In looking at the student demographics of the UC schools, roughtly 70% of UC students show family income of less than $70,000, with by far the largest segment at $30,000 or less (over 30%). Meanwhile, families above $110,000 are only around 15%. Are more affluent families not applying, or are they simply not getting admitted? If it is the latter, how is it equitable that the segment paying the lion’s share of the taxes are getting squeezed out of the state university system?
Moreover, of the higher income group, how many are OOS and international students?
I think several factors may play a role in this. Firstly, there would be a lower number of families with a median annual income of 110k or more, and so it is expected that they would proportionately be lower in the demographics as compared to other income groups.
Secondly, because they are affluent, it is likely that they may choose to apply in other states or private universities for a wide variety of reasons.
Where are you getting the quoted statistics from? The UC accountability report (https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/documents/pdfs/Accountability_2018_web.pdf) gives a breakdown of undergraduate income by campus and resident/non-resident in Fig 2.2.2 (page 47).
The data shows that UC wide, 38% of all families and 33% of resident families have income above $112K. At Berkeley, almost 50% of families have income above that level. That’s hardly being “shut out” when it’s roughly the 70th percentile of household income in CA (https://statisticalatlas.com/state/California/Household-Income). Only Merced matches the figures you cite, and I’d bet you’d see the same thing with community college too.
I think the income level of around $100K or a little above is the worst place to be with regards to affordability. Living in a any metro area of CA, that income just does not allow a family to contribute much, if any, to the school expenses. You’re not poor enough to get aid, and not rich enough to pay for it yourself. It also doesn’t feel right that the UC Regents awards, while stating that it’s merit-based, is also need-based. It seems like a student will need to have great grades, and also be “poor” to get any awards these days.
I used the statistics found on Google from the Department of Education. If you do a search for “UCSD student demographics”, you’ll see a chart for race, gender, and income. I have no idea why the data is so different. That said, the UC report actually seems to support my general contention. “Since 2008–09, the proportion of low-income California resident students increased noticeably, with an offsetting decline among upper- and upper-middle-income families.” Moreover, as to my question regarding out of state students being largely wealthy, the report states: “Conversely, more than 40 percent of nonresident students came from families in the highest income category in 2016–17. This proportion has increased steadily over the years while those in the lower- and middle-income categories have decreased.” This seems to bear out that in-state upper income families have a tougher time gaining admission to UC schools compared to lower income families. And this is despite a distinct disparity between GPA and test scores between the two groups, on average. It’s a difficult pill to swallow when the upper income family bears a far larger absolute tax burden to state coffers, and is likely subsidizing the cost of lower income families to attend the very schools that the in-state upper income families are getting squeezed out of.
Of course the OOS families are rich, because they get no financial aid and have to pay $60K per year. That’s what subsidizes Californians. Upper income Californians are in no way “squeezed out”, in reality they are disproportionately represented at upper tier UCs including Cal and UCLA.
Now a rich family may feel they’d rather pay for their slightly less capable kid to go to Oregon or Arizona, so they can enjoy PAC-12 sports, rather than UC Merced, while a poor family can’t afford to make the same choice. But that’s opting out, not being squeezed out. It’s no different to the rich families who send their kids to private elementary and high schools paying taxes to subsidize the poor families who send their kids to public schools.
I simply don’t think it’s “opting out.” What we really need to see is the demographic data on those who are declined admission, which we never will. My suspicion is that UC admissions readers makes little effort to elevate the applications of affluent applicants, but bend over backwards with those from poor school districts, those who are first gen, etc. It turns admission to the most selective UCs into a lottery for these kids through no fault of their own. Sure, they have advantages, but when they take those advantages and perform at an extraordinary level, their achievements are considered a foregone conclusion, not the culmination of a lot of hard work. There’s just something wrong with forcing this high achieving student to go out of state. If you’re in the 80th percentile for grades and test scores, were your essays so deficient that you should get denied across the board to the upper half of UC schools?
“If you’re in the 80th percentile for grades and test scores, were your essays so deficient that you should get denied across the board to the upper half of UC schools?”
Since the UCs are for the top 9% of Californian students, and the “upper half” are therefore for the top 5% or better (typically top 3% for UCB/UCLA: ~15K admitted out of nearly 500K CA high schoolers when allowing for those who get into both), it stands to reason that students in the 80th percentile aren’t going to get in except from the very best high schools in the state. The essays don’t even matter at that point. There are plenty of CA high schools where hardly anyone gets into UCB/UCLA, especially amongst those schools with a high proportion of disadvantaged students.
The reality is that compared to the top private schools, UCLA and UCB give out proportionately fewer spots to those with hooks (e.g. sports), don’t consider legacy/donations and aren’t allowed by law to consider race. And they look at all applicants from a single CA high school side-by-side when deciding who should be admitted. So it’s actually rather more predictable that the top few kids in the class will get in than for similarly selective private schools. That’s a lot less like a “lottery” than USC or Stanford (unless you buy your way in there).
Just to clarify, my 80th percentile referred to the 80th percentile at UCB/UCLA, not as a whole. Obviously we disagree about how these schools are making decisions, but the report you quoted doesn’t even support your contention that wealthy families are a disproportionately high percentage. The report states that over the past several years, admissions has focused on low income students which correspondingly reduced the opportunities for affluent families. That also begs the question of how much it takes to truly be affulent in certain parts of California. Is a family in any of the major cities actually upper middle class when they make $100,000/year? As someone pointed out earlier, that family likely makes too much to get any aid, yet is hard pressed to pay the full cost of attendance. And if you think race doesn’t come into play, I suggest you read the NY Times article authored by at UCB admissions reader. There is an enormous pressure placed on readers to elevate applications with a wink and a nod towards race and other factors.
Median household incomes of the state of California and its five largest cities from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitycalifornia,sanfranciscocitycalifornia,sanjosecitycalifornia,sandiegocitycalifornia,losangelescitycalifornia,ca/PST045218
$67,169 California
$54,501 Los Angeles
$71,535 San Diego
$96,662 San Jose
$96,265 San Francisco
$44,853 Fresno
$100,000 is in the upper half in all five (although just barely in San Jose and San Francisco, but closer to double the median in Los Angeles and Fresno, and about one and a half times the median statewide).
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=berkeley&s=all&id=110635 and https://www.collegedata.com/en/college-profile/1090/?tab=profile-money-tab have some useful information. At UCB, we can see:
19% of frosh and 28% of all undergraduates get Pell grants. This approximates the bottom 50% of the household income distribution (around $6x,xxx and lower).
52% of frosh and 43% of all undergraduates get no grants or scholarships. About 24% of undergraduates are out-of-state, so assume that they are all or almost all in this group (and with very high income/wealth to be able to afford the out-of-state list price). That means about 19% are in-state undergraduates paying list price, which means household income over $140,000 (top ~20% income), and no merit scholarships. An additional 5% of undergraduates get merit scholarships but not need-based grants, so they can be assumed to be in the upper range (over $140,000 in-state, higher out-of-state).
We can also see that 29% of frosh and 29% of all undergraduates do not get Pell grants, but get some grants or scholarships. As noted above, about 5% get only merit based scholarships, so that makes 24% getting some need-based grants but not Pell grants.
In other words, out of all undergraduates at UCB:
28% in-state from the bottom 50% income
24% in-state from the 50th-80th percentile income
24% in-state from the top 20% income
24% out-of-state from high income
So it looks like the “upper middle class squeeze” is really coming from the top (both in-state and out-of-state), not the bottom. Note that while the 50th-80th percentile income group is somewhat underrepresented at UCB, the bottom 50% that you appear to look down on with resentment is underrepresented to a much greater level, despite any favorable looks by admission readers seeing some of them achieve despite having more obstacles and barriers.
If you look at most highly selective private universities, you will find the skew toward students from the highest income families much greater than at UCB.