<p>There have been some previous threads as to the impact of the economy on the public U systems including the UCs. This letter from the chancellor of UCLA provides some insight. It also confims some areas posters have discussed. Although the letter refers to UCLA I imagine many other public (and private) institutions are going through similar planning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...
- Reduce undergraduate over-enrollment...
- Operate with a smaller faculty and administration...
- Reduce the number of educational programs we offer...
- Remove redundant functions, both administrative and educational, that have arisen over time, in order to enhance our effectiveness and efficiency...
- Reduce the use of general funds to support research, and instead attract funding from other sources...
- Recognize that the reduced level of state support will be a multi-year problem...
- Take full advantage of vacant positions following retirements and voluntary work reductions to minimize the need for layoffs...
- Rededicate ourselves to philanthropic efforts...
[/quote]
And pertaining to some previous discussions on CC -
[quote]
...But we must reduce our student population to ensure that we have the resources to offer a quality education. We also will consider increasing the proportion of non-resident students. UCLA currently enrolls a greater proportion of state residents than our peer public institutions. There are strong intellectual arguments for geographical diversity; non-resident students can enrich the educational experience for all. A moderate increase in the proportion of non-residents would generate millions of dollars in new revenue to protect instructional programs for all UCLA students.
...
<p>Gotta just love (hypocritical) educators. They could accomplish the same thing by an increase in the proportion of full pay RESIDENTS…instead of admitting a bunch of kids who struggle and/or flunk out (based on compassionate review), why not accept more top kids from wealthy 'hoods (ELC, top gpa, etc.). Yes, I realize that is not blue-state egalitarian, but it’s no different than going after rich out-of-staters…</p>
<p>They give such poor aid and have reduced merit scholarship amounts so it seems like most residents are already full pay or close between student loans and parent loans.</p>
<p>Nope, ~30% of UCLA’s (and Cal’s) Frosh are Pell Grantees; to have a number that high, they HAVE to be receiving a huge admissions tip. Even with poor finaid, those kids receive a ~$16k grant. Moreover, bcos finaid is so poor, most, if not all, need to work a LOT of hours during the year to make ends meet. Thus, hey take the minimum load and five years + is a graduation norm.</p>
<p>Regardless, increasing the OOS’ers is gonna reduce this group, which tend to be the lower admits in the pool statwise. Why not just then accept more in-staters?</p>
<p>hmom5, are they really a mess? You are putting that pretty strongly. Hey, University of Illinois has been on the front cover of the Chicago Tribune for days. Clouted acceptances. That is a mess.</p>
<p>mini: you were the one that turned me onto the idea that $100k+ income…correlates with higher test scores. Thus, it IS logical to assume that the lower test scorers at Cal are also lower incomes…</p>
<p>“But we must reduce our student population to ensure that we have the resources to offer a quality education. We also will consider increasing the proportion of non-resident students.”
Like THAT is going to be OK with the taxpayers of Calif who have supported the UC system with their taxes for decades! Ha! We’ll see…</p>
<p>Only 17 percent of the UC budget comes from taxes. And I suspect that in the current climate raising the number of OOS students to relieve fiscal pressures will be accepted.</p>
<p>I agree with the points summarized by ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad. I think the CSU campuses and CA community colleges should adopt the UCLA Chancellor’s approach.
I will be happy if each UC campus is capped at 20,000 students.</p>
<p>Lucy, most UCs already have sub 50% 4 year graduation rates, aid is already bad so they already lose top low income students to private colleges, they are all overcrowded, profs are leaving in large numbers–it’s a mess. Hard to believe many would pay $45K plus…</p>
<p>Regarding the graduation in 4 year rate - it’s anecdotal but I haven’t heard of any issues with being able to graduate in 4 years or less (at UCSD, UCLA) by someone attempting to do so and this includes course-filled majors like engineering but also includes many other majors. I do know of a number of students who take less than a full load by choice who end up with a lot of free time but even most of those graduate in 4 years and would have graduated in 3 years if they took a full load. Some others take more than 4 years because of switching majors multiple times or later in the game, because of taking a difficult disparate minor to go along with a difficult major, because of too many drops/repeats in an attempt to preserve their GPA, etc. And I’m sure some take a smaller load because they have a time consuming job they must work as they go through college. In addition, some of the commuter students frequently take a less than full course load so they won’t have to commute to campus every day (a lot of commuters do this).</p>
<p>So trying to compare the 4 year graduation rate at these schools with some other colleges needs to be taken in context. I don’t think one can see the number and immediately conclude it’s because the courses are so filled that many students can’t get them such as has afflicted some colleges until limits are placed on admissions (I’ve heard it was an issue at SDSU in the past - I don’t know about now).</p>
<p>The reason I’m bothering to state this is because I think students contemplating attending a UC should make sure they understand the actual facts whether those facts are aligned with the assumption that the 4 year grad rate is due to not being able to get classes or they’re aligned with my anecdotal points.</p>
<p>"mini: you were the one that turned me onto the idea that $100k+ income…correlates with higher test scores. Thus, it IS logical to assume that the lower test scorers at Cal are also lower incomes…:</p>
<p>So are you suggesting that higher income is an admissions tip? (I suspect that’s closer to the truth, and is the way it works in our state, usually by virtue of higher income folks attending schools where they have course advantages.)</p>