11–20 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe "going private" is an option for any of the UC schools.
So I guess that means they have to follow the wishes of their funding source.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
1) the cap is currently not limiting for the system as a whole, as the proportion is around 16%
2) It also includes a per-campus 20% cap, with raised caps for campuses that are already above 20%. So Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD will be prevented from raising their nonresident proportions, and new growth will be redirected to schools like Merced (only 1% nonresident students).
My personal observation: no evidence is presented that nonresident admissions reduce the absolute number of Californians the system can support.
Good. State universities are perversely incentivized to prefer higher paying students from out-of-state and international. University of Washington, the state's top school, is now 1/3 non-state residents. It's a serious problem.
It's not perverse if out-of-state students fund reduced tuition for in-state students. But apparently that wasn't happening in the UC system.
Out of state students pay about $50k/yr to attend a UC. In-state students pay about $12K, and the UC spends a bit over $30k per student. That means that each out-of-state student provides enough revenue to pay for an additional in-state student!
Absent additional state funding (lol), an enrollment cap would necessarily result in tuition increases. I really really hope it doesn't get passed.
A couple of important notes FTA: 1) the cap is currently not limiting for the system as a whole, as the proportion is around 16% 2) It also includes a per-campus 20% cap, with raised caps for campuses that are already above 20%. So Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD will be prevented from raising their nonresident proportions, and new growth will be redirected to schools like Merced (only 1% nonresident students). My personal…
They pay much more in tuition than the UC spends on their education, and much of the remainder gets spent on in-state residents.
In-state admissions have fallen at highly competitive schools like UCLA not because out-of-state students are taking up more of a set number of spots, but because the amount of in-state students whose educations the UC can afford to subsidize has fallen because of decreasing state funding per student.
Declining admit rates of in-state students is a problem, but out-of-state students are part of the solution. I really, really hope this proposal doesn't get passed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't entitled to state funds if they ignore the state's wishes. If they want full autonomy they need to go private.
I don't believe "going private" is an option for any of the UC schools.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-26/ucla-wins...
A couple of important notes FTA: 1) the cap is currently not limiting for the system as a whole, as the proportion is around 16% 2) It also includes a per-campus 20% cap, with raised caps for campuses that are already above 20%. So Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD will be prevented from raising their nonresident proportions, and new growth will be redirected to schools like Merced (only 1% nonresident students). My personal…
Good. State universities are perversely incentivized to prefer higher paying students from out-of-state and international. University of Washington, the state's top school, is now 1/3 non-state residents. It's a serious problem.
It's not perverse if out-of-state students fund reduced tuition for in-state students. But apparently that wasn't happening in the UC system.
State funding can prevent the ratio from getting too far out of whack. Which is exactly what UC is doing.
The real problem is probably exploding tuition rates. But that's another conversation entirely...
> The proposed limit on students from other states and countries — which would be the first ever for the 10-campus public research university — comes after a scathing state audit last year found that UC was hurting California students by admitting too many out-of-state applicants. UC President Janet Napolitano has blasted those findings as unfair and unwarranted, but state lawmakers are requiring that UC adopt a poli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not perverse if out-of-state students fund reduced tuition for in-state students. But apparently that wasn't happening in the UC system.
I'm an undergraduate at a UC school right now, and I can tell you that that is happening in the UC system. State funding per student has collapsed [1] and campuses are scrambling to cover the costs. One way to do that is by increasing tuition, and another is by admitting out-of-state students who pay massive premiums to attend the university. Out of state students pay about $50k/yr to attend a UC. In-state students p…
Or, how about the UC system reduces spending per student?