<p>With expansion at Merced and no change at Berkeley and UCLA, that would mean, what, a 10% or more reduction in students at the other schools? What the heck does that do to the size of the first year class at those schools, assuming they will not kick out continuing students?
Is this a gambit in a game of chicken between the UCs and the California government?</p>
<p>It's hard to see how they save much money by shrinking enrollment. The biggest cost items in their budgets---faculty and staff payroll and benefits, debt service, utilities, building and grounds maintenance---are more or less fixed. Limiting enrollment could allow them to shrink the faculty and staff somewhat (most likely by attrition) without adversely affecting s/f ratios. I can see only two major effects. First, it puts political pressure on the legislature to pony up more money, but given the gravity of California's current budget crunch, that probably won't work. Second, it may bump up their "selectivity" ratings---lower admit rate, higher SAT scores and GPAs. It could even marginally reduce class sizes and s/f ratios, depending on how many faculty positions go unfilled. This will help them somewhat in their US News rankings. </p>
<p>Maybe the UC system is deciding this is just an opportune time to break away from their historic policy of finding a place somewhere in the UC system for every "qualified" CA resident meeting specified minimum standards, in favor of a more selective approach to admissions. The legislature, knowing it's not meeting full financial need, is hardly in a position to object. If so, this is a historic change of direction for the UC system.</p>
<p>bc:</p>
<p>The UC system restricted admissions a few years back with no "historic change" in direction. And, of course, the admission restriction only affects the bottom end of the applicant pool -- some of those kids quit UC after the first semester anyway -- due to academics or financial reasons. But, don't forget the UC gurus want to expand the pool of "qualified" by lowering the required gpa, becoming less selective, not more. (As I opined pages earlier, the folks in Sacramento aren't forward thinking which is why more OOS kids -- the title of this thread -- is not perceived as a real option.) </p>
<p>The UC does have a lot of adjunct faculty, which they could reduce.</p>
<p>Opinion from the SF Chronicle
California</a> must preserve its higher-ed mission</p>
<p>
[quote]
Recently, some UC officials suggested that increasing the number of out-of-state and international students could help close deficits within the university system.........UC should resist adopting this strategy. .........The real reason UC should resist has to do with the university's own integrity. The 1862 charter that established California's state university system calls for each college to be as accessible as possible to the people of California - even to the point of having partial courses for "any resident of California, from the age of fourteen years or upwards, of approved moral character." Clearly, the university has tweaked the requirements a little in the intervening decades, but it has also struggled mightily to keep courses open to as many Californians as possible. To abandon this principle now would mean an unfortunate reversal of the university's mission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Adjuncts are cheap. If anything, you're likely to see more UC classes taught by adjuncts, who typically get a few thousand dollars per class taught, with no fringe benefits, no office, little or no clerical support, no research assistants, etc. Much cheaper to leave a tenured/tenure track slot unfilled and hire a couple of adjuncts to pick up those classes. But it damages the continuity and quality of student/faculty interaction, undermines the university's research mission, and leaves more of the service burden to fall on a smaller number of full-time faculty.</p>
<p>Having two kids in college, one at UCLA and the other at SDSU, my 3rd is probably going to the UW even though she is ELC in California. I would rather pay out of state tuition to another state than pay another penny to California who has used our schools as a ping pong ball in the state budget. The in-state tuition has risen approx. $1800 in the last four years at UCLA. This admission garbage has been going on since 2004 when my S was applying and it was the most difficult year to be admitted due to budget and admissions cuts at that time. Here we go again. Besides as was posted before, UCLA, UCB and UCI are not very diverse with the majority being Asian. UCSB in majority white! The UC's want the kids to be "well rounded", well in my opinion, the UC's should be "well rounded" as well and have a little more diversity. I am from California (native) as well and have not relished having OOS'er only because we do not have enough spots at the upper tier colleges for qualified students as it is. However with that being said, maybe OOS's would bring more diversity and a different prospective plus additional money. I don't think the UC's will be giving out free money to OOS'ers because that would defete the purpose of admitting them. They most likely would be full pay or loan IMO. The upper tier schools don't need to woo in OOS'ers. Also, I do believe OOS students have to meet higher academic standards to be admitted anyway.</p>
<p>Really nice to hear from someone with kids in, and considering, these schools. I'd love to see a poll asking Californians whether they'd like to see these schools on a reduced budget or with more OOS students.</p>
<p>sry, hmom: that is not a choice. Californians, thru the legislators, believe in a free lunch (which is why we have a budget problem). Thus, they would vote for an increased UC budget and more OOS kids! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Good point, hmom5. As long as your kid is one that isn't closed out of UCLA or UCB, more OOS students, please...As a parent whose kid may well be going to a UC next year, the budget woes concern me a lot. I haven't considered sending my kid OOS to another state school (although some in our area go to Arizona or Oregon). But private schools that practically guarantee that your kid will graduate in 4 years start to look good.</p>
<p>Figure that private school costs $20K more a year than UCs ($80K over 4 years). If your kid has to take an extra year to graduate from UC, then subtract $25K from the cost differential, making it a $55K differential. Then take away the money your kid could make at that first job for one year if he had graduated--let's say $40K. We're talking about $15K for an alternative that doesn't have the hassles of trying to graduate from UCs on time.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I'd want to pay OOS for a UC, knowing that the budget crunch could impact the environment seriously. It would have to be for a one of a kind program...</p>
<p>hmom5, I don't Know how I'd answer your poll, but so far, we've voted with or dollars. My D is far away, for more money BUT more "diversity". Smaller school was attractive too. I THINK we WOULD have happily paid a little more for UCLA, but that wasn't an option; she didn't get in ( and she was born there! We were not happy!) She was competitive for admission there, but so were a lot of kids who got rejected, and for better or worse, she may have had race to tip the scales in her favor elsewhere. UCB proved to be an option, but again, "diversity" and size made it a no go, in spite of the "bargain". Maybe I'm saying I believe there is something to be said for thinking of ways to keep California money, in California. Her brother is now a sophomore, and I'm following this thread, hoping to have some insider info by the time it's his turn.</p>
<p>Are people really having problems not graduating on time from the top UCs? Neither of my Ds had problems getting classes. Sometimes one or the other GE non-major class might be full so they'd select another one but that was about it. Neither of them were impacted in graduation times due to not getting classes (One's graduated, the other hasn't been impacted yet). My recently graduated UCSD D doesn't know anyone who had to stay an extra year due to not getting classes.</p>
<p>A lot of the students who take more than 4 years to graduate are the ones who changed their major several times, decided to take a minor requiring a lot more classes, or those who take a minimal schedule and likely could have gradiuated in less than 4 years if they wanted to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd love to see a poll asking Californians whether they'd like to see these schools on a reduced budget or with more OOS students.
[/quote]
Your poll should include two other items -
- Reduce costs by re-examining expenses and making sure the expenses for each program are justified (comparable to a business controlling costs). There's bound to be some areas that could be better cost-controlled in an enterprise as large as these UCs.
- Raise tuition.</p>
<p>I don't want to pay any more tuition than anyone else but given a choice between reduced quality/longer duration and paying an extra 15-20% per year in tuition, I'd choose the extra tuition cost. I don't know why everyone's always looking for someone other than themselves to solve these budget issues.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>As long as your kid is one that isn't closed out of UCLA or UCB, more OOS students, please...<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well, there's the rub. OOS kids are fine in theory, but when you've been paying CA taxes all your life and your own kids can't get into a top UC because they brought in a bunch of rich OOS kids, the theory kinda loses some of its luster.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I'd love to see a poll asking Californians whether they'd like to see these schools on a reduced budget or with more OOS students.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm a Californian and a UC grad, and I have a daughter applying now. Californians selling their future to out-of-staters for some quick cash now is not in the long term interests of this state. As I've said, the UCs should cut their budget and make up the difference to the other campuses by closing the Merced campus. That would be playing to their strength. Their current plan of cutting the mid-tier UCs and boosting enrollment at Merced is playing to their weakness.</p>
<p>ucla<em>ucsd</em>dad: "stuff" just seems to happen to my D's friends who went to UCs. So many are not graduating in 4 years and it is not always the direct fault of the school. But there seems to be an institutional culture of "it'll take 5 or more years to finish"--there doesn't seem to be a rush for many kids to finish in 4 years nor any pressure or help from the university to make sure they finish in 4.</p>
<p>At my D's private school, barring extraordinary circumstances, you could count on your kid being out in 4 years.</p>
<p>I think Shrinkrap's cost analysis is spot on, but something not generally understood in CA. UCB has the highest 4 year grad rate at about 60%. The mid tier UCs have 4 year grad rates in the 30's!</p>
<p>I'm a CA native and didn't go to post secondary in CA. My sibs did and had good experiences. Their kids have had not as good experiences.</p>
<p>DH and I want to return to CA and have been looking at teaching. We really thought a UC would be great for a number of reasons including we like the locations. After a thorough search, we will not consider teaching at one. The morale among profs is poor to say the least. Classes are crowded, profs feel overworked, funding for research is in question and facilities poorly maintained with little hope for anything state of the art now.</p>
<p>I totally understand Coureur's position. I'd be ****ed to have paid CA's high taxes hoping for my kid to get a great college education and face this mess. But the greater good must be considered and CA needs some real answers. They will not close Merced, what do you do with a college campus in an era where marginal colleges are closing?</p>
<p>Maybe the children of california tax-paying residents can't get into a top UC because they still aren't competitive enough. You can't say that just because someone pays taxes that it should guarantee admittance to a top school. I agree it should give them an advantage in being considered first, but no guarantees. Whereas a student out of state would still have to be quite strong application-wise in order to be accepted and the extra 20 grand they'd be paying would make it more even between in-states and out of states. </p>
<p>I also doubt Merced will close. It would simply be too much trouble to move all those students and professors, and make the lives of other students at other campuses more crowded. IMHO, why cut budget and accept fewer people in general, lowering your quality of education when you could accept a few more out of state people and keep the quality of education constant during these harsh economic times?</p>
<p>Merced won't close. It just takes a new UC some time to get momentum going. How many local kids are choosing to go to UC Merced, I wonder...</p>
<p>I had no idea that the 4 year grad rates at the mid tier UCs were so low! So many times now, the grad rates are given as "5-6 year grad rates." 4 year grad rates are hidden.</p>
<p>I wonder if the the lower 'graduate in 4 years' numbers are due to - </p>
<ul>
<li>Lower cost of attendance making it more feasible to stay longer than 4 years if one wishes. Think about it - $8500 in tuition at the UC (less at the CalState) vs. $35K at a private - one would have to think long and hard about continuing for an extra year if they have to pay full fare at the private for that year.</li>
<li>At the privates, does the finAid only last for 4 years max as opposed to 'until graduation'? If so, this is a strong incentive to finish in 4 years.</li>
<li>No pressure from the university to grad in 4 years - if one wants to stay longer they can.</li>
<li>Many choices of majors/minors are available which might prompt some to switch their major/minor more frequently. This would be an interesting number to track.</li>
</ul>
<p>I know some universities had issues with students being able to get classes and hence taking longer to graduate - SDSU comes to mind but they reduced admissions in an effort to curtail the problem. I hadn't heard of it being a large problem at the UCs.</p>
<p>From Noob: "Maybe the children of california tax-paying residents can't get into a top UC because they still aren't competitive enough."</p>
<p>The cynical part of me says that situation will not be corrected anytime soon if the Gov's latest budget proposal were implemented, the one that calls for decreasing K-12 instructional days by five days, which would put CA in the zone of, oh, North Dakota and Kentucky.</p>
<p>It's getting so that I make sure not to have sharp objects or hot liquids nearby when I read the latest news coming from Sacramento!</p>
<p>As for hiding four year grad rates, that's just wrong. How else is a parent o judge total cost when compared to a private where the 4 year grad rate may be higher?</p>
<p>"I wonder if the the lower 'graduate in 4 years' numbers are due to -"
a large number of students at the UC's are transfer students from CC colleges, who perhaps aren't prepared, for one reason or another, to finish college? Perhaps they have to work part time? Perhaps they simply don't have the smarts/ desire/ will to successfully complete a 4 year degree? Not everyone who transfers into a UC is "4 year college material" [I say this in all seriousness- I'm not trying to be snooty]</p>
<p>MPmom, I wondered the same. Apparently, the CC transfers both graduate at a higher rate and with higher GPAs!</p>
<p>I do think there are a number of factors, poor aid to the middle class and poor being the biggest one. Lots of kids, I'm told, need to take time off to work.</p>
<p>What many don't understand is that people who make $200K/yr feel middle class in many parts of CA. They are house poor where a home in a good school district is often over $1MM. They genuinely can not consider private colleges as people with their income in most states can.</p>
<p>The irony is that $25K/yr at schools declining, where most can't graduate in 4 years, is still seen as cost effective. I think this is habit as opposed to sound cost analysis.</p>
<p>And no one wants to talk about the lack of Diversity. I enjoyed my recruiting trips to Berkeley's Hass for 2 decades, but stopped shortly after UCs dropped their quest to accept a diverse student body.</p>