Audit shows UC admission standards relaxed for out-of-staters

Parents Forum
101

^^ The letter I posted was sent to my personal email. The last sentence …“reach out to the Committee with communication supporting our efforts.” is a hyperlink in the original email but for some reason didn’t copy as such.

Napolitano recently visited the campus where my S is studying abroad. Her supposed purpose was to 'see how the UC Education Abroad Program students were doing, and how they liked their experience. Hmmm…one has to fly all over the globe to do this? Can one not gather this info electronically? And…by some weird coincidence, S is in a very popular location. One where it’s expensive to visit.

102

Did your son get to meet Ms. Napolitano? Interestingly, Mr. Peacock, who drafted the letter we received encouraging us to write and express our support for the way UC does business, was a honcho in the Homeland Security program before taking his humble post in the UC Office of the President:

https://www.dhs.gov/nelson-peacock

Perhaps the UC is so large and complex that it has become a small government unto itself and needs administrators with Federal government credentials to navigate the rough political waters. I wonder how many others rode in on Napolitano’s coattails and whether they filled open job vacancies or whether positions were created for them. Here is the whole gang, I believe the “Chief of Staff” for the Office of the President is a new position:
http://www.ucop.edu/business-operations/_files/opchart.pdf

103

Never saw Cali as such a small-minded insular state. Most of this rhetoric was done better 40 years ago in the midwest. UC probably gets more money form US taxpayers than from Cali. in total.

104

The difference is that the extra full pay out-of-state students are subsidizing the system, since out-of-state tuition is significantly greater than the cost of education, while full pay in-state students are still being subsidized because in-state tuition is less than the cost of education. It is more unfair to reinforce an inherited aristocracy among those receiving subsidies than to let the aristocrats subsidize others.

105

I think somebody is confusing UC with HYP. Get over yourselves.

106

But isn’t the cost of education per student substantially higher at the 3 campuses that attract OOS students? It’s hard to imagine there’s much left over (at those 3 campuses) to subsidize other students * at those campuses*.

More than half of UC grads each year are from low income families. Are they suddenly “aristocracy” just by virtue of their diploma?

107

UC is their stepping stone of upward mobility, which is part of UC’s mission (similar with CSUs and CCs). Are you saying that their kids, who will benefit from the advantages of growing up in a home with college educated parents should get preference in college admissions through the legacy preference that you advocate?

108

Philosophically I would prefer a pure meritocracy, but at campuses that use holistic admission, and that admit OOS students simply because they bring cash to the system, I see nothing wrong with allocating a small percentage of score points to legacy applicants for the same reason that private schools do this. It was only about 20 years ago that UC stopped using legacy as a criteria for admission.

109

Except for the past decade, when UC was making an aggressive push to attract OOS students, UC was also providing those students with need-based financial aid. In essence, circumventing the very purpose for which they were attracting OOS students in the first place.

110

Reference to this? From what I read a few decades ago about the admission process, legacy was not a criterion for UC admissions. Back then, it was done at Berkeley on a point system, and there were no points for legacies. Also, at that time, many of the other UC campuses appeared to admit all who met the baseline eligibility requirements.

Of course, you could remove the distorting effect of different tuition levels by not having different tuition levels, but that goes against the mission of offering more affordable higher education to California residents.

Preferring legacy applicants really does not seem like a solution to anything.

The UC need-based aid to out-of-state students did not cover the out-of-state additional tuition, so UC was still collecting that. The minimum net price for out-of-state students receiving maximum need-based financial aid (but not merit scholarships) then was higher than the in-state list price.

111

Perhaps true, but irrelevant. (I’m actually surprised, bcos you are normally a very fact-based poster.)

The FACT is, with the need-based aid discount, the cost to the OOS student is NOT “greater than the cost of education,” at least for those students.

112

UC spent $32 million on out-of-state need-based financial aid before ending it, an average of $2,909 for each of 10,999 domestic out-of-state students. Meaning that out-of-state students overall still paid a large net subsidy per student (probably around $10,000 per student) after subtracting that amount from their tuition, even though an occasional out-of-state student may have dipped into the subsidized range.

113

My primary reference is anecdotal, I remember when legacy preference was discontinued, but I found this on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

And this

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Legacy_brief.pdf

Legacy considerations are a proven strategy to drive up alumni donations which has been problematic for the UC because many of its graduates do not come from a culture of charitable giving to educational institutions. It’s a uniquely American custom to donate to your alma mater. Consensus is that the strategy is “not fair” but neither is rejecting otherwise qualified in state applicants in favor of deep pocketed outsiders.

114

Let’s keep it on topic. The number of blondes being admitted is not what this thread is about.

115

I graduated from Berkeley. I do not want legacy preferences. If the schools need out of state students to help cover costs, that is fine with me.

116

Perhaps, but this is different from your earlier post which said that OOS students are paying fees “greater than the cost of education.” Actually, I’d love to see a source for this claim, besides the spin from UCOP. Alternatively, a source for the actual “cost of education.”

Note the state Ed code only says that OOS fees must not “fall below the marginal cost of education.” Do you happen to have a source for what the marginal cost is?

In setting OOS rates, the Ed Code also requires that UCOP “consider”: 1) competitor school’s prices, and 2) “the full average cost of education.” Do you happen to have a source for what that amount is?

117

There is plenty of demand from OOS/foreign and raising that tuition would be no problem.

UMich charges 43.5k 1st + 2nd year, 46.5K 3rd + 4th and you’re in freaking Michigan! They have no problem attracting OOS/international students.

If the UC’s just upped the tuition for OOS to Mich’s 43k, that’s 4 - 5k more per international student per year, so it would mean you could take less OOS/international, more resident and keep resident tuition right where it is.

You could also fire the UCB “dean of inclusion” or whatever they are called, because they’ve done nothing to increase “inclusion” at UCB.

You could cut Janet Napolitano’s housing budget from 9k a month to, say, a paltry 5k a month (There’s 4 more resident students right there!)

Maybe, there might just maybe be one or two other administrators you could cut…?

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-spending-20151011-story.html

Just a crazy thought.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, D is a female in engineering with 2190 single sitting, 750 Math, Ap Scholar with distinction, 4.1 UC GPA, 4.3 W GPA with awesome science/engineering ECs who did not get into UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UCD, but did get into UC Santa Cruz, UMich, UWash, USC viterbi, NYU-Tandon and McGill. And got some nice scholarships at some of those schools.

Luckily, her slots at the UC’s were sold to some dude from Virginia or Russia so Janet Napolitano can live in a big refurbished mansion. Fire them all.

118

I was surprised to find that the universities of Michigan, Colorado and Wisconsin are far ahead of California in admitting a growing number of non-resident students to compensate for state funding cuts. Non-resident students at those taxpayer-supported public universities account for 38-40% of the total undergraduate population, compared to 23% at California. See link here: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-foreign-out-of-state-students-pad-UC-s-6434407.php

Considering that as context and it’s preeminent standing among public universities, I say UC is exerting remarkable restraint when it comes to capping non-resident students.

119

@CaliDad2020

There are quite a few good schools on your daughter’s list.

Where does she want to go to school?

Not getting into ucd, ucsb, uci is shocking.

120

@dstark

It would be shocking if she was a guy from OOS, but it’s par for the course for CA women, I’ve come to learn.

We’d rather sell our tech future to India, Indiana, China and Charleston than admit our own girls to UCB COE, any of the Samuelis, Jacobs or anywhere. She only got Santa Cruz cause state law says with her stats she has to get in someplace. They would have preferred to sell her Santa Cruz seat too.

Janet Napolitano needs a new tesla! Or UCI needs a Dean of Dining Rooms.

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-spending-20151011-story.html

As to what school - my D is doing her due diligence right now. She has one more to hear from, we have drawn up budgets, we are negotiating with her what her contribution needs to be and how she will fulfill that etc. but she can’t go wrong with any of her choices, I’m just pissed we will be out of pocket an extra 100k or so no matter where she goes. Would have been terrible to actually offer one of the women who are in the top 10% of all CA students an actually, you know, top engineering program. That would have really been bad for… uh… Janet Napolitano’s new bathroom!

http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-panel-OKs-initial-work-to-presidential-mansion-4822382.php

Honestly, Napolitano, Sastry and the rest of the carpet baggers who make promises they have no intention of fulfilling need to be fired. They are playing a game of budget chicken with the legislature on the backs of our kids. Why shouldn’t UCB charge OOS the same 45k or even 50K that UMich or USC charge? That would allow a few more resident students now, wouldn’t it?