University of California looking to reduce out of state students (LA Times today front page story)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t the Cal State system being addressed as well?

Out of state demand would be far lower for most Cal States than for UCs.

NO Cal States are reserved for Californians. Same with commmunity colleges. Very strict one year residency rules.

This is a moot point. Other than maybe Cal Poly, OOS demand for Cal States (particularly with OOS tuition) is low.

+1. As I posted somewhere earlier, Cal Poly SBO is something like 16% OOS. But, Cal Poly Pomona is only 3% OOS.

SLO is a really, really nice place to live - hippy'ish college town surrounded by vineyards and a short drive to the central CA coastline.

Pomona is a smoggy, hot pit surrounded by concrete.

Hence the difference in OOS demand.

Plus it's possible to cherry pick the UCs, too. Merced is 96% in state. Riverside is 90%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OOS students subsidize in-state students. They pay more than cost. If that is lost, they'd have to make it up somewhere or cut something, and they hate to cut anything.

Endowments are misunderstood. They are usually 80+% restricted to purpose by donors for specific purposes (e.g. the law school) that often don't have anything to do with undergraduate finances or students. Huge chunks chunks can belong to just one component, like the medical program. In the case of UVA and UM, nearly a third of the endowment is there and they do not have a single undergraduate there.

That bolded part should be stuck to the top of the forum. How many times do people reference the endowment in conversations about college as if it's a liquid fund that can be spent at will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t the Cal State system being addressed as well?

Out of state demand would be far lower for most Cal States than for UCs.

NO Cal States are reserved for Californians. Same with commmunity colleges. Very strict one year residency rules.

This is a moot point. Other than maybe Cal Poly, OOS demand for Cal States (particularly with OOS tuition) is low.

+1. As I posted somewhere earlier, Cal Poly SBO is something like 16% OOS. But, Cal Poly Pomona is only 3% OOS.

SLO is a really, really nice place to live - hippy'ish college town surrounded by vineyards and a short drive to the central CA coastline.

Pomona is a smoggy, hot pit surrounded by concrete.

Hence the difference in OOS demand.

Plus it's possible to cherry pick the UCs, too. Merced is 96% in state. Riverside is 90%.

You don’t need to cherry pick. Aside from Berkeley and UCLA, there is not a single UC school that has more than 7% out of state students. UC Irvine is 96% in state. UC Davis is 95% in state. UC Santa Cruz is 97% in state. UC Santa Barbara is 94% in state. UC San Diego is 93% in state. (UC Riverside is actually 99% in state, and UC Merced is >99% in state).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Noooo, people forget that schools like UVA are valued commodities because of selectivity. Don’t bring down the schools admission standards for instate kids with lower stats. This the reason that Michigan has increased in rankings while UNC has moved down. Michigan increased the number of oos students.

Sadly, Michigan increased the number of oos students to net more money, not because Michigan seniors are dumber than the rest of the country. The state coffers have largely dried up and they need to get money from somewhere. I've been guessing that also happened to UVA. Wonder what will be the economic hit for CA systems.

Think the Michigan legislature only pays 3% of UM's budget.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know how this might impact grad school applications? Or funding for grad students from OOS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Noooo, people forget that schools like UVA are valued commodities because of selectivity. Don’t bring down the schools admission standards for instate kids with lower stats. This the reason that Michigan has increased in rankings while UNC has moved down. Michigan increased the number of oos students.

Sadly, Michigan increased the number of oos students to net more money, not because Michigan seniors are dumber than the rest of the country. The state coffers have largely dried up and they need to get money from somewhere. I've been guessing that also happened to UVA. Wonder what will be the economic hit for CA systems.

Think the Michigan legislature only pays 3% of UM's budget.

It is about 3.6%, but those stats are wildly misleading. A more realistic percentage could be about 10X as high. The medical center is over half (53%) of UM's $9B budget and it is predominantly funded, as you would expect, by patient fees. Take out other areas where you would have no expectation for (or authorization to use) state appropriation funding (external sponsored research, athletics, housing, food) and you are left with activities (instruction, financial aid, administration) that will be closer to $2B, so the state appropriation is actually covering over 16%. But consider again that states appropriate to support only in-state students and about 50% of Michigan's undergraduates are actually OOS, and you can see that the state is actually supporting about a third of the expected cost for in-state undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is about 3.6%, but those stats are wildly misleading. A more realistic percentage could be about 10X as high. The medical center is over half (53%) of UM's $9B budget and it is predominantly funded, as you would expect, by patient fees. Take out other areas where you would have no expectation for (or authorization to use) state appropriation funding (external sponsored research, athletics, housing, food) and you are left with activities (instruction, financial aid, administration) that will be closer to $2B, so the state appropriation is actually covering over 16%. But consider again that states appropriate to support only in-state students and about 50% of Michigan's undergraduates are actually OOS, and you can see that the state is actually supporting about a third of the expected cost for in-state undergraduates.

that is some serious gymnastics to get to a 33% funding figure. State
Money is only used to support in-state students? Come on now. The State of Michigan funds 15% of the operation budget. Instate students pay more than 3 X less than OOS ($15.5K vs $51k) for tuition only. The States have an outsized influence on the schools compared to how they fund. In-state parents demand more say than their tax dollars provide. It’s politics, NOT finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is about 3.6%, but those stats are wildly misleading. A more realistic percentage could be about 10X as high. The medical center is over half (53%) of UM's $9B budget and it is predominantly funded, as you would expect, by patient fees. Take out other areas where you would have no expectation for (or authorization to use) state appropriation funding (external sponsored research, athletics, housing, food) and you are left with activities (instruction, financial aid, administration) that will be closer to $2B, so the state appropriation is actually covering over 16%. But consider again that states appropriate to support only in-state students and about 50% of Michigan's undergraduates are actually OOS, and you can see that the state is actually supporting about a third of the expected cost for in-state undergraduates.

that is some serious gymnastics to get to a 33% funding figure. State
Money is only used to support in-state students? Come on now. The State of Michigan funds 15% of the operation budget. Instate students pay more than 3 X less than OOS ($15.5K vs $51k) for tuition only. The States have an outsized influence on the schools compared to how they fund. In-state parents demand more say than their tax dollars provide. It’s politics, NOT finances.

It isn't gymnastics, it is just excluding things that state appropriations are generally prohibited from funding (patient fees, auxiliary activities, etc.). OOS students likely pay in excess of the real cost of attendance, thereby subsidizing in-state students in addition to the state appropriation. What was meant by the comment that appropriations only support in-state students was that in-state students are the ones that are afforded the discounted tuition, as you cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t the Cal State system being addressed as well?

Out of state demand would be far lower for most Cal States than for UCs.

NO Cal States are reserved for Californians. Same with commmunity colleges. Very strict one year residency rules.

When did this change, because when I went to CSU eons ago, I lived with some foreign students, and my neighbors were also foreign students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Great idea! I live in Pennsylvania. Hoping University of Pittsburgh does this too.

Pitt won’t do that - the reason is related to their “state-related charter”, they are not state owned.

This year’s freshman class is 44% OOS students.

https://www.pitt.edu/chancellor-search/state-related

The amount of money they get from the state will be dependent on the number of in-state students they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Limited choices in nj

This has been the case for 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Noooo, people forget that schools like UVA are valued commodities because of selectivity. Don’t bring down the schools admission standards for instate kids with lower stats. This the reason that Michigan has increased in rankings while UNC has moved down. Michigan increased the number of oos students.

That’s ridiculous. These schools could fill entire classes with qualified VA students. Standards would still remain high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t the Cal State system being addressed as well?

Out of state demand would be far lower for most Cal States than for UCs.

NO Cal States are reserved for Californians. Same with commmunity colleges. Very strict one year residency rules.

When did this change, because when I went to CSU eons ago, I lived with some foreign students, and my neighbors were also foreign students.

A lot easier for foreigners to get into CSUs or CCs to qualify for that student visa. The end goal for a lot of these kids is to remain in the US, either thru sponsorship or marriage.

A lot more East Coast kids should go to Cal State Long Beach. Awesome campus, very close to the beach, a lot cheaper than UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

We need this. UVA, WM, VT, and JMU are admitting a ton of kids from NJ lately.

Noooo, people forget that schools like UVA are valued commodities because of selectivity. Don’t bring down the schools admission standards for instate kids with lower stats. This the reason that Michigan has increased in rankings while UNC has moved down. Michigan increased the number of oos students.

People care more about options being available for their kids than rankings.

Not really, those same exact parents will stop sending their kids to the public flagship once the rankings start sliding down.

Same case with increased enrollment. Everyone wants increased enrollment to get their kid into college, but no one wants to send their kid to Penn State or Ohio State with 45,000+ enrollment and the expected decrease in selectivity and prestige.

Um, *plenty* of parents want to send their kids to those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well as a Californian, I hope this goes through.

Seriously. I firmly believe the vast majority of seats at any state university should be reserved for in-state applicants.