<p>"Patrick Callan is president of the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education. He questions whether a student’s wealth should decide which campus he or she attends. UC is also accepting more out-of-state students who pay higher tuition.</p>
<pre><code>Callan: I think that’s a fundamental issue of educational policy that we have to decide. Do we want to make our most prestigious campuses less affordable to those who can’t afford to pay a premium charge?"
</code></pre>
<p>I love capitalism but golly, what I thought was a financial safety for my son (UCSD) may soon be out of reach if prices continue to go up. We’re not poor enough to qualify for much assistance in the UC system (78K income, family of 5 in very expensive So. Cal with some extraneous medical and other expenses) but not rich enough to be saving enough to pay our EFC. We’ll find out how it all shakes down for my son in a year from now.</p>
<p>I think it’s a fine idea that a number of states are using. And getting more OOS kids is great too, as long as they meet/exceed the stats or bring something to enhance the schools. </p>
<p>Is UCSD your local UC options Sbjdorlo? Are there any local state schools that would serve as a financial safety? That’s what we did with our kids (not in CA). The local choices were not high flying, difficult to get admitted schools and the commute option brought the price down lower. It was an attractive option to have for my latest college bound son whose test scores were not high, as I knew that there was a distinct possibility that his choices that were high in preference might not have taken him for that reason, but that if he worked hard and got the grades he did in high school, he would be a good transfer student for those same schools. From what I’ve been reading UCSD is NOT a safety school for anyone. I know that the UCs are not good options for transfers unless from a comm college too.</p>
<p>How selective are those UCs like Humboldt and Merced? Are they realistic safetie for kids with UC qualified stats?</p>
<p>Humboldt is actually a CSU school, not a UC. However, some CSU campuses are known for having good programs. Case in point is engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.</p>
<p>@Deborah T – Correct from her own threads, I believe the Ivies are vying for Sbjdorio’s son…
Sbjdorlo has 3 home-schooled kids ( a senior and a junior) with good stats and STEM background; they are URM with hooks and low EFC, I doubt she is serious about public schools or UCs. Perhaps as safety. I believe the private schools (with Finaid and merit) are more cost effective for her sons.</p>
<p>@FindAPlace – CalPoly SLO is much harder to get in than most of the UCs for engineering. In fact, both CalPoly (SLO and Pomona) are very good schools.</p>
<p>Hmm, sure would be nice if someone was vying for my son. I don’t think the Ivies know he exists! LOL Only one school, Harvey Mudd, has had contact with him but we have visited two Ivies, both of which my son liked very much. And you are correct in that I homeschool 3 kids but they are currently a junior, 8th grade, and first grade. :-)</p>
<p>I wish I was confident about admissions. I’ve seen too many disappointed kids to think my son couldn’t be one of them. We’re just trying to find a balanced list of schools.</p>
<p>Yes, I now realize that UCSD is no one’s safety but it is the local UC and the local state school, SDSU, isn’t really an option. The true safety-both for admissions and financially- for my son would be Pt. Loma Nazarene Univ. as I believe he could get a full ride STEM scholarship there based on the fact that he took a class there when he was 13 and got a scholarship from them back then, but he’s not interested in going there. The thing about a safety is a student has to want to go there, right?</p>
<p>I did talk with a UCSD admissions officer last fall when my son was considering applying a year early. He did encourage my son to apply and said he was more qualified than most but also said (without actually using these words) that admissions is a crapshoot and number game at the UCs. He said if my son didn’t get in somehow, he could appeal. This guy knew the reality of our California schools and how “in the box” admissions are. There’s a formula and there’s bias (rightly so, I guess) and as I observed some months ago, kids with great stats were not getting in and kids with less stellar stats were.</p>
<p>Also crazy is that San Diego State Univ., certainly not academically a great school (I graduated from there and I was no great student), is very selective (30% admit) simply because so many kids apply there. Our neighbor across the street didn’t get in. She was in GATE at one time. She lost her dad to cancer a few years ago. She goes to the local (bad) neighborhood high school but did take a few courses at the local CC. She only got into one of the Cal State schools-one- and it’s got to be one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen, so she’ll be doing the community college route like most everyone we know in our area. Only her cousin who’s a strong athlete and probably a stronger student got into SDSU</p>
<p>Yes, admissions are crazy here in California.</p>
<p>If it were a marketplace price system perhaps some of the lower ranked UCs would actually lower tuition in order to attract the higher ranked students.</p>
<p>If this scheme goes through, I’d like to see a lower price for students attending the “popular” campuses who are commuting from home. That would allow those campuses to continue to serve as financial safeties for locals. It wouldn’t affect a lot of kids–there aren’t many who can get into UCLA or Cal and can’t find a “better” financial deal elsewhere–but for those affected, it would be a lifeline.</p>
The last time I checked (within the last couple of years), UCLA received more applications than any other UC and even any other college in the country. Since ‘what the tuition price would bear’ is largely related to the demand, it seems that UCLA would be at the top of the list.</p>
<p>(from the article)
</p>
<p>Hmm, what if ALL of them want to simply raise their tuition to the 25% above and none of them want to stay at the midpoint or decrease the tuition? Will the regents then somehow determine which UCs get to raise their tuition and which UCs don’t and if so, by how much, and which criteria would they use to do that? If a mid-tier UC, for example, UC-Davis, is managing to currently fill up all available slots with no problem then wouldn’t they want to raise the tuition until it’s so high they can no longer fill the slots - assuming that would even happen? I haven’t checked in a while but I wouldn’t be surprised if all of the UCs with the posisble exception of UC-Riverside and UC-Merced were able to fill up all of their slots at the current tuition rate which would mean they’re all viable candidates for increasing the tuition. Maybe even the 2 possible exceptions are no longer exceptions anymore given the large number of applicants. </p>
<p>I don’t think the assumption that only the top few UCs would end up raising the rates is a valid one unless it’s enforced upon the others somehow by the UC Regents.</p>
<p>^^ But that doesn’t really matter for this - it’s popularity that matters more for charging more money. </p>
<p>Even though the UCB and UCLA currently charge the same for tuition UCLA still is more popular in terms of applicants so it could charge more - regardless of the perceived prestige of the various programs (which matter little to applicants who won’t pursue those majors anyway or those who don’t value the perceived prestige of the programs enough over other attributes).</p>
<p>What happens if the premium charged is just to save the state some money?</p>
<p>Let’s say the following:</p>
<p>1) Current In State Tuition (Fees) for UC Students:</p>
<p>Fees $11,000
State Support 22,000
Total "Cost $33,000 (Because state owns land UC’s are on, cost, prop tax, etc would be a lot less than a private school. Non-residents pay “full” cost; I don’t know if there’s markup in this.)</p>
<p>2) Say the popularity premium goes through:</p>
<p>Cal’s Fees:</p>
<p>Fees $16,000 (Bumped up $5K)
State Support 17,000
Total “Cost” $33,000</p>
<p>Riverside’s Fees: Same as 1)</p>
<p>This would save the state $5,000/student at Cal, none as far as UCR’s current and future. </p>
<p>In this case, there wouldn’t be a pool of money, but rather a way to save the state from cutting a bigger check to educate UC’s ~ 185K undergrads. Isn’t the whole idea of raising fees for students to cut back the amount of state support? If it were to build up a fund, that would be different. But still, it’d be a general fund for all schools to dip in. I’m not crazy about this either. I think those who can charge a premium should be able to keep it all.</p>
<p>Would Cal be so likely to want to raise in-state fees under either scenario?</p>
I don’t think the Ivies know he exists! LOL Only one school, Harvey Mudd, has had contact with him but we have visited two Ivies, both of which my son liked very much. And you are correct in that I homeschool 3 kids but they are currently a junior, 8th grade, and first grade. :-)</p>