“The people of California would be just as happy if there were no OOS students at UC.”
Probably shouldn’t have hired Napolitano. Attended UVA law school as an OOS student…
@northwesty a lot of people would agree with you
Do you think there’ll be outrage when financial aid for in-state students is cut as a result of OOS enrollment reductions? I think the law of unintended consequences is going to hit pretty hard if OOS enrollment is cut.
@anomander there is money there if they want to spend it. California has a budget surplus as a result of a booming economy and tax increases
The voters of California are NOT supporting UC. That’s the simple true.For decades they have refused to adequately fund them. Look at the overcrowded classes, dilapidated facilities, limited hours for libraries. California voters are refusing to replace the money that would be lost if OOS students were to disappear. Very shortsighted policy. They should instead look at Michigan and UVA, two universities that are going in the opposite direction. And both UVA and Michigan have growing endowments and budgets.
As for what @anomander writes, I have no doubt this is true. These are the same voters who destroyed California libraries and public schools but limiting taxes. You are destroying what WAS a national treasure.
I hope UC goes to court and fights all the way to the Supreme Court. If the legislature wants to seize control of higher education, and to limit the right of universities to admit students they feel most qualified, they should fully fund those in-state students. Or the voters of California should be force to repay all the donors who donated to a very different place.
@proudparent26 You are really exaggerating the health of California’s economy. It still has a huge state debt. Vastly underfunded schools. Closed libraries. Vastly underfunded hospitals (ever been to one of LA’s public hospitals). Our prisons are under federal court order. And our universities are vastly underfunded. Voters have increased taxes but not enough to make up for the idioticy dating back to Prop 13.
Source for your so-called truth, please? (I don’t recall a statewide vote on UC in recent elections.)
Yes, the state legislature has spent money on other stuff, and I guess you could make the argument that the legislators represent the voters – although I would not…but my point is that if given the choice of funding UC vs. legislator’s or the Governor’s pet projects, I’d be UC wins 90% of time, if taken to a vote of the people.
Huh? What is the legal/constitutional issue here? (This comment just makes no sense.)
as an FYI – the California Master Plan for Higher Ed was developed by the UC and approved by the State Legislature, and is part of the State Education Code. So, no, the Admissions office does not have free reign admit whoever they want.
I realize that Prop 13 is a popular bogeyman for many, but it is just that; California ranks in the top ~3 for state and local taxes paid by its citizens. While Prop 13 certainly lowered and then capped property taxes, the $$ was more than made up for by income and sales taxes, and a slew of other state fees. It’s kinda hard to argue that the state is underfunded relative to the other 50 when its in the to handful for local $$ collections.
@klingon97 I live in California do you? The voters of California do not fund UC. That is done by the legislature and Board of regents and the Governor. So the vast majority of your argument does not make sense. I was at UCLA last week. It didn’t look dilapidated to me and there was lots of building going on. I thought it was beautiful.
I don’t know where the closed libraries you are talking about are located. If you don’t think the California economy is booming buy an airplane ticket to San Francisco and take a tour of the city and the silicon valley. The unemployment rate in the Silicon Valley is under 3 per cent.
California doesn’t follow the trickle down model of economics
Chancellor of the 23-campus Cal State system can’t rely on OOS students to help fund his system. He would like to, but the Cal States aren’t as sexy and popular as the UCs, so few OOS kids are interested. So facing the same economic pressures from reduced state funding what does the Cal State system do? It cuts the number of students accepted, and pretty much all of the denied kids are CA residents;
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cal-state-revenue-20160330-story.html
Re: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cal-state-revenue-20160330-story.html
Note that the article does mention that many CSU students are local commuter students who may find it too expensive or otherwise difficult to attend a non-local CSU. There are CSUs which have the capacity to admit all who meet the baseline requirements (i.e. not impacted), but not every CSU hopeful can move to Bakersfield, Channel Islands, Stanislaus, etc. (and some majors may not be available at those CSUs, or may be impacted there).
I wonder if there is a study that shows what illegal immigration is doing to the funding sources of the UC’s?
@bluebayou, so if the shortages of Prop 13 have been largely made up with other taxes/fees but the UCs (and CSUs) are still underfunded, what’s the state to do? Raise more taxes? Close down campuses? What is the solution, if accepting OOS students at the expense of the locals isn’t palatable?
BTW, I’m not arguing… I’m just asking, genuinely curious. I love the UCs (and California) and would hate to see them weakened.
Those are the two extreme possibilities, and depending on the political persuasion of the voter…
My solutions are politically unpalatable. 
The audit has clearly rattled the cages at UC. Somehow they whipped out this rebuttal, nicely formatted, in record time:
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/straight-talk-report
Of course they continue to dodge the real point of contention that most angers CA residents, and that is the rejection emails from UCB and UCLA to high achieving Californians. OOS numbers are routinely given as a system wide average, as though it is irrelevant than UCB, UCLA and UCSD average 30% OOS and the numbers at the other campuses are negligible.
I wonder if they should return to a policy of legacy considerations for applicants. I have no data to support this, but I suspect the most vocal opponents of the OOS funding model are full pay parents who want their kid to have the same alma mater. The high achieving first gen. and low income kids already get bonus points in holistic evaluations but the Cal and Bruin children, not so much. Mama & papa bear are angry.
Use of legacy considerations goes against the goal of promoting access to all applicants, particularly the usually more disadvantaged first generation to college ones. It also would reduce political support by non-alumni and those who do not like the idea of promoting an inherited aristocracy.
^Yes but tilting admission preference to high paying less or equally qualified OOS students has already promoted an “inherited aristocracy” in the worst sense of the concept. These rich outsiders are admitted purely because of their wealth. Certainly an equally qualified full pay Californian who also has a strong allegiance to a particular campus is not worse than that to non-alumni.
The following letter was sent to clarify the UC’s position.
Dear Friend of UC,
I’m writing to share the good news that UC is on track to enroll an additional 5,000 California undergraduates in 2016 – and 5,000 more over the following two years.
Admissions offers to California high school seniors are up 15 percent over last year, according to preliminary results. The numbers show that UC’s efforts to boost enrollment of California students are working – efforts made possible, in part, because of additional funding provided by the State in last year’s budget.
Given the ongoing debate about nonresident students at UC, you may be surprised to learn that California students make up about 85% of our student body. Nonresidents – who pay three times as much in tuition and fees – are critical to our efforts to serve Californians. Last year, nonresident students contributed $800 million to the university’s overall budget, an amount equivalent to the entire budget for UC Riverside. Clearly, this level of funding allows UC to maintain access, affordability and excellence for California students.
While revenues from nonresident students remain an essential part of UC’s budget, UC has capped the level of nonresident students at UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego – the campuses with the most nonresident students. Moreover, it is important to understand that UC admissions policies overwhelmingly favor Californians. Consistent with UC’s obligation in accordance with the California Master Plan for Higher Education, we continue to admit all of the top 12.5 percent of California public high school graduates who apply. UC has honored this commitment even in the leanest of budget years when the state didn’t fund enrollment for all eligible California students. Our admissions policies put California students first:
If eligible California students aren’t admitted to their campus of choice, UC refers them to another UC campus. Nonresident students are never guaranteed admission to UC.
California residents need only a 3.0 GPA to be considered for admission. Nonresidents are required to have at least a 3.4 GPA.
All eligible California students that apply are guaranteed admission to the University.
You can read a comprehensive, data-driven report about our admissions and finances here: http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/straight-talk-report.
The bottom line is that state funding is the determining factor in how many California residents UC can enroll. The university, in partnership with the state, has always been in service to California, and that is still true today:
55 percent of UC undergraduates have all systemwide tuition and fees covered by financial aid, grants and scholarships
42 percent are among the first in their families to earn a college degree
40 percent come from low-income households
30 percent are California Community College transfers
On Wednesday, April 6, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee will be hearing from the State Auditor about the report recently issued that is critical of UC’s admission of nonresident students. We believe that we have a very positive story to tell about our admissions policies and practices and accordingly, I would enlist your help by asking you to reach out to the Committee with communication supporting our efforts.
Thank you for your help with this important issue.
Yours very truly,
Nelson Peacock
Senior Vice President
Governmental Relations
Back in the stone age when I went to Cal, the OOS kids were all stellar, accomplished students. It was much harder to get into a UC if you weren’t a state resident, and some of the OOS kids who went there turned down higher-ranked privates to attend.
Why did this change? Did the UCs suddenly run out of high-achieving OOS applicants?
The audit has clearly rattled the cages at UC. Somehow they whipped out this rebuttal, nicely formatted, in record time:"
It certainly rattled cages, but the response was not put together in record time. According to news reports here in CA, the UC knew in advance more or less what the report would say. The state legislator who commissioned had been publicly complaining about the issue for some time. So the UC leadership had been working on their response well in advance.
@dietz199 , you left out the last part of the last sentence in that letter. A plea for everyone to write the auditor and tell them they are wrong, with a link to this conveniently written form letter written by a “Senior Vice President of Governmental Relations”: http://www.uc4ca.org/take-action.html
The administrator who wrote the email and encourages us to write our letters in support of UC is in the category of “Executive Advisor Manager Step 4” and earns about $100,000/ year. Average salary for the other employees in this category is about $200,000 according to this web site: http://ucpay.globl.org/index.php?title=!EXEC+ADVISOR+MGR+4
I think UC does have an administrative bloat problem exacerbating budget woes.