status of CA publics

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I am an educator in CO helping a student who has interest in the CA publics, both CU and CSU, with her college search. However, I'm hearing a lot of negatives about what's going on in CA with their severe budget crisis. I did read an article in the paper suggesting that full pay out of state students are becoming more popular in the CU system, but what about the CSU system? Do they severely limit the number of out-of-state students?</p>

<p>Thanks for any feedback, especially feedback that can be authenticated with a link!</p>

2

<p>8 of the CSU campuses participate in the Western College Consortium that gives a significant discount to OOS students (only pay 150% of what in-state students pay). There are limitations and conditions so you’ll need to make sure the student is looking at a qualifying program of study. See [Western</a> Undergraduate Exchange (WUE)](<a href=“http://wiche.edu/wue/students]Western”>Tips For Students | Western Undergraduate Exchange (WUE))</p>

3

<p>Both UC and CSU have higher minimum standards for out of state students, although the minimum standards are largely irrelevant for admission to the most selective schools in each system, as the most selective schools’ admission standards are considerably higher than even the out of state systemwide minimum standards.</p>

<p>CSU list price cost of attendance is considerably lower than UC list price cost of attendance.</p>

<p>The budget problems have mostly manifested themselves in large increases in in-state tuition, as the state subsidy for in-state students is reduced.</p>

4

<p>I just transfered to UCLA and I got in all my classes. I haven’t noticed any of the effects of the budget cuts.</p>

5

<p>CU is usually the abbreviation of your instate University of Colorado system. I’m not sure why some schools invert the letters, such as IU standing for University of Indiana, Bloomington. University of California doesn’t do this, so it should be “UC,” which we know can be confused with University of Cincinnati or maybe even University of Chicago.</p>

<p>If I may add to what UCBalumnus stated:</p>

<p>The standards for entry of Non-Residents to UC is certainly higher, but as UCB stated, these are just floor requirements which would not even pass a first reading at UCLA, Cal, UCSD. I think it’s just a moderate UC gpa req instead of a sliding scale with lower grades combined with SATI’s for In-State students.</p>

<p>With this said, though, the average stats of students the three above UC’s admit from the NR’s is lower than for IS students by a decent amount. This is obviously because: demand by UC’s to enroll more NR’s is >> IS;s (IS at Cal and SD is dropping, but UCLA is trying to maintain these numbers (as opposed to %'s), because it is the most PC of the three … and is trying to maintain URM enrollment which is mostly from IS), but NR’s desirablity of UC’s is << IS’s becuase they pay full tuition, as opposed to IS’s fees supplemented by state subsidy. Yields are real low → more accepted to meet targeted enrollment of NR’s, which each UC is doing to overcome shortfalls of state support. </p>

<p>An IS student with a 3.85/4.7/2200 could be rejected from UCLA and Cal (not so much as at SD), and both reject these types of students regularly, depending on the quality of CA hs, but certainly both would just about never reject a NR student with these stats, and in fact, the bar is significantly lower than this example.</p>

6

<p>Let me add this:</p>

<p>Yields for UCLA and Cal for IS > 40%. </p>

<p>Yields for both for NR << 40% and depending on the breakdown of NR’s between OOS and Int students. Both of the above are not so good in yields for OOS, with Cal having improved a bit in this %, but for Ints, Cal does well, UCLA moderate to decent. </p>

<p>For SD, yield for IS’s ~ 20% or maybe even less – the biggest problem that SD has because typically less than 1 of 5 students from CA choose SD. SD has to accept 17,500 students to even approach a class of ~ 3,500 Californians. I’m not sure what its NR yield is, but I doubt if it’s significantly < 20%. So I think you’ll see SD’s continuing trend to drop IS enrollment with NR replacement, unless the Regents decide to tell SD to reverse this trend.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Minimum high school GPA (calculated by UC/CSU specifications) for UC eligibility is 3.0 for in-state, 3.4 for out-of-state. However, this is largely irrelevant to the most selective UCs, including Berkeley and Los Angeles.
[University</a> of California - Admission requirements](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/requirements/index.html]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/requirements/index.html)</p>

<p>Some more information about how UC applications are reviewed:
[University</a> of California - How applications are reviewed](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/how-applications-reviewed/index.html]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/how-applications-reviewed/index.html)</p>

<p>And UC campus admission profiles:
[University</a> of California - Freshman admission profiles](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/profiles/index.html]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/freshman/profiles/index.html)</p>

<p>For CSU, the minimum eligibility requirements are here for in-state and out-of-state:
[CSUMentor</a> - Plan for College - High School Students - Eligibility Index - California Residents](<a href=“Cal State Apply | CSU”>GPA Calculator | CSU)
[CSUMentor</a> - Plan for College - High School Students - Eligibility Index - Nonresidents Residents](<a href=“Cal State Apply | CSU”>Cal State Apply | CSU)</p>

<p>However, like UC, these are largely irrelevant to the most selective campuses and majors (note: CSU campuses mostly admit by major, while UC campuses mostly admit by division (Letters and Science, Engineering, etc.)):
[CSUMentor</a> - Plan for College - High School Students - Campuses That Have Higher Standards](<a href=“Cal State Apply | CSU”>Cal State Apply | CSU)
[CSUMentor</a> - Plan for College - High School Students - Majors That Have Higher Standards](<a href=“Cal State Apply | CSU”>Cal State Apply | CSU)</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>I labeled some things from 1-4:</p>

<p>1) Should have accompanying scores for a combined index total, unless UC is changing things again – cannot link, which it might be wrt SATII scores which are no longer included in this index total.</p>

<p>2) I think this is just a flat UC gpa without consideration of scores in minimum qualification.</p>

<p>3) Sorry, but this is nonsense – nothing against you for linking … but more how UC words things. </p>

<p>Each UC has different criteria. For Cal and UCLA, UW UC gpa and fully weighted UC gpa are the most important; the ‘UC gpa’ part in this is just noting 10-11, a-g as opposed to all courses, but both UCLA and Cal will look at all grades and note individual course grades. Rejection to one or the other could occur because of bad-mediocre grades in just one key course. </p>

<p>The others including SD might weigh staight UC gpa (along with it being capped at eight weighted courses) as most important.</p>

<p>4) This is just the admitted classes to each UC, not the final enrolled classes. And the gpa reported is for each is (capped) UC gpa. UC websites always report UC gpa.</p>

<p>So for SD, since it has a yield of ~ 20%, this would significantly lower the gpa and scores reported at this link.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t think this link provides info on spring admits which SD and Cal both have.</p>

9

<p>Also:</p>

<p>Regents okay a 9% ELC along with the total admissible under statewide, a supposed 12.5%. </p>

<p>Since when is a 3.0 with scores among the top 9 or 12.5%? This gpa would probably be closer to a 50th percentile.</p>

<p>The latter will allow the better schools like Palo Alto and Gunn to have 30%+ of their graduating classes enroll at various UC’s, added to the extra burden of ELC … this puts way too many who are eligible to UC. </p>

<p>The burden to UC increases wrt possible enrollment when enrollments to it should decrease to place less burden on the state.</p>

<p>This shows the idiocy of Yudof and the Regents.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>If a campus and its facilities and staff are underused, then increasing enrollment could reduce the burden on the state if the tuition and fee revenue from the additional students (even discounted for in-state and financial aid) is greater than the marginal cost of adding the additional students, even if the average cost per student is greater than the average tuition and fee revenue from the students.</p>

<p>Berkeley spring freshman admissions is probably done to keep the campus resources at capacity in the spring, since fall enrollment would otherwise be greater than spring enrollment (due to students graduating a semester early or a semester late), leaving unused (wasted) capacity in the spring that would still have to be paid for.</p>

11

<p>Maybe Indiana’s flagship is abbreviated IU because its name is “Indiana University?”</p>

<p>[Indiana</a> University](<a href=“http://www.indiana.edu/]Indiana”>http://www.indiana.edu/)</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think you’re looking at it clearly. When have fees for state u’s ever been ‘revenue’? </p>

<p>UC is not a money-making venture. These students, their parents, are just covering their portion of cost, approximately 1/3 of fees, or cost reimbursement. </p>

<p>The state subsidizes the rest, so for every student the UC adds, the state has to subsdize > $20K more, assuming this is close to full cost ~ reflective of what full tuition is and what they charge non-residents, and even if there is a slight markup for non-residents who pay ‘full tuition.’ </p>

<p>I’m sure this is total salaries of UC profs along with whatever portion of physical plant and other things attributed to educating undergrads. I’m sure this isn’t total cost that could go into the formula as the UC, being a state institution, can receive breaks from the state that other u’s, private ones, would be charged, even if privates receive some pretty hefty tax breaks themselves.</p>

<p>I agree that there is an optimum enrollment to take advantage of facilities and staff, but this isn’t what UC was trying to attain by bringing up ELC by 5%. Adding more students will just put more of a burden on the state as UC is busting at the seams already. The UC leadership just wasn’t thinking, and they do this all the time. There isn’t enough tax ‘revenue’ coming in from the residents to fund a maintaining of enrollment of the UC, much less undergrad expansion at current or decent fees as to what should be charged undergrads. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which campuses are under-utilized, let’s say underenrolled wrt present facilities and staff? Merced? Where else? </p>

<p>If the shortfall of state revenues were foreseen, perhaps Merced wouldn’t have been opened at least now. They can multiply the population growth by whatever way they wish to come up with a suitable size of what UC should be under their own madeup mandates – yeah it would be nice if all CA could receive a UC education, but if the revenue isn’t coming in because of the influx of mainly poor people, then they shouldn’t have expanded the frosh class parameters. </p>

<p>And the answer isn’t bringing up fees for some closer or at “full cost,” and charging nothing for others under Blue and Gold.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Even non-profit or government run organizations need to consider such things like average cost versus marginal cost (and any money that comes in is “revenue”) when calculating whether they will break even or better (note that those non-profit schools which ran profits / surpluses over the years have built up big endowments).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Those faculty (particularly tenured) and facilities costs are largely fixed, so that they have to be paid for regardless of whether the campus is full or not full. They go into average cost per student, but not marginal cost of additional students if the campus is below capacity (of course, marginal cost increases greatly after capacity is reached and additional capacity must be added to accommodate the next student).</p>

<p>Suppose a campus is sized (facilities, staff, utilities, etc.) for 20,000 students. If it has 19,000 students, then some of its capacity is wasted. The marginal cost of teaching each of another 1,000 students is much less than the average cost per student at the school, because the average costs includes the fixed costs of the capacity that exists and has to be paid for regardless of the number of students. If the tuition paid by the 1,000 students (discounted for in-state subsidy and financial aid grants) is higher than the marginal cost of the 1,000 students, then the campus does better financially.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but with it open, it is better to use it to its capacity rather than have pay its fixed costs while having it underused. Well, other than closing or mothballing it.</p>

<p>Also, as described above, spring admissions is a way of using unused capacity that would otherwise go to waste.</p>

14

<p>I agreed that there is an optimum enrollment to take advantage of costs involved. But overenrolling isn’t a solution either.</p>

<p>How do your paragraphs 1,2,3 relate to the Regents changing the parameters to increase the pool of UC frosh? Do you really think the facilities and staff at the UC is underutilized, that the UC as a whole is underenrolled for them to be able to make these changes? </p>

<p>If there is a way for taking more students into the UC (wthout regard to increasing non-residents which I don’t see as helping the state grow economically for the most part as post degree workforce, and I don’t really see how foreign students can add to the u’s or the system’s coiffers other than a wash of tuitions ~ equaling costs), how would you justify the increasing tutitions for a state university based on the lack of state revenues to even maintain enrollments, much less increase them? I don’t see your having addressed this part yet at least.</p>

<p>What happens if no one whats to attend UC Merced? Then what? Do we use it as a very expensive two-year transfer institution?</p>

<p>Generally, I think instate fees for undergrads should be kept at a minimum. I don’t even see UCLA or Cal as being able to compete by charging 250% more, essentially privatizing, without reducing enrollment significantly. If they both privatize, then they have to become more like private inst wrt size.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>The expansion of ELC may just result in more offers of admission to Merced (because ELC does not guarantee admission to the campus of the student’s choice), which is the campus most likely to be underused.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If really no one is willing to attend, then closing or mothballing it could make sense economically, as it would substantially reduce the fixed costs (though there could be political problems with that).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Private? Like USC? (Berkeley is slightly smaller than USC, while UCLA is slightly larger.)</p>

<p>There are no good solutions to the problem, since all of them (e.g. effective privatization) have their drawbacks. But making maximum use of existing capacity that carries a fixed cost makes sense, regardless of what the overall strategy is.</p>

16

<p>Also don’t forget the 1 year of art requirement and the minimum of 2 years of a foreign language.</p>