Thanks, these are helpful. Here is my read, though: if the state is funding less than 20% of the UCB’s budget, and OOS/international tuition pays a large % (and it does), the state absolutely cannot demand more CA residents being accepted — especially unless it makes up for the entire loss, and if so, it is probably for 1-2 admission cycles. I do not even think it is legal for the state to make that formal demand or the Regents (as trustees) formally accept something that is not in the long-term interest of the UC system. Now, what I think may be happening is that UCB NEEDS the state of CA/legislature to pass the modifier to the environmental rules that created this mess to force the SBN to mediate/cave in. In that sense, they may be trying to look good to the CA-state/government folks. And, it’s a wink and nod. Once the situation is resolved, it will probably be back to historical norms or close to it. Our OOS kids get shunted aside this cycle but hey, this is life and politics. It is a huge administrative black eye on UCB (but also one that it will recover from and nobody will remember it 5 years from now). Welcome to the real world, kids! None of this means that UCB is not an awesome college and a great fit for so many kids from CA and OOS.
Obviously.
As a lifelong CA resident and parent of a HS senior, I would say that UCB is going to miss out on a great group of OOS and Int’l kids. When I was there 30 years ago, I loved meeting students from all over the world, and no other campus that I’ve been to comes close to fostering this as much as Cal does.
That being said, this is a one year deal (hopefully. maybe not 
)and anyway you slice it, it’s going to be a “huge administrative black eye on UCB”. One can certainly see all perspectives here, and state v federal taxes is really just one small piece of all of this. I don’t know about the legality of this plan. I really hope this is a one-cycle situation.
Thank you. I am hoping that will be the case, I am not counting on it. The language is kind of confusing and I am not sure we will meet criteria after the first year.
Is is absolutely legal for the Regents to set caps and they have done so. This is done with the understanding that they receive more money from the state. This tension between in-state demand and finances is no secret and has been written about in many articles over the years. Lawmakers are facing a great deal of pressure to set those caps and there is no “wink and a nod” in store.
I don’t know…as pointed out in another reply there is tremendous pressure on elected officials to cap OOS student numbers. Additionally if Cal admissions are 90% in state this year, how do they return to a lower number next year without creating headlines like “California students CUT”? The legislature doesn’t want any part of that. If there is one thing elected officials now know it’s that parental fury is something not to be messed with.
I would be curious to see the statistics but most flagship schools are 85% in state- 15% OOS and this holds true for UCB as well doesn’t it? I don’t see any other threads complaining about in state versus OOS as I do in this one. Which leads me to fear- will my D22 face discrimination for being OOS at UCB? I don’t want to invest my $ into a school that the majority of the student body is going to make her feel unwelcome because they see her as taking a spot away from someone from CA. UCB has gone way down on my list.
I honestly don’t think the students care once they are Cal. It’s the tax paying student/parent who didn’t get in that would have issue.
It is the whole zero-sum competitive scarcity mindset that is at play here. In relation to the California state population, UCB is relatively small, so that competition for admission is especially fierce. With expansion of UCB enrollment limited (even without NIMBY-related limitations, there is only so much space that can be built on to add capacity), the highly coveted admissions space there is subject to zero-sum competitive scarcity, and the very high competitively-determined admissions standards make the campus even more desirable to some. In zero-sum competitive scarcity situations, the politics can get very ugly, as each person or interest group wants to alter the allocation to improve their own chances, which necessarily means excluding someone else.
Of course, UC is expanding – see UC Merced. But it is hard to sell UC Merced to students seeking UCB (or UCLA) as a status good to show their eliteness, as opposed to purely an educational good.
No way there would be any kind of bias against an OOS student once they are on campus. My son is a 2021 grad and I never heard of any such thing and, in fact, there were some positive novelty factor in the OOS kids.
This is a very thorough article that discusses funding history, caps and support for OOS students. It is not a black or white issue.
Agree 100%
Without commenting on other states, this is patently wrong about UCB. UCB has roughly 24% OOS and another 12% International at the undergrad level. In-state residents are nowhere near the 85% number.
From UC-B’s budget, the state government and the federal government both support only 14% each of the budget.
So the notion, the state funds the college is misleading. 86% of the UC-B’s budget is NOt from the state.
The process of reducing OOS admissions has already been underway in the CA legislature. It’s fait accompli. It is what it is.
Why? Because voters have told their local representatives to do it. If there are funding gaps, then CA will cover some or all of the gap within our State budget going forward and/or tuition and fees will rise. CA has a budget surplus. If not, voters vote their pocketbooks.
Michigan should be an alternative for OOS’ers, especially considering its USNWR ranking has dropped numerically to #23, now just one behind Berkeley at #22. OOS students represent about 45% of the freshman class at the University of Michigan. And Michigan will probably pass Cal at some point in the future.
Primarily a neutral observer here. My D applied OOS, and there’s a) no chance she’s accepted now and b) not sure Cal would top her list due to distance. BUT…I’m very concerned with the online proposal. I suspect there will be significant non-Covid online creep into the elite schools, as they all recognize the blatant $ grab available to them. I surely do hope this doesn’t become widespread.
I feel the mind set of Oos vs instate has to change
14% support by state vs a large sum of out of state students fee structure should be very equivalent
Also what about the taxed paid by Oos student in their own state with no quality schools.
Are we living in Sudan or UNITED states.
Housing taxes is mostly the same in all states. State income tax varies. If California resident pay higher taxes, it’s not just for education. It’s for other reasons… weather, access to beaches, I can go on and on.
WE are not a separated nation. Every should have equal access to education. I don’t want my kids peers to have this discriminatory thoughts of having more right on education than my kids if he is Oos.
@Vicky10d, I do understand your frustration about the process, but I disagree with several of your statements.
I empathize with the fact that not all states are able to provide great in-state options but that’s not California’s (or any other state’s) problem.
That is absolutely not true. Property taxes vary widely - NJ, IL and NH are at the top (in that order), CA is around #34 and LA, AL and HI have the lowest. And the range is fairly wide.
Second, property taxes typically fund local schools and government services not state universities (at least that’s the case for the states I’m aware of)
I don’t know if CA state income taxes are used for beach access (someone else here may be able to confirm or refute this) but they certainly don’t pay for the weather.
Yes, and they do - but not necessarily at a specific university. A tax payer funded state college has the right to prioritize in-state applicants. I don’t have a problem with that.
Your kid has the right to an education. But you seem to think he/she deserves the right to whichever education you deem acceptable. CA families get preference for CA universities. And I would argue they should have more preference not less.
I agree with the sentiment that we CA residents should get preferred. We pay 10 percent extra tax on our payslip and a lot more with property tax and highest gas prices. We deserve something back.
Happy to note California kids will have more seats in Berkeley this year, and not less, due to the cut.
Well done.