<p>
Or maybe get rid of a few thousand political hacks who got their jobs as payoff for other favors or because of who they know instead of what they know.</p>
<p>^ People always say that but it can’t be taken seriously until you get specific.</p>
<p>^ Here is some specific data:</p>
<p><a href=“http://ucsdcalrev.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/08/funding1.png[/url]”>http://ucsdcalrev.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/08/funding1.png</a></p>
![http://ucsdcalrev.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/08/funding1.png[/url]](http://ucsdcalrev.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/funding1.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Between 1997-2011, senior administration rises 2.54 fold, ladder-ranked faculty rise 1.27 fold.</p>
<p>I would tack on the ridiculous pension and benefits packages paid to the public sector by your politicians - negotiated on the taxpayer’s behalf of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Not the California of the last 20 years, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>In any event, the entitled nature of most of the Cali posters here is something to behold. If you tallied up all the state taxes you’ve paid over your lifetime, does that even cover the difference of IS/OOS for 4 years at a UC? After taking into account that same pie paying for your police, firefighters, courts, roads & maintenance, power infrastructure, plumbing, public works, government, and all manners of other public services? You’re getting a far better bang for your buck through borrowed money than reality dictates. Which, incidentally, is why you’re bankrupt.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I agree… NY’s state tax is a full third lower than Cali’s and while we’re running a stubborn deficit, it’s nowhere near California’s dire straits. The difference in real estate taxes isn’t really relevant, since property taxes largely fund local services anyway and not the state. So yes, you can raise income taxes even further (despite being among the highest in the country, if not the highest), but considering the $10bn+ gap you’re going to need to cut significantly as well. The answer to lack of money isn’t only higher taxes on “the rich”…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, that is the spin, (particularly since Merced has ample room to take anyone and everyone who applies). What WILL change, however, is the number of instaters who can attend the big two, the only two with a full slate of D1 sports, and with top academic programs in every discipline. Instead of exposing our instate neighbors to Nobel Laureates at Cal or UCLA, they’re told to go to Merced instead, so the 1%ers from OOS can work with Nobel Laureates instead.</p>
<p>Brilliant leadership I’d say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are confusing residency for legal purposes with residency for tuition purposes. Anyone can obtain the latter with a signature by someone in charge.</p>
<p>Weve been dealing with this in the Midwest for decades…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not confusing the two. And really? I know that most states specifically ban tuition residency for foreigners on nonresident visas, like student visas. Do you have a cite that CA is different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t need to. It’s public policy. ANY student of any nationality/country of origin can obtain instate tuition rates if they attend and graduate from a California high school. There are hundreds/thousand? of such students at UC today. Moreover, no visa of any kind required.</p>
<p>Of course the question is what about those that did not attend a Cal HS for 3 years? In the old days, it was rather easy to appeal for instate tuition prices. Now it is much harder. But note, UC is now offering ‘grants’ to OOS students which can cover some part of the OOS fees.</p>
<p>Our family has attended UCs for three generations. The present cost in conjunction with the mass education one receives is hard to reconcile compared to private universities both in state and beyond that provide more personal attention to the student and often generous FA packages. I met several UCSB students last weekend who lamented the problems students are facing in getting the classes they need. To move beyond “first year” status is getting more difficult and the graduate rate after 4 years with the UCs is an abysmal 57%, give or take a few percent. In brief, we cannot afford to attend UC any longer. This has been a difficult pill to swallow for a mother and educator who has been an advocate of California public education from K-12 through doctoral level her entire life. It seems to me that an Occupy UC is in order.</p>
<p>It’s seems a bit discriminatory to offer admissions to oos students who will pay full tuition before offering it to Calif students and giving them the option to pay full tuition. I never understood this. If a student has to go to a private or oos school they will be paying more for tuition anyway. Why should they not have this as an option if they don’t get in with in state tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the point is that, of those who are foreigners and hence on a student (F-1) visa, they <em>cannot</em> establish in-state residence for tuition purposes.</p>
<p>More info in this document: <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/ogc/documents/uc-residence-policy.pdf#page=44[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/ogc/documents/uc-residence-policy.pdf#page=44</a> (notice that F-1 is not on the list)</p>
<p>Until these so-called “state” schools can run nearly exclusively on tax dollars, they will never admit only in-state students. Also, the reaction to this change will have a negative bias because there is a high number of Californian posters due to the high population of that state and its proportionately higher amount of well performing students. </p>
<p>Bottom line, until these schools become truly public, there’s no reason for them not to admit out of staters and internationals. Plus, academically, I doubt that California actually has enough talent to fill up their entire system. Also, with the growing trend of students ignoring state boundaries and headed out of state to better schools (especially the best and brightest students) California needs out of state admits. Finally, all of these out of state kids are paying extra, and they are paying in full. If you are really concerned about your taxes, these out of state kids are actually saving your state money.</p>
<p>
That man has a good point.</p>
<p>Wait, doesn’t that mean that conversely in-state admission rates have gone down. Assuming that the population of California hasn’t suddenly become less intelligent, this completely defeats the purpose of public universities offering in-state tuition. That is, to serve their citizens. Someone who’s willing to pay that much in tuition might as well get a private education. UC system schools should primarily exist to serve Californians, and I think the same should remain true for all public schools.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. Unfortuntately Californians don’t seem to, at least when it comes to tax time. Californians have three options:</p>
<ol>
<li>Increase subsidies to the UCs, to educate Californians.</li>
<li>Admit more OOS students to the UCs, to subsidise Californian students.</li>
<li>Spend less on UCs, so the existing subsidy and in-state tuition covers it.</li>
</ol>
<p>California seems to have chosen a combination of (2), with a bit of (3), and a lot of (4) whine.</p>
<p>Or (5), stop wasting money. California’s the 8th largest (and probably most advanced) economy in the world. And somehow you’re in the bottom quartile in fiscal health in the US. Stop whining about what’s “fair” or not and fix that, then you’ll have the old UC back. Either vote for more taxes or gird yourself for further belt-tightening.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m not seeing how this is a specific option that could be used to fix the UC problem. It would probably be a version of (1), increasing subsidies to the UCs by saving money elsewhere.</p>
<p>They’re directly related. Because funding to public universities isn’t bound by contract, it’s the easiest budget line to cut - that’s why you see higher education funding meeting the ax first in almost every budget “fix” across the country. Despite it being one of the best investments states can make. Meanwhile the 800-lb gorilla of massive pension benefits goes barely touched. Even a small slice off *current<a href=“instead%20of%20slashing%20benefits%20for%20future%20employees,%20which%20won’t%20lower%20costs%20for%20decades”>/i</a> pension and benefit payouts would go a long way to righting the budget.</p>
<p>Except most of those pension benefits were agreed. I don’t think society (via the government) should break its word so quickly.</p>