By the way, UCSC’s athletic budget (based on the above linked article) is about $2M a year…and it’s in crisis…while UF throws up a $17M indoor football practice field, and all of us UF alumni are complaining that it took to long to build one…what a dichotomy…
Now, what’s holding up our new “luxury” dorms for the athletes??! UF needs to get cracking!!
@ucbalumnus increasing nonresident by any means is not desireable. But if the caps are put in effect, it will have to net out - which to me is fine. The problem is that it needs to find some way to be revenue neutral, which as everyone here knows and points out, is very difficult to do.
Well, to be fair, football and men’s basketball do ok financially. Where the whole athletic department runs a loss is all of the the non-rev sports, including, of course, women’s sports.
Generally, 95 new scholarships for football = 95 new scholarships for women’s sports
(Not saying that Title 9 a bad thing, but when running numbers, it’s only fair to recognize how the costs add up. And yes, I get that football expenses are significantly larger than any other sport.)
Recruited athlete non-residents on scholarships crowd out the revenue generating non-residents paying out-of-state tuition. So their effect on tuition revenue is negative. Also, to the extent that normal admission standards are bent for recruited athletes, there are compromises there that are not necessarily desirable.
^^aren’t the sports scholarships paid by the athletic department? So, an non-resident recruited FB player in a power conference would be paid by TV rights, among other sources of revenue.
Of course, only football and men’s b’ball can cover their scholarships, whether insate or OOS. It’s the non-rev sports, which are most of them, that crowd out other OOS students.
Yep - I doubt athletics will ever be revenue neutral across all sports, but it seems to be something students are willing to pay for - oddly enough. The agreement to increase fees also suggests there is room in the in-state tuition for small increases as well.
Which sports do international students play to generate revenue?
International students can be recruited athletes.
The UCB basketball roster lists two players whose hometowns are not in the US (UK and Cameroon), though it does not list whether they are international students. However, if they are on full athletic scholarships, they would not be paying the usual out-of-state tuition.
http://www.calbears.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=749496&SPID=126528
Although not a revenue producing sport, UCB rowing has a roster with many from outside the US.
http://www.calbears.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPID=126534&SPSID=762310
It was just announced that UC Merced will be doubling the size of its campus and expanding enrollment to 10,000 over the next four years so they will have plenty of space for the OOS and international students that @CaliDad2020 and @Gator88NE think will attend.
http://www.ucmerced.edu/news/2016/campus-announces-major-expansion
@AlbionGirl Of course, UC doesn’t need Merced to add more nonresident students. The Chancellor of Irvine told us all last year she could add more students but just “couldn’t afford” to add more CA students.
Until they change the “keep the tuition” rule they put in place in 2007, there is no incentive to admit more non-residents to Merced. If the cap is set at 10 or even 15% the UCs will have to admit less nonresident students. And I’m sure the cap won’t be per campus. So UCLA engineering will still be 40% Men from India and Indiana and China and Chicago and Merced will still be 2 % nonresident, or whatever the number is and Merced will become the default for top tier CA kids who can’t make the finances work elsewhere.
And in a few years Merced will be what Davis was 10 years ago - and kids will continue to get a fine education there, but nothing will be done about selling our tech education to nonresidents.
So UCLA engineering will still be 40% Men from India and Indiana and China and Chicago ... <<<
[/QUOTE]
A more apt alliteration might be appropriate.
Was UCLA, at full OOS tuition, a safety for those students not admitted to engineering at their in state flagships, UIUC and Purdue?
@IlliniDad18 what difference would it make? The reality is still that once UCLA and UCB and the others were allowed to keep the extra 25K “on campus” rather than putting it in the kitty with all the other UCs, their nonresident enrollment increased exponentially (as did UCSD and UCD and UCI) - and UCLA Samuelli and UCB COE have higher rates of nonresident enrollment than most UC programs.
And it is also a fact that UCLA Samueli and UCB COE have very high male to female ratios. And it is also a fact that of non-resident students, many are from China, India as well as various US States.
These are just facts. Whether UCLA was a nonresident students first, second or 100th choice matters not a whit. What matters is they have “bought” a seat that, pre-2007, would more likely have gone to a CA resident whose family has paid taxes into the UC system for at least a few years, and in many cases, 18+ years, helping offset tuition for other, older UCB, and UCLA and UCSD and UCD and UCI alumni. (of course, these schools have been over-allocating the engineering seats to nonresidents for years, but it got much worse in the past decade.)
That is the issue.
New budget. More money.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/16/california-legislature-approves-new-budget-increased-funding-uc/
“According to Jason Constantouros, the fiscal and policy analyst at the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, the funding for UC increased by $282 million from last year. Constantouros said that $144 million of the increased funds will go to on-going costs and $138 million will go to one-time funds — such as unfunded liabilities and maintenance.”
Haven’t dug into where the money is going. Some low income funding for sure.
More on the budget
UC system gets 3.3 billion. 125 million increase. 18 million contingent on enrolling 2500 more in-state (to Merced, I’m sure…)
Cal State system gets 150 million more with 14 million contingent on enrolling 5100 more residents.
Also increase CC funding.
Brown still needs to sign and can line item. 2 billion set aside for likely pending recession.
Sadly, it seems nothing is being done to change the 2007 “keep the nonresident tuition” change, so the new seats will all be at Riverside and Merced. We’ll keep selling our engineering and econ degrees to the usual suspects. Two steps forward. One step back…