So you think you are entitled to lecture Calif residents because you have done research, and you want us to get our ’ act together and spend more $$ on the UC’s but YOU dont want to pay any more to send your DD to one of them?
right…
“This is an impersonal forum about colleges.”
Uh ,no. It’s not.
And its not a “philosophical” discussion because we are not discussing an imaginary state university system, or any theoretical changes we would like to see, but a real state university college system. .
BTW, you dont make the rules here either…
and with that proviso, I’m finished with this thread…
I have repeated ad-nauseam that my daughter will be instate after 2 terms. And I will pay exactly what she is supposed to pay if she does enroll at a UC. This entire thread was motivated by nothing more than a conjecture born out of wondering what would happen if hypothetically she was to be OOS for all 4 years and needed FA because she was relying on her mom’s income only. I thought most OOS admits were not aware of the no FA policy and should ask their opinions.
@khanam The “official” definition of low SES students isn’t Pell Grant recipients, it’s simply the easiest way for us (on CC) to measure the % of admitted students that would fit that category (% Pell Grants is a Federal tracked measure). You’ll also see it used as the “metric” in newspaper articles, etc.
That link I posted will show the net migration for every state. The top 3 for net positive migrations are Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and then Alabama.
Adding to Khanam’s thoughts, I think being able to offer a token amount of OOS FA is a sign of economic strength, but that’s not where CA currently sits. And while some % of OOS and international students is healthy for diversity, at some point you start squeezing out CA residents. The less the UC’s appear to be benefiting the citizens of CA, the less likely it will be financially supported by the state. We’ll let the CA residents figure that one out (we got our own issues in Florida, with folks like Khanam trying to raise taxes!), but if the % of CA residents continue to decrease at the UCs, very bad things will start to happen.
WUE/Wiche is a hierarchical system. Not all public universities are included. For example, you will not see any UCs participating in WUE and the Cal States are the lower tier ones. UW is not a member although WSU and many directional state universities are. Although there are exceptions, you will generally see schools that are seeking to enroll students, not ones that are oversubscribed. Also, there are often GPA/test score requirements to qualify for WUE money or certain majors that are included/excluded. Typically it reduces tuition to 1.5x the rate for in state students for qualifying applicants. WUE money is also finite and tends to go to the best and brightest as well as early applicants.
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that reciprocal arrangements exist that provide students with greater choice. However, the broader concerns about equitable access still pertain.
@Gator88NE - PA & MA make sense, AL surprised me.
Ah so loosely put, SES = Pell-eligible (not recipient) ? I was scratching my head on seeing the term. There is an abbreviation for everything these days.
Lol about the raising taxes. No taxes are lovely but do make it a bit difficult to invest in some public activities. On the other hand, I cant figure out how our roads and utilities are so good with no individual taxation. Its probably our equivalent of the internationals: the tourists.
The state of CA has every right to determine how much of the enrolled population is instate and how much FA it gives, if any to any OOS. Having said that, I decided to figure out the enrolled population statistics at UMichigan (falls somewhere in the middle of the UCB+UCLA to UCSD/UCD/UCSB spectrum) and the results were very interesting:
For U Michigan (total enrollment, not just freshman SIRs):
Source: http://admissions.umich.edu/apply/freshmen-applicants/student-profile
Instate = 16,688 (58.8%)
OOS = 9,612 (33.9%)
International = 2,062 (7.3%)
Michigan has had serious financial difficulties with the collapse of the auto industry, the bankruptcy of Detroit and the foreclosure mess. Its probably the worst hit of all the industrial states and yet do give seemingly great FA to OOS - in many cases they have met 100% of need and in others at least a good chunk (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/17806835/#Comment_17806835)
For UCSD (once again I took all U/G enrollments to make it comparable, not just SIRs since Mich did not release SIR breakdown):
http://universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-headcounts
Instate = 20,997 (79%)
OOS = 1,295 (4.9%)
International = 4,298 (16.1%)
And 2015 SIRs were:
Instate = 3705 (66.6%)
OOS = 436 (7.8%)
International = 1,420 (25.5%)
Here is another interesting graph:
http://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/chapters/chapter-1.html#1.4.2 (Please note Graph 1.4.4)
This graph and the data also does not suggest that it is OOS applicants are crowding instate students even when compared to other state Us. The main culprit seems to be the dramatically higher enrollment of international students. In fact it indicates that OOS enrollment at the UCs is much lower than the peers they compare themselves to.
I am also surprised that the UCs do not offer great FA to instate students either. UCSD reports 85% average need met (at least on USNews) and I had earlier assumed that meant that OOS needs are only partially met but FA must be great for instate kids. But if it is bad for instate kids as well then this is a bigger problem.
@mamaedefamilia Yes. I think the WUE is a decent template to offer many more possibilities. It might not be perfect but it is better than nothing at all. While the quality of applicants to 2nd grade state Us cant compare to those applying to the flagships, it still fulfills a need. I suspect the main beneficiary of this is most likely CA since it exports more students than it imports. 50% premiums to the typically low instate tuition is a small price to pay for greater access. Interestingly UC Merced participates in this program yet has negligible OOS students.
I have to say I was a bit amused by this thread. An OOS parent believes that his child and the other OOS kids are more qualified to go to UC schools and the taxpayers of California should want to pitch in to help these kids go at a reduced rate. Apparently, we should want to pay for schools that are located within our state but are not really for our children to attend just for the pride of ownership. Numbers were quoted over and over to support this theory. if California taxpayers reduce state tuition for others including soldiers at California military bases and their spouses and illegal aliens living in California why not wealthy kids from OOS too whose parents want to save money? Unbelievable and weak argument! I wish you the best of luck convincing the great state of California of this unmet priority.
@CMUmechEalumna Ok so I have to say something now. The “great state of CA” exports more kids to other state Us all across the US than it enrolls in the UCs from all other states. @Gator88NE posted those stats, not me - i was not even aware of the existence of such statistics. So the exchange of students across the country benefits CA more than it hurts the state.
Many of the good state Us (at least all that I looked up - UMI, UNC, GT, UF, PSU) across the country offer merit and need based FA to enrollees to OOS admits - including those from CA. There is expected focus on instate residents but none of the good state Us I looked at said zero to OOS residents. This is verifiable. I am not making this up.
So is it fair for other states to offer FA to CA residents and not have the same available for their students? And please don’t say, it is up to every state to decide. That is a very simplistic, shrug the shoulders, not my problem answer. And that is also not how public institutions across the country have been progressing. Most state Us have been opening up to OOS citizens (much less so to internationals - the UCs have gone on a feast of internationals).
We are meant to open up, create reciprocity arrangements across the country, not become more insular. This is my big philosophical point. All measures that take too much of a “son of the soil” approach are counterproductive to the country as a whole. We are completely losing sight of that aspect in the myopic focus on 38 million in a UC budget that is 25.5 billion (less than 1/6th of a percent). I guess that is to be expected in a forum full of parents of UC kids looking at their wallets. The high CA state tax rate also probably makes CA residents wonder a lot more about where their personal taxes are going. This is not as much of an issue in many other states. Maybe if your personal income taxes were zero - this would not matter as much. You just don’t hear of this debate elsewhere.
The 2nd issue is about the independence of academic institutions from too much political meddling. I have never seen so much state involvement in a public university system. UC Berkeley has been told that due to budget cuts it might have to dissolve the College of Chemistry and combine parts of it with L&S and other parts with COE. My first degree was in Chem Engg so I know what CoC means to all of us and why dissolving CoC is a bad thing. Meanwhile, the UC’s instate tuition has been frozen at the 2011-12 levels for 6 years. That is excessive and is probably why the UCs looked at OOS and internationals in the first place. It was still a good strategy to plug the gap caused by rising costs, frozen instate tuitions and diminished state support.
By definition, need based FA is offered only to middle class or lower income families’ wards, not to rich kids. So I am really not sure why you said rich kids. What I found glaring was that it seems only the UCs now won’t offer need based FA to OOS (they used to like every other good state U). And you are also missing the fact that technically my daughter’s mom wont be OOS beyond Feb 29, 2017 so even though I am OOS, I am not really an OOS dad. Feel free to check out my previous posts - sometime in Jan I had asked someone about the residency of my daughter wrt her mom’s job posting. Even then, whether she chooses to enroll at a UC or one of the other schools will be decided after all the decisions.
PS: I am also curious - will the UCs no longer be able to offer FA to OOS athletes? Technically, that’s OOS FA as well. Or is it common wisdom that there are enough CA resident athletes for that not to be an issue? So will the Bears’ and Bruins’ teams be less competitive in the future? All of these are also impacted by short sighted decisions. Will they find it impossible to recruit a kid from Alabama who, without FA, obviously can’t attend. Where do you think a good amount of this OOS FA was spent? OOS Rich kids or OOS recruited athlete scholarships?
Recruited athletes are given merit aid in the form of athletic scholarships, not need based aid.
@khanam What’s happening (redirecting OOS FA toward increasing in-state student enrollment) has little to do with good “policy” and everything to do with politics. It’s a reaction to the huge increase in International students (even more so than OOS students) and the decrease of in-state student enrollment. The state legislature has to be seen to be taking action on the issue.
Out of the 3,000 OOS undergraduates receiving some FA, 900 are at UC Berkeley (UCB has about 4,300 OOS undergraduates). Berkeley was using OOS FA to recruit OOS URMs (underrepresented minorities). UCB (at least) was using OOS FA to cast a wide net and to recruit high state URMs. They will have to come up with some other strategy, likely privately funded scholarships.
However, the state legislature is now reacting to the decrease in in-state students, hence the plan to increase enrollment from 5,000 to 10,000 more in-state students. Of course, they still plan on increasing OOS/International enrollment by 1,200 (most of which will be international). And don’t forget the 8% raise in OOS Tuition to help pay for the increase of in-state students. Raising OOS tuition to pay for in-state students sounds great, but it also signifies a growing dependence on OOS tuition (and international students).
And slightly (well…not really) related topic…
Maybe they will charge them an OOS fee to attend the event. 8-|
Interesting that the UCs waited to announce this until after the applications were due (and paid). Anyone think that refunds are due for app fees for OOS students who can’t pay w/o aid?
Many schools offer an “admit-deny”. This sounds similar.
I’m from NYS. Not only does my NYS kid pay less than your OOS student for our state schools ($20k vs $30k), if my kiddo graduates from a NYS cc he gets preference in admissions over your OOS transfer student at any SUNY where his stats meet minimum requirements. As a taxpayer and voter, I’d be pretty unhappy if that weren’t the case.
How do you propose to set costs for this one price system? Would college costs in states where the cost of living is lower be raised to meet the costs of operating a college in a high cost of living state? How would the residents afford it? Or would the college costs in states where the cost of living is higher be lowered to meet the costs in a low cost of living state?
Where would you find the money to lower the cost of attendance? Even if you shift funding to the federal level, it has to come from somewhere. The most flexible budget item, in my opinion, is staff salaries. Will the federal government dictate how much professors and administrators are paid? Will the salaries of professors and administrators in high cost of living areas reflect the cost of living or will salaries be tiered? In a federal system, staff in Wyoming could reasonably expect to be paid the same as their counterparts in CA or NY. So would you propose raising the staff salaries in low cost of living states to match the salaries in high cost of living states, or do you favor lowering the staff salaries in high cost of living states to match those in low cost of living states?
I thought that once a student started college in CA, their OOS status won’t change. Is that incorrect, @“aunt bea”?
@2018eastorwest oh you are right. I did not even think of that. I think you could ask for a fee waiver to the UCs if you qualified through reduced lunch program or something like that… not really sure of that though, it is unclear if they would offer admission fee waivers to OOS kids? Very honestly, as it is, most OOS applicants were unaware the UCs did not have great FA but for it to drop to zero - I am sure literally a minuscule proportion of the OOS pool would have known about that. Most good state Us do offer some FA - i suspect everyone expected the same at the UCs.
@Gator88NE if 3,000 OOS kids (and I assume they are mainly URM based on your post?) get FA from a 38 million budget, that is 12.7k per OOS FA kid - about half the supplemental, thats very minimal FA from the UCs - i assume the rest were federal loans, outside scholarships. I would have thought there were fewer OOS FA enrollees and the rest were full pay. But OOS 3,000 enrollees on FA is a lot. That implies Domestic OOS yield should collapse even harder this year. How are they expecting to make up for the expected loss of US OOS? That many more internationals?
And that reminds me:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/heavy-recruitment-of-chinese-students-sows-discord-on-u-s-campuses-1458224413
One of my OC based friend’s son did his part time MBA at UCI. Funnily, his nickname for UCI was “University of Chinese Immigrants”. We outsourced our industrial production facilities to China. I guess they are outsourcing their higher education to the US. Well at least part of it - there are 1.4 billion of them. Never thought of that…
@austinmshauri nope - OOS status can change depending on residency of parent(s). there is a full set of UC regulations on this topic.
http://www.ucop.edu/general-counsel/_files/ed-affairs/uc-residence-policy.pdf
On the other topic, I would propose an exchange whereby states settle on net fee payable to /receivable from each other based on students from state A going to B and vice versa. Everything else would remain locally managed for now. There are national public university systems elsewhere to pick and choose the best points from. The WUE is an example of a regional exchange - i think there are 5 other such regional exchanges in the US. There is no reason to believe it cant be implemented nationally. If OR and CA can do something like this locally, so should CA & MA. Not all the structures need to be uniform - they could have different pay scales, different curriculums etc. My focus is on easier access to alternatives for students and reducing the financial barriers to choosing where they might wish to study. The current system is too local-centric for these times.
Let me ask you this, lets say you were a Kentucky resident and your son was genuinely interested in studying marine biology but you could not afford to pay much more than instate fee - what possible marine biology could you get exposed to in a UK? A coral dunked in a fishbowl? Videos of sea life? The fact that he was born in KY will ensure that he will have to study something else. Thats a forced choice. Let me now suggest that you would pay a little more than the instate tuition fee plus whatever the living expenses are in FL, and your son would set off to UF. The state of Florida might instead send a kid interested in studying something else in a state U in KY. And the states would net off payments for these 2 kids. Is there necessarily a loser or a winner in this scenario? i only see more choices at some cost but not exorbitant so as to make it a hobson’s choice.
In this case, Kentucky does participate in the Academic Common Market.
http://cpe.ky.gov/policies/academicinit/SREB/ACM.htm
I did a quick search, and a Kentucky resident would qualify for in-state tuition for Marine Science programs at the University of South Carolina, Auburn, University of Alabama, and a few other schools in the region.
It would drop, but I don’t know if it would collapse. At UCB, they have by far the most OOS FA recipients (at 900 of the 3,000 UC wide) , but they still have over 4,300 OOS undergraduates. At other schools, we’re talking about 10% to 15% of the OOS students (and that may be a bit too high) that receive FA.
California has over promised a lot of money to a lot of people and then when they don’t have it, they try to raise our taxes to pay for it. They have not kept up with the needs of the ever increasing needs of the population as a whole including water and roads. When the taxpayers ask about it, they insist they can’t cut these promises. I have to say I’m glad they cut State sponsored FA to OOS students. Finally cutting something that seems like a huge luxury to give out is a great relief to me. Can’t guarantee they will spend this money appropriately though.
The biggest difference between me and you is someone in Florida doesn’t have a vote how California spends its money. How can someone in Florida who doesn’t pay any state income tax relate to those of us who pay about 10% of our incomes and then worry that they will give it away to people who don’t live here and then deny our children spaces in OUR universities? I can handle my children being denied spots for more qualified state residents a lot more than OOS students. Look at this stat. If you’re OOS, then you are about twice as likely to be admitted to our universities than if you’re in state. The state says they admit more since they aren’t as likely to accept the offer. So if my children have equivalent stats to an OOS then they are half as likely to get in.
Your arguments are purely made to serve your own interests. My interests are for myself and other people like me who pay taxes here for a chance at one of these schools.
As for athletic departments like UCLA and their scholarships, you obviously don’t understand how this works. Athletic department at large universities pay for themselves in TV rights, etc. Alumni donate better when their teams do well also. When Pauley Pavillion was remodeled and then flooded recently by bad city water pipes, who do you think UCLA gets donations from? Alumni. Unfortunately that didn’t help this year’s basketball team.
As for other states offering FA for OOS, that is irrelevant. Some states need to attract people. Their populations may be going down. Universities attract intelligent hard working people who may generate income and relocate after graduation. In addition, attracting top students also may raise a college’s ranking. Each state has its own needs. California clearly doesn’t need to attract more people to Berkeley since they are turning them away. These elite UCs aren’t the slightest bit concerned about their rankings since no other state has the same number of elite state colleges within it.
The UC system has stated that the reason they want OOS is to make up for their lack of state funding. Clearly they are only interested in attracting OOS students who have their own funding. They can’t tell the taxpayers this and then offer FA to the OOS students.
So if I have offended you, I am sorry. I’m not rich either. Good luck paying. I need it too.
Yes, CA… and IL, NY & NJ for that matter have been pillaging their populations for perennially populist agendas, entitlements and this topic goes well beyond what we can discuss on this forum. Unfortunately, no end to this high taxation seems to be in sight. The UC system is only 2.6% of the CA state budget and the 38 million is less than a 1/6th of a percent of the UC budget so honestly while it might mean something to you as a CA taxpayer, to me its really a drop in the bucket. There are far bigger issues with use of CA and other state tax revenues. And I will leave that concern with the residents of CA.
Giving some OOS FA to get 390 million in OOS supplementals is good business practice that the UCs figured out. This year, however, in addition to enrolling 5,000 more instate students, the UCs are also targeting enrolling 1,200 more OOS students (not capping them at last year’s level as has been my original understanding until I was corrected) while removing OOS FA. I really doubt that is possible. Lets see what the data shows us when the UCs release SIR data for this year. Very honestly, saving this 38 million is not going to be as productive as you might hope. It might actually backfire by pushing OOS applicants to other colleges. I had also looked at the 38 million as the cost of attracting a large supplemental paying OOS population.
On the issue of higher admission rates for OOS, the UCs can’t offer instates the same acceptance rates since the yields are 4 to 5 times higher. This is a mathematical game. All that will matter in instate enrollment vs target. Admission rates are not as relevant. They don’t accept lower stat OOS students.
I simply do not think we should have state constrained university systems. Those are an anachronism. Your taxes paid in CA should be like a voucher you can use to send your son to a UC or a UVA or a UMI if he chooses those, not just constrain you to your own instate institutions. I would also rather see a much more geographically diverse student base in UF too. My philosophical point is that CA students should come to UF to study by using their tradable education credits and the florida kid can do the same to go to MI and the michigan kid can go to a UC and so on.
As far as a FL resident having an opinion on CA state’s revenue and spending policies… fair enough. its your state. I just don’t think any government should tax its citizens as much as some of the states and our federal govt. does. We are now fighting over the scraps because of artificial barriers to entry.
I am surprised that athletic departments are off balance sheet items for universities and their activities are considered to be separate from the rest of the university’s funds. I would have thought there would be some oversight and control by the universities but I am not very clear about that process for now. And I thought they would also be subject to the same state of CA policies on the UCs - I guess that is considered a commercial enterprise, maybe?
You did not offend me. Till yesterday I was very emotionally invested in the UC system since my daughter was seriously considering it purely for academic reasons. My arguments were not made for my daughter to get any significant financial benefit. Rather, my desire has been for her to be surrounded by the best across the country and for her future alma-mater to have the best academic standing, financial and operational independence possible. That is no longer true as of this morning’s mail. She will be enrolling at 1 of the private elites. And I will leave it at that.