I don't understand why is it ok for a university to serve a political purpose. A university is a place in which science is done, nothing more. No matter by whom.
UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
31–40 of 95 posts
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#32Earlier 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…
Fewer out of state students at a higher tuition could yield the same funding. Do we know what the curve looks like?
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not blackmail. Funding contingent on policy changes is a norm, not just in the California but in the US and, I'm going to go out on a limb, across all western democracies. State legislators presumably have the power to compel policy changes in the UC system, so conditional funding isn't really even them playing hardball.
Actually that's not true in California. The UC system is constitutionally independent from the state, and answers only to the Board of Regents. They could go full private and the California government couldn't do anything about it beyond withdrawing funding.
That's not quite right; the University is a public trust defined in the California Constitution, which defines the role of the Board of Regents and limits legislative control over the board. The Regents could not go "full private" as that would violate the Constitution.
Also, the Board of Regents consists almost entirely of 7 government officials and 18 gubernatorial appointees (the exceptions being two members representing alumni, a faculty member, a student member, and the current or acting President of the University.)
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#34I don't understand why is it ok for a university to serve a political purpose. A university is a place in which science is done, nothing more. No matter by whom.
University's should do more than science. Ideally they should be institutions of higher learning. This should include things beyond just STEM. Languages, history, religion, philosophy, literature, and on and on.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#35> 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…
> Isn't this blackmail? Or am I missing something?
Blackmail is demanding money, etc., under the threat of revealing saving information.
Offering money in exchange for doing something that the offering party wants isn't blackmail, or even anything similar.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perverse because even if out-of-state subsidizes in-state it is better for the school to push it even further. The school and in-state population have a conflict of interests. 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 school and in-state population have a conflict of interests Is it that clear that they do? For out-of-state students who leave after graduating, in-state students gained a broader network contact. For those who settle in California, the economy and tax base just grew.
Uhhh yes? The schools have only so many spots. In-state students who don't get an acceptance letter receive no benefit when some rich kid from another state or country gets in. The in-state student ends up going to a lesser school and they're worse off for it. The rich kid gets a top tier education and quite likely returns home after graduating.
So yeah. There's absolutely a conflict of interests. I'm surprised this is an unpopular opinion on HN. I expected lots of upvotes. It's a well known and widely discussed issue up here in Seattle.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the above numbers, a little less than 33 ($1MM / (30k/student)). Not that you shouldn't care about such things, but that particular instance doesn't appear to materially affect the undergraduate population.
Because s/he wants to build up a straw man. I was in the Chancellor's house before Dirks moved in and it was in dire need of repair. That plan was also made when Birgeneau was still Chancellor. The fence... not sure if that was a judicious use of UC money.
I think it's mainly about the $700k fence.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The school and in-state population have a conflict of interests Is it that clear that they do? For out-of-state students who leave after graduating, in-state students gained a broader network contact. For those who settle in California, the economy and tax base just grew.
Uhhh yes? The schools have only so many spots. In-state students who don't get an acceptance letter receive no benefit when some rich kid from another state or country gets in. The in-state student ends up going to a lesser school and they're worse off for it. The rich kid gets a top tier education and quite likely returns home after graduating. So yeah. There's absolutely a conflict of interests. I'm surprised this…
I think it's long- versus short-term horizons. If your state fills with less-qualified in-staters at the expense of qualified out-of-staters, that feels good now but is uncompetitive in the long run. (Consider what would happen if California's start-up founders hadn't been drawn in by its universities.) If, on the other hand, you neglect the local population then that, too, is bad. Either way, it's a question of balance.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#39Earlier 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…
> Absent additional state funding (lol), an enrollment cap would necessarily result in tuition increases.
I don't know why the "lol" is there, as the enrollment cap is a condition of additional state funding.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many more undergraduates would there be revenue for if UC stopped doing things like paying $1MM in renovation costs for the Chancellor's house? http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/29/campus-spends-1-million-c...
Given the above numbers, a little less than 33 ($1MM / (30k/student)). Not that you shouldn't care about such things, but that particular instance doesn't appear to materially affect the undergraduate population.
Students pay for 4+ years and out of state tuition is 50K so 5 students.