I understand what you are saying.
A counter argument is that Federal Contracts and Grants fund in equal proporion as the state support (both 14% each) for UC-B $3 billion budget.
https://cfo.berkeley.edu/budget-101
Also, the federal government gives $600+ million in research funding to UC-B.
(Excellence in Research | Research UC Berkeley)
Clearly all US tax payers funded that.
Moreover, Penn State does NOT meet full financial need for students. (So its financial aid budget goes further adn College Park will have a higher proportion of higher income students.)
I think there would still be some internal decision-making because just moving up the cut-off score could result in a pool that is too out-of-state heavy, or too Northern California heavy, or too STEM heavy or something, I imagine. Additional tweaking could be required.
Because locally-funded services are intended to benefit local residents. Lower tuition doesnât help if you canât get into the school in the first place because seats are going to OOS and international students who pay more. Itâs a big problem for high population states with high demand public universities that arenât getting enough funding from their state legislatures to fund operations. Thatâs why the numbers of OOS and international students keep going up and state legislatures are having to make deals with them to give more funding for accepting more in-state students. By your logic why not just let all public universities accept only international students if thatâs they want to do and that would be most lucrative for them?
It probably does matter as this will have a ripple on other UCs. The process of UC admissions is not sustainable in the long run. This needs to be more transparent than look like a lottery. From my personal experience, kids who moved to lower performing/demanding schools are getting Tier 1 UCs, but kids who stay in high performing/demanding schools are penalized to go to lower tier UCs or out of state. It is so unfair on the hard working kids.
As reported in the L.A. Times, UC says the order would require a delay:
Thereâs no evidence that UCB is giving preferential treatment to full-pay OOS and international students in admission, is there? If there is, Iâd agree that preference should be dropped, and the state should either adequately fund its public universities or raise tuitions for in-state students. But I suspect that isnât the case.
Just to be clear, all UCâs other than Merced are R1, included in the top 115 Universities in the country. Thus, the state politicos do not care about top performing kids being rejected from Berkeley but offered a slot at Riverside (so they may go OOS).
Not gonna happen for the reason stated above. What happens of course, is that longer-term, UC slowly loses political support from parents whose kids go OOS and become invested in their kidsâs non-UC schools. But again, state politicos have other priorities.
Actually, there used to be clear statistical evidence, but then UC eliminated the website where they posted all of the info. (Claimed budget cuts and couldnât afford to keep the site up.)
Would this affect enrollment at other UCâs?
Second order effect is likely since other UCâs will likely have a higher yield from the initial list of acceptances.
Thereâs lots of evidence. The UC system is very open about the fact that they admit a certain percentage of OOS and international students to make up for lack of funding from the state. If you do a Google search on the recent negotiations between the UCs and Gov. Newsom to cap enrollment of OOS students in exchange for more state funding, youâll see what I mean. To be clear, Iâm not suggesting that OOS admits are less qualified than in-state students. The problem is that thousands of very qualified CA students get rejected every year because their places go to higher paying OOS students simply because of lack of state funding. Some other states have had the same problem, especially for impacted majors. For example, the U. of Washington just capped the number of OOS students it will accept for CS major at around 3% because in-state students were losing out to OOS students.
State politocos not caring about high performing kids going out of state is a problem in my perspective.
As a state/society, we are failing our kids when we donât adequately reward kids who work hard while reward kids who do less work as their school is less demanding. I have 2 schools near my home within 10 mile radius - high demanding school (usnews state rank around 60) gets about 17% applicants admitted to UCB and less demanding school (usnews state rank around 190) gets about 36% applicants admitted. This variation could be major driven, but without transparency i am seeing students move from first school to the second school to increase their chance of getting into UCB and succeeding. IMHO, this is teaching kids to use loop holes and not focus on doing the right thing.
As the UC system is funded primarily by State Tax payers, shouldnât their priority be to educate state kid? In my opinion, the politicians donât pay attention to this as they can get away with providing less dollars to the UCs if the UCs get more OOS students. And the people who send their kids to OOS do not make noise.
Not asking the UCs to accept in-state students with lower stats/ECs, but donât accept OOS students when you have in-state students with equal or higher stats/ECs being rejected.
I donât disagree, but unless the voters change their voting patterns, the âproblemâ will not get addressed.
Thatâs common for the state universities. Most have freshmen live on campus (about 25% of the student population) and upperclassmen move off campus, into frat/sorority housing, into co-ops. Thatâs how it was in Boulder when I went there 1000 years ago, thatâs how it was at U of Wisconsin where all my friends went. Students WANT to live off campus.
Limiting admission to instate students at UCB will not change the housing demand as MOST of California doesnât live within commuting distance of Berkeley. Admit and instate student from San Diego and that student is going to need housing, same as if he came from Tulsa or Hong Kong.
This would be great for in-state families, but unless the can make up funding elsewhere, this would crush the budget for the upcoming year(s). Do they accept only instate students at the expense of slashing classes/programs/jobs etc?
UC these days gets more revenue from student fees (tuition) than state subsidy, which has been on a downward trend over recent decades.
There is a ton of evidence. UCB has just decided not to show some of that data as others have mentioned on here, and also there are major specific differences that are buried under aggregate trends. There is a reason the budget specifically targeted UCLA and UCB to limit OOS enrollment percentages. Some of the other UCs are even more egregious. Just look at how the UCI admit rates have skyrocketed for OOS and international applicants. UCSB, UCD, and UCSC all show similarly ridiculous discrepancies.
Ah, but the new funding plan is supposed to help with the international student issue and overall funding. Assuming equity goals are met.
