<p>The UC system is unique and really great. But, I’m not surprised they are increasing OOS. </p>
<p>I think NC is the only place this hasn’t happened and I think that’s about to change, too, with the recent cuts in funding.</p>
<p>I did live in CA for a few years and so am pretty familiar with the various UCs, but I’d expect anyone who’s in a STEM field, even outside CA, to know how strong UCSD and many other UCs are in those fields. </p>
<p>Heck, even people who know nothing about colleges outside the USNews rankings would realize that of the 15 publics in the top 50 there, 40% of them (6) are UCs. Saying that each of those 6 UCs are stronger than the majority of state flagships in this country would not be an exaggeration.</p>
<p>
In general I agree this is true. The key is to recruit any students who are from a wealthy family, OOS or Int’ls. I notice that some int’ls may still take Caltrain and walk (yes, really walk!) half an hour to work after they graduate and work full-time. This kind of int’ls are “useless” for generating sales tax. These usually came from a poorer country. On the other hand, there are students who would buy brand new cars while still a student and buy an above-average condo worth almost half a million dollars (some are cash buyers) right after they graduate from the school - this kind of students will definitely do good for increasing the tax revenue and UCs and state colleges should target these students if the increase of tax revenue or the balance of the government budget is their main goal.</p>
<p>Do not blame that the elite schools recruit too many students from wealthy families. The state schools in some state do the same. It appears that many states (esp. a state like California which has some “brand name” schools like UCLA or Cal whose names are worth a lot of $$$$ to many international students.) There are also many pre-college or “summer” schools for wealthy international students which are very profitable for the schools or the increase of sale tax revenue too. The key is the SES of the students. (I recently heard there is a giant sized tour group from China to California. The size of this “single” tour group? 9000 tourists - and many of them come here for a shopping spree! The Wall Street Journal (or some similar magazine) has an article in which these tourists are referred to as “walking ATM machines or wallets”. Let the rich come here to spend! Many decades ago, Hong Kong seems to have served the role of “shopping spree destination”. Even now, I heard many southern Chinese may travel to groceries in Honk Kong to shop and it causes a lot of inconvenience like traffic and long checkout lines there. (Isn’t there a gambling place close to Hong Kong, which has a much more booming business than Las Vegas now?!)</p>
<p>“Six of the nine UC campuses are in the US News top 50, and even the “lesser” four of the six (Davis, UCSD, UCSB, and Irvine) probably would be the undisputed flagship if located in most other states.”</p>
<p>I never said they weren’t or couldn’t be fine schools. They just aren’t anywhere on the radar screen here in the midwest with our own excellent state flagships, that’s all. I agree that the size of CA likely “requires” several flagships. It’s all local in the final analysis, IMO. </p>
<p>
But the total number of high school graduates in CA is dropping, and projected to continue dropping for the next few years. So if the absolute number of students admitted remains the same or increases slightly, then that means any given CA student actually has a slightly higher chance of admission than in past years. The hype is all about percentages which are inflated because so many more kids are applying to every campus. </p>
<p>An easy way to superficially compare campuses is to look at the 75th percentile SAT scores (CR+M) of admitted students. For UC’s the numbers (from College Navigator) are:</p>
<p>UCB 1490
UCLA 1440
UCSD 1390
UCSB 1340
UCD 1320
UCI 1270
UCSC 1230
UCR 1210
UCM 1140</p>
<p>The numbers for enrolled students are going to be lower, but they give a rough guide to the level of academic preparation of students on each campus. For institutions mentioned in the Times article: UNC 1410, UT Austin 1380, IU Bloomington 1290. These would probably be higher if they had the same percentage of high scoring OOS applicants as UCLA and Berkeley, so it’s a tough sell to say it’s worth the extra $ to attend a UC. </p>
<p>I think part of that seems to be because CA people don’t seem to leave CA (well, some do for college, but it seems that 90%+ of those who go to college there stay there). And when they do, it’s for somewhere else out west or internationally (and maybe the East Coast, though even those are rare). So few people east of the Mississippi would have encountered an actual UCSD/UCSB/UCI/UCD grad. Plus, those schools don’t have DivI sports teams to advertise their schools. And they’re relatively new. And they’re relatively small for publics.</p>
<p>Contrast with the Big10 publics, which, because of flatlining or declining in-state HS populations, have pulled in OOS students for a while now, and have sent grads all over the country for generations now. Also have DivI sports teams. Also have been known for various things for a while now (UIUC and Purdue for engineering, IU for business, Michigan and Wisconsin for many disciplines, etc.). And many are gigantic and thus generate a ton of alums.</p>
<p>Cali native here and just want to say that not everyone wants UCB or UCLA. My daughter turned down Cal for Davis. It was a better fit. Berkeley is an interesting and unique place, but it’s not for everyone. You’d be surprised how many students attending other UCs turned down UCLA and/or UCB.</p>
<p>In terms of international admissions, here are a few numbers for unduplicated admitted students:</p>
<p>2014 13,000
2013 11,000
2012 8,500
2009 2.600</p>
<p>As a reference, in 2004, there were just 1.500 … int’l freshman applications for the entire UC system. In 2014, there were 22,500 apps.</p>
<p>OOS numbers are
2014 13,000
2013 12,000
2012 10,000
2009 5,000</p>
<p>Applications from OOS 8300 in 2004, It should be noted that OOS applications had decreased from the 10,000+ in 2002 In 2014, there were more than 26,000… </p>
<p>PS One of the tests for schools such as Cal will be the continuation of the massive number of transfers it accepts from Junior Colleges. </p>
<p>Tests of what?</p>
<p>As a CA resident, I am mostly ambivalent about OOS attendance. It is a negative to me, in that I assume that most of those students will stay in CA, contributing to what I think is already an overpopulated State. I don’t buy the argument that a 1400/4.4 GPA OOS student is just sooooo much better than a 1300/4.0 in-state student, and thus we really NEED them here, other than as contributors to the UC’s coffers. I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigrant students, as a UC education is an obscene waste of resources on them since they cannot work here.</p>
<p>There are other ways to limit the need for OOS full-payers. More in-state full-payers could be admitted, UC administrative bloat could be lessened (I think I read it is something like 1 admin for every 2 students or something like that), fees could be raised, and UC grads could start giving back more, as they are supposedly not very generous in the alumni giving arena.</p>
<p>@Bay: those OOS students also contribute to CA’s economic vitality. Also, you don’t have to worry much about overpopulation as CA is flatlining in population and may even start losing population. BTW, if you prefer your state’s population to be in decline, feel free to move to MI.</p>
<p>Also, OOS students pay more than they take in resources while I believe in-state students take more in resources than they pay, so fewer OOS students means higher costs for in-state or worse fin aid. I’m not sure why feel that would be better for CA residents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also? Meaning what? The same as if they were in-state?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is great news! So we don’t need the bullet train afterall! </p>
<p>Where did you get your info? I saw this:
<a href=“California population grows by 332,000 to 38.2 million”>http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/12/local/la-me-california-growth-20131213</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m okay with this. I think some CA residents would be willing to pay more to stay in-state, and our FA is way too generous.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, but the concern should be ADMITTANCE, not enrollment. As long as instate students have been admitted, the school can’t control who actually enrolls. The state of Alabama has a high number of public 4-year univs for its size. I imagine that a good number of accepted instate students have opted to go to another AL public univ…perhaps commuting or getting better merit at another sleep-away school. I don’t see any evidence that Bama has rejected qualified instate students. I think if there were any, AL.com would have featured their stories. </p>
<p>California population is shrinking, not growing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/upshot/the-california-exodus.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/upshot/the-california-exodus.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-california-exodus-will-get-worse/7CE1C9E9-FC61-40FB-8028-DC2F78E49996.html#!7CE1C9E9-FC61-40FB-8028-DC2F78E49996[/url]”>http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-california-exodus-will-get-worse/7CE1C9E9-FC61-40FB-8028-DC2F78E49996.html#!7CE1C9E9-FC61-40FB-8028-DC2F78E49996</a></p>
<p>@Bay:</p>
<p>“Also? Meaning what? The same as if they were in-state?”</p>
<p>Except that in-state kids are already in CA and would contribute. OOS students would add to the vitality.</p>
<p>“Where did you get your info?”</p>
<p><a href=“Bill Watkins: California’s population flat-lining – Orange County Register”>Bill Watkins: California’s population flat-lining – Orange County Register;
<p>“I’m okay with this. I think some CA residents would be willing to pay more to stay in-state, and our FA is way too generous.”</p>
<p>Sure, because you’re rich. I’d like you to be poor at some point in your life. I think it’d broaden your perspective.</p>
<p>coolweather,</p>
<p>Since when does a population increase of 2.9% mean CA’s population is shrinking, not growing?</p>
<p>Sorry, PurpleTitan, unless you’ve got something better, I’m inclined to go with the more recent LA Times article, which reports CA’s highest increase in population growth in a decade during the last fiscal year.</p>
<p>Anyway, why should “flatlining” or a shrinking population, even if it is true, change my opinion? Its still too crowded here. Quality of life would improve with a smaller population. I don’t think we need growth at all costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know I haven’t been? I would never wish that on anyone. I’m not that mean.</p>
<p>It’s used to grow at higher rates. Now it decelerates because it has more outflux than influx. That’s what exodus means.</p>
<p>This table shows the growth of each decade:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California</a></p>
<p>Cool weather,
Unless I missed it, neither of the sources you cited support your premise. They talk about who is leaving CA, but they don’t even address the in-migration or birth rates. There is a net increase in CA’s population growth, even with the “exodus.”</p>
<p>If nobody comes and nobody leaves then the growth rate would be higher because people have more babies and die less.
In the last decade, California grew 10%. In the one before that 13.8%. In this decades it probably grows 6%. The next decades it will have lower rates and it could have negative rates if the trend continues. It’s shrinking because of the exodus.</p>
<p>I’m fine with a shrinking population, if that were to happen. We don’t have enough water for everyone’s needs as we are right now. Traffic is horrible. </p>