UC nonresident admissions soar

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - GENERAL
101

<p>Not sure that we need to get into bashing republicans (or democrats)!</p>

<p>As a Californian, I am proud of our UCs and our CSUs. I think that ALL of our UCs are world-class. And I’m not really that freaked out over the tuition cost. I am freaked out about the fact that they become harder and harder to get into. </p>

<p>It is one thing to advertise that 3.0 is the requirement, then only admit 4.0+.</p>

<p>Kids with 3.5-3.75 have a darn good GPA and deserve more of a chance at a UC. </p>

<p>I guess those of us in CA have to decide what we mean by ‘public’ and how we are willing to fund a ‘public’ university to increase access. </p>

<p>Personally, I’m not in favor of the ‘millionaires’ tax, as I think there are still countless ways to trim costs in other areas first. It’s really a matter of priorities for our state. We pay health professions $500K or more to work in the prisons, but have shortages of supplies, etc in our K-12 classrooms.</p>

102

<p>

</p>

<p>Shouldn’t that be a question for your home state Legislators? It is they who have chosen not to fund your home state public Unis.</p>

103

<p>Or, to use your example: the leaders of North Dakota choose not to fund their higher ed systems as much as the leaders of California, Michigan and Virginia, among others. But those leaders are put in place by voters. If you were a resident of ND, then you should ask your parents why they did not support higher ed, and if they did, how about your parent’s friends.</p>

<p>Higher ed is in reality a choice by state voters. California voters built an excellent higher ed system…and yes, they expect that their kids should receive priority over kids from parents in North Dakota who chose not to build a ranked Uni.</p>

<p>In retrospect, GregFields, as an OOS’er, you should ask your parents that question of “Why?”</p>

104

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In correlation to your comment, I think it had all the relevance in the world. In case you couldn’t put 2 and 2 together - I offered an example that was contrary to your stated observation (or stereotype) of Californians. Therefore my example would not have been able to exist if not for yours. Ergo, it is relevant because it is a direct and opposite offering to your opinionated, if not uninformed, statement. If you don’t want your comments possibly argued against, or otherwise analyzed, then don’t post them on a public forum.</p>

105

<p>Greg, I think you’re also suffering from some entitlement. Your parents aren’t paying Cali state taxes, so why should you have an equal (or even better!) chance than Californians?</p>

<p>My take is that Californians SHOULD expect some benefit to paying into their system. However, if they’re paying much less, they should also expect a DECREASE in their benefit, and if the size of the decrease is such that schools cannot maintain their reputation, they will no longer hold an advantage in admissions. It’s that simple. The amount you’re paying into the UC system now is recouped for many times over just by attracting strong students who are more likely to settle down in Cali and drive your innovative businesses. If you want the old UC admissions bias back, swallow your tongues and vote for more taxes or politicians that will actually reform your CURRENT pension abomination. It’s that simple.</p>

<p>@calimami - Not even sure where that came from. If I had to bet, most of the whiners on this thread are Democrats, but that’s neither here nor there.</p>

106

<p>I was reading the news when I realized these big companies in the San Francisco Bay Area - Facebook, Google, etc. are spending their money on useless things… Seriously, $1 billion for a small company like Instagram? Get real.</p>

<p>Maybe they should help some with this education problem… Just because most of them didn’t go to college that long, they should at least care about other Californian residents. </p>

<p>You know, I’m confused why people from other states want to go to UCs. The cost is about the same as private colleges for non-residents, so people should stop complaining that they need to pay more money. </p>

<p>We ARE valuing what we already have. </p>

<p>calimami, I am NOT “whining, complaining, bashing, blaming, scapegoating”
As I said earlier on this thread, my family cannot afford to go out of state… My sister is at Stanford with almost no financial aid even though we’re not rich. I have a younger brother who my family thinks would be much better for a private college like Stanford instead of me. As a middle child, my parents have basically abandoned any idea of private colleges and state universities outside of california. I’m sorry, but I would much rather be able to eat while I’m in college and actually have more than two sets of clothing. If I had to go to somewhere outside of California, I wouldn’t have that luxury. My parents like my brother a lot more than me, so they would spend their money on spoiling my brother instead of on stuff that I actually need. Are you trying to say that you want more Californian students homeless? On welfare? That would not solve the problem AT ALL. Even graduating from some college doesn’t guarantee a job, you know.</p>

107

<p>Go to a community college.</p>

108

<p>Is anyone else seeing this as an issue of gentrification in higher education. It is my understanding that public universities will not offer any financial aid to OOS Students (beyond the pell grants and stafford loans supported by the federal government). OOS cost of attendance is likely to be very high. To me, this means that the vast majority of OOS Students at flagship universities will be from wealthy families. So, the OOS “slots” at flagship universities are essentially reserved for wealthy families and unavailable to middle class or poor families. The higher the percentage of OOS “slots” reserved by universities to subsidize budgets, the lower the percentage of middle class and poor students attending that university. I think that’s a problem.</p>

109

<p>

</p>

<p>Silicon Valley pays a giant amount of taxes to the state. Your two posts to the thread have consisted of nothing but demanding money from other people because it’ll benefit you, you, you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You know, I’m confused why people from California want to maintain an advantage despite not funding UCs adequately. Nobody’s complaining about OOS costs, I haven’t seen a single person do so here.</p>

<p>The fact is the system is not obligated to have a failsafe for your familial difficulties. I sympathize with being the disfavored son, but your parents clearly have the wealth to spend on your sister and brother. Providing guaranteed entry to children whose parents don’t like them as much as their siblings is not in the UC charter.</p>

110

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly - the utter hypocrisy of his posts is hilarious. “You’re all entitled! Why should I have to suffer with the crappy public schools in my state?! I want your public schools, and by golly I’ll have them!”</p>

<p>There’s a lot of misplaced anger from California residents in general. To them, I would say: don’t get mad at the UCs - get mad at the legislature if you think they are misappropriating your tax dollars. Pressure your representatives. Vote your representatives out and get ones that represent your interests. Stop being politically lazy and *do *something about it. It’s called “civic responsibility” for a reason. (I’m not directing this at anyone in this thread, but taxpayers in general who have misplaced anger.)</p>

<p>One poster on CC pointed out something very poignant: the UC constituency is potentially *very *powerful. It has over 200,000 students, so counting them, and their families, and the hundreds of thousands of alumni who live in the state plus their families, and the 200,000+ faculty and staff and all their families, and all those who are unaffiliated but sympathize with their cause - well, you have a very strong constituency that could put the appropriate pressure on the legislature to enact change. Do the same for CSU system (which has over 400,000 students) and this constituency is unstoppable. Do the same for the community colleges - forget about it, it’s a done deal.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, these colleges have not been very effective at rallying support and putting pressure on the legislature. To do so, they would need funding… which is their whole problem in the first place. ;)</p>

<p>IMO much of the problem has to do with a serious mismatch between conservatives and liberals in the state, which can lead to an ugly mismatch of priorities (e.g. high spending that the taxes currently can’t support). And yes, contrary to popular belief, the conservative element of the state is very strong. Sometimes, I wish that the state could just be divided into two. Conservatives, who are [url=<a href=“http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1007]concentrated[/url”>http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1007]concentrated[/url</a>] in the southern half, can have their lower taxes and comparably poorer services. Liberals, who are concentrated in the northern half, can have their extremely high tax rates and superior services. It makes sense given that the US is structured on the idea of state governance in which like-minded people get to live in their own little (preferred) version of US society. Of course, it would never happen, as NorCal would get Silicon Valley (a cash cow) all to itself, and SoCal would shoulder the burden of higher poverty rates and higher immigration, but I still wonder sometimes, what if?</p>

111

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps economics is not your strong suit? (When Facebook goes IPO, California will inherit $2.5 billion in tax receipts. And California did exactly what for all of that largesse?)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>On this point you are correct, and something I’ve been saying on cc for several years now. But the politicos in Sacto don’t care. (It’s an easy shell game for them.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, but educating the high school graduates of California IS in the charter. :rolleyes:</p>

112

<p>

</p>

<p>Facebook is paying only about $300 million in cash for Instagram. The other 70% is in stock. But I do agree with your general sentiment. It’s a total sham that Apple is able to make its products on cheap labor overseas, then sell those products at ridiculous prices to those in the US, reap huge profits, keep much of its assets offshore, and pay very little in taxes because of corporate welfare and tax loopholes. Other SV companies are just as bad - hiding assets in offshore accounts is a well-accepted practice, and they spend millions of dollars each year in lobbyists.</p>

<p>Of course, SV is still a cash cow, but it could still contribute more to the state and not hurt itself at all. One positive development of late, though, is a growing SV movement to donate more money in philanthropy, from both VCs and other billionaires and millionaires - many pledging at least half of their wealth. We’ll see how that turns out.</p>

<p>[Andreessen</a> Horowitz, Venture Capital Firm, To Give Half Profits To Charity](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Andreessen Horowitz, Venture Capital Firm, To Give Half Profits To Charity | HuffPost Small Business)</p>

<p>I’m not sure how much SV has been involved in the higher education budget crisis, but I’m willing to bet it’s not an insignificant amount. SV relies heavily on well-trained students and researchers from California universities (but of course it also gets people from all over the world).</p>

113

<p>

</p>

<p>And that they do. Just because it’s not 95% Californians doesn’t mean UC isn’t serving California residents. Also if you notice, he talks about UCB, UCLA and UCSB as his “right.” Which reeks of something beyond entitlement.</p>

114

<p>@CollectivSynergy</p>

<p>I didn’t say that attending one of those schools was my “right”. My comment was in response to the people on this thread saying that “The UC system should accept less OOS students!!” I am only here to argue that OOS students should have a fair shot at attending the UC schools. I didn’t get to choose what state I grew up in.</p>

<p>The years where vast majority of people stay in the state they grew up in are LONG gone. This won’t be as visible in a gigantic state like California, but people are leaving their home-states for school/work in increasing numbers. Why should huge portions of this generation be disadvantaged and discriminated against because of where their parents chose to raise them? My parents may not pay Cali state taxes, but they DO pay WAY more in tuition costs because I’m an OOSer attending a UC. So they are paying dearly, trust me. </p>

<p>Again, I’m only defending the ability of OOSers to have a fair chance at attending the best public higher education system in the country. Also, many OOSers who attend the UCs stay here permanently for work when they graduate. Having more college educated citizens is good for the state of California. College graduates have much higher salaries than non-graduates, and will pay more in tax dollars to the state than they use, generally speaking. </p>

<p>I shouldn’t have used the word “entitled” because it has become heavily politicized in today’s America, but what I was getting at is that there are a lot of people on this thread who think that the UC schools should accept less OOS students in exchange for more Cali students, only because they are unhappy with their admissions chances.</p>

115

<p>My last post was referring to quidditchcat, I should have clarified. I agree with the rest of your post, insofar as the OOS money is right now very necessary for the UC system. If that were not the case, emphasizing more IS enrollees is reasonable, at least in my book. It is more beneficial to retain potential in your state than count on ex-pats from other states.</p>

116

<p>

</p>

<p>So do you think a child born in Japan (just as an example for Int’l purposes) should have the same “fair shot” at being admitted to a UC that a child who was born, raised, and educated in CA has? The Int’l student may be paying a higher tuition rate, but their parents, and parent’s parents, hadn’t been paying into the system (tax) for generations like the CA student’s family possibly would have.</p>

<p>I think families might feel betrayed for supporting CA higher ed for so long (financially or otherwise) just to have UC turn around and give the same “fair shot” to those who didn’t put a penny towards it until they step foot on campuses.</p>

117

<p>I didn’t get into a single UC this year!! I had 6 AP classes, 3.96 UC GPA, and a 1750 SAT :frowning: this really really sucks and I’m a california resident.</p>

118

<p>That’s completely unfair to blame since they are private companies and they can choose to help education if they want but don’t bash them. They still pay a hefty amount of taxes.</p>

119

<p>First of all, the UCs were created to send Californian students to state schools. They have failed miserably. Again, I spit on Berkeley’s campus with disgust when I got there.</p>

120

<p>@turtlerock</p>

<p>Special accommodations are sometimes needed for international students, so I think that is a bit of a different case. I think that more than tripling the tuition cost makes up for the fact that they didn’t pay any Cali state taxes up to that point, though. So to answer your question, I think OOSers definitely should have an equal fair chance, and internationals should also, as long as there aren’t special accommodations needed. The number of accepted internationals that DO need special accommodations should be capped, because they simply cost more money.</p>