UCs Consider Charging More for Popular Campuses

Parents Forum
1

<p>The Univ. of California currently charges the same tuition at all its campuses. In the search for more revenue that may change.</p>

<p>University</a> of California tuition: Regents weigh varying tuitions at University of California campuses - latimes.com</p>

<p>Excerpts:</p>

<p>"Blumenthal said in a later interview that even a tuition range would splinter the unity and resources of the UC system. "I think it has been an enormous benefit to the state of California and the taxpayers of California to have a uniform tuition," he said.</p>

<p>If different rates were allowed, he predicted that UC Berkeley would raise tuition the full 25% in "a micro second" and others would quickly follow, not wanting to be left behind in money or reputation. "I think once we go down that road, it could mean that some campuses may not be accessible to large segments of California students," he said.</p>

<p>Another influential critic is Daniel Simmons, a UC Davis law professor who is chairman of UC's systemwide Academic Senate. Varying fees would result in "separate campuses competing with each other and ultimately that competition would be destructive," Simmons said....."</p>

<p>In many other states, the practice is long established.</p>

<p>For example, the Austin campus of the University of Texas plans to charge nearly $4,900 in tuition and basic student fees in the fall, compared to about $3,500 for the El Paso campus.</p>

<p>"All of it is based on the ability to pay, for the population they serve. It has to do with what the market can bear," said Pedro Reyes, the nine-campus University of Texas system's associate vice chancellor for planning. The Austin campus enrolls a more national and international student body, while El Paso draws students mainly from its region, he said.</p>

<p>UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego could charge higher fees without harming enrollments, Reyes said. "I know the clientele could meet those pricing structures," he said.</p>

<p>The University of Wisconsin's 26 campuses include just two doctoral-granting institutions, and even those two charge somewhat different basic academic fees: about $9,000 at Madison and $8,100 at Milwaukee. But leaders of the Madison campus are now seeking independence from the system, including the freedom to set tuition rates."</p>

2

<p>The market/competition can be wonderful. The successful get to charge more for their superior goods and get more students. The others will get less and have to improve. Makes sense to me. All that other kumbaya stuff is just socialist drivel.</p>

3

<p>I see it differently. The states have contributed year after year while the state Us were built up. Now the state Us want to charge market rates and too bad for college kids. Its time for colleges to re-examine costs.</p>

4

<p>The states stopped contributing and left the colleges high and dry 10-20 years ago in many cases.</p>

5

<p>Really, what state STOPPED contributing? Do you mean states decrease contribution? or state decreased rate of increase?</p>

6

<p>It’s about time. </p>

<p>And it is the ONLY logical follow-on step to admitting wealthy OOS’ers. Now that the Regents’ Field of Dreams has failed (‘Offer it to OOS’ers and they will come’), it only makes sense to extract more money from wealthy Californians. The EASY way to do that is to ratchet up the costs for the popular campuses. Wanna watch football in Memorial Stadium or the Rose Bowl? Sure, you just gotta pay more.</p>

<p>The alternative is to financially starve Cal and UCLA down towards mediocrity.</p>

7

<p>I call it the beauty of the capitalist society. There is nothing wrong to charge at the level commensurate to the market supply and demand. I would be happy to buy a Cadillac for the price of Chevy. In this society, can I get away with it? I doubt it.</p>

8

<p>Many states have decreased funding in real terms since around 1999. Especially when you take out certain fixed expenses like utilities and debt service that don’t really improve anything but have gone up rapidly.</p>

9

<br>

<br>

<p>They may starve anyway. It is not clear from the article that revenue derived from this Popularity Premium would be spent only at the campus that generated it. A more likely outcome IMO is that the money will go into the UC general fund and get spent on all the campuses according to need. Thus, the net effect would be that the strong subsidize the weak - Cal and UCLA students might end up paying extra in order try to raise Merced and Santa Cruz out of mediocrity instead of preventing the slide of their own schools.</p>

10

<p>^^you may be correct, coureur, but cash is cash (and fungible). IMO, extracting more $ out of wealthy residents is a better option than from OOS’ers. Under the current admission system, slots at Cal and LA have been reduced so that rich OOS’ers can be admitted. If it is rich that UC wants, why not just admit more rich instaters? (And the way to accomplish that is the Popularity Premium.)</p>

<p>At least the rich instaters will have a choice on whether to pay more to attend the flagships; an option which they do not have today.</p>

11

<p>

Cal should charge more because its football is actually played on campus. ;)</p>

12

<p>If on-campus football is worth a tuition premium, UC Davis also qualifies to charge more.</p>

13

<br>

<br>

<p>I agree that enrolling rich Calfornians is better than enrolling rich OOS students. But the difference is that even though it has been expanded to boost revenue, there are still limits or targets on the percentage of the slots going to OOS. The rest can be filled by Californians, both rich and not-so-rich. With the Popularity Premium the price goes up for everyone. </p>

<p>Except for a few very poor students who can qualify for enough finaid and scholarships, ALL the slots at Cal and UCLA will go to the rich, be they in-state or out. The not-so-rich but not dirt-poor will be priced out of the top schools and probably can’t afford anything more popular than say Davis or Santa Barbara.</p>

14

<p>minor detail coureur. Raise tuition say, $10k, and target xx % of it to grants for lower income students. There are plenty of world-class Stats, Econ & Biz profs at Cal & LA that can figure out the correct mix to maximize revenue.</p>

<p>I like Davis, and I’d easily pay more to attend that school over UCSD. OTOH, they’d have to pay me to sit in the stands to watch their “football” team play Humboldt State. :D</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Me too, why haven’t they pursued this before pursuing OOS? I personally know several top full-pay students at my kids high school who were denied admission to UCLA or Cal, and are now paying $50K+ at Georgetown, Middlebury, Yale, and others. Perhaps they would have chosen the privates anyway, but it is ridiculous that these students were turned away. There is no way that they were not qualified to do the work at UCLA and Cal.</p>

<p>I understand that there is some sort of mandate for the UCs to serve the poorest CA residents (at least I think I learned this from bluebayou?), but right now it makes sense to put that idea on the back burner until our economy stabilizes and start admitting the maximum number of qualified CA residents who can pay the full price.</p>

16

<p>I can see doing that.</p>

<p>Other states charge a higher tuition rate for their “top state schools”. Since Calif is a very large state, it would make sense for it to charge more for Cal, UCLA, and UCSD.</p>

<p>I can see 3 tiers of rates…</p>

<p>Cal, UCLA, and SD</p>

<p>Davis, UCI, SB</p>

<p>Merced, SC, and Riverside</p>

<p>(did I forget one??? Going from memory)</p>

17

<p>^^^
That’s the usual ranking, but I’m sure many would debate it, especially wrt my first alma mater, UCSD, which seems to be the Rodney Dangerfield of universities here on CC. </p>

<p>But the question isn’t really quality - it’s popularity. I consider all of these schools to be high quality, particularly the “top” six up here. I don’t know much about the other three, but I bet they’re okay too.</p>

<p>Maybe it would be possible to calculate demand based on the number of apps and the yield. I think an earlier poster mentioned using some of those profs from the two good schools (which include my other alma mater) to figure this out. ;)</p>

18

<p>It’s a moot point. What matters is whether or not you can get into and afford Cal Poly SLO.</p>

19

<br>

<br>

<p>Me too, but I’m a proud UC Davis alumnus. </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Me too, even though I’m a proud UC Davis alumnus.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>They are all okay. They are all comprehensive, doctorate-granting research universities. Merced is too new to have established much of a reputation, but the other eight are all ranked top 100 national Universities by USNews. And six are ranked in the top 50. No other state college system has more than one campus in the top 50.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Berkeley
Los Angeles, San Diego
Davis, Santa Barbara
Irvine
Santa Cruz
Riverside
Merced</p>

<p>I see 7.</p>