<blockquote>
<p>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.<< </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Don't worry, there are plenty of OOS kids who find Berkeley VERY appealing. And diversity has nothing to do with it. As others have pointed out Berkeley is already plenty diverse. The reason why it is so apealing is because California taxpayers have been paying high taxes for many decades to build it into an outstanding school with an excellent national and international reputation.</p>
<p>If Berkeley were just another mediocre state school, nobody, especially not OOS people, would be clamoring to come here and grace us with their "diversity."</p>
<p>Just another university to cross off the list if you are OOS and need any kind of financial aid.</p>
<p>The list is getting pretty long :) UC Boulder was on the list early........</p>
<p>No Big deal ... just the way it works for some of the top publics now. There are other choices. That is why the top privates or tier 2 schools are better choices for OOS students of limited financial means than schools like Berkeley and CU Boulder. (although there are some flagships who are still generous to OOS students with high scores and limited means)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this completely. Particularly because these students' families have been contributing in a big way to CA's state income taxes. Admit an additional 5% rich kids with 3.5s and 1100s (oh the horror!) to Cal and consider them development admits. Problem solved.</p>
<p>If the market would go for higher fees I would think that's their easiest answer. Yet over 50% already paying full freight is high so I'm guessing they already don't meet need for many. </p>
<p>Could they go to two tier pricing? It seems clear folks would pay more for Cal and UCLA, but what about the others?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admit an additional 5% rich kids with 3.5s and 1100s (oh the horror!) to Cal and consider them development admits. Problem solved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ew. USC has been doing its damndest to move away from this kind of reputation. Why on earth would Cal want to head down that path? </p>
<p>I agree this is a wedge towards having a larger percentage of OOS students. I still like the idea of exploring sliding scale fees, dependent on family income. Paying an extra $200-300 a year is truly a huge problem for some students. Paying an extra $2-3k isn't a problem for others. Tinker around to find a good balance. </p>
<p>A few other thoughts on geographic diversity: even as an undergrad, I met people from every corner of the world--grad students. They were my TAs, the research assistants that I interacted with in my work-study job, and the grad students in my major department with whom I took classes during my senior year.</p>
<p>I admit that I am surprised that the UCs moved on this at all, given the rabid feelings of Californians about what they perceive as theirs.<br>
On another issue, I don't see the diversity at Berkeley and UCLA. Go shopping here in Chicago on North Michigan Avenue and it is whites and Asians. Not diverse at all, if you live in most Chicago neighborhoods. For instate payers, I can see how the names of the top UCs are worth the cost. But please don't make the diversity argument.</p>
<p>Geographic diversity and or economic diversity are as good a diversity as ethnic/racial. Having a school with a bunch of wealthy blacks, asians, hispanics and whites from one state would hardly be diverse.<br>
California is so insular sometimes--you would think it was Mayberry.</p>
<p>PS Both my parents were off the boat here as adults and I'm as white bread USA as you will find--just a little darker.</p>
<p>Most NMSF's at USC have more than a 3.5 and 110 which was his point.</p>
<p>Amazing cultural, economic, and geographical differences for my son at USC. Many there have never met anyone from Montana before. Geographical diversity is a good thing.</p>
<p>I was focusing on the "rich" part, which I think is more appropriate to the suggestion of the thread. But, even you admit that "most" NMSF's have a 3.5....</p>
<p>Almost half Asian and 4% black, 54% full pay and 30% Pell Grant, it's certainly a school of extremes, but I guess it's about how you define diversity.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I admit that I am surprised that the UCs moved on this at all, given the rabid feelings of Californians about what they perceive as theirs.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Californians have repeatedly voted over many decades and for many generations to tax themselves to pay for the UCs. Why would they not perceive it as theirs?</p>
<p>Like I've said on all these UC threads, if OOS parents are so keen to have their kids attend UCs, let them send over a generous portion of their state's taxes along with them.</p>
<p>coureur...
I posted earlier that per student support by California tax payers for the UCs has declined by 40% since the early 1990s. This in a statement from the University of California from last year. I'm guessing that support has declined more since then.
How do you imagine that Californians are supporting the UCs to any positive extent at all? No mystery why they feel than can support fewer students. Even I am surprised that they admit to the need for out-of-state funding. But that's desperation.</p>
<p>I have an in-state S applying to Berkeley, and I have no problem with it.</p>
<p>If OOS admissions are more competitive than in-state, the admission of these high-stats applicants will have an outsized effect on selectivity at Berkeley, as OOS students >75% will replace in-state students <25%.</p>
<p>The increased admissions stats at Berkeley will make it more desirable, though an in-state student will have a lesser chance of admittance. As Berkeley rises in prestige, so too will UCLA and the mid-tier UC's. The in-state student will get into one of the UC's, maybe not Berkeley, but each campus will be enhanced, and the entire UC system more prestigious.</p>
<p>My S is also applying to USC. I wouldn't want USC to restrict itself to Californians, even though it would improve my S's chances of admission. With only Californians, USC would not be nearly so desirable.</p>
<p>My tax dollars are paying for UC, but so too would my tuition pay for USC. In neither case would I want the college to lessen its worth by restricting its applicant pool to 100% Californians.</p>
<p>Not under taxed by any means, they are over taxed but wrongly taxed. California goes to h*ll in every downturn because it has chosen an unworkable tax structure it politically can't get out of. Scare business away and suffer every time property values are in flux? There's got to be a better way and there isn't an economist on the planet who doesn't think so.</p>
<p>I'm sitting here in my parent's multi million dollar home which they pay a few thousand a year in taxes on. Where else could this be possible?</p>
<p>The worst news for Californians is the federal stimulus bailout that will prevent the State from making necessary decisions in the next year or two. Talk about kicking the can down the road.</p>