<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but there are other mathematical alternatives, i.e., requiring the wealthy California residents to pay more. (If wealthy Texans think UCLA is worth $55k/yr, why wouldn’t some California residents think the same, particularly if the only alternative was Merced?) So, IMO you are incorrect.</p>
<p>As a well qualified student who was shunned by the UC system that was always fully supported by his family, my suggestion for applying students next year would be without a doubt to go private or leave this state. So disappointing…</p>
<p>Agreed. I had always assumed that my kids would attend a public university, either the UC or CSU. I’m actually starting to look at private college options for my D to pursue, something that I hadn’t even thought I could afford. Now it seems that, with fin aid, privates can be just as cost effective.</p>
<p>While it obviously depends on your level of need and/or the amount of merit aid you can get, I think that it’s been a little overstated that privates routinely come it at UC prices. My daughter applied to 5 privates. Of those, two came in competitive with in-state UC prices. But, with Regents scholarships the UC campuses beat them both in price.</p>
<p>bluebayou-
I actually totally agree with you…but since as of today, those taxes have not been raised, and the UC’s budgets are not increased, the schools just have to do what they have to do to make it work NOW. </p>
<p>So now the unpopular decision in California…just who is “wealthy”?
Just hope somebody steps up and makes it soon so the UC system can continue to be a great place to get an education, without bankrupting its students before they graduate!</p>
<p>When OOS yield rates are published, I hope someone will please post them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t get your logic. </p>
<p>If the UCs need more money – and I agree that they do – the Regents could easily raise the price of attendance. (The poor are already protected against any price increases.) And the Regents could easily raise the price of Cal and UCLA (and perhaps give away Merced at a significant discount?); many other states charge more for the flagship. Or, how about charging more by major, which other publics also do? Why not UC? Why must UC be so egalitarian that they close off opportunities to instate kids? (Kinda ironic when you think about it.)</p>
<p>If the Regents were REAL leaders, they’d explore alternatives, instead of taking the (chicken) expedient way out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d think that people would figure that out (BGO), but apparently a lot of people only look at the list price before they start protesting (or maybe the full in-state pay students from the top 3-5% family incomes are the loudest at protesting).</p>
<p>Charging by major may be difficult when many students in the more expensive majors are undeclared for half of their time. Perhaps just have surcharges for courses that are more expensive to teach (courses with labs, studios, etc. or courses not taught “in bulk”).</p>
<p>^^ok, then add a professional school premium to Haas and Engineering, for example. Now you are just discussing minor details. The question is whether the broader point makes sense?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, the Occupiers of UCDavis should have been demonstrating on behalf of tuition increases! It is win-win. The top xx percenters are the only ones to pay more. (But unfortunately, the critical thinking skills of the Occupiers was sorely lacking.)</p>
<p>
They already do this to some extent with various extra ‘fees’.</p>
<p>From a PR standpoint, the UCs have alienated the CA residents who are in the best position to help them - the wealthy taxpayers, especially those who are UC alums. These people see a system that prioritizes and caters to the poor, illegal aliens, and now OOS residents, and no longer appears to offer a realistic option for their kids who are better prepared and more well-rounded students than they ever were (but maybe not 4.2), since for the most part, all that appears to matter nowadays is stats and social justice, not crafting a well-rounded class. Legacy, ability to full-pay, ECs and rec’s are generally irrelevant (but oh so egalitarian). As a result, these Californians are less likely to donate (UC has a lower giving rate than most u’s, I understand), or support tax initiatives that benefit the UCs. This is what I am hearing/seeing/feeling in my neck of the McMansions.</p>
<p>From a philosophical standpoint, the UCs approach is commendable. From an economic survival standpoint, it is impractical.</p>
<p><a href=“But%20unfortunately,%20the%20critical%20thinking%20skills%20of%20the%20Occupiers%20was%20sorely%20lacking.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Say it ain’t so! ;)</p>
<p>Ability to full pay is actually becoming more relevant, not less, thus the move towards OOS.</p>
<p>Frankly, this is a very complex issue for me. As a parent, I want my kids to have the opportunity to attend a UC. As a taxpayer, I understand that times are tight. It seems that state-supported colleges should have reasonable tuition, but I don’t think it should be completely free. </p>
<p>Really my only unhappiness is that the GPA minimums keep rising each year as the finances become more tight. It is absurd, to me, that all but 2 of the UCs practically require a 4.0 to get admitted.</p>
<p>I was frustrated too when the UC reach/match/safety campuses all seemed to be shifted down a notch. But in looking at the numbers, I have to wonder if the trend will have a net benefit to the long term quality/reputation of all the schools in the system. As top CA resident students get displaced by even higher stat OOS and internationals at the most sought after campuses they trickle down to other campuses. This effect was especially apparent at UCR this year, were the acceptance rate dropped from near 80% to less than 70%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But which is the chicken and which is the egg? Taxpayers / voters don’t want to fund post-secondary education (the budgetary priorities that they vote for are K-12, health and welfare, prisons, and tax cuts or limitations). So post-secondary education has to look out for itself in whatever way it can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and what it has been doing has obviously not been effective.</p>
<p>4.4 gap, nine AP’s and 4 college courses, outstanding EC’s, 2100 SAT.
Shut out of schools That were definite reaches while I was working my a-s off to get into.
If I were OOS I would have been a shoe in.
Very upsetting, but I am aware that life just isn’t fair, college acceptances or otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cynic in me says that is exactly the plan. After the (foolish) Regents wasted millions of dollars building their Field of Dreams, UC Merced, but unlike in the Kevin Costner movie, no one “would come”…</p>
<p>A friend’s daughter with good to high stats (can’t remember them exactly) from the OC did not get into UCLA out of high school. She attended a CC, then transferred to UCLA this fall. And they gave her $10K. So it’s not impossible for residents who are initially denied entrance. </p>
<p>OOS tuition is $55K for a UC and it doesn’t seem to stop folks from shelling out that kind of money, which astounds me.</p>
<p>Me, my late husband, and my oldest daughter are all alumni of the UC system. (Davis, Berkeley, and UCLA) So why is it my youngest didn’t even apply to the UC system at all? She was seeing the constant pressure her school is under to keep within their budget, which is getting cut every year. Her sister, who graduated last year (in 4 years) mentioned it was getting harder to get classes. Her friends were having a hard time getting classes. And the price was going up. </p>
<p>She is going to a OOS flagship with a merit scholarship that puts it equal to the cost of going to a UC. (And she received no less than 3 merit scholarships to 3 different oos schools that would give her that kind of help.) </p>
<p>I welcome the oos kids paying full freight to the UCs. They were great schools. I’m sad California can’t keep them that way on our own.</p>