The UC ELC program was first implemented in 2001.
At the beginning the program only guaranteed admission for the top 4% of the class. The program was modified to guarantee the top 9% of the class about 5 years ago.
Some legislative updates on bills trying to address the situation -
A 30,000 resident student over 6 year plan with a 500+ million price tag:
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/05/13/committee-passes-6-year-uc-enrollment-plan/
Price/Runner bill that calls for a Constitutional Amendment certifying: “If approved by voters, SCA 12 would confirm that the primary purpose and obligation of the UC system is to serve the students of California and require the UC system to give priority admission to applicants who are California residents.” Not sure if it has any real teeth.
http://huff.cssrc.us/content/uc-schools-california-students-held-committee
Have not seen anything to address the change in how nonresident tuition is handled by campuses and the UC system, though perhaps that is too micromanagerial for legislative bills?
Re: http://www.dailycal.org/2016/05/13/committee-passes-6-year-uc-enrollment-plan/
Where is the $513 million going to come from, particularly if there is a recession (and the usual predictable budget crisis in both the state government and the universities) comes within the next six years?
In other words, more OOS admitted into Cal and UCLA.
And @CaliDad2020 I"m wondering if that means that CA resident applicants who would have gotten into one of the better UCs get shuttled off to Riverside or Merced, since the higher-paying but equally qualified OOS applicants aren’t applying to those, they want UCLA, UCSD, etc. That also stinks for us CA residents.
@bluebayou @JenJenJenJen I think (or at least hope) that is the tuition $$ increase, not enrollment # increase, but I haven’t dug in too deep. But I’m not a huge fan of any plan that does not address the structural change that came when campuses were able to keep their nonresident monies “in house”. That seems to me to be the most basic disconnect. Either we decide to “de-couple” the campuses, which can work in its own way - but will cause other issues, obviously - or we got back to disbursing nonresident through the central UC, so there is no incentive to “oversell” a campus to nonresidents.
But I have not dug to deep into these, just linking what I’ve seen on-line.
@ucbalumnus I guess the same can be said for any appropriations. Where will any of the money for the UC’s come from? Or the CalStates or the CCs or the High Schools - it’s all a question of priorities, at the end of the day.
I understand some how and for some reason you are happy with the 30- 40% nonresident enrollment at COE and Samueli and want a reversal of this trend to be impossible. I’m not sure why. But it seems there are some people at least trying to regain a bit of the ground lost. It will never go back to 2007, unfortunately. And without reversing the “keep your nonres tuition” change, we will never get back all the UCLA and UCB seats sold, but hopefully we can reclaim a few of them.
I hope if they do set caps, they set them specifically for impacted majors as well as overall campuses.
When the next recession comes, cutting state revenues and therefore cutting state funding to UC, CSU, and CC, what choices do you think they should make to balance the budgets?
A. You do not want increased non-resident enrollment, so going there for more tuition is out. (Raising non-resident tuition will probably result in a smaller and weaker non-resident applicant pool, especially during a recession.)
B. Donations will probably fall due to donors having less money during a recession.
C. Resident demand will increase due to being less able to afford private and other schools.
D. Resident financial aid need will increase.
Now find the money. Or cut resident enrollment that has to be subsidized. Or eliminate non-essential things that people will probably scream about (intercollegiate sports, UCB College of Chemistry administrative structure, etc.).
Again you making assumptions that are untrue and personal attacks based on such untrue assumptions.
@ucbalumnus “personal attacks?” Really? Sigh… Ok. If I have actually hurt your feelings or if you have felt my attacks have been at you personally, and not your posts that have illustrated a clear and persistent resistance to the suggestion that the UCs can be walked back from their (I believe) detrimental move to increased enrollment of lower standard nonresidents, well documented in the official audit (that I did not write, by the way) then I apologize. But I think your posts are clear and I believe my characterization of them to be accurate.
The 530 million is over 6 years. The UC annual budget is 27 Billion per year. Do the math. It is a small %
Somehow UCB can find private donors for pools, or previously build a “high performance athletic center” that was, or was not, fully paid for out of “private donations”, but can’t manage to enroll a few thousand less nonresident students into the most in demand majors at the schools.
There are many plans out there to address this issue. There are the 21 suggestions from the 2011 audit. There is a legislative bill. There is a lot of potential savings in a 27 Billion annual operating budget.
Again, I believe the 1st thing the UCs should do is reverse the 2007 decision to allow each campus to keep their nonresident tuition. I think that move clearly incentivized the more in-demand campuses to prioritize nonresident enrollment over resident enrollment. I believe as a first step, if we took the incentive to increase nonresident enrollment out of the individual budgets and returned it to the overall UC budget, as it had been before, the trajectory of this discussion and the issue would change.
You don’t have to agree with me. I really don’t mind. (By the way, what happened to the nonresident application pool during the last recession? Worrying about an application pool that continues to reach record numbers each year and is approaching or at single digit acceptance rates at some campus majors seems a bit absurd to me.)
But it is not “impossible.” The staggering rate of growth of nonresident enrollment compared to resident enrollment, especially at the more in-demand campuses and the most in-demand majors is not intractable or irreversible and I don’t think it reflects the direction the UCs should be headed.
@ucbalumnus Let’s first address the fear of declining applications in some looming future recession.
Here is an applicable passage from the audit, since folks seem reluctant to actually read it:
“Over the past 10 years, the university has admitted thousands of nonresidents who were less qualified than the upper half of residents it admitted on every academic indicator we evaluated. At the same time, the university reduced the percentage of residents it admitted from 77 to 62 percent, and increased the percentage of nonresidents it admitted from 48 to 56 percent—nearly 21,700 nonresidents. As a result, nearly one-third of the students the university admitted in academic year 2014–15 were nonresidents. These trends cannot be attributed to a decrease in residents’ demand for a university education. On the contrary, the number of resident applications increased by nearly 22 percent from academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, from about 82,000 applicants to nearly 100,000 applicants.
Beginning in academic year 2010–11, the trends became especially stark: The university admitted only about 2,600 more residents to a campus of their choice in academic year 2014–15 than it did in academic year 2010–11, a 4 percent increase, while during the same time it increased the number of nonresidents it admitted by more than 17,200 students, or 182 percent. Moreover, the percentage of residents the university admitted actually decreased from 72 percent in academic year 2010–11 to 62 percent in academic year 2014–15, as depicted in Figure 4. Conversely, as shown in Figure 5 on page 26, over the same period the trends for nonresidents show significant increases in applications, admissions, and enrollment.”
“Figure 5” shows nonresident applications on an upward trajectory from 10,000 in 05-06 to over 46000 in 14-15 - a 355% increase in 10 years, including the “great recession.” I just don’t see that concern having any weight.
Acceptance rates for nonresidents, have also increased due to the raw number of nonresident acceptances skyrocketing (up 430% over the same time period). Application numbers is simply not close to a credible concern and is actually a smokescreen, in my opinion. (Please, no offense intended.)
@ucbalumnus @StevenToCollege Funny to call the UCs “state universities” when the state only contributes 12%. What percentage of their operating budgets comes from the federal government (which I take to include federal loans, Pell Grants, CWS, research grants etc)? And at what point do universities merely become “state assisted”? In any other countries, you would say that the universities have been privatised.
@CaliDad2020 I assume you are basing your assessment of how qualified a student is on their SAT scores and GPA. Interesting given that the previous Chancellor of UC was very outspoken in his desire to abandon the SAT.
@exlibris97 Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but I am basing my assessment off the audit, where actual professionals who have access to the application statistics did an actual analysis. Again, you can find the info right here: http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-107.pdf
I am combining that with the logical consideration that if you go from 10,000 applications to 48000 or whatever the number is, and increase the nonresident admission by 430% in a 9 year period and the state BOARS changes the determination of what determines a “top half” admit and I’m figuring, yeah, it makes sense that the quality of the applicant went down. And I’m not concerned with how much, even. Because it is clear that there was a HUGE CHANGE in the game for CA students - and a change that no one had any real input in. It was UC and BOARS directed.
These are the two big changes that no one seems to want to address:
-
the UC system, in 2007, moved from “pooling” nonresident tuition in the UC system (like resident monies) to allowing each campus to KEEP their nonresident monies AND set their OWN nonresident enrollment goals.
-
the BOARS lowered the bar for nonresident applicants in 2011.
My main complaint/concern is these were fundamental changes that change the way the university system has been run for decades - and have clearly resulted in fundamental changes in the individual campus make-ups.
And of course they are “state universities.” It is absurd to suggest otherwise. The universities were founded with state money, supported by state money, built with state money and continue to receive large amounts of state money. The tuition and fees paid by in-state students is state money.
Now, you or others may want to change that reality. and I can see arguments for privatizing the top UCs (I wouldn’t support them, but I can see them) but they would have to include - as any sale of a huge asset/business like the UCs might, a valuation for what has been invested by the state. But that is a very different conversation.
Do you think all the UC campus properties and revenues generated by the intellectuall properties accumulated through more than 100 years come from a vacuum? Everything owned by the UC is owned by the people of California.
@coolweather @exlibris97 argument is absurd, of course. the vast majority of the UC budget comes from the Med Centers, which the Regents bought and the UCs run, State taxes, state resident tuition payments and income from things like auditorium rental and extension programs, using facilities built by or in conjunction with the University and/or leveraging the University name and facilities.
Federal government research grants make up a relatively small % of the budget (15.5%) - hardly larger than continuing annual direct CA taxpayer funding, even at the current reduced rate. And if federal grants and pell grants made a university “private” there is not a public university in the whole United States. As I posted before, the UCs actually get a lower level of Federal grant money than many other state colleges. Of course, getting federal money has nothing to do with “privatization.” That makes no sense at all.
the real effects of nonresident enrollment:
UCLA Samueli issues a report that breaks down enrollment by foreign students. It is interesting to see how the changes that allowed the UCs to keep nonresident tuition and set nonresident enrollment goals at individual campuses - and the lowering of standards for nonresident applicants by the BOARS affected the enrollment % (it did not break out OOS, which would be in addition to these numbers.)
UCLA Samueli
Year - total undergrad - foreign - foreign %
2007 - 2783 - 182 - 6.54%
2008 - 3006 - 255 - 8.48%
2009 - 3205 - 309 - 9.64%
2010 - 3287 - 346 - 10.53%
2011 - 3311 - 418 - 12.62%
2012 - 3232 - 484 - 14.98%
2013 - 3160 - 533 - 16.9%
2014 - 3161 - 592 - 18.7%
2015 - 3238 - 631 - 19.4%
And in 2003 it was
2003 - 2610 - 143 - 5.5% foreign
What become clear, no matter where you look, is how much the two policy changes cited in the audit affected the make-up of the resident v. nonresident ratio at each campus.
I think that if the legislature and/or UC does not address the change that allows each campus to keep its nonresident tuition and set is own nonresident enrollment levels, this trend will not reverse substantially.
I wonder if there is any movement to try to reverse that 2007/2008 change, as well as the BOARS decision.
Have not heard of anything and it is highly unlikely.
But the issue UC faces is that by, restricting its current tax payers from Cal/UCLA in favor or those from elsewhere, UC will over time continue to lose political (and tax) support as those top kids go elsewhere for an education.
@bluebayou There has been a lot of chatter about this around the various graduation gatherings I’ve been to.
While not a lot of parents were aware of the change in use of nonresident tuition, most are at least superficially aware of the audit and the finding of lower standards. Don’t know how long the interest will last, but it does seem that the audit results got onto the general public (or general kids-going-to-college public) radar.
I look at it this way, c-dad, the legislature and Regents have known that this has been going on for close to 10 years, and chose to do nothing about it; indeed, quite the contrary, since it was always their plan to begin with. (No one in their right mind would have forecasted that OOS and Internationals would be flocking to Merced.)
Now the state auditor has brought this to light, essentially embarrassing some politicos back home. But like all things, this too shall pass (after the election), IMO.
Just my $0.02.