<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>State taxpayers should get off their high-horse about being entitled to a cheap guaranteed college education for their kids. Lots of state residents pay the same taxes and don’t even have kids. Lots of state residents have kids and don’t pay taxes. Lots of non-residents contribute to the state’s tax base and get squat!</p>
<p>The only reason In-State parents get a tuition break for their kids is NOT because of tax contributions, but because they are VOTERS.</p>
<p>This is happening all over the place. When our students paid full tuition to attend British Unis they all got in. Now that we are part of the EU, they aren’t having as much luck. Everyone wants to go to Scotland now for cheap unis. I don’t know how long the Scots are going to go along with that.</p>
<p>Meh. If state voters choose not to fund their state universities as much, then they shouldn’t complain when those universities have to look elsewhere for funding. Especially in California, the people of the state made their choice.</p>
<p>Same issue at VA’s flagships, UVA and W&M, which honor a 66/33 in-state/out-of-state ratio. The OOS students pay a far higher tuition, which helps cover the short-fall in state support.</p>
<p>iirc, VA only provides 13% of the annual budget for W&M and less than 7% of UVA’s - that gap has to be addressed <em>somewhere</em>. </p>
<p>For years, people have complained about how their in-state children couldn’t gain admission to these schools - because, they say, their kids were displaced by less-qualified OOS students who pay more. Individually, these stories rarely hold up. But the larger question of whether a state school should admit <em>anyone</em> from OOS remains. If state were providing 100% of the funding for these schools, those who argue for this position (I don’t) would certainly have a strong position. </p>
<p>California, like every other state, has to make a choice - do you increase your support for a university system to reduce the financial pressure on these schools to seek dollars from OOS students? Providing 7 or 13 percent of the school’s budget doesn’t give you much leverage over admissions policies.</p>
<p>Bearing in mind that increasing the support means via taxes that are paid by everyone, for a system that only a small minority of those taxpayers will ever benefit from it (at least directly.) For those tax-payers without children, well, it’s hard to blame them for thinking that those who benefit from the UC system should be the ones to pay for the privilege - in the form of higher tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Make a “choice”, yes, but it is not just either/or, as the political spin would lead you to beleive. There are multiple choices that could be made, if California had any real leadership.</p>
<p>It’s not just the leadership - the people of California voted for a lot of tax restrictions via ballot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one said they should be guaranteed admission just for being a state resident. Don’t put words in people’s . . . uh, posts.</p>
<p>The issue here would be preference. By admitting more OOS and Int’l students, the UCs seem to be disregarding the preference in the admissions process that residents are in line for.</p>
<p>For example, I’m a veteran, and as such I receive (or dare I actually describe it as entitled to) a point preference in federal hiring positions. Am I guaranteed the job? Of course not. I would still need to present the credentials on my resume and go through and interview process just like someone who did not have the points preference. However, because I come with a preference, then from the start - not taking anything else into account of the other applicants - I have a leg up in being hired.</p>
<p>In short, CA seems to be losing that preference for applicants that are residents.</p>
<p>UVA is really the best example of this trend. Others on this path are Michigan and Colorado. </p>
<p>UVA used to get one third of its budget from state funding. Now that’s closer to 5%. If the state wants to provide the dollars, then it can impose limits on tuition and OOS enrollment. But restrictions don’t make sense if little/no money is provided.</p>
<p>UVA has one third OOS enrollment. OOS students have much higher academic qualifications and have a much lower acceptance rate (20%) than in-staters (40+%). OOS pay more than 2X what in-staters do. So one-third of the students pay two-thirds of the tuition. That’s the necessary model in the absence of significant state funding.</p>
<p>So it has become much tougher for VA residents to get admitted to UVA. But if you can get in (and it is easier to get in in-state than OOS), it is one of the most awesome college deals anywhere – $20k sticker price to go to a school as good as UVA. Still a substantial benefit to families living in VA (even if fewer of their kids may be able to get in).</p>
<p>If you want to get rid of the OOS kids, then VA taxpayers and VA attending families would both have to pay more. The math is pretty simple.</p>
<p>
Assuming nothing else has changed, it would seem that the preference is decreasing but might not yet have vanished. Without seeing the aggregate statistical profile of the OOS and CA applicant and admitted pools, we cannot say that there is no preference. If anyone has a link that establishes or refutes this it would be of interest. (I would add, however, that the GPA component of these statistics could potentially be misleading as the UC/CSU system has established a standard for calculating this which is not held to outside of CA.)</p>
<p>To the proponents of in-state favoritism I would want to know what level of state-support warrants what level of favor. If the state supplies only 5% of the budget does it mean state-resident applicants should still get as much of a boost as if the budget was supported at 50%? Isn’t it justifiable that the old policies change as support dwindles? And isn’t it a good thing that the UC administrators have an additional source of revenue–OOS tuition–to turn to in order to continue delivering high levels of service to CA residents? If you don’t think so, then it seems you ought to be able to cite an alternative–higher taxes, higher in-state tuition, deeper operating cost cuts, or re-directed state funds–that you would prefer.</p>
<p>Wait a minute - more than 70% are from California and you want to claim there’s no preference…</p>
<p>
Examples of the recent trend, perhaps, but UW-Madison has long had a policy of admitting relatively high levels of OOS students. Its current ratio is 38% OOS undergraduates has been relatively steady for years and is the same as Michigan’s now. I believe this to be an important part of maintaining its quality, but this has not been without some persistent grumbling on the part of state resident’s whose children are perceived to be “shut out” of the flagship.</p>
<p>@keepittooyourself: Here are the preliminary data for this year. CA admit rates are lower than OOS + Internationals for most campuses. Only UCR, UCSC,UCM have majority CA admit rate. Yield will of course be higher for CA residents, but the admit rate is significantly lower. Likely that many of the OOS/Int have sterling credentials, but when you compare admit rates at UNC (about 50% in state, 11 % OOS) you can see that UC spots are up for sale:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2012/fall_2012_admissions_table2.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2012/fall_2012_admissions_table2.pdf</a></p>
<p>Campus/ CA resident admit rate</p>
<p>UCB 22.7
UCD 44.5
UCI 33.6
UCLA 17.7
UCM 76.5
UCR 61.6
UCSD 32.1
UCSB 41
UCSC 61.6</p>
<p>^ Interesting! But the revealing stat would be a different one - do you have stats on the average scores of admitted instate and OOS students?</p>
<p>Our D applied to 4 UC schools and was accepted to 2 (UCSD and UCI). We live in IL but own property in CA (and pay property taxes). We would still have to pay OOS tuition for her to attend a “state” school where she may not get the classes she needs to graduate in 4 years. We have decided we would rather pay slightly more for a private school where she is guaranteed to get the classes she needs and has smaller class sizes. State residents can grumble but either you raise the tuition for in-state students, cut programs, raise taxes for everyone or take more OOS residents to foot the bill. If you look at where the OOS students are going it is mostly UCLA and UCB because they have a national reputation. My husband was a UCSD grad and felt he received a fantastic education but who outside of CA has heard of UCSD? (I hadn’t) I haven’t seen all the numbers but I suspect CA residents are mostly being shut out of these 2 schools. p.s Our flagship state school (U of IL) costs over $30K/year with room and board, UCLA is aroung $25K/year. And we pay pretty high taxes here in IL as well.</p>
<p>Where did you get the 25k cost for UCLA ??</p>
<p>CA residents should consider themselves lucky.</p>
<p>I live in a state with TWO public universities, neither of which are ranked ANYWHERE nearly as high as UCB/UCLA. Why should where you grow up severely impact your ability to go to a top university?</p>
<p>CA residents have access to in-state tuition rates that are 1/4 of the rates us outsiders have to pay. That alone is an advantage very, very few states can compare to, because most states don’t have good state schools.</p>
<p>With massive state cuts to university budgets, this is a problem across the nation. Every state’s premier university is accepting record numbers of out-of-state and international students in order to try and recoup the monetary losses. It really limits the middle class family who cannot qualify for Federal Aid beyond loans. I wonder if soon we will see specific mandates from states regarding the percentage of in-state students a state university must accept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I said losing preference, not have lost .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent find. Obviously 70% of admitted students aren’t in-state as keepittoyourself so magically proclaimed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Going along the same lines of my veteran’s preference example - 0.00000000000001%, figuratively, of course. Even if one dime of public funds goes to an institution, then it should adhere to those who provided those funds. A service member who served a 4 year enlistment gets the same amount of preference points as a service member who has served 30 years in the Armed Forces (only disabled veterans increase their points) so long as each has met the minimum eligibility requirements. Both individuals would meet this minumum requirement in that instance. So, it can be said that if a service member volunteered for 5% of his lifetime, then s/he is eligible for 100% of the amount of points as someone who contributed 30% of their lifetime to service. IMO, if a school receives 5% or 30% of funding from the state, then it doesn’t matter - it still has 100% favor to the state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I proclaim this? I don’t think so, pal.</p>
<p>I’ll bold it so it’s not missed again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Feel free to elaborate if that’s not exactly what you meant.</p>