@PragmaticMom Sorry. You’ll have to help me out as I’m not sure where you see Riverside’s numbers "plummeting. on that chart.
I think that trend line is pretty clear - and likely to continue. Again, Riverside is now ranked 121 on US News, which tends to be a place folks look for “school value.” If you compare to much higher international campuses like those I mentioned or University of Denver (#86, 44k a year), or UofC-Denver (199, 30K a year) I think it is clear that if Riverside wished to continue to attract and enroll more nonresidents, it could.
Remember that in 2007 UC Irvine enrolled 116 OOS and 142 international students. In 2015 it enrolled 311 OOS and 1444 international. I’m not claiming Riverside could, or should, enroll that many nonresidents, but Riverside already enrolled in 2015 more international students then Irvine did in 2007. If it saw half the growth rate, it would have 500 + international students in 7 years.
To be clear, that would be a small piece of any economic fix - but it could lead to a more evenly balanced “rebenching” of the UC monies. Riverside enrolls about 5300 freshmen each year. 10%-12% or 530 to 600 nonresident per year seems a manageable and reasonable goal, especially since application numbers rise every year at all the UC campuses.
Another note on the Riverside numbers - because I think we are losing the forest for the trees here - it is very important Riverside only increase nonres numbers if those student who would have gone to Riverside get the chance to go to UCLA or Irvine (or another UC) by lowering their nonres numbers. Riverside has a large commuter population and it is important that the adjustment not adversely affect the URM population that tends to be proportionally higher at Riverside. The effect should be for some of those resident students to have the chance at UCLA or Irvine or SD if they wanted.
I just received the “where they are going” report from the boarding school my son and daughter attended in Massachusetts. It states that 19 students received offers from UCLA and 0 are expected to attend, and 16 were accepted by UCB and 1 is expected to attend. So despite being admitted, most OOS are not electing to attend which should be good news for California residents as they aren’t taking up places. I imagine the numbers are similar for other highly selective boarding and private schools.
@exlibris97 Thank you for sharing. You do realize that your anecdotal experience does not change actual SIR numbers, right?
No matter what any individual Taft or Valley Forge Military Academy or Tucson Public School kid or homeschooled Seattle kid does, the % number - which are now capped as of last year - will not go down unless UCB want them to. There are dozens if not hundreds of qualified kids on the waitlist and/or appealing UCB or UCLA any given year. The schools actually are fairly well able to predict the SIR.
Really not sure the relevance could that info have? It’s not like boarding school kids pay more than Philly public school kids.
Not sure why anyone thinks it is helpful to debate numbers with anecdotes? The most telling thing is that 25 kids from just 2 OOS rich kid schools got in, when, word on the street in CA has it, CA kids get dinged for appearing to be affluent. CA kids are told to scrub their application of anything that smacks of “privilege” - although, if you’re going to Cate or Harker it’s kind of hard to hide that fact… So this probably confirms the thread premise: lower stat OOS kids getting in because they can pay.
And if we’re supposed to be sad some preppy kids from New England aren’t coming our way… We’ll, I’ll save my tears for the Ugandans and Hondurans.
CaliDad, thank you for all the time and thought you’ve put into these posts. I wish you could give all this research a bigger audience than here at CC. An article sent as an OP to SF Chronicle and LA Times? Have you thought about running for a Regent’s seat? (I’m not kidding.) I care about the UCs – despite no longer living in California – and want to see the system flourish as well as meet its “social contract” by serving California students and its residents. I learned a lot from you.
I would not be at all surprised that most kids from private and boarding schools in Massachusetts do not end up at California schools. If they get accepted to an Ivy, top east coast LAC, my guess would be they would be more likely to matriculate there , as opposed to most top publics. Not sure how a pool of primarily wealthy east coast private school and boarding school kids and where they end up is really that relevant. The majority of kids still go to public schools at both the high school and college level.
“Not sure how a pool of primarily wealthy east coast private school and boarding school kids and where they end up is really that relevant.” As an opportunity to show off the fact you sent your kids to such schools? I mean, parental bragging rights are big on this site ;))
Stanford is probably a much bigger draw, in general, to east coast affluent families than UCB or UCLA would be. Or Michigan, or Virginia, or Washington, etc. Yield from OOS applicants vs. IS applicants is always lower for public schools, even if they are fairly elite. No surprise at all.
@katliamom What value are bragging rights on an anonymous forum with people you don’t know? Or is that a new form of bragging. Equivalent to talking to yourself? I guess you were just trying to be snarky.
@sevmom The relevance is that OOS tuition is extremely high and so the UCs market themselves to private schools and boarding schools, knowing they are full of “willing payers”. Not much point going after students who cannot afford the fees. UCB and UCLA now attend the Fulbright College Fairs in Britain and Hong Kong where, as you imply, they go after kids from wealthy families who cannot get into the Ivies or LACs.
@CaliDad2020 Not all students from east coast boarding schools are wealthy. Some 30% are on full scholarships. And more incredibly, Californians attend them too. Affirmative action in boarding schools I guess.
I’m also not certain why you feel it inappropriate that the universities attempt to attract socio-economically deprived students. That’s allowed under the law and, indeed, is what the Supreme Court anti-AA lobby is advocating. Students from affluent families do have an advantage, as their families can afford private tutoring, SAT prep classes etc. It’s only fair the compensating adjustments are made. (Incidentally, how do you “scrub” the Zip code of where you live, or details of the school you attend. These are two indicators that are used to make adjustments).
I do understand why you like Ugandans and Hondurans however. By admitting them, you can compensate for the dearth of Africa-American students and, at the same time, feel good that you are doing your part for the deserving poor of the third world. How patronising.
@exlibris, The funny thing is, I was going to use the term “cachet” myself . But, I agree, Stanford could end up be cheaper than UCB or UCLA because of aid. Unless a kid wants a particular program (UCLA film school for instance) , most seem to follow the money and prestige if they are looking to attend schools other than their instate options.
Looking at the Fulbright College Fair info, it is clear that lots of US colleges are marketing themselves to international students. The schools that participate are all over the place- lots of not very selective schools as well as the most elite in the country. The most elite domestic schools should, in general, be able to land the most elite in the international applicant pool. Even “elite” schools in the US still market to domestic students. You would think Harvard wouldn’t need to market itself, but they reach out to kids all the time and participate in informational programs with other elite schools. They all seem to want to find the best students they can. But, some of this outreach, marketing generates large numbers of applicants, most of whom will not be admitted.
@exlibris97, yes, I was snarky, because other than to brag about it being an elite boarding schooI, I saw no reason for your irrelevant, anecdotal posting about your kid’s classmates choosing not to matriculate at the UCs.
What on earth does it prove? In what way does it serve this discussion? What does this one tiny group of kids attending one tiny school likely thousands of miles away have anything concrete to do with what we’re talking about?
@katliamom Again, brag on an anonymous bulletin board? For people you don’t know, will never meet, and probably don’t really care what they think? What is the value of that? You’ve used up a lot of words to say you don’t find my post relevant.
@CaliDad2020 Having too many people who want to come isn’t unique to the UCs. The solution is for the UCs to ban OOS undergraduates. But then California taxpayers who have to stump up a lot more money. I remember living in California at a time universities were essentially free. People used to be proud of how well funded their universities were. Then the tax cutters arrived. Now people don’t want to fund the universities but still want their kids to be admitted.
I’m not an expert on the California Master Plan, but I don’t think this is really right (though I can’t disagree that the Master Plan is indeed a written document ).
The Master Plan is not state law and was never enacted by the legislature – the legislature passed its own statutes after the Master Plan was proposed, but these laws do not even begin to address eligibility requirements for admissions. This sort of detailed policy making is delegated to the Board of Regents (as it should be).
The parts of the Master Plan that were not passed into law are not binding on anyone. It is true that the UC Regents “approved” the Master Plan and often looks to its principles when formulating policy. However, the changes to the nonresident admissions policies were also approved by the Board of Admissions of the Academic Senate under the authority of the Regents. And like any other governing body, it’s free to change its mind over the years about what it “approves”. It did.
I assume UC would argue the following:
If the Master Plan is a compact between the state and UC, then this compact already been shattered by the state because it hasn’t provided adequate funding. Over the last 30 years the state has gone from funding 50% of the UC budget to 13%. Starting in 2005, Berkeley’s state funding was cut in half over six years.
If the state isn’t going to live up to its end of the bargain, then it’s completely unreasonable to expect UC not to have to make any adjustments on its end.
UC would not agree that the Master Plan “clearly says that OOS’ers cannot have lower standards”. Here’s exactly what the Master Plan says
According to UC, this is what the language means (emphasis added):
The OOS admits clearly meet this very low bar of being in the top half of this group. The debate is about how much higher the bar should be, not about compliance with the Master Plan. UC still requires that the nonresident admits “compare favorably to California residents admitted at that campus”. But because UC engages in holistic admissions, their review of an applicant takes into account factors such as extracurriculars and achievement in the context of opportunity, not just test scores and grades. Presumably this results in some OOS admits having test scores below the median. However, as I said above, in the final analysis the OOS freshman admits at Berkeley actually have far higher test scores than the resident admits – almost night and day higher, like completely different university student bodies (however, I think it’s true that many of these ultra qualified students end up not attending UCB).
The policies recommended in the Master Plan have evolved over the past 55 years. For example, according to the Master Plan, both UC and CSU should be tuition free to all residents. That’s certainly not the case now. The UC’s should also be open to the top 12.5% of CA public school students. That’s been modified to the top 9%.
I think most of your figures are very exaggerated (by a factor of about 2) since these universities - unlike UCB - have medical schools and run research hospitals. Lots of Federal money goes to their medical centers that isn’t used to support collegiate education. After all, Berkeley’s faculty does incredibly well competing for research grants … there’s no shame in admitting that; it’s what helps make it one of the world’s great research universities.
Focusing on enrollment figures is a bit misleading. Berkeley admitted fewer CA residents only for the 4 years from 2010 to 2013. They've gone back to the number (but not the %) of residents that they admitted in the mid 2000's. All you're seeing is the effects of those admissions decisions from 2010-2013 as those classes work their way through the system toward graduation. In another year or two the number of enrolled residents will be back to what it was.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. All I’m trying to say is this - Yes, California has the legal right to seize control of UC and dictate policy, and from a “social contract” point of view California’s past investments in UC give it some moral standing. However, for the last few decades the state appropriation hasn’t help fund UCB at all since it’s all going toward tuition reductions & aid for residents.
Monetarily speaking, California taxpayers are not owed anything in exchange for state appropriations. In my opinion, any sense of entitlement that California residents have because of state funding is no more justified than the sense of entitlement that residents of the other 49 states should have for providing Federal research dollars. Neither is justified in my book.
Look, California taxpayers are getting all the seats that they’re “paying” for - and them some - at Berkeley. Every year, they’re getting paid back fully for the funding they’re providing. If they want more seats, then they need to find a way to pay for them. None of the other suggestions that have been made on this thread seem like plausible solutions … maybe they could make a small dent in the problem. To me, it seems like some Californians want the prestige of a Berkeley or UCLA degree (instead of a “lowly” degree from another UC) without being willing to do or pay what it takes to keep these schools top tier.
Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It’s just a budget & policy question for CA’s government and voters. I do think UC has been very transparent about what’s going on. When the last round of budget cuts occurred, they were telling anyone who would listen that they would compensate by admitting more nonresidents to their prestige campuses. I’m sure if the state allocated Berkeley another $200 million a year they’d happily go back to 12% nonresident undergrads.
UCB and UCLA had to figure out how to deal with these cutbacks and they chose what they thought was best. Personally speaking, I no more want some politicians or voters making these decisions than I want them dictating whether to teach evolution or creationism. But that’s just me.
But for now, the people who are entrusted with making these budget tradeoffs at Berkeley have decided that it’s better to let in more nonresidents in order to preserve Berkeley’s quality, its financial aid for lower income students, and the agreed on resident tuition cost. If the people of California exert political pressure to force them to dramatically scale back the number of nonresidents without providing additional funding, then one of these is going to have to give. That’s all. People just need to be grownups and accept reality.
@al2simon I think you are wrong about 2014. Pretty sure resident admits (at least freshman fall admits) were down, but enrollees were up. 2015 admits were up, but by 2014 - 15 the political pressure had already started, and 2015 was directly due to political pressure - and the addition of a one time influx of 96 million of state funds for unfunded pensions, 25 million for maintenance and 25 million for increased CA enrollment, as well as 120 million in additional funding - all from the CA taxpayer (for all UCs not just UCB). So one might ask if those 2015 numbers should have gone up more. I think the state increased funding 5% in 2015?
I’m not sure about your division of the Federal monies .The UCs with Med Centers get substantially less than many other US publics. Even if you cut the UWash, UMich etc numbers in half, you still have to net them out under your logic - and adjust for population. I don’t believe that leaves the kind of Federal contribution imbalance you suggested (without even getting into the overall net outflow of tax dollars from CA to the Feds.) Although, in general I think the federal research grant funding argument is a bit silly and in many cases close to a net 0 argument. It is a difficult number to tease out especially since so many public universities get so much federal R+D funding. But if you do want to make it, you have to make it with numbers for other State schools, and a reference to per capita expenditures.
But as you point out, the real question is who makes the UC decisions. You are happier to trust the schools and in general I would be too , except when you look at the stunning rise in nonresident admissions and enrollment and decline in nonresident standards since the decision to let the campuses keep the nonresident tuition money, even after the budget crisis ameliorated. To me, that creates some real questions about the UCs in general and the individual schools. I don’t think that trend would have eased in 2014 and 15 if not for the political pressure and legislative threats.
It is clear to me from the resident and nonresident admit and enrollment and GPA figures - and the audit lays them out very clearly - that the individual schools cannot be completely trusted to make decisions that are best for CA without oversight and guidance. The issues with deans and chancellors at Berkeley law and Davis only reinforce that perception. And the legislature are, at least, our elected reps.
I think it’s clear left to their own devices the school want the money - which is understandable. But should not be the sole driving factor.
It may no longer be tenable to maintain the UC system at a 12% rate. But the movement away from that percentage, especially so rapidly, should not happen unilaterally without consultation and oversight and CA taxpayer/voter input. It is dishonest to ignore that most of us paid taxes through the higher ed funding years - when other folks’ kids were happily going to the UCs.
The audit commission issued a slew of recommendations regarding this issue in 2011, but relatively few of the suggestions were adopted by the UCs.
There are many ways for the UC’s to evolve. But I think whatever that evolution is needs to be articulated and approved but the CA taxpayer either through their elected reps or some other legal means. It should not be something the UCs are allowed to do without oversight.
).