<p>Source, please? (I think the correct number is closer to a third OOS.) But that just reinforces my point. With the high proportion of OOS students, UVa has lost a lot of its local political support. State funding has continued to drop as a result. When Virginia parents send their kids to George Mason, or VaTech, or Delaware or Maryland, for example, how much love are they gonna show UVa when tax time rolls around?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would truly hope that you learned better critical thinking skills at Cal. (Hint: don’t always believe the political spin.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so? Why is Merced necessary? Do students who can barely pull a 3.0 in high school REALLY need to attend a major, research University? Wouldn’t that money be better spent at the CSU/juco level?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve made plenty over the years. Here is just one, for example. UC could do what every other state Uni system does: offer tiered pricing for the state flagship. Want to attend Cal or UCLA bcos they have D1 football? Pay more. And I would hope that those who my be future biz majors would recognize that money if fungible. Raising fees for the wealth instaters is no different than collecting $$ from wealthy OOS’ers. (And yes, Blue & Gold would cover the poor.)</p>
<p>btw: Y’all do know that some of the UC campuses are giving ‘discounts’ and even need-based aid to those from OOS? In other words, the idea that they are paying full fare is a lie.</p>
<p>Post-secondary education (not just Berkeley, but all of UC, CSU, and community colleges) has been low priority for California budgeting for decades, compared to K-12 (D) (mandated minimum from Proposition 98), health and welfare (D), prisons (R) (increased spending required by overly broad “three strikes” law), and lowering taxes (R). With declining state funding for post-secondary education, it should be no surprise that in-state fees are rising rapidly, and the post-secondary schools cannot afford to enroll as many in-state students at subsidized fees.</p>
<p>Also, competition for admission at all highly competitive schools has greatly increased since just a few years ago (e.g. UCLA had 61,000 applications for its 2011 freshman class).</p>
<p>I’m glad they are accepting more out of staters. I’m tired of talking to californians who make statements with the question arch at the end of their sentence and throw hella/hecka into the mix.</p>
<p>Notice how the SAT score statistics show noticeable increase . . . .</p>
<p>More OOS admits = higher WEALTHY people at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Since SAT scores is directly correlated with family income, I fixed it for you. </p>
<p>(Cal could achieve the exact same thing by accepting more wealthy instaters but will not for political reasons, so UC takes the chicken-way out.)</p>
<p>No, the wealthy in-staters are not (directly) paying full price like wealthy out-of-staters. Given the long term trend of cutting post-secondary education budget (in favor of K-12, health and welfare, prisons, and lower taxes), the amount of money available to subsidize in-state students’ lower tuition shrinks.</p>
<p>But that IS the point. It would be extremely simple to raise fees at the flagship. There is no financial difference between 100 instaters paying $10k more vs. the same number of OOS’ers. All’s it takes is leadership, which is lacking in Sacramento (and Oakland).</p>
<p>“btw: Y’all do know that some of the UC campuses are giving ‘discounts’ and even need-based aid to those from OOS? In other words, the idea that they are paying full fare is a lie”</p>
<p>Actually what you said is a lie. bluebayou, you need to check your facts. OOS kids are given federal aid like EVERY OTHER KID IN AMERICA. But they only receive aid for the IS rate. Even if their EFC is 0, they would still be on the hook for the $23,000 OOS fee. So no, the OOS kids are getting a free ride as you would suggest.</p>
<p>mjmay7, your post reinforces my point: “But they only receive aid for the IS rate.” In other words, they are not paying full fare, which is exactly what I posted. And check cc, there are plenty of posts here from OOS students who have received “discounts” from UC to entice them to attend. </p>
<p>btw: I never said any OOSers was getting a “free ride”. How/why did you make that up? (Indeed, I would never post such a thing bcos OOS’ers are eligible for Regent’s Scholarships which could be a full tuition at some campuses.)</p>
<p>Congrats on taking the cross-country trip to attend Cal. I hope that you are able to finagle instate rates for next year, although I don’t know how.</p>
<p>we receive federal aid, which you receive not from the uc but from the federal government. the aid doesn’t come from the uc so OOS kids essentially receive no aid. and i do not see IS continuing to come to cal if they raise the tuition $10k more like you suggest, effectively making it just as expensive as a private institution. And if they did significantly raise tuition they would also have to significantly raise the aid $$ they give because most kids don’t have an EFC of $40,000 a year effectively voiding out the monetary gain they would get from raising tuition. OOS kids, however, are paying $23k more to come to cal that they cannot receive any form of aid for.</p>
<p>Also people seem to be really angry that Cal upped its OOS population, but this has been happening at many other state universities for years. I can’t remember a time that the University of Michigan didn’t have at least 30% OOS kids. That is what happens when college funding is slashed.</p>
<p>^^Michigan has a much different socio-economic situation. One, it has a declining population so it must attract OOS students to survive. Two, Michigan has another great, D1 alternative, Michigan State, which has lower standards. No such thing exists in California.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your opinion is just as good as mine. But let’s let the market decide. Start cranking up the tuition several thousand each year and see what happens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, I have acknowledged that fact several times. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps but take off your insider hat for a moment and look at it from a public policy (and tax payer) perspective. Don’t you think that folks have a right to be “angry” (your word, not mine) when in your specific case, it is cheaper for you, a Michigan resident, to attend Cal than it is for you to attend your instate college at instate rates? Isn’t there something inherently strange about such a policy, particularly for a state that claims to be broke? Note it is not about you per se, it is about the morons in charge who enable such things to happen. </p>
<p>RML & ucbalumnus: can you explain such a state policy?</p>
<p>It is not so much policy, but the result of chronically dysfunctional state budgeting, including the constraints of minimum spending for various categories like K-12 and prisons, and limitations on the ability to raise taxes. Given that, post-secondary education spending by the California state government has been declining over the years, as it is neither a mandated minimum budget item like K-12 or prisons, nor it is the top priority of either major party in the state government.</p>
<p>As far as whether a Michigan resident can attend Berkeley cheaper than Ann Arbor, the California government and UC do not control the pricing and financial aid policy of UM nor the financial aid policy of the national government.</p>
<p>Yes, UC has choices as to how to handle reduced state funding. But any choice is going to annoy some people – no way around that. I don’t like what is going on any more than you do, but the finger really points back to the voters who want the California government to work magic by increasing spending while lowering taxes.</p>
<p>well my case is definitely anomaly because i am paying for college on my own and am financially independent. therefore, after one year, i will most likely get IS tuition because i will be a resident of california. almost no one can get IS tuition because they are being aided by other individuals. </p>
<p>also, michigan is just as broke as california. michigan’s aid policy is crap and instead of giving any gift aid they instead just give loans. i was deeply saddened that i couldn’t afford to attend my own state institution that most of my friends are attending in the fall. </p>
<p>finally, i would think that UCLA would be a great alternative to cal…</p>
<p>and its kinda creepy that u checked all my posts out lol</p>
<p>The first one is DIVERSITY. Whilst the past Berkeley undergrad student body was already diverse, it still lacks diversity in terms of State representation, as well as, country representation. </p>
<p>In the past, only 8% are OOS/Int’ls. You seldom bump into anyone who’s from other State or other country. Each OOS introduces new culture, ideas and language. Adapting and adjusting with those people is an education itself. When you have friends from France, for example, you’d pick up common French words. You’d know what French people like or dislike. You may even get invited to spend summer in France with them. I experienced that when I was a college student in the UK. I was able to travel to a lot of countries because I have friends in almost every country in the world. One former classmate of mine from India was a son of a Billionaire. So, when I went to India, I lived like a billionaire there too. lol … On the summer before our final year, my Russia friend invited us to attend his b-day party which his parents have prepared for him. So, we all went to Russia in an all-expense trip. Things like that is apparently missing in Berkeley. But these are things very commonly happening in schools/universities that have diverse student bodies like Cambridge, Oxford, and perhaps, HYPSM. </p>
<p>The second is they pump the local economy. The influx of OOS would drive the Berkeley economy faster as more money are spent in Berkeley. As a result, the taxes collected would be higher. Local shops would thrive. The city’s facilities would improve. More tourist would come in, and so on.</p>
<p>And, third, the big presence of OOS upgrade/improve Berkeley’s undergrad stats. A few years ago, Berkeley’s stats were dismal. This year (which actually started last year), Berkeley’s stats equal those of some schools that USNews ranked higher. When things like these continue, the stigma that Berkeley is just a dumping ground for elite private schools rejects would vanish. So, in turn, the higher stats would improve Berkeley’s undergrad image.</p>
<p>cal does seem to have a lack of people from a rural setting. i just got back from CalSO and maybe 10 out of the 400+ people that were there were from a rural place.</p>
<p>You are correct, and here is an alternative, just one.</p>
<p>Perhaps UC Berkeley could actually read and implement the following report that its own people developed in conjunction with Bain Consulting, which was published in April 2010. This report outlines the incredible bloat, operational inefficiency, lack of high performance culture, etc. at Berkeley TODAY. </p>
<p>outlines up to $135 million PER YEAR in fat that can and should be cut now. $75MM of this was targeted specifically as something that could be gotten with effort and a plan. So please, do that before going after higher student fees and out of state admit increases all at the expense of California residents who paid for the place to begin with.</p>
<p>Importantly, please don’t feed me this crap that these moves that UCB has been undertaking are the only way…, that is what the vested interests, with their propaganda, including lots of it from powerful public employee unions, want all the sheeple to believe. Frankly it appears they are winning that battle, since so many of you here buy the “there’s no other way” rhetoric that spills from the Berkeley campus.</p>
<p>So, yes, as a taxpayer and parent, I think it’s ridiculous the course the regents are taking. And obviously the piblic is buying the PR shills story that there is no other way. Read it yourself. And if you are a UC student whose fees have been jacked up every year recently to keep this pork barrel full, you might think differently after absorbing these facts.</p>
<p>Actually, the example of UVa strongly (and ironically) seems to provide support for Berkeley’s new OOS-heavy admissions strategy, not undermine it. True enough, UVa probably has lost local political support. But so what? UVa’s finances are far healthier than Berkeley’s. UVa has a far higher endowment than Berkeley does while enrolling far fewer students, resulting in UVa enjoying an endowment-per-capita ratio of more than triple compared to Berkeley. I would gladly trade Berkeley’s financial situation for UVa’s. </p>
<p>Now, on the other hand, I would not trade Berkeley’s overall academic reputation for UVa’s. But that stellar academic reputation stems not so much from the undergrad program, but rather from Berkeley’s graduate programs, especially its PhD programs. The PhD provide essentially zero in-state admissions preference, and indeed certain PhD programs in certain years will enroll precisely zero new students who are state residents - all of the new students being OOS or foreign nationals. Berkeley’s PhD programs know full well that to be competitive, they have to draw upon a worldwide admissions pool for the best talent in the world, not just whoever happens to be in California. </p>
<p>Yet I have never detected any serious grassroots movement to force Berkeley’s PhD programs to start admitting more Californians, despite the fact that California taxpayers ostensibly “paid” to develop them. Frankly, I think it would be a disaster if they did, as the programs would then be forced to turn away world-class non-resident PhD applicants for relatively subpar Californians.</p>
<p>How many people really want to attend Cal or UCLA just for D-1 football? Seems to me that the Ivy League and MIT do just fine without it. </p>
<p>For those rare students who are truly raving football fanatics such that they wouldn’t attend Cal or UCLA without football, perhaps the answer is to charge far higher game ticket prices.</p>
</p>