<p>I was talking about the percentage enrolled, not admitted.</p>
<p>But looking at the original, it suggests that almost a quarter (admitted) are from out of the state. So that seems to suggest over 75% admitted are in-state?</p>
<p>Shouldn’t this be a source of pride for Californians? Clearly your state is doing very well if it can attract so many people from all over the country. Most other states can’t say the same thing. Seems a little bitter and snooty to think you can fill up your colleges almost exclusively with in-staters.</p>
<p>^^^^ You are right. I am proud that we have such great educational opportunities in this state. Its getting very hard to swallow tho that some people who live here cant even get into our colleges.</p>
<p>UCLA should be ashamed of themselves only admitting 17% of kids from California</p>
<p>^ A big part of that is UCLA taking a lot of int’l students, many from Asia.</p>
<p>Kind of funny how UCLA went to a more “holistic” admissions process which resulted in an increase in URMs, but a decrease in lower-income Asian-American students.</p>
<p>Seems like they have no problem with Asian students from overseas since they can “pay the bills” unlike Californian Asian students from more modest backgrounds.</p>
<p>Its very sad… My daughter says I have to get over it. Very hard watching their dreams go up in smoke for the sake of international tuition.</p>
<p>Peeps28: Your daughter sounds she’s accepting the unfortunate situation gracefully. I’m sure she’ll achieve wherever she goes.</p>
<p>It’s easy to get wrapped up in things, especially if you hang out at this website. Let’s not forget that a dream school is but just one small part of a plan to achieve a much greater dream. Their dreams are not going up in smoke, the path to get to them has changed.</p>
<p>Thank you so much for that! You are right, just the path has changed. I realized earlier when I had to mail something to her college (UCI) , that the first two numbers of her student ID number was her birthday. I guess its meant to be :)</p>
<p>Our state flagship has publicly stated their plan is to get more OOS students for the extra tuition.</p>
<p>Thing is, they are also increasing enrollment. So while the %age might change, the total number of enrolled kids from in-state likely won’t change much if at all.</p>
<p>I think you have to look at those who enrolled not just admission rates. At our overseas school 19 were admitted to UCLA but just 2 enrolled - last year 25 admitted, 4 enrolled. At UCB 11 admitted, 1 enrolled.</p>
<p>We toured UCB this past winter and the Admin rep said the GPA required for OOS was higher than for in-state. She had an exact figure I cant remember it now</p>
<p>They are definitely recruiting - a UCLA rep was at our school this week.</p>
<p>I completely agree with Northwesty and other posters regarding OOS students and tuition. Really, if a state wants to keep a college public, they need to support the majority of the college’s budget. When the state gives 7-8% of the budget at UVA or 15% at University of Michigan or 17% at Grand Valley State University, then the state should not have that much control. Like I said before, I’m not saying GVSU or any other public college should be 80-90% out of state, I’m saying that it should increase the amount of out of state students. Especially if you have a state like Michigan that is losing population.</p>
<p>All this discussion is moot, isn’t it? Whether or not in-state or out-of-staters have easier admissions, whether or not it’s fair, the truth comes down to this: Either the schools do so or their quality will suffer. So you live with the preference for in-staters being lower and realize that having magnet schools is a huge benefit for Silicon Valley, and by extension California in the form of a world-class economy and taxes.</p>
<p>Either that or clean up the abysmal budget situation you yourselves voted in. And you should take personal responsibility for such.</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.”</p>
<p>The next step in this process is the state schools actually turning down the low levels of state money they get.</p>
<p>The law and business schools at UVA have done this. From a financial perspective, they have become private schools. They don’t take even one penny of state money. In fact, they send money to the state in order to be free from restrictions. </p>
<p>The admissions and tuition breaks going to in-staters have almost been eliminated. At UVA Law, in state tuition is $46k versus $51k for OOS. For MBA students, it is $49k vs $54k.</p>
<p>As a California resident & parent, one of the reasons we put up with the insanely high income taxes and the broken state government is the opportunity for our kids if they work hard go to a UC school. As that opportunity dissipates, the motivation to stay disappears. </p>
<p>Another observation this time around is that the vibe coming from UC campuses is about how lucky you would be to go here. When visiting good public’s in Montana and Wyoming with OOS tuition below in state UC, it was amazing how positive it was and how the focus was on making sure kids succeed.</p>
<p>K&S notes, “Kind of funny how UCLA went to a more “holistic” admissions process which resulted in an increase in URMs, but a decrease in lower-income Asian-American students.”</p>
<p>Response: holistic admission is admission talk for “we want to bring in students that might not get admitted based on pure merit. Examples where this has been used is: to bring in kids who can afford to full pay so the school doesn’t have to give scholarships even though they might not get admitted based on merit or to discriminate in favor of or against some kids such as against Asian or in favor of under represented minorities.”</p>
<p>Harvard, to my knowledge, started using holistic admission to discriminate against Jewish students. Today, it has been used as noted above.</p>
<p>My favorite comment came from a Yale trustee. She noted that attending a private school gives a significant advantage for admission over that of attending a public school. When I said that “Yale has noted that they are admission blind regarding needy students,” her answer was, "Yes, they are need blind,but if they admit a large percentage of kids from private schools, those kids probably won’t qualify for need based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree that that is feasible. The day UCs stop taking in from public draws is the day they can admit as many Martians as they please. Until then though, IS should hold preference.</p>
<p>
Why should this be the case?</p>
<p>CA taxpayer money built and paid for those schools. Why should the taxpayers cede control just because they didn’t give any money to the them in any particular year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Meh. More than 70% of UC students are in-state. If your kids aren’t smart enough to reach that 70%, then so be it.</p>
<p>I thought one of the reasons to put up with the super high income taxes is the super low property taxes?</p>
<p>I’m a UC graduate (back from the Pleistocene era), and am completely horrified at the direction the UCs have taken with admissions. I can tell you that although my daughter was accepted at one of the UCs (she applied to 3 campuses), she was disgusted at how few of her friends were admitted. A surprising percentage were declined at non-reach campuses and waitlisted at what should have been a safety campus. A large percentage of her graduating class is heading out of state, and that’s tuition money that could have been used here in CA. And frankly, the whole ELC concept (9% rule) is a complete joke, start to finish.</p>
<p>Instead of resorting to this de facto partial privatization, why not give each in-state family some other options:
- Offer a separate track for consideration as an in-state applicant willing to pay the full ride charged to OOS students?<br>
- The UC Riverside solution: in-state applicants pay 2% of their income for 20 years <em>following</em> graduation?</p>
<p>And what safeguards are in place, I wonder, to ensure that an OOS student retains OOS status for the duration of their UC enrollment? I ask this because it has been rumored that there are folks who game the system and take steps to ensure that they’re only paying 2 years OOS and the student files as in-state beginning junior year? </p>
<p>I have lived and worked and paid my fair share of taxes in this state. I DIDN’T vote for Prop. 13, and I resent the idea that my alma mater is allowed to change the rules. I really think if this continues we should all send UC our tuition bills, or file to get our money back so we can use it to pay the private or OOS tuition for our own kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose that depends on the residency rules. This would be an argument for taking more foreigners - people on student visas can’t become resident.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may not have voted for prop 13, but you benefit from the low taxes. If the people of california felt the issue was important, prop 13 would be repealed.</p>
<p>I do sympathise with you. It seems like you are a liberal who wants high taxes and good services, but you live in a conservative state that refuses to pay decent taxes. But that is the democratic decision of the people of California.</p>
<p>Another option of course would be for the UCs to save money by cutting back on student facilities and sports, and giving up claim to national or international reputation. That should save a few bucks.</p>