UC proposes its first enrollment cap on out-of-state students

Post by xenihn » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 12:01 AM UTC

yaacov wrote: post #13

tptacek wrote: post #6

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…

Post by swuecho » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 12:02 AM UTC

yaacov wrote: post #14

azernik wrote: post #12

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…

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-…

Post by tmccrmck » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 12:06 AM UTC

eric_the_read wrote: post #23

Domenic_S wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

Post by labster » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 12:09 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #5

smaili wrote: post #2

> 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…

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.

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 07, 2017, 12:13 AM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #18

tptacek wrote: post #6

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.

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...