@exlibris97 Well, if you call 3 billion + a year “not funding” you live in a different tax bracket than me.
And to be clear on this, while the % of the CA appropriations that goes to the UCs has fallen, the real numbers have generally increased. The state contribution has been over 2.5 billion every year but 3 since 2000 and has increased something like 7 billion in the past 3 or 4 years…
And the UC make additional revenue from programs that were seeded by taxpayer funding for the past 100+ years. Revenue from extension courses, auditorium use etc. is possible because the state supported the schools.
That you don’t see the irony of your post speaks volumes.
Taxpayers in any state get reduced tuition and access to their state schools. It does not mean citizens in ANY state will be admitted to what are perceived as their most prestigious schools, just that they have a shot. As long as “taxpayers” have access to a decent , varied system of higher public education (which seems to be the case in California?), what more should any individual taxpayer expect? Most selective public schools have more qualified instate applicants than they can admit . Some people are bound to be disappointed. It is compounded in a state like California , with such a large population, large number of high STAT kids, and many kids who rely on their public , well regarded system for an education. Schools like UCB and UCLA will be around long after all of us and our children are gone. They certainly need to educate the current citizens of California, but planning also needs to keep in mind the long term health of these prestigious institutions for future generations.
@sevmom again, the issue, as per the audit, is the CHANGE in historically accepted norms - and perhaps violating statutory standards (I’m not well versed enough in that stuff to have any idea what is “legal” and what is simply “moral”. The audit seems to suggest that the UCs were not in compliance, the UCs say they were, a poster here suggests it doesn’t even matter legally)
Everyone knows not everyone can go to any school. But if the standards are going to change it needs to be by general agreement, not by schools unilaterally changing enrollment benchmarks as part of a budget negotiation.
I don’t understand why it is hard to understand that CA taxpayers have paid billions of dollars a year to the UC for many, many years, and feel like that maybe should give them a bit of input, at least via the legislature and governor, in how the schools should be run or at least use that money.
Again, the state PAID for the increased domestic enrollment last year with an explicit earmarked 25 million in additional funds. The UC funding has increased by 5% a year on top of the special appropriations.
Those deals involve some conditions, one would hope.
California state spending on higher education, in billions of dollars:
UC CSU CCs State FA Total (includes other)
2007-2008 3.762 3.508 5.357 0.873 14.979
2012-2013 2.884 2.341 3.917 1.038 11.395
2015-2016 3.236 2.995 5.426 1.616 14.632
2012-2013 was the local minimum in California state higher education spending for the years around this recession. Note the steady rise in state financial aid even after the recession, possibly because of both recession damage to household finances and cost increases at private schools pushing more people to lower cost choices.
When the next recession comes, what should be done (by UCs, CSUs, and CCs) to cover the expected reduced state funding?
A. Raise tuition.
B. Reduce in-state financial aid or admission of financially needy students.
C. Admit more list price out-of-state students.
D. Reduce quality of educational experience (e.g. allow more campuses and majors to become more highly impacted).
E. Find money elsewhere (donations and such).
F. Cut unnecessary expenses.
We know that people get upset at A (even if just out-of-state tuition is raised) and C. B goes against the design of the entire California higher education system, even though there are probably many high income people in California who want to do that but won’t say it (although most other states do this – e.g. Michigan and Virginia admit few middle and low income students who need lots of financial aid, while Pennsylvania and Illinois just give poor in-state financial aid). E becomes harder during a recession. For F, one person’s unnecessary expense is someone else’s essential or valuable expense (see the thread on intercollegiate athletics).
So that leaves D, which happens by default, although not always in ways that people notice at first glance. For example, the problem with impacted majors at UCs and CSUs is often not noticed by students and parents shopping colleges; when it is noticed, it often incorrectly is assumed to mean not getting classes needed to graduate on time. But such capacity limitations exist to allow all majors to get the classes needed, but it means that many students will not be able to get into their desired majors and must settle for some other major or transfer to another school to get their majors. Since CCs are open admission, the not being able to get classes problem hit CCs heavily during the recession when fewer classes were offered due to budget cuts.
@ucbalumnus - An article from this morning’s paper describes why UCSD is having difficulty with E (finding money elsewhere) - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/15/UCSD-fundaising-campaign/
“The disparity reflects a fact that Khosla and other campus leaders acknowledge: UC San Diego has largely overlooked alumni during the bulk of its 55-year history, believing the state would provide most of the money it needs.”
Interesting that the article mainly refers to major projects relating to the student experience (improving the social scene, guarantee housing for four years instead of two) rather than anything more closely related to academics (like expanding the capacity of impacted majors, though faculty housing as a recruitment tool could be somewhat related).
@ucbalumnus - Very true, and the housing for faculty is definitely much needed. They’ve lost several top researchers and their teams over the years to universities with much lower housing costs than what they have near La Jolla. But it is interesting that they are focusing so much on the social scene.
Berkeley was recently ranked 14th of all American U’s for “wealthy alumni” - 2nd highest public. I’m sure different metrics put it at different levels, but there’s no doubt there is a lot of money in the UC alumni network that could be tapped if done correctly.
Here is an interesting parallel to the UC OOS issue.
Seems China is facing it’s own version of “pushback” from parents on a new plan to increase “OOS” enrollment that would put local children at a disadvantage.
@CaliDad2020 – The challenge with shaking the alumni money tree is the very inconvenient fact that many, many of them are no longer Californians (if they ever were). As an former Californian and UC alum, the proposed shut-out of OOS in impacted majors at UCLA and Cal would give me pause. Because we live out-of-state now, there would be no incentive for me to contribute if my own kids would be shut out or otherwise disadvantaged in the admissions process.
I think there are a lot of challenges in increasing alumni giving at UC in addition to the reasons given by @Fish125 and @PragmaticMom.
One reason alumni donate is to increase the quality of teaching (and thus prestige) of their university, but UC donors may suspect that their money will be used to reduce the state contribution or decrease the OOS% instead.
Another reason for big donations at many top schools is to increase the chance of the donor’s children being admitted. But UC specifically requires that parental donations may not be used in admission decisions.
@CaliDad2020 , I do understand that you are concerned about the increased numbers, the historical change in OOS enrollments. UCLA and UCB have agreed to cap OOS and international enrollment at 20%. That seems like it could be a good start in balancing the needs of the residents with the long term needs of the university system. As @PragmaticMom notes, many alumni would be OOS ( as is the case with many of the flagships) and many would like their own children to at least have some shot at being admitted to their alma mater. If OOS admissions are TOO low, that might not sit too well with some alumni.
I see in the list of alumni giving that Texas and Michigan are above Cal. Berkeley. I think that, among top public schools, Texas and Michigan have stronger football programs (and maybe men’s basketball?) than Cal. Berkeley. I suspect that’s a relevant factor.
@PragmaticMom Obviously there are structural issues that push back against increased alumni support. But what those numbers do suggest is there is a lot of room for improvement at all UCs. It is not going to solve the crisis by any means, but it is a place that the UCs do not do as well as some of their private and state peers.
There is going to be push-back on any strategy to ameliorate this issue - from increased tuition to increased taxes to decreased enrollment. But it is important to find all areas where additional support might be forthcoming. And given that UCB enrollment at the undergraduate level has tended to be around 85%+, you’ve got figure at least 50-60% of the undergrad alums are still in state (I’d guess even more, since for as many might leave, any number that studied here from OOS might return - probably a net outflow, but not a big one.
@MWDadOf3 it’s possible, but many of the top donating schools have crap football, so it should not be a completing disqualifying concern.
@sevmom “some” alums might be OOS, but it would only be 10-15% to start, plus whatever net outflow (I’m sure there are some OOS who ended up becoming CA res as well. The net net is probably close to 0.
The “big” number would be increasing big gifts from super-successful grads - named chairs at a million or two a pop etc. There’s also opportunity for “long tail” increases of a hundred or two from as many alums as possible. UCB, for instance, graduates 6k + undergrads a year I think. Again, not a system changing number, but a place to offset a few tuitions
It’s not so much that ANY college needs a great football team to attract donations. Donations to Harvard, Yale, or the like are presumably only very weakly linked, at most, to gridiron success.
Rather, for large PUBLIC universities, I think athletic (especially football) programs are likely disproportionate drivers of alumni donations. I speculate that for many, giving to a public university, to some extent, feels like a voluntary tax donation to the state in question (displacing money that the state might otherwise have provided). Football-driven donations sort of sidestep this issue for a few reasons I won’t dive into deeply at present.
A test of this hypothesis, assuming the data existed, would be to compare the % of donations earmarked in some way for athletics at, say, Michigan versus Harvard (or maybe a lesser Ivy light like Brown). A further point would be to compare such donations in the two or three years of, and following, a highly successful football season, versus a time of relative athletic underperformance…