UCs grew already well represented populations.
There really is one clear reason the UCs upped nonresidents. The UC admins don’t even play coy with it: money. It was simply a need for, and an opportunity to get, money.
As far as suggestions, I don’t suggest doing anything, except giving more seats at UCB, UCLA and any other campus we can manage it back to CA students and to try to make those campuses look as much like California’s population as is legally and ethically possible. That’s my only suggestion. There are a lot of way to achieve that goal. But that’s my only aim.
I never said the UC’s should increase the international populations at the UC’s. What I did say is that international and OOS students do bring some diversity to any college and its’ undergraduate program. I have asked what % you are okay with in terms of OOS, international figures at UCB and UCLA? I have not seen an answer. Do you think that UC and UCB should be reserving the vast majority of their seats for instate students? Even if that were the case , there are still probably not enough seats to take every qualified instate student. Some kids and families are still going to be disappointed every year, and many of them will be disgruntled.
My son did study engineering at Virginia Tech. He quickly was moved into it after the first semester after doing so well in initial math and science classes (the same classes the general engineering students were taking). In terms of the kid from California , I remember my son saying he didn’t get into a school in California he wanted. He may very well have been admitted to one of the California publics, just not one he preferred. I would guess his family had the extra money to send him out of state, I don’t know. My son would have still gone to an instate school, had he not gotten off Virginia Tech’s waitlist. It wouldn’t have been his first choice, but he would have made it work. He could have gone to GMU or JMU. We were actually fine with JMU, had bought a monogrammed laundry bag, and had toured James Madison’s Montpelier . Couldn’t return the JMU laundry bag since it was personalized ! I’m sorry your daughter does not really like UCSC and did not consider any of the CSU’s. I definitely don’t think it sounds like fun to pay more to send her out of state to someplace like Michigan or Washington, if that is what you’ve decided to do. I think one of the reasons Alabama has become so popular, is that it is appealing to high stats kids who want to go OOS, and is such a great deal financially.
@sevmom As far as percentage, I would first like UCB and UCLA to try to replace the thousands of seats that were taken from in state residents since 2007. That is where I would start.
As far as % I have stated my preference: my goal would be as low a number as possible given the finances. But I think over 15%, given the historical context of the UCs, is out of line with what the UCs should be aiming for. (And last year they capped UCB and UCLA at 20%, which is a start. But that 15% should be per-campus, not system-wide.)
Note that is higher even than what Berkeley’s Academic Senate recommends:
The AEPE (academic senate) issued this report for UCB and non-resident enrollment in 2008: “… it is the AEPE Committee’s conclusion that Berkeley establish a target for non-resident undergraduate student enrollment at about 10% of the total undergraduate enrollment. … Subsequent examinations of this issue by AEPE have reaffirmed that having about 10% of enrolled undergraduates be non-residents is appropriate for Berkeley.
If you look at the chart, historically UCB was never above 12% and was inching up to 16% admits in 2008. (Not all admits SIR though.) Again, it is important to note how drastic the change was due to structural funding changes in 2007 (noted in that report.) The landscape changed - and the numbers changed dramatically.
And now, due to increased budget commitment from the legislature (CA tax dollars, in other words) 5,000 more resident students were supposed to be added to the UC system. But what has happened as I have pointed out a number of places, is this change in funding in 2007 has resulted in a shift of CA students from UCB and Berkeley (and a flat-lining at SD, SB, Davis and Irvine) despite increased funding and increased (dramatically at some campuses) enrollment. So not only are there less (or about the same #) of CA students at the “top 6” they are competing for resources with more undergrad students
Many, many CA students attended UCB for years and years with a nonresident rate closer to 12% (and it is ironic that any UCB alum who had the privilege to attend back when there was a much more resident favorable ratio would now voraciously attack people who believe we should strive to return to those numbers. That is shockingly hypocritical.) I would like to see UCB and UCLA get back closer to that number.
Okay, thanks . So sounds like 12%, 15% tops would be palatable to you. Good luck to your daughter . Hope she enjoys her college experience, wherever that may be.
And again, it is important to note that I am pulling my information from places like the UC system-wide audit and the AEPE recommendations.
And again, it is important to note that the change in 2007, in response to a dramatic budget cut, has realigned the playing field.
Again, it is really hypocritical for Californians who benefited from the old admit structure to now aggressively champion the “new” structure as if it were intractable. I just don’t understand that attitude.
For about 100 years we were able to keep the non-resident enrollment below 15%. It did not seem to harm the UCs. So, absent budget issues, I don’t see the problem with trying to returning toward that norm.
“Again, it is really hypocritical for Californians who benefited from the old admit structure to now aggressively champion the “new” structure as if it were intractable. I just don’t understand that attitude.”
It may not be hypocrisy so much as simply seeking what they believe is an improvement. They recall what the campus was like under the old admit structure, and perhaps they thought it could be improved by the diversity provided by the presence of more OOS and international students (not to mention the extra revenue they bring with them).
I’m a Californian who attended UC under the old admit system, and my position on all this is pretty close to yours (although I’m not nearly so emphatic about it all), but I can easily see how some of my old classmates might hold an opinion different from mine without being hypocritical.
As you have recognized earlier, it is all about budget issues. Even the recent tax increase is not close to counteracting the trend of defunding over the past few decades.
Which of the following are priorities for you, and which would you compromise?
A. Keep in-state tuition low.
B. Keep in-state financial aid good.
C. Reduce state funding (to avoid tax increases or cutting other things in the state budget).
D. Limit out-of-state enrollment to small percentages at “desirable” campuses.
E. Provide a “quality” educational experience (both academically and non-academically).
F. Cut unnecessary expenses. (obviously, everyone agrees with this on a macro level, but everyone has a different definition of “unnecessary”)
Actually, it is not an improvement in terms of serving California’s population, but it was one of several often-seen-as-undesirable choices that could have been made under the budget pressure of defunding. Note that other often-seen-as-undesirable choices were also made under budget pressure:
a. Tuition increases.
b. Quality of educational experience issues (looks like more majors have become impacted because the campuses and departments are “full” and do not have the budget to expand – also applies to CSU).
c. Spring admission to balance fall/spring enrollment to keep the Berkeley campus “full” in both fall and spring semesters.
@ucbalumnus That’s interesting. You don’t think it is true that it is hypocritical for Californians who benefited from the old admit structure to now aggressively champion the “new” structure as if it were intractable?