UT Austin: Under state law, 90% of first-year students must be in-state residents.
All top universities in China, India, and any other country in the world prioritize educating students from their own country.
Why do the UC’s (UCB, UCLA, UCSD) have to prioritize out-of-state and international students at the expense of California residents and California taxpayers?
Why do tax-paying Californians with stellar HS resumes and 4.0 GPAs have to go out of state for education while California tax is used to educate international and OOS students?
Should State of California enact a law similar to State of Texas and stop funding any UC’s until they start prioritizing California students? Why are Californians not uniting to pass a legislation that mandates UCs to take 90% in-state students?
Is the cost of educating these students higher than the cost they are paying? For entering students in 2023-24, OOS tuition is listed as $46,326 and OOS COA is estimated by UC as $73,626. Also, OOS students are typically full-pay.
No, OOS students are money makers for the UCs (all of them). They get no financial aid (as you mentioned) other than merit and outside scholarships they bring in, and they are charged private school tuition for a public school education.
Well, if you read the news then you likely know that Governor Newsom is already doing something along these lines - tying increased state funding to increased in state enrollment. I believe each campus has a target percentage which they must reach by the certain year. I’m sure a quick Google search would provide the details on this, but campuses are indeed increasing in state enrollment each year in order to meet the targets set by the state.
It does not matter how much OOS/international students are paying.
The charter and topmost goal of UC’s should be to provide education to California residents and if there’s spare capacity, provide education to OOS, and if there’s still any spare capacity, provide education to international students.
Currently UC’s are NOT meeting the expectations of providing education to California students. Hence the suggestion for Californians to unite and pass a legislation that mandates all UCs to take 90% in-state students. If State of Texas can have that law, why can’t California? How is it more important for Berkeley and UCLA to educate international and OOS students when there is more demand from highly qualified in-state taxpayers?
The state is tying incremental funding to incremental state enrollment. However State of CA needs to take a holistic approach, reset the expectations, and set an overall target for each UC - when state of Texas can set a mandate for their flagship university UT Austin to take 90% in-state - why can’t state of California set a mandate for Berkeley and UCLA to take 90% in-state?
UC’s charter should be to educate tax-paying Californians first. The state of California should look into cutting the “entire” funding (and not just “incremental” funding) to these UC’s if they do not follow 90% mandate.
For years the Legislature has increasingly defunded the UCs. Enrolling larger numbers of OOS and international students has been the rational economic response of the UCs.
There has been recent movement toward higher in-state enrollment rates, but mostly by increasing overall enrollment (on already overcrowded campuses) rather than by decreasing OOS/international.
The recent attached article sums thing up well. This quote is towards the end:
The 2016 California audit recommended the state legislature intervene to increase in-state student enrollment. Intervention, the audit said, should be carried out by making a portion of UC’s state funding conditional on the university raising in-state enrollment.
The state constitution allows the legislature to enact laws governing the public California State University and California Community College systems. While a public system, the UC is not subject to legislative intervention. In the last decade the state legislature has found its own way to convince UC’s administration to carry out proposed policy changes.
Thanks for sharing. Increasing enrollment across in-state, OOS, international, to overcrowded campuses may not be the best approach.
Could State of California somehow influence all the UC’s to increase their in-state percentages to 80%? This would still be far less than what State of Texas mandates but it could be a start.
Just out of interest, do you know how much of the funding for UCs comes from the tax payers vs how much of the funding comes from the tax payers in Texas?
Is it possible California tax payers are contributing less to the UC system than Texas tax payers are contributing to their system?
Just wondering if it’s an apples to apples comparison.
Overall 2022 enrolled CA students UC wide: 84%
By Campus:
UCB: 79%
UCD: 81%
UCI: 84%
UCLA: 82%
UCM: 99%
UCR: 93%
UCSD: 83%
UCSB: 81%
UCSC: 90%
So the majority of campuses have meet the 82% enrollment target for 2022.
I have posted this before but UC campus wide for 2023, they received 132,226 CA resident FTF applications (unduplicated). Even if each UC accepted and enrolled 7,000 FTF from California only, there would still be about 48,226 more CA applicants that spots.
I think those numbers might be just new/freshman enrollees? The article I posted states that 2022 data for total enrollment at UCLA for example was only 68.3% in-state. And Berkeley was worse at 61.8%.
Ah yes, that appears to be the case. Going to the data source linked in the article’s chart, undergrad enrollment for UCLA for 2022, for example, was 78% in-state.
Even OOS tuition for TX universities is reasonable. My 3rd son (CA resident) was admitted into several UTs and A&M campuses (not the flagships) and the tuition was comparable to UC/WUE tuition.
TX found oil in 1900 and never looked back. They fund their universities well.
That 18% cap doesn’t appear to apply to all campuses though:
“Under the policy, the first of its kind at UC, nonresident enrollment will be capped at 18 percent at five UC campuses. At the other four campuses where the proportion of nonresidents exceeds 18 percent — UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC San Diego — nonresident enrollment will be capped at the proportion that each campus enrolls in the 2017–18 academic year.”
University of Texas system has 2.1 million acres of land that it leases to oil companies where it generates a ton of money for the University itself but it never trickles and benefit the students. Texas students should get free education just by the amount of money they get from the oil companies. UT system has massive endowment.
That mandate has been updated to include UCLA, UCB and UCSD.
Over a three-year period, the plan aims to cap nonresident enrollment at 18% at UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego, according to Robert Gammon, spokesperson for California Sen. Nancy Skinner. The proposal would override a previous plan to instate a 10% limit on nonresident enrollment at all nine UC campuses and instead replace about 900 nonresident students with Californians each year.
More information about OOS enrollment cap and more spots for CA residents.
State Recently Adopted a Nonresident Enrollment Reduction Plan for UC. Recently, the state acted to limit the number of nonresident undergraduates at UC, with the intent to make more slots available for resident undergraduates at high‑demand campuses. Specifically, the 2022‑23 Budget Act directed UC to reduce incoming nonresident undergraduate enrollment at the Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego campuses by a total of 902 FTE students and increase resident undergraduate enrollment by the same amount. The budget act provided UC with $30 million General Fund to backfill for the loss of associated nonresident tuition revenue. If UC does not meet the reduction target, provisional language directs the administration to reduce UC’s appropriation proportional to any shortfall. The 2022‑23 actions were intended to be the first year of a multiyear plan (stretching through 2026‑27) to reduce nonresident undergraduate enrollment at those three campuses down to no more than 18 percent of total undergraduate enrollment. (The 18 percent cap applies to all UC campuses, but only those three campuses currently are notably above the cap.) The planned reductions are spread evenly over each year of the phase‑down period.
State Set Resident Enrollment Target for 2023‑24. Specifically, the state set an expectation in the 2022‑23 Budget Act that UC grow by a total of 7,632 resident undergraduate FTE students in 2023‑24 above the 2021‑22 level. This amount consists of three components. First, it includes 4,730 additional students to be funded at a state marginal cost rate of $10,886. The budget act provided $51.5 million to fund this group of students. Second, it includes another 2,000 students (reflecting roughly 1 percent additional growth). UC is to cover the cost of these students from the base increase it receives in 2023‑24. Third, it includes 902 additional resident students due to the planned replacement of nonresident students. The cost to cover these students is to be provided through the nonresident reduction plan.
State Funded UC for Prior “Over‑Target” Enrollment. In addition to the new enrollment targets set for UC, the 2022‑23 Budget Act funded UC for students it had enrolled over previous state targets. Specifically, the budget act provided $16 million for 1,500 undergraduate FTE students UC enrolled over target from 2018‑19 through 2021‑22