<p>kxc:</p>
<p>I agree - it makes more sense to go to your good IS choice unless you have an extra $100K or so burning a hole in your pocket. And you’re right, maybe he can make it out here for grad school or for a job if he’s interested.</p>
<p>The other factor - a lot of students change their majors so even though UCSD ranks very highly for BioE, for example, the student might change their mind and switch majors a quarter or 2 down the road and then you’d be somewhat stuck paying a high OOS rate for what might be a major not so highly ranked.</p>
<p>The rankings for the UCs such as UCB and UCLA are for their grad schools.
There really aren’t that much a difference in undergrad education (teaching materials) among the 1st and 2nd tier (public/private) colleges across the nation; anyone is as good. Paying double at UCs, sitting in 300 students lecture halls for all your lower level classes and not getting the classes you want are huge factors for not picking UCs.
I am sure the lines are a lot longer everywhere on campus for these schools with 30K-40K students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally concur. But one factor we can’t lose sight of is the alternatives. Many of those with the stats to get into Cal, UCLA or UCSD from OOS can earn a full ride from their instate Uni. Thus, its $55k/$220k for more prestige vs. free for less prestige. Hmmmmm.</p>
<p>
I was referring to undergrad rankings. UCSD is ranked very highly in the nation for undergrad bio programs. Whether there’s any difference between it and any other 1st or 2nd tier college in the bio area - well, I think a lot of people think there’s a difference. What the value of that difference is - that’s up to the individual to decide. There all kinds of discussions on CC about the value and relative merits of various programs at various schools and lots of opinions and no clear cut universal answer.</p>
<p>Yes, UCSD<em>UCLA</em>Dad, there is always the argument of Return on Investment. At times, it is tough to put certain things into a number in a spreadsheet. In a qualitative sense, one might argue that for an OOS student, getting a Chem Eng degree at Berkeley yields a better return than getting one at Harvard at the same cost?</p>
<p>Thanks, ellemonope for the heads-up. I will know more as we move along. I assume that most states set up high barriers for OOS admissions for medical school, just like UNC for its undergrad admissions process?</p>
<p>Realistically, how many students are choosing between Berkeley or Harvard at the same cost? In my D’s case, it was between UCLA (in-state) and USC, with both at full cost, and UCLA is less than half the price. I can fully cover her UC education with no loans, but with USC we would be out an additional $100,000. Since she had no compelling reason to go to USC, like film school or something like that, it just didn’t make financial sense. The UCs are still a bargain. They are not the Costco of higher education- she is having the complete college experience and meeting people from all income backgrounds, economic diversity being somewhat absent from pricey private schools, despite the hype of the “need-blind” admissions process.</p>
<p>I agree that the UCs are still a bargain. But they will no longer be a bargain if the tuition doubles. And that’s what this thread is all about: concern that arguably the nation’s top public university system, a system that has gotten the most Nobel prizes on the planet, and generated enormous wealth for the state (and the nation) will be out of reach from all but its wealthiest residents.</p>
<p>If the UC fees double (which is unlikely, Jerry Brown is posturing), they would go up to $22000-24000, high but still lower than USC’s, which for 2011-2012 are over $42000. UC tuition would be high, yes, but still half of the cost of a private university’s tuition. The UC Blue-and Gold Opportunity Plan will cover tuition for families earning less than $80,000 in 2011-2012, so no, the poor won’t be shut out (unless that plan gets the ax). The people who will get hit are the full-pay middle class, like myself. If I were out-of state, would I pay over $34000 for non-resident tuition? Probably not, although it is still cheaper than the privates.
It’s not a great situation, and I’m bracing for an increase, but I don’t think it will double. But someone has to pay, and if the taxpayer won’t, then the consumer has to. I guess you can never save enough for college. I don’t have a grandkid yet, but I can’t imagine what our children will be paying for their kids’ education. At some point it won’t be worth it.</p>
<p>^^^ the poor may not be as affected by the increase – but the middle class will be and that is still the bulk of those applying. And don’t forget that the rich privates can and often DO offer merit aid to the middle class that the UCs won’t/can’t, meaning that the privates may prove to become the more affordable choice for the top students. And that will be a loss for California and the UCs. Where I live, the COA of the flagship campus is in the $25K range with minimal aid for the middle class. We would not have gotten anything from it. Which is why my D is OOS at a private where she is learning in smaller classes, with greater research opportunities and better ‘customer service,’ for considerably less money. And that’s a problem: when good students leave the state because their state schools are costing them more than privates – everyone in the state loses. The great thing in CA was that top students could get a prestigious education at a great value. With that proposed increase, this may change. And it will be a loss for CA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But does it make sense to penalize all the population instead by increasing taxes. Sometime it may make sense to increase cost to those who are availing over increasing taxes on all the people living in the state.</p>
<p>I certainly support increasing UC’s tuition to at least $18K over increasing taxes.</p>
<p>kxc–did a quick and dirty look at UCSD Med school admissions rates (2008).</p>
<p>Total: 5.7% acceptance rate (7.26% instate rate; 2.7% out of state rate)</p>
<p>Looks like high barriers for in AND out of staters for CA med schools. I read that there is an overall acceptance rate for med school applicants to at least one med schools in the 40% range. Doubt those numbers hold if you only apply to CA med schools.</p>
<p>Very intersting! Thanks for the information, ellemenope. Now we need to figure out how to become a CA resident again… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, for the rich and famous and those that can afford Ferraris. Median home price is a cool $990k. :D</p>
<p>But I’d take the collegiate experience at Madison any day over UCSD. (LaJolla doesn’t come close to a college town.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only Harvard, but plenty of top privates offer great need-based aid. Any one with incomes short of $150k might have less out-of-pocket costs at some privates than at UC instate. Heck, Harvard (and Yale and Princeton) is still cheaper for a family with an income of$180k, which is the top 2-3% income in the country.</p>
<p>Maybe for the very, very select few, HPY and some elite private schools give enough needs-based aid to make them cheaper than a public university. But your kid would have to be truly exceptional AND your income below the threshold to get those deals at the Ivys. But at our high school only 1 or 2 kids a year get into any of these schools (this is one of the top-ranked public high schools in California). The ones I know who did get in to Stanford or Yale are paying full price. My friend took out a second mortgage to send her son to Cornell (parents are two teachers, with a very bright son, yet they got no needs-based or merit aid).
I’m just trying to point out the reality for the 94% of us whose kid didn’t get into HPYS, or get any substantial merit-based scholarship, and that is that you can still get an excellent undergraduate degree from a UC and not have to break the bank doing it. It may not be the case in a few years, but those private school tuitions go up too, every year.
After we got all the admissions offers and scholarships, there wasn’t anything else under $40,000 a year for us except UC. I imagine our case is typical of the middle class.</p>
<p>"Maybe for the very, very select few, HPY and some elite private schools give enough needs-based aid to make them cheaper than a public university. "</p>
<p>tptshorty, that’s just not true. There are more schools to choose from than a few UCs, HPY or Stanford. In fact, there are over 3,000 colleges and universities in this country, many of which are looking for geographical/racial/academic diversity, which are looking for boys, or which are looking for girls, which are looking to boost their physics or math department, or a french horn player for the school orchestra, or a swimmer, or those 30+ ACT scorers to boost their averages. If you are willing to look outside the main stream, to look at schools on the rise, or schools just a notch below on your preferred level of schools you will find privates – good privates – that will cost about the same, or less, than a UC. I’m sorry you didn’t find anything under $40K a year. My cut-off was $25K a year when I was looking with my D, and we had a few contenders though it’s true, none in the HYPS category. My son is looking at colleges now. An OOS public gave him $3K a year for 4 years, making it less than our main in-state public flagship. It can be done - especially if the in-state public will cost in the vicinty of what the UCs are talking about.</p>
<p>I know there are thousands of colleges and universities, and yes, maybe one of them would have given my trumpet player some money. But when she got into UCLA, she got everything she wanted (big, urban, famous, full college experience). The kids are all different; she didn’t want small, rural, liberal arts. I’m not saying one can’t do better than a UC, I’m just saying WE couldn’t (middle class, great not exceptional student, non-athlete). And I think we are more of the norm (middle class family, great not exceptional student, non-athlete).</p>
<p>Well, you can hardly to better than UCLA, so congrats to your daughter. It’s a world-class education at around $25K annual total cost and as such, yes, a relative bargain. Though I doubt you’d be saying that if the tuition alone were that high. :)</p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, I’m a Cal grad, and very loyal to the UC system. I think it offers amazing opportunities. Loved going there, would love if my children went there but wasn’t willing to pay OOS tuition (and they both hate hot weather, the freaks 
) I just worry that should UCs tuition come anywhere close to doubling, many middle class families will cross it off their list and look for cheaper alternatives in privates or OOS. Like I said: California (a state I really do love) will suffer.</p>
<p>My cousin’s neighbor is a hs teacher in CA. The teacher is retiring in a few months at age 60 and was complaining his pension is only 85k/yr. This is for teaching industrial arts for 8 mos/yr for the past 30 yrs. So for the next 25 yrs he’ll drain about 2M away from the education system, libraries, etc, as that’s what they’re cutting to pay for this. And who knows about health care. And this is just for one public employee. </p>
<p>Social security pays, what, max of 36k or so? Something is seriously out of whack.</p>
<p>tpt:</p>
<p>I too concur that the UCs are great option at in-state rates. And if your D is excited about UCLA, so much the better. But again, there are many colleges out there that are not HYP-level in selectivity that meed full need and are cheaper than $25k for a family with modest income. These schools may offer merit money, but they also offer great need-based aid. Schools like Emory and Colgate, for example. Instate, Pacific offers a near automatic $10k tuition discount to applicants with UCLA-level stats. Sure, its still more than a UC, but not much more net.</p>