University of California officials urge 6% cut in freshmen for fall

Applying to College
1

<p>University of California officials urge 6% cut in freshmen for fall
The 2,300-student reduction would not affect UCLA, UC Berkeley or UC Merced. The number of applicants denied their first-choice campus would rise, but transfer slots would increase.</p>

<p>click here for full article University</a> of California officials urge 6% cut in freshmen for fall - Los Angeles Times</p>

<p>By Larry Gordon
January 10, 2009
University of California officials on Friday proposed reducing freshman enrollment for next fall by 2,300 students, or about 6%, to cope with what they said is insufficient state funding.</p>

<p>Enrollment would not be cut at UCLA and UC Berkeley, the most popular campuses, and expansion would continue at UC Merced, the newest school, according to the plan that is to be reviewed by the UC regents next week. The other six undergraduate campuses would have some freshman reductions, while overall slots for transfer students would rise.</p>

<p>"I don't like cutting out opportunities at all," UC President Mark G. Yudof said in a telephone interview from his Oakland office. But given expected steep state budget cuts, he said he reluctantly recommended the actions to protect UC's academic quality.</p>

<p>"These are very hard, difficult economic times. There will be sacrifices all around," Yudof said, adding that he has worked in recent weeks to minimize the enrollment reductions.</p>

<p>UC leaders say the effect may be softened by a demographic shift, as the number of high school graduates starts to decline this year. However, other experts predict that the economic crisis will push more students to UC campuses and away from more expensive private schools. UC freshman applications are running about 3% higher than last year.</p>

<p>Yudof emphasized that students whose high school grades and test scores meet UC eligibility standards would not be completely shut out of the system, although more would be denied a spot at their first-choice campus. As a result, enough students are expected to turn down a UC campus they never really wanted and instead attend a non-UC school.</p>

2

<p>The shoe has dropped. After reading the entire article, the approach reminds me of what often happens with cuts at the K-12 level, which is the brunt of the impact is felt in the middle.</p>

<p>Here, enrollments won't be cut at Cal or UCLA (top) and there would be an increase in transfers from the community college system (bottom.) This leaves the squeeze coming in the middle, for the students hoping to be admitted to, say, San Diego, Santa Barbara, etc.</p>

<p>No movement yet on the thought to increase the OOS admits to increase the coffers, which are increasingly bare these days.</p>

3

<p>Thanks for the posting this article because I thought UCI is still expanding.</p>

4

<p>Thank you, Mr. Governator!</p>

5

<p>What do you expect him to do, CA is a mess financially and he didn't cause it! I grew up there and have been spending a lot of time there again, looking at moving back. But it's clear CA is in for years of severe budget cuts for everything.</p>

6

<p>^I agree, you can't spend more than you have.</p>

7

<p>We've been debating this on the parent's board, but IMO CA needs to do what almost every other state does, take a good percentage of full paying OOS students to keep the schools strong and well funded for Californians.</p>

8

<p>We (I say that because I'm a CA resident) may well have to go that direction. If we do, then the least we can do for the students in the pipeline is to implement such a change gradually over a 3-4 year period, so the student expectations for performance and possible admission can also be changed to the new reality. Or put more simply, these students will have to be working harder to get the brass ring of Cal or UCLA.</p>

9

<p>I don't think CA has years to wait. Yes, it's bad for the kids in the pipeline, but I worry about those already there with classes being cut and facilities not being maintained. Those aiming for the top UCs have also known it's pretty random for some time.</p>

<p>At least in CA the system has depth. Those displaced have OK options in the CSUs or going to a cc and transferring pretty easily.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Or put more simply, these students will have to be working harder to get the brass ring of Cal or UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ain't gonna happen. The powers-that-be are in the process of LOWERING admission standards, i.e., gpa.</p>

11

<p>Lowering admissions standards be lowering GPA, really? What I'd read the big discussion on was whether the UC system would continue to require the SAT II as part of the admissions process, as it is felt that the more "at risk" students are less likely to know they need to jump through this hoop. Was it a proposal to lower the GPA for the ELC?</p>

12

<p>Yup. As part of its plan to drop Subject Tests, the BOARS also proposed to lower the minimum required gpa for eligibility back to 2.8 from 3.0. ELC would be unaffected.</p>

13

<p>What is the current tuition for UCs? At approx. $9,000 per year, UCs are a steal. Penn State, for example, is $13,000 a year, Michigan is about $12,000 a year and the Univ. of Vermont is also about $13,000 yearly for tuition. Unfortunately, despite high property taxes, California may need to raise tuition rates.</p>

14

<p>So what is the point of squeezing enrollment at the well-ranked middle UCs that many thousands of kids are eager to attend and expanding enrollment at the crappy UC Merced that nobody wants to attend? How does it serve anyone's bests interests to push kids out of the good UCs to into the poor ones? That's a lose/lose if there ever was one.</p>

<p>The only reason I can think of is that the state officials will be able to point to the enforced growth at UCM and call that a "success." The far better approach would be to keep the middle UCs the same or expand them modestly and close UCM to free up the money to pay for it.</p>

15

<p>They've already sunk the money into Merced, there's no turning back. Now they have to fill it.</p>

16

<p>Tuition is only a part of the COA. Most students at UC's don't live at home, and total COA at UC's is about $25K, making it an expensive state U. </p>

<p>Those who say UC should admit more OOS miss a big point. With such a competitive system, UC's are still not the "safety" state U's are in most states. With our taxes already so high, it's frustrating for families here who pay big $$ in taxes to know their kids don't have much chance of attending their state university.</p>

17

<br>


<br>

<p>That's a classic case of throwing good money after bad. Everyone knows that's bad policy.</p>

18

<p>What is the problem with UC-Merced?</p>

19

<p>My understanding is that they built Merced because the population in the central part of the state was under served. I believe it serves the poorest population of any UC. What are the issues there?</p>

20

<p>They built Merced because the politicians from the Central Valley fussed for years demanding that a UC campus be located there. The Central Valley is mostly farms and thus thinly populated. Other thinly-populated areas (like the entire ~ 40% of the state that is located north of Davis) don't have UC campuses either and have no problem sending their kids to campuses farther south. </p>

<p>There never was a study that concluded that it made educational sense or financial sense to locate a campus in Merced. It was purely political - A classic case of If You Build It They Won't Come. And sure enough, they've had a very hard time attracting students to that location. It was loser from the start. It's time to admit the mistake, clean up the mess, and move on.</p>