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.
[deleted]
UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
41–50 of 95 posts
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because nonresident admissions don't reduce the absolute number of Californians the system can support! 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-…
>decreasing state funding per student. I don't get this. Not only can a person who has pauper parents afford tuition + cash left over to pay the rent at any state school in the nation due to Pell Grants and subsidized student loans, but in California you still get additional state grants on top of that. Not to mention all the other freebies that California dumps on its residents. If you mean to say that kids aren't g…
Decreasing state funding for student manifests itself in a lower quality of education; not that the student is unable to pay their tuition, but that the school is unable to hire enough professors.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#43> 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.
Given that UC needs the funding to stay operational or competitive: It is extortion.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#44I 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.
In this situation I don't think it's possible to not political.
Aren't they being political by accepting out of state students who pay more money? Are they looking at applicants bank accounts or are they looking for applicants that would be successful and contribute to the diversity of the school?
UC makes the claim that they out-of-state funding creates more spots for in-state applicants, while the audit says otherwise.
Both are plausible explanations, but we need some actual numbers in order to determine whether having a bias toward accepting more out-of-state applicants really does increase in-state applicant admissions.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#45I 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.
Education policy is driven by politics. Saying that it's apolitical is just ignoring that aspect of reality.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#46The review that was done awhile ago showed that nonresidents reduced the amount of residents in the program, any attempt to merely walk-over the issue is a sign that you are lying and speaking in poor faith. As if there never was any negative set of circumstances that could be predicated fundamentally on the idea that did in people from here, all that talk, and all that pretense when you rap to just your favorite music video......
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Given that UC needs the funding to stay operational or competitive: It is extortion.
It's an $18.5 million piece of the ~$30 billion UC budget; it's not even 0.1%. It's hardly as critical as you are trying to paint it.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#48> 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…
UC is a public institution. It's arm-twisting, but a far cry from the crime of demanding compensation in exchange for not revealing damaging information. And arguably, it's an exchange; implementing the policy may cost the University system some tuition dollars, and some amount of funding for this loss seems justified.
A lot of political funding works this way. The drinking age in the US was set to 21 by the Federal government mandating that no state with an age lower than that would get their slice of highway funding.
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The additional 19m in funding doesn't get near the 56m (above cost of tuition) in funding the 3 universities above the 20% cut off recieve from out of state students. [0]
So we're talking a 40m/yr deficit from just 3 schools. If they were serious about funding these schools they would have done these numbers and given them a commensurate funding, but they didn't.
[0] http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-regents-expect-to...
Re: UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because nonresident admissions don't reduce the absolute number of Californians the system can support! 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-…
>decreasing state funding per student. I don't get this. Not only can a person who has pauper parents afford tuition + cash left over to pay the rent at any state school in the nation due to Pell Grants and subsidized student loans, but in California you still get additional state grants on top of that. Not to mention all the other freebies that California dumps on its residents. If you mean to say that kids aren't g…
The maximum Pell grant plus the maximum Stafford loan will not even cover UC tuition, let alone housing or other expenses.