<br>
<br>
<p>Well, they certainly do need more money, but I hate to see them raise it by selling the spots that used to go to CA kids to rich kids from OOS. </p>
<p>And the population of California is closing in on 40 million, so I agree with Bay - the state doesn’t and the UCs don’t “need” any more good students from other states. It just needs to do a better job of serving the ones it already has right here at home.</p>
<p>The Michigan analogy is a good one, and the pluses and minuses are as stated. I think this would be a very good move for Berkeley.</p>
<p>^^disagree. The Michigan analogy is missing a critical demographic fact:</p>
<p>Michigan population declines for third year in a row – of course, it’s been on a downward trend for decades relative to the population in the sunbelts. The excellent Uni in Ann Arbor HAS to recruit OOS or shrink.</p>
<p>[Michigan’s</a> population declines | detnews.com | The Detroit News](<a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I welcome any rich kid that wants to move here – and anyone OOS at at UC is rich, IMO. But, importing rich OOS kids also decreases the economic diversity of the campus by displacing (most likely) poorer, instate kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? Every other state also has financial dificulties , so their own flagships will take a tax hit. But, regardless, maybe dropping down below UMich or UVa is not a bad thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of other options, but the Legislature/UC Regents chooses not to address them. For example, instead of admitting more rich kids from OOS, the University could easily admit more instate rich kids to the two flagships – instead of having them go elsewhere perhaps bcos the mid-tier UCs aren’t perceived as attractive to full payors to a good private elsewhere. And, with more rich kids, UC could raise tuition (and scholarships).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The University grew to its current size based on its need to educate California residents. If that is no longer the case, the University should shrink – closing Merced (which obviously, never should have been opened) is a no-brainer.</p>
<p>As an aside, how many of those Fairfax, VA parents (other thread) are up in arms about grades solely bcos thier kid did not get into UVa, perhaps due to it accepting 30% OOS?</p>
<p>According to this report, real per student spending by the State at the University of California has fallen almost 40% since 1990…</p>
<p>[University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | Governor’s mid-year cuts include new UC reduction](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18916]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18916)</p>
<p>I’m guessing there are more substantial cuts coming.
Living in another part of the country, perhaps because only bad news makes the news, over the years reports about the UCs haven’t been positive. Mostly about cutbacks and how students attend huge classes with the profs projected on a blow-up screen behind them, and about students unable to get into the classes they need to graduate. Berkeley’s 61% four year graduation rate isn’t what you would expect of elite students.
The University of Illinois a couple years ago floated the idea of admitting more out-of-state students to improve student quality and raise the University’s national profile. The plan was shot down in the political uproar. No pol wanted constituents’ kids denied admission. I imagine the same thing will happen in California. The result at Illinois has been that marginal in-state applicants have benefited to the detriment of the University and the taxpayer.</p>
<p>This would not be an issue were there no fiscal crisis. The UC Board of Regents spends a great deal of time discussing admission standards (the latest item on the plate subject to change is dropping the requirement for SAT Subject Tests), but rarely until a time like now is the factor of the “profit” from OOS students such a focal point. The Regents also talk a lot about diversity, but not about the need to obtain it from outside the state. Take a look at the number of languages spoken in the Los Angeles Unified School District and you begin to see a picture that CA, in and of itself, is about as diverse as any state can get.</p>
<p>The idea of California centric students is a real one, especially in the “fun in the sun” southern part of the state. I’m working hard right now to open the eyes of my S to great opportunities elsewhere. However, given the economics, I can’t see a good reason that his “safety” schools be any other than the middle tier of the UC system. True, we’ve “only” lived here for 23 years, but we’ve paid our taxpayer dues into supporting the UC system and want to see if available for our S if that’s the route he chooses.</p>
<p>Although a drop in the bucket considering the UC system has about 200,000 students, this just in the LA Times this morning:</p>
<p>[California</a> Supreme Court to take on state law granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigtuition5-2009jan05,0,3248207.story]California”>California Supreme Court to take on state law granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants)</p>
<p>I’m probably going to make a feel people peeved at me when I write this.</p>
<p>Hmom5 hit it on the head when she used the phrase “California centric” to describe the UC student body (specific to each campus and as a collective whole). I fully acknowledge that since it’s supported by California tax dollars, maybe that’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to be.</p>
<p>However, the lack of geographic diversity can definitely make a school’s population less “interesting” to others. At least it was in our case. That was the very reason our very high-achieving Colorado D did not attend UCLA. When we attended the Accepted Students Day, neither the kids nor the administration seemed to have even a concept that there were actually students outside of "SoCa"l or “NoCal” (as the kids themselves labeled themselves - you were either one or the other). This was observed by us and a family with a D from Arizona - they didn’t quite know what to make of us. It was almost as though the OOS population was an afterthought, and not a very important one at that.</p>
<p>I understand the financial concerns about a state with such a large population needing quality in-state institutions to educate its in-state population first above everyone else. That priority is undeniable. But from an outsider’s perspective, it is one of the UC weaknesses as well - students really don’t have ample opportunities to meet others from different parts of the country and get a feel for how they see life differently. And they DO see things very differently - that was evident after only 24 hours on campus!!</p>
<p>coloradomom:</p>
<p>not sure why anyone would disagree with your statement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely correct. The California Master Plan for higher Education makes that point perfectly clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have long posted that the UCs were not a good value for OOS kids if for no other reason, the bureacracy. And, I would suggest that is what you experienced. To a certain extent, ALL undergrads are an “afterthought”; in essence, just numbers, regardless of where you are from. For $45k (and about to go up), many privates offer a much better value, IMO. </p>
<p>btw: it’s ‘NorCal’. :)</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I agree with your thoughts. And you’re right - best not to take it personally because we’re all just cogs in the education wheel (we didn’t, by the way).</p>
<p>“NorCal” huh? Thanks for the information! :)</p>
<p>It was just a study in contrasts. D was accepted to Georgetown and we loved the student body diversity, but, to be truthful, our high school had better facilities than the university did. UCLA had wonderful facilities but the student population was not D’s cup of tea. So she ended up at CU-Boulder and has been wonderfully happy and academically challenged. And we get to pay in-state tuition, which makes Dad and Mom happy!</p>
<p>I don’t agree that Michigan MUST recruit OOS or shrink. It has a surplus of resident applicants. The steps taken to bring U-M to a 65-35 mix were not driven by demographics. </p>
<p>Current demographics may cause the University to shift that mix over time, but there are plenty of college-going Michigan residents who would attend U-M if admitted. I believe U-M could go 100% resident (in undergrad) and still remain the same size, although it would take a hit in selectivity.</p>
<p>DD graduated from UCI in a science, of the 500 kids walking, there were less than 30 with a non-Asian name.</p>
<p>The concept of displacing CA students is interesting to me in this conversation. 30 years ago when I was applying to UCs people were in an uproar about all of the immigrants and migrants taking the place of CA natives. CA is a state that attracts people from every corner and all it takes is one year of residence before you qualify to be in state for a UC. The huge illegal population is even considered in state if the student attended a CA high school for 3 years.</p>
<p>CA has been harder hit by the economy in recent years than most states. First came the dot com bust which hit tax revenues hard. The state started overspending like crazy during those heady years and is paying dearly from that burst. The home bubble bursting also hit CA harder than most states. Revenue from property tax will probably be depressed for many years. </p>
<p>So the state absolutely has to make some hard decisions. Do they let the UCs decline? Do they let the graduation rate in 4 years continue to decline (Berkeley doing the best of all of them graduating just sixty percent in 4 years!)? Do they let the ivies continue to raid their top faculty because they can’t get funding?</p>
<p>Having 25% or so OOS students by far seems the lesser of the evils to me. Add to that the benefit to the CA students who go to the UCs and for me there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.</p>
<p>After 30 years when I spend time in CA, which I do often, I’m still surprised by the fact that so many don’t often leave the state. High housing prices limits travel for the middle and even upper middle classes. As the world gets more global, I think the CA youth will greatly benefit from outside influences.</p>
<p>hmmom;</p>
<p>OOS kids can no longer earn residency for UC tuition purposes after one year (unless the kid becomes financially independent or the parents move to Calif.).</p>
<p>I agree that admitting OOS would definitely improve graduation rates (parents ain’t gonna pay $50k for 6+ years), but that is a faulty statistic bcos UC could accomplish the same objective by NOT admitting those kids in the first place, and just reduce the undergraduate populations, or admit more rich instate kids (instead of rich OOS kids). In either case, UC selectivity would increase.</p>
<p>Blue, I agree, the whole family needs to move, but for decades (ended recently) large numbers were doing just that! And I think the graduation rate for all would improve if the schools had more funding. It is a major issue to get classes you need to graduate at present.</p>
<p>
It’s very apparent when you walk around the campuses of UCLA, UCSD, UCB, etc. The demographics on-campus are completely different than off-campus.</p>
<p>
But the UCs (by law) aren’t artificially manipulating the ethnic breakdown like some of the privates are. The ethnic breakdown is what it is based on acceptance criteria whcih excludes race as a factor.</p>
<p>Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised as that’s what it’s like at work. We’re just all older.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This I agree with. If the issue is funding then the UC should shutter UC Merced tomorrow and move the money into maintaining or increasing the quality at the remaining campuses. UCM was never needed in the first place. Its creation was purely political, not educational - a bone thrown to state legislators from the area who kept complaining that the UC system didn’t have any campuses in the Central Valley.</p>
<p>They should take sensible cost-cutting measures such as this before considering more harmful approaches such as selling admissions slots to OOS applicants.</p>
<p>
Haha - what’s funny is that most of these students probably find the fellow students from the other ‘Cal’ (NorCal or SoCal) to be more foreign than they would someone from Colorado or elsewhere.</p>
<p>Regardless of where they currently reside, it’s amazing how many students on these campuses are speaking a language other than English with each other. It’s just not the same as one might think of with a bunch of local kids from Ohio or someplace - many of these kids are very recently from various countries - mostly Asia.</p>
<p>Another idea I’d seen percolating around was having UC fees scale with family income. Students from poorer families in CA may not be able to afford UC, and wealthier families who would be full-pay at privates see UC as a bargain. Charging the latter more helps pay for the former, and/or brings more money into the system. And before people start jumping down my throat, I’d like to note that our family would be in the latter category, and that we’ve been paying CA property taxes for a very, very long time.</p>
<p>What has not been discussed here is the fact that the CA system has a much bigger food chain than most states. The kids that get displaced ffrom the UCs will go to CSUs, some of which are better than some UCs. The kids displaced from the CSUs can go to the CA community colleges. Everyone will still get educated. It’s much cheaper for the state to fund the CC’s than the UCs and CSUs, so needed growth will happen at that level.</p>
<p>There’s also the fact that improved financial aid at top colleges for the middle class will probably mean CA’s top students will increasingly choose private school options.</p>
<p>Slithey, don’t think that will happen. At $25K/yr and most needing more than 4 years, privates have already started not to look much more expensive to all, especially since aid is poor at the UCs. I can’t imagine why anyone with money to spare would sign up now the way things are. There are many small privates in CA in the $30K range.</p>
<p>
I don’t think that they should and if the tax dollars aren’t there then they should eliminate wasteful spending, i.e. clean up fiscally, and raise tuition rates as needed. I doubt most people would have a make or break scenario if tuition went up 1K or even 2K per year. I don’t think this proposed OOS solution is the only alternative.</p>