UC Berkeley increasing OOS to get money

Parents Forum
41

<br>


<br>

<p>I can gaurantee you that California state taxes have not declined 40% since the 1990s. What has changed is how the budget money has been aportioned by the legislature. They have squeezed the UCs to fund other things and to make up for the loss of revenue during economic downturns (such as right now). I agree that the taxation/budget system is Califonia is broken, such as the idiotic requirement that all budgets must pass with a 2/3rds super majority - which empowers a small clique of taxation nihilists in the legislature to hold the rest of the state hostage every year.</p>

<p>So the residents of California are supporting the UC just as much as they ever did. It's the implementation by the state government that is lacking. Certainly no other state somehow has a greater claim to supporting the UC.</p>

42

<p>Even with the high requirement for tax increases California has a very high total taxing level. It has two main problems--the state tries to provide too much to too many. 2. Partially due to the high COL salaries in the public sector are too high. California schools come recruiting in Washington state with much higher salaries than Washington schools. That is even in relatively moderate COL areas like Fresno and Sacramento.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because obviously, we are in a crisis situation. No doubt USC's multi-billion dollar endowment is in part attributable to its loyal legacy/development admits of past and present.</p>

<p>Two of our UCLA-grad friends' offspring were rejected by UCLA, and now attend U of Washington and U of Michigan at full-pay OOS rates. These kids had 3.8 and 3.9 gpas from very competitive high schools (idk SATs), and were squared-away, athletic, well-rounded kids who would have succeeded just fine at UCLA. UCLA rejected their full-pay tuition and probably nixed any future monetary alumni support from their parents. </p>

<p>As distasteful as it is to some, the UC ought to be using its own wealthy residents to its advantage and for its survival.</p>

44

<p>California supreme court decision might be in time for 2009 students and will benefit the university financial state if the decision is made to repeal the order to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition.</p>

<p>California</a> high court to hear undocumented students case - Salt Lake Tribune</p>

<p>Bay, this will also favour full pay instate students as undocumented students may not be in favour of attending UC's at OOS rate.</p>

45

<p>Property taxes in California are based on what you pay for a home, not what your neighbor pays.</p>

<p>This helps people stay in their homes instead of having to sell because richer neighbors move next door.</p>

<p>I don't know have the numbers in front of me but revenues from property taxes in California have risen at very high rates for decades.</p>

<p>They probably won't this year, but sales tax revenues and income tax revenues aren't going to do well either.</p>

<p>As far as the diversity argument goes, the students that go go Cal or UCLA represent the world diversity much better than most schools.</p>

<p>The world is made up of Asians.</p>

<p>As far as economic diversity goes, the diversity at the UCs are not as extreme as private schools.
A full payer at a UC pays a lot less than a full payer at a private. It takes a lot less income or wealth to be a full payer at a UC (54% full pay and 30% Pell Grant), so I would be careful thinking that the UCs are full of rich kids and poor kids with nothing in between.</p>

<p>The UCs do accept more poor kids than any top schools. I think that 's a good thing. Others may differ.</p>

<p>The rich private schools keep the rich, rich. The UCs improve the economic social class of their students. A little different mission.</p>

<p>The problem for the state of California is the state government keeps spending more money than it takes in and the state spends a lot of money.</p>

46

<p>JW:</p>

<p>I might concur with your position IFF your suppositions were correct; but....</p>

<p>
[quote]
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%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the first place, the stats for OOS kids are about the same as instate. The Ivy-level stat kids apply to the Ivies and Stanford and matriculate, if accepted. </p>

<p>Cal could replace the bottom 25% of it's stats pool with instate kids today, but chooses not to for policy reasons. Cal could easily accept 2-3 more kids from each of the top 100 API schools (such Lowell and Gunn) and fill its coffers will full pay kids who both bring $$ and raise test scores. But, the kids that they would replace ("in-state students <25%") are typically those kids from schools ranked below 5 on the API scale and/or are low income, first gen, and the like. Thus, the net effect of that suggestion would be to replace low income in-staters with rich out-of-staters, which is a political non-starter. Thus, what will likely happen is that Cal accepts 2-3 less kids from the top 100 API schools making room for the out-of-staters. The net stat effect (again, really just test scores) is likely to be marginal since Cal primarily uses gpa to make the final cutoff for Lowell, even tho the kid at the 15th % may have high test scores. </p>

<p>Of course, Cal could market itself to all those 2400's out there, but the simple fact is that without merit aid, those kids ain't comin' -- they'll take the free money at USC (or many other merit aid schools) or look to the Ivies for the same likely much lower cost (due to rich finaid policies).</p>

<p>
[quote]
As Berkeley rises in prestige...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, unless UC replaces the bottom of the stat pool (really, just SAT scores), with instate or OOS kids, a change in selectivity (and prestige) won't happen. </p>

<p>btw: According to NRC, Cal has more top-ranked programs that Harvard; it's kinda hard to improve it's prestige standing.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]

Two of our UCLA-grad friends' offspring were rejected by UCLA, and now attend U of Washington and U of Michigan at full-pay OOS rates. These kids had 3.8 and 3.9 gpas from very competitive high schools (idk SATs), and were squared-away, athletic, well-rounded kids who would have succeeded just fine at UCLA. UCLA rejected their full-pay tuition and probably nixed any future monetary alumni support from their parents.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, for all we know, your friends' children's spots at UCLA may have been filled by other great kids whose parents are also paying full tuition. </p>

<p>I'm sympathetic; my kids might end up in a similar situation, rejected at their parents' alma maters (5 UC campuses!).</p>

48

<p>Omg sob 88% I have been paying taxes for 30 years... Get over yourself dear lord lol</p>

49

<p>I just went on a UCLA tour yesterday. We were advised that the average entering GPA has crept up to a 4.3.</p>

50

<p>In 2006-07, 31.9% of all UC students (undergrads, I'd think) received pell grants. At UCLA and Cal, the percentages were 36.6% and 32.3%, respectively. Highest percentages (over 40%) were at Riverside and Merced. Lowest were at UCSB (25.3), UCSC (26.3), and UCI (26.4).</p>

51

<p>Dstark, you're leaning so far left this time I'm afraid you'll quickly topple. The UCs provide upward mobility and the private school just keep the rich, rich? How do you figure? With over half on financial aid at the peer privates of the top UCs and the average package over $30K, how are you coming to that conclusion? And the private college kids will have no or fewer loans enabling them to be more aggressive career wise. And where's the mobility for the minority students? 4% at Berkeley compared to 10% an any ivy?</p>

<p>And frankly, I'm seeing a heck of a lot of UC grads that will very probably not do as well as their parents who were able to create nice bank accounts from never ending real estate appreciation while paying low taxes on that real estate. The UC kids are far less likely to leave the state of CA for careers which truly limits mobility in a global economy.</p>

52

<p>hmom, I am probably reading your response wrong but I'm noticing a trend of native Californians moving eastward or northward to Oregon/Washington/Vancouver for better job mobility because it's too costly to live in certain sections of California.</p>

53

<p>Hmom5,</p>

<p>Are African Americans the only minority?</p>

<p>Full payers at a UC pay, what, $25,000 a year?</p>

<p>Private schools...$50,000.</p>

<p>Both the UCs and the IVYs...have similar percentages of students that are full payers, but the full payers are paying vastly different amounts. </p>

<p>Pretending that full payers at the UCs have simlar incomes and wealth compared the the IVYs or other top private schools is a joke.</p>

<p>If the average student at a private school gets $30,000 in financial aid, that means that person is paying very close to a full payer at a UC.</p>

<p>If I take the top 50% in income at the top private schools, they pay more than the UCs. If I take the bottom 50%, they pay almost the same as the UCs.</p>

<p>It's true that a few of the top privates pay full freight for some of their poorer students.
As both a percentage and the amount of students.... ALL the IVYs added together, as I have said before, educate FEWER poor students than UC Berkeley alone.</p>

<p>So, the top privates educate more rich kids, by far. Educate fewer poor kids by far.</p>

<p>So, the top pricate schools educate more rich students and do a good job of keeping them that way. The UCs educate more poor and middle class people and no matter what you say, more kids improve their economic social class after going to a UC than the top privates. More.</p>

<p>I think the policy of paying full freight for poor students at a few private schoolsis a great policy. And for every kid that is helped, that's awesome. </p>

<p>The UCs and the top privates have different missions. That's a good thing. We don't need the schools to all do the same thing. If a person prefers the atmosphere of a private and his/her family can afford it they should go there.</p>

<p>The top privates have financial issues of their own. Their endowments aren't liquid.</p>

<p>And if thinking its a good thing to educate poor people means I'm leaning to the left, then I guess I lead to the left. Thanks.</p>

54

<p>Tenisghs, I had this conversation with some UC profs recently in an overall discussion on the merits of accepting more OOS students. One of the reasons they were in favor was because the numbers report the kids are not leaving the state or region, which includes the places you mention, in nearly the numbers of their private school peers. I myself have not seen the stats but have no issue believing it as a CA native.</p>

55

<p>hmom:</p>

<p>Maybe I'm too dense, but could you clarify: "the numbers report the kids are not leaving the state or region..."</p>

56

<p>Your heart is in the right place Dstark, but don't you think it would be nice if the UCs were more inclusive in who they are offering mobility to?</p>

<p>I agree that it took the privates too long to get onto the mission of educating the poor. But better late than never. And each school can only do what they can within the context of their size. But the privates have long gotten it that we need to improve the mobility of under-performing sectors in our society and the UCs have gone backwards on that one.</p>

57

<p>Who is being left out? </p>

<p>You can't accept everybody. UCLA had over 55,000 applications, I believe over 20,000 were straight A students.</p>

<p>Only a fraction can go to the school.
Similar at Berkeley.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
And frankly, I'm seeing a heck of a lot of UC grads that will very probably not do as well as their parents who were able to create nice bank accounts from never ending real estate appreciation while paying low taxes on that real estate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're going to have to unpack this for me. I'm not following your argument.</p>

59

<p>Dstark, the blacks are being left out.</p>

<p>Slitheytove, I was reponding to Dstarks claim that the UCs create more upward mobility than private colleges. Much of the financial mobility CA as recorded in the last 3 decades was real estate wealth in the form of appreciations of homes. For this generation, that probably will not be the case.</p>

60

<p>The UCs don't have that many African American students. They could use more.</p>