“The problem is that UC Riverside and UC Merced are miles away from the beach.”
“Miles away from the beach” applies to more UCs than just Riverside and Merced. In fact it applies to most of them. UC Santa Cruz is about 3 miles from the beach. UCLA and UC Irvine are each about 5 miles from the beach. About the only UCs that are a more or less easy walk to the beach are Santa Barbara and San Diego.
True, but Riverside and Merced were the campuses being mentioned in this thread as ones that should be promoted to OOS and international students. They are also way more than 3-5 miles from any beach.
@Gator88NE Up until they changed the rules in 2007 all non-resident tuition went into a big pot and was split out to the various UC campuses. Then in 2007 the UC’s got to keep “their” nonresident tuition and it all changed. That is when the nonresident explosion took hold.
If you look at the funding. Much of it has been restored. But the nonresident tuition did not abate. Because the schools realized the more seats they sold the more money they could keep… So the sold more seats. Funny how that works.
@bluebayou except for merced and riverside ALL UCs - even Santa Cruz, have many more nonresident students apply than they admit. And the number of nonresident applicants to each campus has grown exponentially every year.
The additional aspect is “top 9%” CA students get “dumped” into whatever campus the UC’s decide to give them, whereas nonresident students are not given that option, even if they are denied their choice.
There is nothing in the numbers - especially the trend lines in the numbers that suggest that more and more nonresident students will continue to apply and that the nonresident numbers all UCs - even Merced and Riverside - could be increased if the UCs wanted and were permitted to increase them.
UCR is about an hour drive (more or less) from MLB Baseball games (Angels and Dodgers), mountain resorts, beaches (Newport and Huntington), Disneyland… to a domestic OOS student, it’s still “California”.
What’s UWF’s attraction? That it’s less than 1/2 hour drive from the beach (of course, it’s not ON the beach)? From UWF’s website:
Woot! less than 3 hours from Tallahassee! Sign! me! up! 
I think folks in California, sometimes underestimate the attraction the state has to folks that live outside of the state. You also get trapped in comparing UCR/UCM to the other UC’s (which is natural, based on how in-state admissions is handled for the UC’s), but for domestic OOS students, they would be comparing UCR/UCM to other schools that would be an academic match (other “directional” schools). Other than cost, UCR and UCM can be very appealing. Compared to their peers (not the other UC’s), they have respectable graduation rates (UCM 6 year Grad rate is 64%, University of Alabama’s is 66%, while UWF’s is 52%), well funded (based on $ spent per student), and have respectable student to faculty ratios (18 to 1).
The only thing keeping domestic OOS students out, is that $38K a year tuition.
What impact would increasing OOS enrollment have on UCM and UCR?
Lets do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Lets say in-state tuition is $13.5K a year. Lets say OOS tuition was lowered to $27K a year (to keep the math simple).
Going from less than 1% to 5% OOS enrollment would equate to a 5% increase in tuition revenue (the main funding for instructional expenses).
Going from less than 1% to 10% OOS enrollment would equate to a 10% increase in tuition revenue. On average, that’s a $1,350 increase in tuition revenue per student enrolled (in-state and OOS).
Currently UCM spends about $7,000 a year on “instructional expenditures/total FTE”. With 10% OOS, they would be able to spend $8K+ per student.
Of course, more OOS students at UCM/UCR means fewer at UCB, UCLA, etc. If we forget about the other UC’s and focus on what needs to be done to help improve UCM/UCR, increasing OOS enrollment (to a limited degree, 5% to 10%), would be a significant boon.
In Florida (which in many ways based it’s system of CC’s and public universities on California’s), in-state tuition rates are set by the legislature, but OOS tuition rates are set by each school (each school has it’s own Board of Trustees, while the overall State University System is managed by a Board of Governors). This allows each to set it’s own OOS tuition rate, merit aid policy and even OOS tuition waiver policy. If the UC’s had that flexibility, UCB/UCLA could charge $45K a year for OOS tuition, while UCM/UCR charged $25K.
Instead, policies are put in place that (IMHO) advantage the more “influential” UC’s over the less (like UCM/UCR).A common complaint in all “State Systems”.
Clearly I’m biased on giving more control to each individual school in the UC system (since that’s what we do in Florida, and is the case in several other “state systems”), but it’s something to think about.
I’m skeptical.
With the UC common app and $70 per, one can apply to any and all of the campuses. The proof is in the yield…
@bluebayou you only get 4 for the 70 bucks, I believe.
There is no doubt that they could enroll more at SC and Riverside. I don’t know doubt the stats would be a bit lower. But there is no question that they could enroll more and that applications will continue to increase. The trend lines are nearly vertical.
^^yeah I get the campus fees, which is why I used ‘per’ and in ‘per additional campus’.
But “lower stats” than Merced, which has a bottom quartile of SAT 900? (That is already lower than some Cal States!)
@bluebayou No - lower stats per overall UC nonresident (in other words, it is likely the UCLA Chem Eng nonresident you don’t admit in exchange for the Riverside History Major you do admit is likely to have higher “on paper” stats - but you would not have to makes those stats lower than Riverside’s 25-27 stats. And UC in state stats have been RISING because of the increase nonresident anyway. It would be nice to allow the in state stats to drop a little. Too many hard working, talented in state students are getting shut out.
@Gator88NE Riverside is poised to become an “in demand” or at least “more in demand” campus. Currently it is a mostly commuter campus but it is near LA, the Claremont McKennas, Big Bear and the mountains, Palm Springs.
It will take a few years, but Riverside will see the kind of growth in popularity that Davis has over time.
On this, we’ll have to agree to disagree. And therefore, I will disagree with your main thesis.
I think I get what you are saying, but the UCLA ChemE nonresident who is excluded will just be replaced by a higher stat instate student. UCLA’s stats will increase, in this case.
Yeah, I get the trickle down/up theory, but don’t forget that many instate kids with great stats are going OOS and/or to privates bcos they cannot get into the UC of their preference. (For those high schoolers big on school spirit, only 2 campuses offer big time D1 sports. For some, that is a consideration.)
From a strictly practical point of view, the intercollegiate athletics are unnecessary for the educational and academic mission of a university. They also cost money, and athletic recruiting causes the admission of some less academically qualified students because they play the desired sports. In theory, cutting the intercollegiate athletics should be an easy way to find money and find more admissions places for highly qualified students.
But it looks like most students, potential students, parents, and alumni would oppose such a move.
@bluebayou Riverside County is growing, poised to be the second most populous county (if it isn’t already) in the state. Given the increase in college costs, I have absolutely no doubt it will continue in popularity.
As far as stats, I was talking the level of nonresident stats (this will be something that might have to be negotiated.) I agree stronger or equal in state will replace the nonresident at UCLA. I was talking about only the nonresident.
I prefer that more lower-stat nonresident get into Riverside and UCSC if that means the % balance is brought closer.
10 - 15% at each school is better than 40% UCLA 5% Riverside, even if that means the overall average for nonresident drops. But it has to be a monitored trade. Not dropping stats without adjusting the % per campus.
@ucbalumnus @bluebayou
Didn’t UCSD vote to go Div 1 as well?
And I don’t think Div 1 athletics is as big a deal for students as some think. I kind of wish UCSD had stayed DII because it is nice to have some UCs where less elite or less dedicated athletes can play.
When you go DI you end up with many if not most of your bigger sports participants being full time jocks trying to fit in school.
UCSD students voted in favor of moving to NCAA D1 (from D2) sports with an increase in student fees.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/24/ucsd-athletics-vote-division-student-fees/
UCSC students voted in favor of retaining NCAA D3 sports (that would otherwise be cut) with an increase in student fees.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20160526/63-percent-of-uc-santa-cruz-students-vote-in-favor-of-paying-to-keep-sports
The UCs whose intercollegiate sports are not NCAA D1 (and not trying to go there like UCSD) are UCSC (NCAA D3) and UCM (NAIA). However, out of those in NCAA D1, only UCB and UCLA are seen as “big time” (with FBS football). UCD is the only other UC campus with football (FCS).
@ucbalumnus one other benefit of going/being D1 is you can generally allow and fund a wider and more diverse student body if you can give more athletic money (and also more weight to athletic ability.)
The draw back is D1 sports is often a net money loser. I’m pretty agnostic on it, really, but do believe schools need to find ways to make it revenue positive or at least neutral.
That’s besides the point. There are LOTS of things provided at the Big U that are “strictly” speaking “unnecessary for the educational and academic mission of a university.”
Many kids desire the D1 experience. Many others do not. With 3,000 colleges in the county, there a plenty of options.
But the point is that for California kids, who desire such an experience (major conference football and basketball), only Cal and UCLA offer it.
Athletic recruiting can come with greater geographic diversity. For example, 28% of the UCB football team is out-of-state, which is higher than 21% for the overall undergraduate student population. Is increased out-of-state enrollment through athletic recruiting desirable?
Only about 20 NCAA D1 schools make money on sports. Football and men’s basketball are the usual money makers (though not all schools make money on them), but all other sports cost/lose money.
The number of D1 scholarship athletes at a large public university, is so small, as compare to the overall undergraduate population, that it has little impact on diversity (or pretty much any other undergrad stat). However, big time sports (it doesn’t have to be football, basketball also works) can have a positive impact on diversity student recruiting.
All sports is a money loser. As UCB pointed out, only about 20 D1 schools make money. Even a school with just DIII sports is losing money. It all has to be funded by student fees.
The question is how much funding should the students/university put into sports? That’s a question recently answered at UCSD and UCSC (in which case the students agreed to increase student fees to support sports). It’s clear that students support sports, to a point.
D1 FBS Football is expensive. I wouldn’t recommend starting a new program, unless you have a fairly large student body that can support it via fees. The University of North Florida recently looked into it, and decided it would be way to expensive with only 14,000 undergraduates. Basketball, on the other hand, is much more doable (351 teams play D1 basketball, vs 128 that play D1-FBS football).
I should point out that another major source of athletic funding is via alumni donations. UF is one of the “20” or so programs making money, and it’s not only the ridiculous TV contracts (SEC Network for the WIN), but also the army of “BULL” Gators supporting the program. Need a new $17 million indoor football practice field? No problem, a Bull Gator will (and did) help fund that…