<p>
</p>
<p>The chart on page 3 indicates where funding comes from for UCLA -
<a href=“http://www.apb.ucla.edu/BdgtAssmp/2009-10BudgetforCurrentOperations-SummaryoftheBudgetRequest.pdf[/url]”>http://www.apb.ucla.edu/BdgtAssmp/2009-10BudgetforCurrentOperations-SummaryoftheBudgetRequest.pdf</a></p>
<p>Just want to add that my daughter just finished her freshman year at UCLA. She has not had any problem getting the classes she wants. She has had at least 3 classes with less than 25 students. One being a seminar this past spring quarter with 20 students and they went on 3 field trips to the beach (studying the effects of pollution/run off on the ocean). Hardly overcrowded classrooms as far as her experience is concerned. She has a good friend who plans to graduate in 3 years and will still study abroad in France fall of 2010. As a previous poster stated, there are many reasons why someone might need more than 4 years to graduate and they are found at all types of schools. My older daughter is at a very good LAC with less than 2000 students and it will take her 4 1/2 years due to a change of major and a very light load for 2 semesters. Don’t bash all large publics…their problems can be found anywhere.</p>
<p>
For UCSD - </p>
<p>The charts on pages 3 and 4 indicate the funding sources for UCSD (14.6% comes from state for 2006/7) -
<a href=“Campus Budget Office”>Campus Budget Office;
<p>The sources are:
<p>Umm, on the UCLA Revenues chart on page 4 is shows that 60% of revenues comes from STATE GENERAL FUNDS, in other words , money from taxpayers.</p>
<p>^^ That chart is only indicating what comes from ‘core funds’ - not all sources so the 60% figure isn’t an overall one - it’s 60% of a subset - i.e. it’s 60% of the 28% that comes from core funds or 16.8% of the total.</p>
<p>Another novel reason that some go beyond 4 years that I’ve heard of - some students want to do a study abroad after they’re essentially done with their graduation requirements so they don’t declare themselves as graduating until they can get study-abroad in to be able to do the foreign travel/experience at student rates - even if it’s their second study-abroad. They then declare themselves as graduating at the point they return but it seems that this would affect that 4 year graduation statistic, again, by choice of the student rather than inability to grad in 4 years due to the school.</p>
<p>Dstark, here’s just one article with the overview:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Dangerous Wealth of the Ivy League](<a href=“Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg)</p>
<p>My own info is anecdotal. This year I interviewed for teaching jobs at a few UCs and some privates in CA. USC and Stanford have both hired many top UC profs in the last few years. The morale is not good among UC proofs and few encouraged DH and me to consider work at a UC.</p>
<p>MPM, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading: the 60 percent of core funds from general state revenues is correct. But “core funds” comprise only 28 percent of budget expenditures. .60 x 28 = 15.6 percent, within range of rounding errors to 17 percent.</p>
<p>Distribution of state funds within UC is very uneven and, were some equality measures not implemented, affect some departments much more than others. E.g., English and Athletics would be decimated and more, the Medical, Business, and Engineering schools taking only minor dents.</p>
<p>Speaking only of UCLA, there is not as yet any significant outflow of senior faculty though perhaps for budgetary reasons it wouldn’t be a bad idea to lose some who were thinking of retiring anyway.</p>
<p>The two biggest reasons I know of that UCLA loses faculty candidates is the cost of real estate and offers the candidates can’t refuse from their current institutions. I know of exactly one faculty member who has departed due to funding concerns.</p>
<p>Ok hmom5, can’t argue with anecdotal. :)</p>
<p>That link was dated Nov 2007.</p>
<p>From what I read now, most schools have frozen hiring.</p>
<p>Many top schools are operating at deficits now. I would really be surprised if there were a lot of profs switching schools. I guess the tippy-top ones are always in demand.</p>
<p>“My own info is anecdotal. This year I interviewed for teaching jobs at a few UCs and some privates in CA. USC and Stanford have both hired many top UC profs in the last few years.”</p>
<p>Since they’ve frozen hiring at many of the Ivies and Stanford, we might actually see the flow go the other way.</p>
<p>^^Oooooh, with Calif’s budget crisis, which is nowhere close to being solved, I would highly doubt that!</p>
<p>How come Menloparkmom? The losses to Stanford’s, Harvard’s, Princeton’s, and Yale’s endowments exceed the total California budget deficit.</p>
<p>And this doesn’t include future private equity commitments, and future real estate commitments. These are also larger than California’s budget deficit.</p>
<p><a href=“http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.com/2009/06/big-squeeze-barrons-highly-recommended.html[/url]”>http://gonzaloraffoinfonews.blogspot.com/2009/06/big-squeeze-barrons-highly-recommended.html</a></p>
<p>"In the near term, endowment chiefs may be wrestling with how to handle commitments to private-equity and real-estate funds. At Harvard, investment commitments totaled $11 billion on June 30, 2008; at Yale, $8.7 billion, and Princeton, $6.1 billion. These commitments are especially large relative to shrunken endowments. Harvard’s endowment could end this month in the $25 billion range; Yale’s is about $17 billion, and Princeton’s, $11 billion, after investment declines, yearly contributions to university budgets and new gifts from alumni and others. </p>
<p>One closely watched endowment-liquidity barometer is the level of existing limited-partnership investments – including hedge funds, private equity and real estate – plus investment commitments as a percentage of the total endowment. Yale and Princeton are thought to have some of the highest – that is, worst – ratios. The risk is that these endowments could become even more illiquid in the coming year."</p>
<p>Because I highly doubt the HSYP’s are going to be firing profs wholesale. They may not be hiring or replacing them for a while but they still have hefty endowments, even if they have to sell some of their investments. They have not run out of $$ to run day to day operations as Calif has.
The UC’s are not going to be hiring profs at any time soon, which is what I assumed mini was referring to.</p>
<p>Actually, the UC’s are hiring profs, even now. UCLA has them in the budget for next year. The numbers are down but will be somewhere in the 25-40 range.</p>
<p>Next?!</p>
<p>“They have not run out of $$ to run day to day operations as Calif has.”</p>
<p>Actually, they have, and are accruing debt against their day-to-day operations.</p>
<p>didn’t note any plans to have “undocumented” immigrants pay out-of-state tuition, much less revoke their admission status. until that happens, the uc system can go scratch itself. no wonder the system is broke.</p>
<p>How many undocumented immigrants go to the UCs?</p>
<p>blue, I don’t know why you conclude that most or all Pell grantees <em>need</em> an admissions tip, let alone receive it. As to the “tip,” that’s a formula, and you know it. You don’t get a bump if you are needy per se. You get a bump if you have achieved a whole hell of a lot and are needy to boot. that’s the “challenge” quotient in the point system. I doubt that I am the only parent on the board with students who more than deserved their admissions but were Pell grantees. Further, not all ELC kids are from upper-income. Matter of fact, if you go to a high-performing school in a “rich” district, good luck making that 4% cutoff: you’ll have lots of competition within that school, and are more likely not to make the cut – vs. a determined poor kid in an ill-performing school who will stand out from the crowd and be the ELC. </p>
<p>To trash the poor but high-achieving admits to UC is just not where the blame lies. Take a look at what CA cannot let go of: its immense social services, quite a bit of which go to illegal immigrants, but to a number of other programs as well. (I agree with toodleoo, btw.) </p>
<p>Education: I don’t know if any other State approaches the expenditures per capita that CA has, and whether that funding in other states includes the kinds of non-educational services within the schools that characterize the often-dysfunctional CA system. It’s wild: you get hired as a teacher, and in some districts you spend your day mostly performing social work, explicitly. It’s considered a “program” that is funded, and you’re supposed to go with the flow, even though you did not earn a “social worker credential” but a teaching credential.</p>
<p>CA is irresponsibly attached to its social services without the means to pay for the large population that receives them. It has also become a State too large to fund or govern at the current rate of outgo vs. input. I realize that the thread is about UC and UCLA in particular, but clearly these budgets and the State’s funds are related, and it’s being specifically brought up.</p>
<p>[just saw dstark’s question]: a fair amount. I don’t have stats.</p>
<p>Just to clarify further, the tip given to the needy in the UC admissions system is a ratio: it’s the proportion of academic excellence + outside achievement “divided by” the level of challenge experienced by that student. Just note that finances, also, are not the only challenge. You could have a different significant challenge, or finances + an additional challenge. Nor is it some kind of arbitrary quota system. It works, just like most admissions work, as a comparative dynamic. As a live recent example I’ve seen in many schools over the last 2 years, if there are six comparably achieving seniors (including grades, scores), and 4 of them are upper-middle class with no particular challenges in their lives, while 2 of them have experienced significant obstacles, there will be a higher probability of those 2 being admitted, esp. if it’s to Berkeley or UCLA. (It will make less of a difference to some campuses, such as SC.) It doesn’t mean they will definitely be admitted, just that the probability is higher.</p>
<p>This is actually not radically different from how the Ivies have recently operated as well. I also find much of this argumentation baseless, because in the vast majority of cases you will find that not only were those 2 above examples “comparably achieving,” they were in fact considerably higher-achieving. Typically, they will have equal scores/grades, but much more achievement in e.c.'s, community service, and leadership.</p>
<p>Also, challenge is not the only admissions factor. Plenty of students are admitted without challenge factors. Just understand that the 70% who are not Pell grantees may have other-than-economic challenges in their lives, or they may have no/few challenges.</p>
<p>One more thing re CA expenditures:
Enormous sums are spent on the prison system. Part of this is a result of Three Strikes, which include drug infractions, and CA has been awash with illegal drug trafficking and use for decades. Addtionally, it would save a little ($182 million) by deporting the illegal immigrants now incarcerated.</p>