<p>The problem is that if the 55K-paying OOS and international students weren’t there, there would still be even fewer spots for CA residents since each OOS/international student is admitted specifically in order to offset the cost of admitting more CA residents than the budget allows. OOS and internationals must also meet higher academic threshold than CA residents, regardless of campus.
The problem isn’t the number of OOS/international applicants, but the budget cuts. If all CA taxpayers were willing to increase the budget back to what it used to be 20 years ago (… or 40 years ago, when tuition was almost free for all who were admitted in-state even though it was a pretty bad recession), the situation would be very different 
(although the administrative level would still be bloated, vs. faculty/staff/facility level.) Ask your parents: would they accept early 1990’s tax levels to subsidize the public university system? In exchange for near-free tuition, perhaps? If so, organize something and get it on the ballot. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That can be done by getting rid of some of the ridiculous spending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t taxes, it is spending.
But I would be happy to go back to early 90s tax levels:</p>
<p>Sales tax: 1991: 6% (state and local average)
Sales tax: 2013 7.5%</p>
<p>Top Marginal Rate: 1991: 11% (went down to 9.6% in 1996)
Top Marginal Rate: 2013: 13.3%</p>
<p>Property tax collected per capita: 2006: $1031
Property tax collected per capita: 2010 $1,450</p>
<p>(can’t find better historical info than that).</p>
<p>^ None of that relates specifically to spending on the universities. But you’re right, I should have said “tax rises or spending cuts in other areas”.</p>
<p>For those who have problems with athlete admits to prestigious schools. What about music admits? How about neuropsychology major admits? My point is, yes athletics might seem like a meaningless hook to you, but it is just one of the many hooks. I know people who were admitted almost solely based on their major selection and specific background in that area. And there are people who were admitted due to their major and gender combo. </p>
<p>Not to mention legacies.</p>
<p>An athlete who is capable of playing varsity sports in college has shown the ability to balance school work and up to 20 hours per week at their chosen sport. And then you have some athletes who also manage ECs like music and math league, like my son. Yeah, he doesn’t have straight As, but he does have a breadth of experience and ability that we expect, and have been told by admissions officers, will give him a leg up.</p>
<p>Think about it - if you have okay, let’s say 25th percentile, GPA and test scores, but weak ECs or ECs that show little teamwork or perseverance (the old “I started a new club at my school senior year!” trick), why would an Ivy admit you? Now you add high-level, at least all-state, sports, and then a coach who needs your position or even, then how about adding some other ECs that show a huge commitment (my son had 20 hours of music one week, still managing school and other ECs). A kid who can do that is more desirable than one who can’t get the good grades with the time on their hands.</p>
<p>You also have to realize that at a certain point, “good grades and test scores” turn to “excellent grades and test scores”, but then there is no benefit to even higher grades and test scores. A 2400 is something top schools are dying to reject. A perfect 4.0 is something top schools are dying to reject. This falls down to 2300 SAT scores for all but the very top schools. Conversely, a kid with 2000 SAT scores and sports could be much more attractive to Ivies than that 2300 SAT and French club and senior home volunteer. The US places a huge value on athletic prowess, and the amount of hard work it takes to get there. </p>
<p>Eventually, not only will it be accepted that you do not need elite colleges to make something of yourself but that only miniscule fractions of high school students, who have unique career paths and skill sets and, yes, families that can legit afford it, should even be considering them. Then, it will be accepted that countless other expensive colleges are flooded with students for whom college was never the best option for them, and for some of whom college was the worst option, and more and more will be looking at community colleges, other college prep programs, or trade schools.</p>
<p>One reason college rates have dropped isn’t only because of the influx of highly qualified foreign students, but the ease at which college email can be sent. It is free and numerous emails from one school can be sent to thousands of prospective students with no costs. Advertisement is one of the most powerful and effectivel tools corporations and universities: Its results are paying off by driving down admission rates.</p>
<p>@rhandco </p>
<p>interesting perspective! i have to admit i’ve been one to scoff at the athlete thing in regards to college admissions, but you bring up a really great point that high school and college athletes spend a lot of time balancing training and schoolwork. i agree with you that the hard work and dedication it takes to excel at a sport while keeping grades up would be something any university would value and a trait that would take that student far in life beyond college. i can get behind that much more than a legacy admit!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely!</p>
<p>Also, when you see the quality of some of these athletes, the Rose Bowl MVP who did research and is now working on a Masters degree, or one of the top (top?) women’s basketball scorers who is being mentored by Condoleezza Rice, you realize that so many of these people are exceptional all around, not just in sports.</p>
<p>I don’t really have an issue with athlete admits because they completely earned their entrance not through anything outside of their control. There is an issue of having grossly underqualified athletic admits out there at top sports programs, but in my mind they aren’t worth getting as worked up over as legacies, URM’s, big-name admits (hey Bush, hey Trump), and kids whose parents donated a lot of money (hi Ross). The athlete “hook” at least has to be earned, unlike the others in which one is born into.</p>
<p>Given current admit rates, the legacy benefit at the very top institutions is being vastly overblown. Our experience is that it is negligible unless tied to substantial donations. Our DS was wait listed and then rejected at HY where he had legacies (in one case on both sides and in one case multi-generational) and accepted at equivalent institutions where he had no previous affiliation. </p>
<p>At our school, not an athletic powerhouse, I think there were 25 recognized as continuing in sports in college. I don’t think there is a single one who would not have been admitted to the school on merit alone. The majority are going to schools in the south east, Div-3, junior college, not-so-competitive D-1. I think their sports formed them into the type of students they are - on time, able to juggle priorities, leaders, drug and alcohol free, healthy- rather than getting them into schools where they aren’t qualified. The student going to MIT has a 4.55/36ACT. Should MIT have taken the 4.6/36ACT over the volleyball player? Why shouldn’t athletic ability be the deciding factor between two equally academically qualified students?</p>
<p>Still better than China, only 7% of high schoolers get into any college. + You have to test into hs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a bad comparison since it is implying that the 4.6 GPA has no ECs.</p>
<p>There is no reason why athletic ability should be a deciding factor. For example, that 4.6 GPA person could be an Intel Finalist or started a successful business during HS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting stereotype there. We all know that no HS athletes ever do steroids or other performing enhancing drugs and that they never hard party at the end of the season with alcohol and pot.</p>
<p>@LongRangePlan </p>
<p>You said you weren’t going to be convinced, but gosh darn it I’m gonna try. </p>
<p>The situation just isn’t one where universities are rejecting domestic students en masse and filling classes to the brim with internationals just to capitalize on higher tuition fees. The UCs haven’t gone past 15% for international students, and Berkeley currently has 11%. I might not know more about university admissions than you, but 11% doesn’t seem like the filthy-immigrant-favouring, America-threatening catastrophe you make it out to be. </p>
<p>A citation corroborating your claims would be nice. You can’t make a statement like that without being intimately familiar with admission criteria and processes (Something very, very few people here seem to possess.) Extremely qualified domestic students getting rejected in favour of international students doesn’t seem likely, unless they were rejected because the slots open to domestic students had already been filled with domestic students even more qualified than them. </p>
<p>And you know what? Even if their stats were higher and their list of achievements was longer, we are told again and again that stats aren’t everything. What makes you so sure some of those outstanding students weren’t just cookie cutter model students doing only what was necessary to secure a university spot, but ended up being far duller and less captivating than say, the Indian math prodigy doing equations by candlelight?</p>
<p>You do emphasize the phrase ‘Best and Brightest’ quite a lot, so I’m going to assume that your amazing prodigy didn’t get the place you thought he was entitled to.</p>
<p>@epiphany</p>
<p>Walking into Berkeley? Those ‘outstanding’ students had to fight for their slots because international students who were just as, if not even more outstanding turned up to compete for them. International students are not given an equal shot. Not now, probably not ever. We face a far higher academic bar and we pay a hell of a lot more tuition for the privilege (And for us, it really is a privilege) of studying in the United States. What’s more, universities seem to ensure that the vast majority of students are domestic entrants, meaning that international students end up competing viciously against each other for far fewer spots than are offered to US residents. </p>
<p>Yes, it’s quite likely that universities have a set proportion of international students per year, maintained to benefit from higher tuition payments. But this proportion is small, and it just doesn’t marginalize or even significantly threaten domestic applicants. The fact is, American students make up the vast majority of students enrolled at any college in the United States, and it’s going to stay that way. Unless international student numbers somehow go up to more than barely a tenth of the undergraduate population and they start admitting C students from China instead of A+ students from the United States. </p>
<p>Also, here’s a thought. Could the problem not solely be due to international students, but rather an increase in the number of American students who happen to be more talented/interesting/capable than their peers? Perhaps rather than looking into closing off American universities to the rest of the world, you could look into making sure that your child has a more interesting story to tell and is therefore more competitive and attractive than say, the kid next door? </p>
<p>“The athlete “hook” at least has to be earned, unlike the others in which one is born into.”</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Oops. I meant to add, if you really consider the above statement, many students were born into an advantageous situation. The typical 34 ACT / 3.9 GPA applicant with amazing EC’s often has had benefits that other students didn’t have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, the NERVE of American public universities to prioritize domestic students. oo</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rest of your sentence doesn’t necessarily hold, but the volume of domestic in-State applicants to U.C. has, yes, increased. And apparently increases by the year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. That’s not “the problem.” They are as talented as last year’s admits, but the fight for fewer spots per applicant pool has intensified. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, you are clueless about “my child.” And that would be children, not “child.” I love it that someone who sports exactly one post and apparently registered for the dubious cause of ranting about the inequities afforded non-Americans doesn’t bother to read anything about the poster being “@'d” to before raving about how supposedly dull my IvyLeague and UCBerkeley-admit children are. </p>
<p>yeah, have a nice day. After you stop feeling entitled and superior. oo</p>
<p>Funny how a parent would care so much about her IvyLeague and UCBerkeley-admit children. I bet you think your “UCBerkeley-admit” is inferior to your ivy kid - rankings would say so. Parents who actually push their kids into ivies are lamentable. I’m glad my parents didn’t push me - I can say that whatever I did, I did on my own. I didn’t have a tiger mom on CC and I didn’t have connections to prestigious internships or programs. Even if/when I am not admitted ivy-league, I won’t care because I didn’t have helicopter parents who crafted me - I am my own success. </p>
<p>@AhoySailor:</p>
<p>You didn’t read carefully.
First, my objection to the situation at Berkeley has NOTHING whatever to do with my own sons, both of whom happily chose small, private schools in CA. Neither one of them had any interest in applying to Cal, so they did not. The younger one applied to one UC, and was accepted, but chose another school instead. So, your inference that my kids didn’t have “a more interesting story to tell” is rather ignorant.</p>
<p>And your “filthy immigrant” comment…WTH? No where in my posts did I EVER say anything like that, or imply anything close to what you infer. Good grief. </p>
<p>Please read carefully. I believe students whose parents have been paying California state taxes should have priority with CA STATE SCHOOLS over students whose parents have not been paying California state taxes. As to private schools, ivy or otherwise, I don’t have an opinion. They can admit any student they choose as far as I’m concerned, because they are private. </p>
<p>@AhoySailor: If you don’t care for the way US universities do business with international students, you’re free to submit your applications elsewhere.</p>