UC Berkeley increasing OOS to get money

Parents Forum
1

<p>"For next year, Berkeley is increasing the payers of nonresident tuition in our undergraduate student body, newly admitted from high school, from 10 percent to 13.5 percent. All told, 88 percent of our students will be California residents, and 12 percent will be from other states or countries. And that will generate significant revenue."</p>

<p>01.22.2009</a> - The state of Berkeley's budget</p>

<p>With two sons applying to the UC system and as a california taxpayer for over 30 years , this makes me angry. These two bozos could care less about their responsibilty to taxpayers. GRRRRR!!!</p>

2

<p>Welcome to the modern world of state government. Most Big 10 and other state schools have done this for decades now.</p>

3

<p>Michigan is already 35% out-of-state. Folks in the state of Michigan aren't complaining. The university needs the money to stay competitive with other top-ranked schools.</p>

<p>Northwestern (although a private school) is 75% out-of-state.</p>

4

<p>We discussed this in some depth when it was first proposed. I'm surprised because I thought I later read that the Regents rejected the notion.</p>

<p>I would challenge your assertion that they "could care less" [sic] about their responsibility to taxpayers. This looks to me like a pretty moderate and careful move, not one made with cavalier disregard. They are charged with the stewardship of the nation's TOP public university. That means in addition to access, they have to be concerned with quality. </p>

<p>If the budget situation is so dire that they lose faculty (because they have to cut them, or because they're a lot more poachable when salary levels, benefits, and facilities aren't maintained), cut classes, increase time-to-degree, and start having attrition problems, UC's incredible reputation and prestige will be threatened. And that is NOT serving the state of California well at all. Not the overall state, not the students enrolled there now, not the students who hope to attend in the future.</p>

<p>If changing the residency mix slightly can help them avoid this outcome, then one could argue that they are most certainly seeing to their responsibility to CA taxpayers. They are thinking long-term, not just about the 120 or so CA applicants who will be not be admitted thanks to this change in policy.</p>

5

<p>Very sneaky, I think they wanted to keep this under wraps, it certainly has not been mentioned in their press releases about how they were dealing with budget cuts.</p>

<p>I don't see how they could have avoided this but based on discussions on this site alone, many Californians will be livid. Wonder about UCLA.</p>

6

<p>It seems that states with a tradition of doing it have little problem with it (OOS) but schools that try to change it get major problems with the public and politicians. Illinois went throuigh the same dance last year and gave up adding more OOS.</p>

7

<p>UW is required to reserve 70% or so of its freshman slots for WA residents, the rest is for grabs. I'm suprised that UCB had such high % of in-state admits.</p>

8

<p>University of Colorado has been doing it for years - at one point, full 25% of its undergrad students were Californians paying hefty full-fare OOS tuition, much to the state's delight.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
It looks like there will be no cost-of-living increase for faculty again this year. It's not an option for us not to fund merit increases for faculty, due to a legal precedent set about 20 years ago.

[/quote]

Maybe they should operate a bit more like a normal business where there's no such thing as a 'cost of living increase' or a guaranteed 'merit increase'. </p>

<p>
[quote]
full 25% of its undergrad students were Californians paying hefty full-fare OOS tuition, much to the state's delight

[/quote]

If there were some Coloradans rejected because they were edged out by Californians and other OOS students I doubt 'they' were delighted (it's an 'if' since if they had the capacity to accept all qualified IS in addition to OOS it shouldn't be an issue).</p>

10

<p>A nice thing about OOS students, aside from the budget boost, is in getting a different viewpoint from students from all over the country. That improves the experience for those who don't leave their own state.</p>

11

<p>Dude, 88% is still a lot, A LOT.</p>

12

<p>UC could have solved the money crunch by charging the illegal immigrants OOS tuition.</p>

13

<p>For some strange reason my high school junior has expressed an interest in Berkeley, so I suppose I should be glad of this -- although the OOS tuition is such that it would be a difficult decision regardless. I understand the frustration of California parents, but frankly I would think that one of the least appealing things about the UCs is the geographic homogeneity of their student bodies. Indeed, I would guess that the fact that 90% (or even 88%) of the UC campus students are Californians makes them less appealing destinations for many OOS students already. Most college students love being surrounded by diversity of every kind.</p>

<p>As noted, here in Big Ten country the flagship schools tend to have more OOS students (by percentage) -- some significantly more. I suspect that one reason for that, however, is that all the Big Ten schools are of very high quality and reputation. Outside of the UCs and UDub, it seems the pickings are a little slimmer on the west coast.</p>

14

<p>No, U Colorado made a deal with the state--we'll take your crappy state funding with no complaints and you let us admit and charge OOS students as we see fit. Sure some decent instaters are out but they can go to CSU, etc.</p>

<p>UCB has become very "in" in ther better Chicago suburbs.</p>

15

<p>What's odd about this is that increase OOS form 10% to 13.5% of the freshman class means only about 216 additional students, which at a tuition differential (over in-state fees) of about $21,000 will bring in only about $4.5 million next year. That will grow over time as class after class is admitted, but it's still a trifling sum of money.</p>

<p>My guess, then, is that this is just the opening wedge: once they've established the principle that increasing OOS admissions is a reasonable way to raise money, they'll gradually increase the percentage of OOS, and also raise OOS tuition as the market will probably bear a slightly higher OOS rate. But I don't have too much sympathy for Califronians who (falsely, in my view) think they're entitled to keep the UCs entirely for state residents on gronuds that they've alread paid for it. They haven't. In-state fees and state support don't fully meet the cost of educating California residents at the UCs. The University is simply trying to create another pot of money to cross-subsidize the Calforina residents who cost the University more to educate than they recoup in fees and state appropriations. This benefits California residents at the UCs. The alternatives---cut back enrollment thus denying even more California residents admission, or raise in-state fees to make up for falling state appropriations---are worse for Californians than letting in a few more OOS students to help subsidize the whole system.</p>

16

<p>My daughter went to a Big Ten school. I don't care that Big Ten schools have more students from different states. That's not the definition of diversity. The schools are not that diverse compared to Berkeley. Most schools aren't as diverse as Berkeley. </p>

<p>Bye-bye</a>, "Berzerkeley": Surveys provide a peek at the real UC Berkeley students</p>

<p>"That's because 55.7 percent come from families where neither the mother or father was born in the States - only 35 percent of students come from families where both parents were born here"</p>

<p>"The melting pot is bubbling</p>

<p>Berkeley is famed for its diversity, and this is one stereotype that lives up to its reputation. A large majority, 62.8 percent, of freshmen cited a diverse student body as a factor in their decision to choose Berkeley, and they got their wish. Although 69.9 percent of Berkeley undergraduates were born in the United States, 23.9 percent learned to speak another language before English and 26 percent learned another language along with English.
Yu Wei'People think there's a lot of Asians here. And it's true, there are, but it's more diverse than that. They also think we're all hippies, doing pot — but it's not any more than at other schools. The stereotype comes from back when Berkeley really was a hippie school, with lots of protests all the time and the Free Speech Movement. Now people think of it more for its academic reputation.'
-Yu Wei, 4th year</p>

<p>That's because 55.7 percent come from families where neither the mother or father was born in the States - only 35 percent of students come from families where both parents were born here. In addition to the many UC Berkeley students who speak Cantonese, Mandarin, and Vietnamese, there are those with more exotic mother tongues such as Amharic (Ethiopia), Dari (Afghanistan), Kannada (India), Bahasa (Indonesia), Slovak, and Hungarian.</p>

<p>These students mix. Among all undergraduates, 76.1 percent thought understanding culturally diverse viewpoints was important and said they had made "some" or "considerable" progress toward that goal. Almost half, or 45.5 percent, had in-depth conversations "often" or "very often" with a student from a different race, ethnicity or country, with another 30 percent doing so "sometimes." That could be attributed to Berkeley's stereotypically tolerant atmosphere: 75.2 percent agreed or strongly agreed that students were respected regardless of their race and ethnicity."</p>

17

<p>bc:</p>

<p>Why is raising fees "worse" for Californians? Cal could raise fees <$200 per undergrad and cover the $4.5MM. Of course, the real increase would have to be $300 pp so that $100 of it could go to finaid for the Pell Grantees.</p>

<p>But, since the COA for instate is over $26k, what's another $200-$300 per year? UC has plenty of full payors who could easily absorb that amount.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
I would think that one of the least appealing things about the UCs is the geographic homogeneity of their student bodies. Indeed, I would guess that the fact that 90% (or even 88%) of the UC campus students are Californians makes them less appealing destinations for many OOS students already

[/quote]

'dstark' beat me to this one but the student bodies at the top UCs are quite diverse even though it might not be apparent from the percent in-state stat. All it takes is a walk around the campus for this to be apparent since one is likely to overhear a multitude of languages being spoken. A huge number of the kids attending were either born in another country (especially Asia/India) or their parents were. </p>

<p>In addition, it seems that a lot of Californians of college age consider those from the opposite end of the state as being from somewhere 'quite different' from where they're from (i.e. the 'Norcal' vs 'Socal' thing). :)</p>

19

<p>bclintonk said "The alternatives---cut back enrollment thus denying even more California residents admission, or raise in-state fees to make up for falling state appropriations---are worse for Californians than letting in a few more OOS students to help subsidize the whole system."</p>

<p>These are not the only alternatives. There are tons of California kids who are willing to pay full tuition but don't have the sterling pedigree demanded by some UC's ( I think everyone knows who we are talking about here). How about lowering the pedigree requirements or, how about considering a students ability to pay full tuition as one of the criteria for getting in. Blasphemy!!!???</p>

20

<p>Does anyone know what percentage are full pays at UCs?</p>