Looks like a typical vicious cycle. State defunds UC → UC looks for money → where UC finds money is unpopular politically → state defunds UC → …
CalDad – note that the number of seats at UCLA has gone up over the time period you cite.
So are the foreign and OOS students actually reducing the number of IS seats? Or is it that IS seats are flat but the school has added higher priced incremental seats?
Absolutely, and that was pointed out to the Regents as a possibility when the approved the process 8/9 years ago.
Right before the time period C-Dad uses, UC had reduced seats at the big two/three due to budget cuts. Then, they added back incremental seats for OOS/international. So, yes, instate → OOS.
Of course, the vicious cycle has been going on for more recessions than just the most recent one. In previous recessions, the politically unpopular action taken by UC to find money was to raise tuition (which was also done in the most recent recession).
http://ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/fees/201415/documents/Historical_Fee_Levels.pdf
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/
@ucbalumnus The difference though is that this is a structural change in the use of money that incentives competition between schools for nonresident student enrollment. before it was all one big pool.
Now whoever gets to enroll more gets to keep more.
It’s an incentivization problem that led to reduced standards.
You could return the money to a centralized pool and not change the gross or net one penny - but you would reduce the incentive to increase nonresident enrollment for each indvidual campus. Then they are just competing for the student that makes the most sense based on how they perceive their mandate.
@northwesty I believe the total seats at Samueli did not go up as much as nonresident total increase (OOS + foreign) those are foreign numbers only and they went up as much as the total increase in enrollment. There were additional OOS not counted in those numbers. I have not found those broken out in a way that is easy to compare, but I’ll see if I can find the OOS enrollment for Samueli (or simply the nonresident) for those years.
@northwesty talking US admit and enrollment numbers is a bit tricky since there are transfer admits and probably a number of students that leave or change schools, but looking at the Samueli info, the fact is the total freshman admits and total enrollment, as broken out in the UCEE report, stayed essentially flat from 13 to 14 and declined every other year except 2009 to 2010. And again, if other patterns applied here, an increasing % of the enrollees are OOS as well, shrinking the CA Samueli population even more. (sorry, I flipped the order from the previous post which was 2015 on the bottom.)
Year - total enrollment - total freshman enrolled - total foreign - total “non foreign” (CA+ rest of US res) enrolled
2015 - 3238 - - 631
2014 - 3161- 638 - 592 - 2607 (est. 2291 CA residents @ 10% OOS)
2013 - 3160 - 658 - 533 - 2569
2012 - 3232 - 619 - 484 - 2627
2011 - 3311 - 783 - 418 - 2748
2010 - 3287 - 679 - 346 - 2941
2009 - 3205 - 630 - 309 - 2896
2008 - 3006 - 550 - 255 - 2751
2007 - 2783 - 783 - 182 - 2601 (est. 2490 CA residents)
I haven’t found any other breakout including OOS, but I’m sure it exists. But if you subtract the foreign totals from this, you are left with American resident students - CA and rest of US. If the OOS admissions kept pace with foreign admissions, the drop would be really severe. Overall UCLA nonresident and OOS admissions rate stayed fairly constant, it looks like, for all undergrads - in 2007, 420 nonresident int. new students, 438 OOS. In 2015 it was 1,093 foreign, 1,012 OOS. So for UCLA overall, it was 16% foreign, 15% OOS, while Samueli was 19% foreign. So assuming it was only 10% OOS (which I would bet is very conservative) the 2014 number would be 2291 CA Samueli students versus 2007 when the overall UCLA undergrad numbers were 6% for both foreign and OOS. (Samueli was 6% foreign in 2007 as well.) Even assuming a conservative 4% OOS rate in at Samueli in 2007 you end up with 2490 CA resident undergrads at Samueli in 2007 - ie. 200 less CA resident undergrads in 2014, despite the additional 378 total undergrad Samueli students. And the actual number of CA resident seats lost is likely higher.
Assembly passes legislation capping nonresident at 10%. Phased in over 6 years (from LA Times)
Amid outrage over the number of out-of-state students taking spots in the University of California system, the Assembly on Wednesday voted to approve a 10% cap on nonresident enrollment phased in over the next six years.
Unanimous in assembly. Vote goes to senate next.
^^ Is this 10% per UC, or 10% of the total? As a CA resident and lifetime taxpayer, I’m hoping for the former even though I don’t have a kid in the UC system. If it’s the latter, will it even make a difference?
You can only pick one–More full pay OOS students or real decline in UC quality
Or the unpopular opinion that they need to raise tuition for IS students. I’m not the only Californian I know who would support that. We can’t have it both ways - asking for a cap on tuition and then limiting OOS to 10%.
According to the current version of the bill, 10% on each campus. But limit will not be applied during years when state funding is reduced.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1711
here is another article about the plan to limit OOS applicants as well as raise the tuition they pay.
As a Calif resident I see NO reason UCB should be LESS expensive for OOS students than Michigan or UVA.
Virginia $43,822
Michigan* $43,476
UC $36,948
Washington $34,278
North Carolina $33,673
Arizona $32,600
Oregon $32,022
National average $23,893
*Michigan’s rate for freshmen and sophomores
Source: the above universities,
U.S. News & World Report
Yeah, that’s what I’ve never understood. In a state that has an obvious political lean and desires to make the 1%'ers pay “more”, why not just jack up the rates for OOS/Int’l?
fwiw: Michigan’s tuition was much higher than UC for years, both instate and OOS, and it doesn’t seem to have hindered that excellent school.
too slow to edit to add:
Cal Eng, CoChem, and Haas could easily charge $10k more per year for OOS/Int’l.
How about the reverse? Why charge OOS students at UC-Merced and Riverside, $38K a year in tuition? Lower the rate down to $20-25K a year, and then they could start enrolling a few OOS students (5% to 10%?), which would help financially help these campus, and hence the in-state students that use them. As it is, all of the OOS funding is going to the much higher ranked schools in the UC system.
^^They should lower Merced’s fees to near zero for instate, just to get kids to attend. 
But I have no problem with your idea, Gator, but just don’t think it would make a difference. “Berkeley” is the brand name around the world, particularly in the Pacific Rim; it (and UCLA) can command a premium price.
Merced is not even worth $25k/yr. so a lower price would not make it attractive to internationals. And if you look at the stats, 63% of the instate kids who attend are Pell Grantees. In other words, they only have to pay for room and board, since the Pell+Blue &I Gold plan means that they pay zero tuition/fees.
@bluebayou It’s not so much about international students, as it’s about increasing domestic OOS students. You’re be surprised how many “average stats” out of state students would want to attend an university in California.
I’ve used The University of West Florida (UWF!) before as an example. It’s hardly an academic powerhouse, as compared to any of the UC’s, but:
Florida + Beach + $20K a year OOS tuition = 9% domestic OOS students (+ 2% International)
If you lower the tuition rates, the students will come. It’s a matter of how many do you want…
It seems to me, that, over the last few years, the UC “knows” it can only accept a % of OOS students, so they want to maximum $ by selling the slots in the more prestigious UC’s, and pushing in-state students toward the other UCs… or perhaps I’m being paranoid. ~X(
The problem is that UC Riverside and UC Merced are miles away from the beach.
You are not being paranoid. This is exactly what has been happening.
I think your analysis is close, but…let me fix that for you:
It seems to me, that, over the last few years, the UC “knows” OOS students will only accept a slot in the more prestigious UC’s, and pushing in-state students toward the other UCs.
UC would be happy to accept many, many more OOS’ers at Merced to help it grow faster. Merced is in a parched valley. Riverside is near desert. There…is…no…there…there.
(As Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.)
There is little attraction, even for instaters.