<p>"UC has seen large increases in freshman applicants in recent years, at the same time that state funding for enrollment growth has stagnated. Currently, UC enrolls approximately 11,000 students for whom it receives no state funding -- a shortfall estimated at $121.8 million. Furthermore, the recently released 2009-10 governor's budget proposal provides no funding for enrollment growth.</p>
<p>To protect academic excellence and maintain the level of service students expect when they enroll at UC, the proposal calls on UC's president to bring enrollments closer to the university's budgeted levels by reducing new freshman enrollment at six UC campuses -- Davis, Irvine, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Freshman enrollments would remain constant at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses and could grow at the Merced campus.</p>
<p>At the same time, the plan maintains UC's historic commitment to offer a place somewhere in the system for every UC-eligible California resident applicant.</p>
<p>It is expected that modest growth in freshman applications this year, estimated at approximately 3 percent, combined with lower admission targets at most campuses will result in students receiving fewer admission offers to UC campuses. For example, a student who in the past was admitted to three campuses might be admitted to only one or two this year. Because UC applicants are very well qualified and have many opportunities, some who do not receive offers from their campus of first choice might choose to attend other institutions. UC-eligible California residents who are not admitted to any of the campuses to which they apply will receive offers from campuses that do have capacity. "</p>
<p>How does this work? Does the University currently give acceptances to those who are ineligible (other than athletes)? No, as far as I understand. So how does the University trim enrollment by 2000 without denying eligible people a place in the UC system (i.e. Merced, at least)?</p>
<p>I think they will trim enrollment by offering some pretty great students only one option (Merced), causing those students to want to go to school outside the UC system.</p>
<p>And it is not only affecting the UCs. From today's Inside Higher Education:
"Californias budget woes continue to limit student choices. A committee of the University of California Board of Regents voted Wednesday to cut the number of freshmen admitted for the fall by about 6 percent, to 35,300. Many students who last year might have been admitted to two or three campuses will find themselves admitted to only one, The San Jose Mercury News reported. Meanwhile, classes are so full in the San Diego Community College District that more than 7,000 students have been denied winter term classes, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported."</p>
<p>ellem is incorrect. The talk at UC is to lower admissions requirements not raise them, and that will happen over the next couple of years. </p>
<p>Midwestmom is correct. The impacted campuses (mid-tier and SC & Riverside) will just trim enrollment by a few hundred slots each of those that they would have accepted in a normal year and those kids will be offered a slot at Merced. Of course, UC knows that most of those kids will attend a Cal State or Juco instead.</p>
<p>But, most importantly, this is all just a PROPOSAL. Until the Legislature acts (assuming it ever does, which is a rather dubious assumption), the UCs will not know what there budget is, so can only guess (and plan) at this point. For example, UC capped admissions enrollment ~4 years ago, only to change the recissions it after the Legislature came up with additional funds later in the summer. Of course by then, everyone had made other college plans.</p>
<p>This fall my husband and I were driving through the central valley. We saw the sign for UC Merced. We decided to get off the highway and take a look. We could not believe how far "out" of town it was. The buildings they have built are nice looking. The housing looked beautiful. But the campus itself was TINY. I don't know what the present enrollment is. Also there are no services for students in the surrounding area. No coffee shops or food establishments. It is rural.</p>
<p>I think Midwest mom has it right. Admission will be offered to the system ie Merced but admission to the mentioned schools will be tighter. Am now regretting that we viewed UCD and UCSC as safeties for my two. Ah well if worse comes to worse they both have a CSU acceptance in hand.</p>
<p>Bluebayou is correct about UCs decreasing requirements--for example, not requiring SAT Subject tests. The idea is to increase the pool of applicants, applicants who may have missed one or two of the stringent requirements. The performing arts requirement is an example of one of those tricky requirements that can trip people up.</p>
<p>My thought about "upping the requirements" was that the UCs would guarantee admission to the top 10% (or less, rather than the 12% now guaranteed admission). Looks like the proposal on the table would cut the guarantee to the top 9%--maybe the guarantee will someday be done away with altogether.</p>
<p>The UCs will become more like private colleges in that anyone can apply and have their application read (Harvard has no required high school coursework nor required GPA/test scores level).</p>
<p>^^More importantly, the UCs are gonna lower the minimum gpa below 3.0....but, the system will still accept the top ~12.5% of high school students statewide. Changing the guarantee to the top 9% just means that UC will redefine what constitutes "top" of the other 3.5%.... The idea is that it will provide UC more flexibility in its comprehensive review program. </p>
<p>Of course, the net effect is that some low stat, but currently eligible for admissions, kids who would have gotten in will no longer receive acceptance. Instead, some even lower stat kids will take their place, so to speak. Thus, selectivity will decline.</p>
<p>I always wonder how UC can cut enrollment. They can cut down the number of admitted students and push them to the lower tier, so those who are accepted by the lower tier are less willing to come. However they cannot control the yield, if the yield goes up because less students are going to private, there is not much they can do.</p>
<p>'Officials said UC still will offer seats to every eligible student, but students are less likely to receive multiple offers and may not get their first, or even second, choice. Officials are banking that students will then go elsewhere, shrinking the student body.</p>
<p>"The more you give students offers to their favorite campuses, the more likely they are to come," said Nina Robinson, director of policy for UC's Division of Student Affairs. "Every student will get at least one offer but may not get three or four. In a sense, we're making ourselves less attractive."'</p>
<p>So apparently the different UC campus are going to coordinate their admissions this year.</p>
<p>When you read closely, this is simply a political move. This will save $20 million, a drop in the bucket for the UC system. I don't know about Yudof, but board chair Richard Blum, husband of Diane Feinstein, is extremely financially and politically savvy. They want to bring out the protesters before they need to take drastic action to really meet their budget.</p>
<p>As I stated on the other UC thread - they're planning to make admission cuts at the UCs that are already over-enrolled due to higher than expected yields in the last year or two and they plan to increase enrollment at the UC that's under-enrolled and in a growth mode. How is this any different than what they would have done to level the number of students anyway despite the economy?</p>
<p>Trimming UC qualified students probably wouldn't be that difficult to achieve - just offer students of UCB/UCLA/UCSD caliber spots at UCM/UCR/UCSC and they're likely to not go to any UC but rather, to some other highly ranked university they can get accepted to assuming they applied and I'm sure UC admissions knows this. If they really follow a process like this (I hope they don't), then it would be in the best interests of next year's students to apply more widely, including to privates where they might get good merit dollars, than typical.</p>
<p>It seems really wrong that they waited until now to announce this as it's now too late for this year's applicants to rethink strategy. They knew they had to do something and the CSU's took action much sooner.</p>
<p>I banned myself from the other thread when I was accused of cheating on my taxes but I guess I can post on this one :)
ucla dad is correct...they are going to trim enrollment by offering kids the less "desirable" campuses. Given the fact that budgets are going to be trimmed too, our youngest opted for a private. With the merit money it is about the same cost as the UC.
Same route my eldest took three years ago.</p>
<p>hmom, it is bad timing.
For anyone whose student is rejected at UCSB, you might want to consider SBCC. They offer students UCSB housing and I know several students who were very happy in their honors program and then transferred to UCLA, Berkeley, etc.</p>
<p>The reason the UC's have been waiting until the last minute is because they are a state entity and the state legislature cannot agree on a budget. The cuts in education are necessary because the state has told the UC's it is reducing their funding. Although the state funds a lower percentage of undergraduate education than ever before, the state obviously feels the cuts can be deeper. Protesters rarely come out for education, especially higher education, unless they are currently enrolled students protesting fee increases. Until a majority of registered voters let their elected officials know they value education and expect to see it fully funded, the legislators will likely continue to funnel money to the corporate interests who fund their campaigns. I feel the class of 2009 has to endure many more challenges than any other group of recent college applicants and I wish them luck.</p>
<p>The dorms at SBCC are a great option, but I hear they fill up fast. Does anyone know what the deadline for applying for housing is?</p>
<p>Where did the UC's think the legislature was going to find the money? It's been clear for some time it just isn't there.</p>
<p>I'm wondering if in the end UCB and UCLA will serve fewer students. It seems like there is a significant swath of UC candidates that only want these 2 schools and will choose privates over the others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ellenmope writes: Bluebayou is correct about UCs decreasing requirements--for example, not requiring SAT Subject tests. The idea is to increase the pool of applicants, applicants who may have missed one or two of the stringent requirements.
[/quote]
That's one way of looking at it. I think the real motivation is more insidious. Ever since the passage of Prop. 209 which banned the use of affirmative action activists have worked to subvert the ban. This is an important step for them due to 2 reasons. First, it softens the admission requirements. You can bet that every year they will return with another requirement that needs to be relaxed or waived. Its funny how so many students manage to satisfy those "stringent" requirements each year. And if there are some schools that are doing a poor job of informing their kids of the requirements, why not improve the schools instead of throwing out the requirements?</p>
<p>Much more importantly, it removes the guarantee that the top students 12% have a place in the UC system. There are just so many spaces (and even less than before if the current cuts stand) so if activists want to admit some previously ineligible then the system will have to turn away some that ARE currently guaranteed a spot. Expect to see admissions to the UC depend less and less on academic performance, but more and more on "holistic" reviews where they can count anything they want.</p>