@Gator88NE Here’s all the data back to 1994 in interactive graphic form:
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/freshman-admissions-summary
In just the last 10 years, In-State Freshman admits have gone from 92% of the total to just 65%,
while OOS Freshman Admits have gone from 6% to 16%.
The BIG increase has been among foreign students who have gone from just 2% of Freshman Admits in 2005 to 17% in 2015!
@khanam Okay, let’s look at Enrollments:
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/freshman-admissions-summary
Here are UC-Wide Freshman Enrollments:
In 2005, In-State were 96% of Freshman, while OOS were just 3% and Foreign were 1%
In 2015, In-State were down to 79%, OOS were up to 8% and Foreign were up to 13%!!!
It’s even WORSE at UCSD:
In 2005, In-State were 95% of Freshman, while OOS were just 4% and Foreign were 2%.
In 2015, In-State were down to just 69%(!!!), while OOS were up to 7% and Foreign were up to a MASSIVE 24%!!!
The trend is pretty clear: OOS and Foreign Applicants, Admits and SIR’s are ALL increasing at the expense of California Applicants.
@PoolShark223 Yes, but look at the link i put up as well - that includes transfers.
2 points:
“Should the state of VA tax a CA resident more while he is working in VA?”
How about: “Should an out-of state student pay less than a California student to attend a California college?”
That appears to be what you are advocating.
The state of VA does tax CA residents who are working in VA, assuming there is enough activity to establish nexus.
CA taxes the same income as well, then you get a credit for any double-taxed income.
Oops, just saw the word “more” in there. The non-resident state will impose that at their normal state rates.
I’ve forgotten how long one has to work in a state t have to pay taxes there as well as their home state.
What about taxpayers in CA who never use the UC system. Maybe they should get a rebate.
Not viable, but worth a thought in this discussion, if some non taxpayers want a break on tuition.
It is shocking to me that UCSD is 24% out of country students. Is that really correct? How is that even possible?
It’s not about an amount of time in another state per se, it’s about a level of activity.
I do income taxes for some professional baseball players, every time they play a game on the the road, they have a taxable event and owe tax in that state. They generally end up filing ~ 15 state returns per year (and a couple cities as well).
Oh my @arc918 that’s wild. Have a few relatives who have done consulting in several states and had to file taxes and/or request a refund (can’t recall). But 15 states? Whoa
@PoolShark223 nope thats not what i am saying at all. the supplemental is still there, i am saying they should both get FA, maybe not equally but some is better than nothing. And taking OOS FA to zero is too aggressive a move when others are courting OOS students. On a longer term utopian basis, I would like equal access to all across the country.
@jym626 - i have wondered about that. that is similar to the HS voucher debate but extended a bit further. Still thinking of that.
@2018eastorwest yes. UCSD has a huge Asian american population as it is so people assume it is US Asians but a large chunk are Asian asians.
@arc918 that was my point. we have mobility of labor without previous domicile impacting what you pay in the new state you move to, you are not taxed more for moving to a different state. You also do not pay a premium for enrolling your kids in a public HS in a different state. So why are public universities allowed to charge more to OOS enrollees. I don’t see why that is ok.
Are you referring to the rebate for non use of college services? I was being facetious.
What’s even more shocking is that it’s increased from 4% in 2010, to 24% in 2015.
Domestic OOS students haven’t grown at nearly that rate. It’s a very limited market, of OOS students who are willing and able to pay OOS tuition rates. Everyone is competing for the same pool of students. Some Public Universities are becoming more aggressive with merit aid (UW-Madison plans to expand the $ it spends on OOS merit aid, to stay competitive for OOS students).
My elder brothers and sisters attended various UCs when the schools were just “developing” their campuses. At that time, they were begging for students from OOS by trying to offer FA to make the campuses diverse. There isn’t that need anymore. We Californians have lobbied our state long and hard to get this level of education for our kids. There’s a saying somewhere, “if California does, and the rest will soon follow”.
California students built the reputation of their campuses. It wasn’t the OOS/international pool. It was the Californians method of approaching and solving problems in a laid back, but studious/research-based environment. (My husband met Roger Reville going into engineering and when he graduated from UCSD in the 70’s.). That was Revelle’s custom: a hands-on approach.
That attitude still continues from California kids, and their parents, who have paid state taxes for decades prior to Howard Jarvis. The kids are innovative and smart.
If you want a California-type public ivy strength school, lobby for it through your state representatives. That’s what we have done in California.
Sour grapes aren’t good for our wineries.
“i am saying they should both get FA”
why?? on what basis would this be fair?
they have not paid taxes in Calif.
"You also do not pay a premium for enrolling your kids in a public HS in a different state. So why are public universities allowed to charge more to OOS enrollees. "
Because going to any college is a privilege, not a right.
The right to a K-12 education is mandated by US law.
No such right or US law applies that right to a college education.
And because public universities are supported by the taxes paid by the citizens of that state.
So if a student from another state wants to go OOS to get an college education, they will have to pay extra for the privilege.
Magical thinking will not solve the problem that a quality college education costs a great deal. Someone has to pay the piper. So lets get real, shall we ? In this day and age equal access to great U’s across the country , or the world for that matter, is not going to happen. Not without everyone paying the same $ .
If YOU want your taxes to go up in FLA to help pay for OOS or foreign students to go to Calif U’s, be my guest.
Nothing will change without taxes being increased. Good luck getting that through Congress.
"It is shocking to me that UCSD is 24% out of country students. Is that really correct?
How is that even possible? "
Its possible because of the cutbacks in UC state funding over the past 20+ years.
And out of country students pay full freight.
I really cannot fault the UC system. If it wants to continue to provide a quality education, that costs money. It’s not coming from the state legislature; it has to come from somewhere. I do feel badly for the California taxpayers - they’re contributing to an educational system for which they are facing dwindling access.
A federal university system would not resolve inequities, IMO. There would still be a hierarchy of greater and lesser schools. The competition for the top ranked schools would be fierce. It would exacerbate socioeconomic inequities, IMO. Let’s imagine In the current system, a hardworking, but not tippy-top student from a poor background who lives in CA. He or she can attend a quality state school, maybe commuting from home to make ends meet. Imagine a national system in which the top kids from around the country dominate at the CA schools. Where are the low SES hardworking kids going to end up? Is financial aid going to cover their transportation costs and living expenses hundreds or thousands of miles from home? What if they have family responsibilities? Is their only recourse CC?
State university systems are not perfect, in my opinion, and facing budgetary limitations, they sometimes have to make tough choices. Some extend merit to high stats OOS students to drive up rankings. Others seek OOS students at higher tuition rates. These compromises will not please everyone. However imperfect, state Us do provide the possibility of a quality education to local populations, especially those of modest socioeconomic means.
@menloparkmom FL does not have income taxes…
It is interesting that healthcare was not mandated by US law but K-12 education was. But that is another debate, not meant for CC.
On the subject of cross-state movement of students:
We already have WICHE and similar exchanges which allow students access to colleges within their regions. What I am imagining is already being implemented on a smaller scale. This is not as impractical or revolutionary as you make it out to be. Nor is it magical thinking. State governments equalize and settle payments within this system.
And there are other similar regional exchanges - i know there is one for NE for sure, which can all be brought together for a national exchange.
@“aunt bea” I will also point out that the UC system is 2.6% of the California budget, down from 5% a couple of decades ago. So while your tax dollars might be going to the state, not much of that is being funneled to the UC system which is why the UCs kind of considered themselves abandoned. Historically, the state of CA did set them up but the demands placed on the UCs compared to the state support they receive are now inequitable. To suddenly be asked to onboard 10,000 more CA subsidized students without addressing the existing deferred maintenance, massive class sizes, reduced course offerings etc is odd. Ask the faculty, graduate students and even ucop (when off guard).
California… You are letting your grapes go sour. The OOS are simply taking advantage of your negligence. When you have a crown jewel, you protect it. You don’t starve it, abandoning your responsibility while saddling it with burdensome demands while offering it inadequate support. That is on you.
When you have a pretty woman/man, you keep her/him happy - otherwise she/he will date others.
I wonder if, now that OOS are paying full freight, the UCs will be admitting more OOS vs. Internationals?
Sorry, but I’ve visited most of our UC campuses, and I’m wondering which of our decrepit UCs and CSUs you’ve visited and are describing. Anyone, with lots of time, can read skewed information, and miserably by sit describing something he is completely unfamiliar with nor have ANY personal knowledge. We’ve paid our taxes and our children like their California schools. The corporations that buy buildings for our UCs and CSUs don’t seem to mind donating large sums of money/funds.
No one is forcing your daughter to attend our schools. She would be better served going somewhere where you will get a better deal for your money. Keep her out of our flawed state; neither she, nor you will like the poor SES element here. Yes there are lots of THOSE kids here.
Criticizing, the very systems, that you hope to abuse, by getting instate fees, to have your daughter attend our UCs is counterproductive. Wait until your daughter and her mother actually start living in California and paying our taxes and housing prices. Both may move back home, and the issue of residency fees will go out of the window.
So let me see if I’ve got all this straight…
You’re an upper income family.
The present instate public options are beneath your family, and you’re too cheap to pay for private college w merit scholarships.
While you will continue to live elsewhwre in the US, your wife is “moving” to CA to game CA residency rules for resident tuition. You anticipate qualifying for instate rates after one year.
Your only concern about the cessation of OOS & int’l FA isn’t that you need FA to afford UC cost, but that the pool of OOS & int’l students will narrow to only fullpay families.
The inclusion of a few lower academic caliber, fullpay OOS & intl students may lower the average academic caliber of the UC student body, thereby diminishing the USNWR ranking of the school that you are gaming to get your daughter into on the cheap.
You expect people to commiserate with the injustice you will be subjected to.
Did I understand correctly?