Higher Education in California: One State, Two Systems.

College Search & Selection
1

<p>An interesting article by The Economist: Higher</a> education in California: One state, two systems | The Economist. </p>

<p>The proportion of high-school graduates progressing to UC or CSU has fallen from 22% to 18% in the past five years, according to Hans Johnson at the Public Policy Institute of California. The extra fee revenue is not enough to compensate for the decline in state funding, and so both UC and CSU have aimed to reduce enrolment numbers. UC must still offer places to all eligible students, but uses ruses such as restricting access to popular campuses, such as UCLA or Berkeley, in favour of out-of-the-way campuses in places like Merced.</p>

<p>It is an altogether different story for some of California’s private institutions, which tend to charge far higher tuition fees. Stanford University, under its president, John Hennessy, who sits on the boards of Google and Cisco, has strengthened links with the go-getters of Silicon Valley and raised a record-breaking $6.2 billion in five years. The Los Angeles-based University of Southern California (USC), once mocked by detractors as the University of Spoiled Children, is also thriving. It is aiming to raise $6 billion by 2018, and already has some chunky gifts in the bag. It has more international students on its books than any other American university, and, after the recent launch of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy, one particularly notable foreign-born professor.</p>

2

<p>You forgot this part:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Although USC does have a higher percentage of Pell Grant students than most selective universities, that percentage is far less than at Berkeley and UCLA.</p>

3

<p>Also this part
“UC’s decline can be exaggerated. Some of its campuses continue to perform well in national rankings, it has significant non-state revenue sources, and it has a strong research record. “We’re hardly at death’s door,” says Mr Yudof. A big moment will come in November, when Californians vote on a tax measure. If it is approved (the polls are tight), UC and CSU will freeze tuition fees for the first time in years. If it fails, they will have to cope with a sudden drop of $250m in state support. Mr Yudof calls it a “defining moment” for California.”</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s all about increasing taxes. :)</p>

5

<p>You don’t have to raise taxes. In which case, eventually, you won’t have a world-class university system. Maybe a couple world class public universities (read Cal and UCLA) but not an entire system. In which case, you’d be like many other states. If it’s really up to voters to decide whether to raise taxes for their schools, then the people will decide. It’s as simple as that. The top faculty at schools like Santa Barbara or Irvine or Davis might eventually be bought out by privates or more financially stable publics elsewhere. Will California suffer as a result? That remains to be seen. I myself wouldn’t want to see the UCs suffer because I myself think the state will suffer along with it. But that may not be the decision of voters at large.</p>

6

<p>Probably wouldn’t have read that article if it wasn’t from The Economist. (although i’d say the quality is lower than what i usually read from there.)</p>

<p>This argument’s been said time and time again. I do think it’s important to rediscuss though, especially as the election nears.</p>

<p>I do however think its a bit disingenous to compare two private universities to the dozens of public ones (i.e. the UC and CSU systems) since, arguably, only two of them are their peers. I also thought it was funny how the author states that USC has the most international students; he does this while omitting that Berkeley is generally regarded as the best public university in the United States, and that UCLA is the most applied to university in the nation.</p>

<p>I got the impression from the article that the author held Berkeley and UCLA in a high regard. While they’re certainly not being gutted as the other UCs are, the budget cuts have effects on those campuses too. Here’s a recent article that was posted from an interview with UCLA’s CFO</p>

<p>[UCLA’s</a> chief financial officer makes sense of budget complexities / UCLA Today](<a href=“http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/cfo-explains-budget-237352.aspx]UCLA’s”>http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/cfo-explains-budget-237352.aspx)</p>

7

<p>many companies and people(tax paying ones) have fled CA for greener pastures. many of those companies will pick up recruiting future talent from places like u of texas, unc chapel hill, duke,vanderbilt, u of Florida,etc… many younger professors and future STEM folks will head to the places that offer them the best most secure futures. will CA as a state and the UC and CSu’s as well as private schools suffer, ask again in 20 years!</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>It would have been nice if the author had explained the significance of this statement. Is the reduction due to students choosing other colleges, or not going to college? And why does it matter if the proportion has decreased?</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>…the fact that USC has been aggressively recruiting internationals for many years – particuarly those that are full pay.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not sure that the cause and effect are so clearly linked…for example, UC could do what Michigan and UVa do, pick up a lot more full pay out of state students. (Michigan has been a world class Uni for as long as Cal has been.) And/or, do what 'SC does, recruit full pay internationals.</p>

<p>Sure, such would change the composition of the undergrads (to more reflect the residencies of the grad programs), but the big campuses could easily retain their ‘world class’ status. Heck, one could argue that it is the grad programs that make the campuses world class, not the composition of the undergrads.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, i think it’ll probably come at the expense of low-income students. Granted, UCs couldn’t become need aware, but they could increase the minimum criteria for their admits (that wouldn’t be hard to justify with its near 100k applicants.) </p>

<p>It sucks, but it is what it is. At least for UCLA, there are plenty of alternative colleges for other students to attend within the Los Angeles area.</p>

11

<p>Berkeley is on track for a $3 billion fundraising campaign to be finished in 2013…</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Technically, the UCs are need-aware, but not in the sense that you mean. UC gives admissions bonus points to low income kids, so it HAS to consider income.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Or, UC could follow the Cal State Uni lead:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, this just applies to grad school (now), but the logic would the same for undergrad enrollment.</p>

<p>Read more: [One</a> Cal State department refuses to let in out-of-staters over state residents | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/13/one-cal-state-department-refuses-let-out-staters-over-state-residents#ixzz23RFwT0JJ]One”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/13/one-cal-state-department-refuses-let-out-staters-over-state-residents#ixzz23RFwT0JJ)
Inside Higher Ed</p>

14

<p>That kind of logic leads to bankruptcy.</p>

15

<p>I think both the UCs and CSUs need to more strongly give consideration to students who can commute to their campuses (even more than they currently do).</p>

<p>Part of the problem is trying to fund kids who are skipping over their local CSUs and UCs to go “away” on tax-payer money. </p>

<p>It’s one thing to provide FA (grants/loans/WS combo) to cover the $10k-16k to cover basic costs (tuition, fees, books), it’s another to provide aid up to $32k for the “going away” experience. </p>

<p>Going away to school is a luxury in MOST cases. There are some exceptions, but the fact that there are some exceptions should not mean that commuting should be the first option if possible.</p>

<p>the schools could put into practice that aid will only be met up to the COA of commuters UNLESS the student is a transferring junior in a major that isn’t in his region.</p>

16

<p>Most of the CSUs are predominantly commuter campuses already (note: CSU is much larger than UC). And UC and CSU policy is to accept a large percentage of students as junior transfers from community colleges, most of which have nearly all commuter students, many of whom transfer to a UC or CSU that they can commute to.</p>

<p>The proposed policy in #15 would be more limiting to students from lower income families. For example, a student from a lower income family in Oakland who wants to major in architecture may be well prepared to go to a four year school as a freshman, but not be able to get into the local state university that offers the major (Berkeley). S/he may be able to get into other state universities like the Cal Polys, UCLA, and UCSB, but would not be able to afford to do so under the proposed policy. Going to community college and then transferring would remain as an option, but then the policy could prevent the student from finishing the bachelor’s degree if s/he did not get into Berkeley, even if s/he did get into a Cal Poly, UCLA, or UCSB.</p>

17

<p>

Berkeley and UCLA can do that, maybe UCSD and -SB as well to some extent. But I’m not so sure that the demand is there for a $50k education from Davis or Merced.</p>

18

<p>^^ certainly won’t be if the ‘name’ professors will leave those schools. And they will leave, if offered more money and better facilities elsewhere.</p>

19

<p>*The proposed policy in #15 would be more limiting to students from lower income families. </p>

<p>For example, a student from a lower income family in Oakland who wants to major in architecture may be well prepared to go to a four year school as a freshman, but not be able to get into the local state university that offers the major (Berkeley). </p>

<p>S/he may be able to get into other state universities like the Cal Polys, UCLA, and UCSB, but would not be able to afford to do so under the proposed policy. Going to community college and then transferring would remain as an option, but then the policy could prevent the student from finishing the bachelor’s degree if s/he did not get into Berkeley, even if s/he did get into a Cal Poly, UCLA, or UCSB.*</p>

<p>If the student goes to a CC first, then applies for a transfer, but doesn’t get accepted to the nearby UC (Cal in your example), then aid could be there for another public. But, the first try should be for the local school.</p>

<p>the tax-payer savings from having the student first attend a CC, will then help cover R&B if the student needs to transfer to a school for a major not available locally. </p>

<p>We can all find exceptions that make the idea of limitations sound bad, but it’s worse having no limitations. there can be exceptions made, as mentioned above. That said, most students aren’t majoring in anything that can’t be found at a nearby UC or CSU. </p>

<p>Yes, a policy change would affect lower and middle income kids (those earning under $80k for UCs). But, the truth is, tax-payers really can’t afford to be funding the go-away experience. It’s one thing to help with tuition and fees, but to be funding room and board is just not affordable.</p>

20

<p>m2c - I would have no problem paying the high room and board of around $12k-15k. But that plus a $14k tuition is crazy. If UC were the same price as the polys it would be more manageable for the middle income. A tuition around $5k-7k makes a ton of difference. Esepcially with zero guarantee that tuition by the time you graduate won’t have topped out at around $18k at the rate they’re going.</p>