@al2simon uh… yeah. I kind of knew it was a money issue. I kind of thought we were talking about, you know, money.
The question, of course, is in a 7 + BILLION dollar system, where is the money going? And is it going to the right place.
Your calculations assume that the system is maximizing it money use, which is unlikely, of course.
And it assumes that the system is making best use of it’s available seats.
It assumes the rebenching is accurate.
It assumes a lot of things that I am not sure can be assumed.
One of my main complaints about this situation is I think it is a lot of grand kabuki (and both sides part, by the way). And while I understand that is how it works, I don’t think you can avoid the very clear reality that the game changed in a fundamental way after 2007 when the schools were allowed to keep their nonresident tuition.
The schools, not the system, were then incentivized to work against resident student enrollment. And the results of those incentives are easy to see in the rising nonresident enrollment rates.
It is not surprising that given a choice between money losing students and money making students a university that was concerned with maximizing operating funds would choose for nonresident students.
Not surprising, but it is right? That is the question.
I mean, the UCs could admit 70% nonresident. UBC could probably admit 100% if it dropped its standards a bit. That would let it run a surplus. Give its profs raises - which they say they deserve, and they’re probably right… but I don’t think anyone here thinks that is a good idea.
I would think the whole point is to find a system that maximizes in state opportunities while keeping enough nonresidents to promote healthy cross-pollination of ideas and pay the bills.
@MWDadOf3 I think research grant money (from Gates or National Science Foundation, etc. ) provides money that the university does not need to come up with to fund its activities. Grants from wealthy donors are beneficial as well and often the big money is donated for a specific purpose. In looking at the budget at University of Virginia, here is how they break things down (Probably UCB and UCLA have specific breakdowns online as well):
38.0% Tuition & Fees
19.6 Research Grants and Cost Recoveries
20.2 Gifts & Endowment Support
12.1 Sales, Services, & Other Revenues
10.1 State appropriation
Not surprisingly, the lowest number is the state support.
the UC latest report had a pie graph showing the breakout for the $27 billion operating budget.
28% Med Center (a steadily growing number over the years.)
26% “Core Funds” (Broken out: 12% Tuition + Fees; 10.5% State General Funds; 3.7% UC General Funds)
21 % “Other sales and services” - auditorium rentals, stadium rentals, Extension courses etc.
15 % Gov contracts and Grants
7.5 % Private Support
1.8% “Other Sources”
The UC’s lowest number seems to be Private Support.
^^^ The UC has yet to officially respond to the Auditor’s findings. Everything the UC has done in response has been PR and damage control. After they respond to the Auditors, we’ll see how the legislature responds.
It’s going to go back and forth for awhile, but you never want to get into a “disagreement” with your auditors…
@Desiree2@sevmom The UCs responded and the auditors responded to their response.
A lot of people like me have contacted their reps and I think statutory % caps will probable be legislated, with wiggle room in case funding levels are not met.
There has already been a lot of talk between the legislature and UCs - at least one bill was submitted, but didn’t get past committee. It will be amended and resubmitted. The bill below has passed committee. I don’t know how much in the way of mechanics for enforcement. It is a constitutional amendment that would enshrine priorities and has mechanism for Regents and other top Admins but does not have any real admission levels, as far as I can deal.
Don’t know if the biggest question - that of keeping the nonresident tuition by campus - has been decided. The audit suggestion was to raise the “rebenching” amount (that’s the money given to other campuses who have more in-state students - and therefore get less “extra” income.) The rebenching figure is pretty low - I don’t recall the exact amount off hand, but they’re in the audit.
AB 1711 which was the other bill I mentioned seems to have gotten out of committee (I had thought it had come up one vote short.) It caps non-res at 15.5%
sevmom, Berkeley’s response really doesn’t address the audit report specifically; rather, it changes the question to an answer it likes better and that it can spin. From the Cal link that you posted:
As anyone in the State knows, capped GPA’s also deflates instate student’s GPA’s. (Indeed, that is what the cap is designed to do.) See what they did there? Instead of running accurate numbers to show that the auditor is incorrect, in their opinion, they obfuscated the analysis, which works well for the press and statistically-challenged.
From the so-called Straight Talk from UC (which totally ignores the GPA-test score analysis of the auditor, and instead speaks in broad brush, system-wide talk:
Even in their rebuttal, the purposely conflate the instate and OOS population. Instead of just admitting that sure, the GPA+test scores for OOS are slightly lower, its all part of holistic admissions. Instead, they bring it back to holistic is good for instate.
Personally, I agree with others, that UC likely needs more money. But my issue is that the system is anything but transparent, and purposely spins everything. If they really want to make the case for more money, demonstrate it with accurate numbers.
Note that the limitation on non-resident enrollment will not apply in years when state funding to UC is cut compared to the previous year. Since this is probably inevitable in the next recession, the same increase of non-resident enrollment is likely to happen next recession, unless the “upper half” restriction makes that too difficult, in which case, resident enrollment may be cut to save money, or cuts will be made which affect educational experience (e.g. more majors become impacted or more impacted than before).
I have not dived in too deep, but I have not seen anyone dealing with the campus’ keeping their nonresident tuition and the low rebenching numbers.
this is the source of the jump in nonres enrollment at the expense of resident (and the reason for the lower stats - if you’re admitting 10X more students, it is likely your standards have to slip.)
I doubt any reform has lasting bite unless the incentive to enroll more nonresident students is removed.
The other problem with simply capping and requiring high minimum stats is it doesn’t address the other issue: impacted majors. Schools need to have nonresident caps on specific majors, esp. those that are impacted/higher standard applications.
The incentive is money (or lack thereof otherwise), and every cut in state funding increases that incentive. Of course, enrolling non-residents is not the only place where money can be found, but it is a place among various others. Next recession, the state and university money problems will come up again, as it does every recession.
Do you think it is realistic to expect to find enough non-residents who are (a) wealthy enough to pay non-resident list price, (b) high stats (the “upper half” restriction), (c) willing to attend campuses that residents see as less desirable, and (d) willing to be limited to studying majors that residents see as less desirable, to provide enough non-resident tuition revenue to offset the defunding trend?
@ucbalumnus I think it’s more than completely realistic.
Why everyone wants to ignore the exponentially increasing nonresident applications and enrollment at ALL UCs (save to a certain extent Riverside and, of course, Merced) I will not understand.
Why everyone ignores the shear number of nonresidents the UCs were magically able to enroll since 2007? Irvine increased 10x its nonresident enrollment. All of them, even Santa Cruz, bump up substantially.
The UCs had RECORD applications EVERY YEAR for the past, what 10?
Do you really expect the Chinese, Korean, Canadian and Indian middle class to suddenly get smaller?
Demographics are on my side. The admit rate is still very low. Reduce the number of nonresidents and you will continue to have a huge pool to select from.
What folks also want to ignore is that while the nonresident standards dropped the UC resident standard ROSE. It is now harder for resident students to get into their own capped programs. They have to be smarter, work harder, and get less slots.
I posted a link to a in-depth analysis UCB international states (haven’t found one for OOS) and I think it shows there is lots of room to increase nonresident enrollment if needed. That 33% of all UCB internationals are from China. That leaves a lot of other countries that could be marketed to if need be (but of course we are talking about CUTTING not ADDING international admits. CUT them from the IMPACTED MAJORS!)
Some folks are way too denigrating of the UC brand around here.
“Some folks are way too denigrating of the UC brand around here”
Yes, but these folks are usually a bit clueless about academics, about what’s going on research-wise and publication-wise in the UCs, and about international perception. I wouldn’t pay them much mind; there will always be those who denigrate public universities, the west coast, and especially public universities on the west coast
I’m sure there’s waste in the system. There’s always waste. Look, I’m usually one of the last people to take public employees whining about needing more money at face value. But the facts at Berkeley are extreme. Let’s look at some actual numbers and do some comparisons:
Take the situation at Wisconsin Madison. From reading the press (and even some posts in this thread), you’d think the world was coming to an end because of their latest budget cuts. Madison is being asked to absorb a $54 million / year budget cut. That’s about $2,500/year per state resident undergraduate.
Now look at the state appropriation cuts at UCB. From the high point of $506 million in 2007-08, appropriations were cut down to $269 million. That’s a cut of almost $12,000/ year per state resident undergraduate.
So, however apocalyptic you think the Walker budget cuts to Madison are, the cuts to Berkeley were almost 5 times worse. Fortunately, a portion of the cuts were restored in the latest budget, but they’re still almost $10,000 / year per state resident undergraduate.
That’s why my take on the two situations is very different, and why I think the complaints from UC have much more merit than the politically based whining from Wisconsin. It’s true that money can’t always be moved seamlessly around universities, nor can tenured faculty be reallocated. Still, cuts of $2,500 per student at Madison might be painful, but I believe they can be absorbed without compromising the basic mission. But the cuts of $12,000 per student at Berkeley were in an entirely different category, and required a much more extreme response, including tuition raises and cuts in resident enrollments.
The figure I’m using for instructional cost is $25,000 per student at UCB.
Do you know of any world class university that is able to run for significantly less without relying on another source of funding? The Bay area isn’t exactly a cheap place to live or to hire people either. Hell, there are K-12 school systems in the US that spend more than this per pupil.
I’m sure you could reduce this figure, but I don’t think you can cut it by much without making some very tough choices. Maybe UCB and UCLA could tell students that they’re no longer going to teach introductory courses like Calculus or freshman Biology – students should either take these classes in high school or community college and they can show up at UCB/UCLA when they’re ready to attend a top university. Maybe they could cancel certain majors or only offer many classes every other year. Maybe they choose to only teach some classes via online instruction.
Something else happened right after 2007 … the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This caused dramatic funding cuts to the UC system.
You also do not understand how enrollment decisions are made at UC. Enrollment targets are set at the system level, not at the campus level. State funds are allocated based on targets, and there are substantially penalties if a campus does not enroll the number of state residents that they are told to. The state appropriation is divided by the cost per resident student. This sets the system enrollment target, which is then allocated out to the campuses. (Of course, the people doing this are not idiots. They know that Merced & Riverside can’t attract nonresidents like UCB, UCLA and UCSD can.)
But since the enrollment target allocation decisions are made at the system level, whether the extra nonresident tuition goes to the system or to the campus doesn’t matter very much.
You can read about this more if you look. It might be a bit confusing to penetrate the academic budget-speak. I can try to explain it further if you don’t understand it and if I have time.
You are missing the point. The point that Berkeley is making is that OOS students only get extra weighted GPA points for AP/IB/college-level classes. CA residents get extra points for these, plus for the Honors Algebra I class or Honors Pottery Making class they took as high-school freshman. That’s why the weighted GPA (capped or uncapped) unfairly favors CA residents vs nonresidents. The only time it doesn’t is for OOS students who’ve taken 8 semesters or more of AP equivalent classes by the end of their junior year, in which case their capped weighted GPA is on equal footing with residents.
For the most part, almost nobody applies to UCB or UCLA without having taken 8 semesters of Honors this or Honors that, but quite a few students who haven’t taken 8 semesters of AP equivalent by the end of their junior years do apply. That’s why SAT or ACT scores are probably the cleanest way to compare qualifications.
@ucbalumnus OOS will disappear under those conditions. The UC brand is by far the strongest in the impacted majors, and the continuing financial crisis is already having an impact on high-stats OOS registrations. As @CaliDad2020 has mentioned UC is already forced to admit lower-stats OOS kids to keep up its finances.
The big problem is that there appears to be no realistic plan to replace the loss of funds from decreasing OOS admits, and funding problems will ultimately lead to the loss of the UC brand.
@cheeryparent If you say so. But I doubt it. Highly doubt it.
But here’s like, you know, real numbers:
UCLA receives the most applications of ANY university IN THE UNITED STATES.
UCLA applications
2000:
OOS - 4120 applications 848 admits; 10% of all UCLA applications; 20% admit rate;
International - 1578 apps. 216 admits. 4% of all UCLA apps. 13% admit rate
2015: 92,000 + fresman apps
OOS - 18645 apps, 4323 admits, 23% admit rate
International - 16325 apps, 2285 admits, 17% of all UCLA apps. 14% admit rate
It just defies logic to think that if you want to admit LESS nonresidents and you have record nonresident applications you will have trouble attracting them.
It will be easy to come back here in 5 years and see, but there is no logical reason the sheer volume will change. Most nonresidents apply to the LS/AS schools anyway. Capping the Samueli/COE nonresident enrollment even at 10% would do NOTHING to the UC nonresident numbers.
@al2simon Look, the explosion in nonresident enrollment came when, and only when, the campuses got control of their own nonresident tuition.
It’s as plain as the nose on my face.
There is no doubt that funding will have to be adjusted. It already has been. The UCs have gotten a serious influx of cash.
And they are not being forced to pay (cause you can’t force them to pay without hurting our own students) for their past poor decisions, like underfunding pensions.
It is important to keep this debate in perspective.
I believe some simple truths:
Allowing the campuses to keep the nonresident tuition incentivized both the explosion of nonresident enrollment and the admission of lower-stats for nonresidents (and as a result the higher average stats for incoming resident students)
The UC, under cover of a legitimate budget crisis instituted this policy and it will continue to result in pressure to increase non-resident enrollment at the expense of resident enrollment.
It is in the UCs best interest to have a budget - and especially domestic enrollment - crisis, as that is the only way to pry funds from Sacramento. It has worked a bit so far.
The crisis has already allowed the UC system to “shift” thousands of domestic students to the less prestigious campus at Merced, while selling those seats at UCLA and UCB (and the other top 6 to a lesser extent) to nonresidents.
in 2011 the Audit committee issues 21 recommendations to the UCs to avert the budget/nonresident crisis. The UCs adopted 7.
But all this wrangling has hurt - and continues to hurt - actual CA students and their taxpaying families. And it will be hard to turn the runaway train around.
That is my contention.
CA has a lot of higher ed problems/issues and the UCs, in many cases, is only a small part of them. But that doesn’t mean this kabuki show should go unremarked. It is all about the money. But before the money is spent, we need to be clear where we think it is appropriate to spend it.
@CaliDad2020 I would be more interested if you had, like, you know, a logical reason.
But since you’ve brought it up, what percentage of UC’s OOS admit’s would be cut out by the above-average rule? What percentage of UC’s OOS admits plan to study an impacted major? Of the remaining students, what percentage are not certain of their major and might want to switch to an impacted major? Plan to lose all those people.
