<p>@Bay</p>
<p>what extra $10k?</p>
<p>Anyway, the COA for commuters is rather heavily calculated, so likely if there is an extra $10k, then they get that, too.</p>
<p>The Calif system has long moved from an expectation that students will attend their local CC or UC. Now, aid is given to allow kids to leaf-frog over their local school and go where they want. Providing aid for that is rather questionable.</p>
<p>m2ck,</p>
<p>The “extra $10K” is the approximate amount over tuition that Blue and Gold eligible students receive. I referenced the source (UC website) in an earlier post.</p>
<p>I agree there is something questionable about paying students $10K per year to live at home while attending UCB or UCLA or any UC tuition-free; and also to go to another state university or college campus when there is one within commuting distance of their parents’ residence.</p>
<p>As a CA resident, I am over it. The UCs complain they are not getting taxpayer support, but they are not transparent about their policies and expenses. They are not really public anymore anyway so I don’t really care, but it does bug me a little when they claim to be “my” state university system when they ask for my money. They cannot get their own alums to donate much relative to other public universities, so they must be failing their students in some manner, as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Moreover, by reserving slots at the big 2/3 campuses for OOS’ers, UC is losing political support from local taxpayers – and voters – who send their kids to OOS privates. And that political loss will only grow year after year.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm</a> The UCs have a different budget for commuters. I also checked Berkeley and Santa Barbara which have similar commuter allowances for room and board of around $4500.</p>
<p>@Bay You keep mentioning this extra $10000 that students are receiving. These scenarios in your link are families that are making $20,000, $40,000 and $60,000. They are pretty low income. The Middle Class Scholarship guarantees families earning under $80,000 full tuition but not an extra $10,000. </p>
<p>Well, I didn’t say <em>everyone</em> on the Blue and Gold plan got the $10K. I don’t actually know how many of them do (do you? Unlikely), but there is no question that a significant number of them do, since the UCs show as much in their own sample aid scenarios. I guess I’d be even more cynical if you told me that families making $80K also received $10K per year for each of their college kids who get free tuition and live at home. It is a minor consolation if they don’t.</p>
<p>Bay, Furrydog said that their niece was living off-campus in Berkeley for $500 a month (I misremembered the claim as $450), and later clarified that $425 of that was rent. So that leaves $75 a month for all of the niece’s other expenses, notably phone, food, internet. I don’t see how $75 a month will cover phone, food and Internet in Berkeley.</p>
<p>What percentage of the UC’s budget is funded by CA now anyway?</p>
<p>I know that for UMich and UVa (and PSU and CU) the percentage of their budget that is funded by their state is in the single digits now, so it would be bit disingenuous to suggest that those schools should not take in more OOS or should not provide fin aid to OOS when the state provides them with very little.</p>
<p>In fact, I know that UVa gets less money from VA than Cornell gets from NYS (and the in-state discount at UVa is far greater than the discount that Cornell gives NYS residents to its contract colleges), so when you look at it that way, what VA residents get from UVa is a steal already.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the system has not changed its expectations. But what you write about its expectations is incorrect.</p>
<p>For the CCs and CSUs, the expectation is that most students will attend a local one (and will prefer to attend a local one for various reasons). That is presumably why there are lots of CSUs and even more CCs all over the state, and why the impacted CSUs have a local area preference in admissions (although, even with the local area preference, a significant portion of CSU-eligible students in the San Luis Obispo area may not be admitted to their local CSU).</p>
<p>The UCs are supposed to draw from the best students, so there appears not to be the expectation that such students will have to attend their local ones (and since there are fewer UCs, there are more parts of the state not in reasonable commuting range of a UC).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Different demographics. The states of Michigan and Pennsylvania are not growing very fast, if at all. Colleges in those states HAVE to look elsewhere for high school grads with good grades.</p>
<p>But, the argument still doesn’t wash for California. (Besides being politically unpalatable), what is the difference between saving admission spots at Cal & UCLA for wealthy OOS’ers than just offering those slots to wealthy instaters? The money to the system could be the same; it’s just the optics that look bad.</p>
<p>And, UC could do what many other public college systems do: charge more for certain higher cost majors, such as Engineering.</p>
<p>interesting read: plans for more “revenue generation” from dorms…(does anyone really believe that UC campus dorms are designed to break-even, just bcos that is what other colleges do?)</p>
<p><a href=“http://realestate.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/the_evolving_real_estate_portfolio_at_cal_0.pdf”>http://realestate.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/the_evolving_real_estate_portfolio_at_cal_0.pdf</a></p>
<p>@bluebayou: Charge some CA residents OOS tuition, you mean? Yes, that would not fly. In any case, I believe that slots for CA residents at the UCs have not gone down (and many can transfer in by going the CC route). Plus, those kids who would only be able to get in to Cal/UCLA if they paid OOS tuition have enough money to afford a pretty good school elsewhere (like UMich, for instance!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think many CA kids would choose to go to college at UMich OVER Cal/UCLA? Hahahahah</p>
<p>They would probably choose a higher-ranked OOS private for the same $$ as Cal/UCLA, though.</p>
<p>another alternative is to charge everyone more $$ to attend the big two, so-called more “expensive” urban campuses. There is no rational reason that the tuition/fees at Merced is more than Cal. Many other college systems charge more for their flagship(s)…</p>
<p>Tuition/fees
UC Merced = $13,160
Cal = $12,972</p>
<p>@Bay, my point is that it’s rather hard to garner much sympathy from me when these kids that @bluebayou is talking about are likely to have options that serve them just as well (or better; for breaking in to several industries, I would choose UMich over UCLA).</p>
<p>@bluebayou: and yet, we already have people on CC complaining about how Cal is too outrageously expensive.</p>
<p>Seems that there are some people who want their cake and eat it too. They want Cal/UC’s to
<p>These are not compatible goals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logically, I have to believe that any OOS student who chooses Cal or UCLA did NOT have better options at the same price. Which leads me to believe that those campuses must be admitting OOS with lower stats than some of the CA residents they are rejecting. There must be thousands of CA students (some of which I personally know) who were 4.0+ in high school, full-pay families and were rejected by Cal and UCLA. Two that I am thinking of ended up full-pay at Georgetown and BC. Whether they would have gone to Cal/UCLA over those schools had they been admitted is conjecture, but they were legacies of hard-core alums, so there is a good chance they would, even at an OOS price, had it been an option. But it was not offered to them.</p>
<p>@Bay: Depends on how you define “better”. Not everyone has the same preference rankings and not everyone wants to stay close to home, you know.</p>
<p>Also, Cal isn’t entirely stats-based (which I thought you knew?) and has an admissions process that’s a bit different from the privates (essays are weighted heavily but recs are not looked at at all).</p>
<p>Yes, I am quite familiar with Cal’s admissions process. It is definitely more stats-based than equally or higher ranked privates.</p>
<p>My point is that it is just stupid for the UCs to whine that they have no choice but to admit OOS at a premium price in order to survive, while at the same time rejecting full-pay students who have the academics to do the work there. It is terrible optics for the CA residents who matter most in the UC quest to garner more taxpayer funds: the highest taxpayers themselves!</p>
<p>And btw, at least at the time my youngest D applied to Cal, the front page of the app asked for parents’ income for the last three years, so SES was no secret in the process, it was right up front. (Both of my Ds were admitted, but went to OOS privates).</p>