<blockquote>
<p>Having grown up in CA and understanding how california centric kids are there, I've always thought it would greatly benefit the UCs to have a significant number of OOS kids.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Having lived most of my adult life in CA and paid high CA taxes to support the UC and help build it into the finest system of public universities in the country, I see no particular benefit to having my CA taxes go to pay for the educations of residents of other states. </p>
<p>Look, the only reason why OOS people think this is such a good idea is because the UCs are so good. It is not because they wish to generously grace California with some of their "diversity." There are plenty of mediocre state schools in other states that are far less diverse than the UCs are now, but no one from other states is clamoring to get in to those schools under pretext of making them more diverse. If their own states had provided a public university system on par with the UCs this whole thing would be a non-issue. They'd stay home and go to their own state schools. </p>
<p>OOS students should be welcome to fill the remaining slots at the UCs <em>after</em> all the qualified CA residents who apply have been admitted. If there is room left over to increase the OOS enrollment, great. But they should not turn away qualified Californians in order to admit more OOS applicants.</p>
<p>"I see no particular benefit to having my CA taxes go to pay for the educations of residents of other states."</p>
<p>It sounds like your taxes don't pay for the educations of residents of other states. It would be a fee for service with a profit. Given that the state has a profitable means to make profits, they should expand capacity for out of state students to fund in-state students so that your tax dollars to state higher education would go down.</p>
<p>^^As I said, if there is room left over for OOS kids, fine. I have no problem with UC admitting OOS students <em>in addition</em> to CA students. We just need to make sure that it is not <em>instead of</em> CA students.</p>
<p>I have to say I side with Coureur on this. It's not only that CA students will be driven away but that they will be forced to pay OOS rates to attend non-CA colleges. The concept of (relatively inexpensive) public universities will be eroded and yet taxpayers will still be footing the bill.</p>
<p>Does the actual COA for UC's exceed $45K? If so, then OOS students are subsidized by CA taxpayers, even at the OOS rate. </p>
<p>I don't recall the exact figure, but I believe the number of applicants to UCLA was about 44,000 last year. Surely there are a tremendous number of qualified CA applicants who were turned away. I'd rather see a preference given for full-payor CA residents (once FA runs out) than OOS students who will be educated at CA taxpayer expense. I agree with previous posters who say that CA is tremendously diverse as it is, and obviously the UCs already attract top CA students. Just look at the stats and rankings - 6 of the UCs are in the USNWR top 50. The UC's don't <em>need</em> any more top students.</p>
<p>^^ UCLA had over 55,000 applicants last year and turns away many UC-qualified students - </p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA is among the most selective universities in the country and is becoming more competitive for freshman applicants each year. This past year UCLA received more than 55,000 applications, with more than 90% coming from UC-eligible students. Generally the campus is able to admit about one in four freshman applicants for the fall term.
<p>Let me get this straight...OOS students are educated at taxpayer expense, but UC makes $10,000 profit on each OOS student?</p>
<p>California is looking to the future. These OOS students are educated in CA and often stay to become CA taxpayers, educated ones who will be pay taxes on those earnings.</p>
<p>That is a good argument.<br>
What I am concerned about is that if most state universities adopt that system, a lot more students will be paying tuition, room and board at a level that is nearly the same as that of top private universities. We looked at Berkeley as a possibility for S and decided that it would not be much of a saving, especially when factoring in airfare.
It's one thing to decide to send one's child out of state or to an in-state private university when one has the means; it's another to feel that one's child HAS to attend a private university or go out of state because the state university prefers higher-paying OOS students.</p>
<p>It would make sense for the UC's to be forthcoming to all CA. taxpayers to an amount of fixed % of OOS students vs IS students. The outcome of this full disclosure will qualm any fears of unfairness to those CA. high school students who are UC eligible.</p>
<p>If California wasn't so broke this would be a non-issue, but I'm afraid not only will we see a 10% increase in tuition fees but a likely increase in OOS paying students! I wouldn't hold my breath in the status quo remaining the same!</p>
<p>As for Ca. taxpayers would benefit from future OOS students becoming Ca. state residents, it is negligible. It would only displace those current In-State students who would remain as future Ca. tax paying contributors.</p>
<p>Looks like from the article that the UCs that have a noticable OOS presence are UCLA and Berkeley, which makes sense. If you are paying basically private school prices for a public institution, that institution would have to be seen as a value.</p>
<p>IS students who get displaced from UCLA or UCB would go to the next rung down on the UC scale.</p>
<p>Growing up in CA, what was most notable was that everyone was from some other state, finding natives was difficult. CA is the kind of place most have a hard time leaving and just my limited anecdotal evidence makes me think many who go to school there stay. I would love to know if any stats exist.</p>
<p>While the schools certainly have ethnic diversity, the bottom line is the vast majority grew up in CA. The system is approaching 50% Asian, so there are many who spent part of their childhoods in Asia. But compared to good private schools, the UCs are not diverse IMO.</p>
<p>I think taking OOS students to the extent other top state schools like UVA, Michigan and UNC do would benefit all. Certainly OOS students should benefit CA through higher tuition. CA is in major economic trouble, it's time they find ways to subsidize these schools! </p>
<p>While they are certainly great state schools, I don't think the UCs are as great overall as they could be if they become less CA centered and had more money. In the last decade many private colleges have successfully raided their top faculty. Also, keep in mind that where the UCs are truly great--grad schools--they have long not favored CA students to the degree they do undergrad.</p>
<p>I think this may well be a "win-win-win" for for the UC, current and prospective UC students (OOS and in-state alike), and California taxpayers. </p>
<p>Compare the UC situation to that of the University of Michigan, another outstanding public university. Given its chronic economic and fiscal woes, the state of Michigan slashed taxpayer subsidies to the University of Michigan back in the 1970s and 1980s, to the point where state tax dollars now contribute something like 7% of the University's annual operating budget. A prudent response on the University's part was to increase admissions of OOS students, who now make up a little over a third of the student body. Each OOS student at Michigan pays approximately $22,000/yr more in tuition and fees than an in-state student. With an undergraduate student body of 26,000, that means there are almost 9,000 OOS undergrads, which at $22K/unit in additional tuition means a net gain of nearly $200 million in annual tuition revenue, as against the amount the university would take in if all 26,000 undergrads were in-state. (Do the math yourself if you don't believe me). Now of course, some of that additional tuition revenue will need to be recycled into additional need-based and merit aid to keep the OOS students coming. But there's still a huge net financial gain to the university, allowing it to maintain a world-class faculty and top-notch facilities to continue to provide an outstanding education to the 17,000 or so Michigan residents who are able to attend the university at cut-rate prices---something the university would be hard-pressed to do if it had to absorb the cutbacks in state support and limit itself to in-state tuition revenue. So Michigan residents are getting a bargain. The University is able to sustain itself and prosper (and by the way, strengthen its student body in the bargain, as successful OOS applicants generally have stronger credentials than the in-state applicants they're displacing). And Michigan taxpayers are not really out anything; they're getting a bargain, really, because fewer of their tax dollars are supporting the university, but their kids are still eligible to compete for a place at one of the world's great universities at bargain-basement prices.</p>
<p>So before California parents and taxpayers get their nose out of joint about "subsidizing" OOS students, they should take a long, hard look at the financial realities. The UC system can't keep itself at the top of the higher education pecking order under the kinds of cutbacks in state aid that are being discussed in Sacramento. So you have a choice: either accept a dramatic fall in stature for the UC system, or accept that it may become more difficult for your kid to get into a UC. But don't delude yourself into thinking you're paying for a UC education for OOS students. You're not; never have, and never will. You're paying for a fraction of the cost of educating the California kids who do get in. By hook or by crook, the University is finding a way to do the rest. Admitting higher numbers of OOS applicants is probably in the best interests of of the University, its current and future students, and California taxpayers, and given the gravity of California's current budget deficit, it's probably inevitable that the UCs will go the way Michigan was forced to go 30 years ago.</p>
<p>"That's a great hypothesis, but I'd love to see some research to support it."</p>
<p>It's certainly true in Massachusetts. There have been many newspaper articles on the demographics in Massachusetts and the typical line is that MA would be losing population if we didn't have all of the great schools in the state. There's been a lot of migration to the southeastern states for lower cost of living and better weather.</p>
<p>That's a pretty astounding statement! If you walk around campus, is every other person asian? I don't think that I've been on a college campus with that kind of environment in the US.</p>
<p>It's easy to check what the colleges report to the federal government, because this is one of many IPEDS data categories that is also a Common Data Set data item. </p>
<p>(Scroll down on each page linked here to see the ethnicity data. Data reported are for first-year students in the most recently report year. U-CAN will give you figures for all undergraduates.) </p>
<p>Because CA does not consider race/ethnicity in admission and CA has a huge Asian immigrant population that is more academically oriented on the whole than the 'natives'.</p>
<p>And BC, yes, walking around a UC campus is a totally different experience than any other I experienced on tour with my kids.</p>
<p>And note that the UCs perceived to be party schools have far fewer Asians! This was even true in my youth when only the second generation, fully assimilated Asian students would even consider the schools they felt kids were wasting the educational potential at.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With an undergraduate student body of 26,000, that means there are almost 9,000 OOS undergrads, which at $22K/unit in additional tuition means a net gain of nearly $200 million in annual tuition revenue, as against the amount the university would take in if all 26,000 undergrads were in-state.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yeah, but it also means that there are 9000 tax-paying families in Michigan whose kid didn't get into the the University of Michigan because they have all these OOS kids. If I were in Michigan I would not be thrilled if I had to send my kid to lower tier state school or an expensive private school in order to make room for in Ann Arbor for rich kids from out of state.</p>