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.

Anonymous wrote:UVA and U of M have monster endowments. I don’t know about the Cal schools.

N

They don’t use them to fund operations, no school does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Our state legislature won't pay for it. Out of state tuition is needed because Virginia doesn't fund it's colleges the way California does.

the state could mandate it without increasing funding.

And guess what happens to the in state tuition rate? Their ability to get the latest equipment, update facilities, etc?

The money doesn't just appear. Also, don't start the "but they have an endowment." Dipping heavily into endowments isn't fiscally responsible.

Yup, decreasing out of state admits makes it harder to keep up facilities, faculty and to provide meaningful aid to first gen and urm, which is why these proposals may not get very far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Our state legislature won't pay for it. Out of state tuition is needed because Virginia doesn't fund it's colleges the way California does.

the state could mandate it without increasing funding.

And guess what happens to the in state tuition rate? Their ability to get the latest equipment, update facilities, etc?

The money doesn't just appear. Also, don't start the "but they have an endowment." Dipping heavily into endowments isn't fiscally responsible.

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UC system and the students oppose this plan because the proposed plan will not fully compensate the system for the loss of tuition revenue. Far from a done deal.

This is why there were exceptions for UCLA and Berkeley before. They needed the money to pay for star professors, facilities, etc before. Look it up online, the UC's are full of profs making 300K+ per year. Instate tuition just doesn't cut it.

Yup, this strikes me as a likely outcome—limits for most of the UCs, with exceptions for the ones considered most prestigious (and possibly higher OOS tuition rates for those campuses, too).

Hey California rising seniors, Alabama is always looking for OOS. (I'm NOT 'Roll Tide' poster)

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.

Anonymous wrote:The UC system and the students oppose this plan because the proposed plan will not fully compensate the system for the loss of tuition revenue. Far from a done deal.

This is why there were exceptions for UCLA and Berkeley before. They needed the money to pay for star professors, facilities, etc before. Look it up online, the UC's are full of profs making 300K+ per year. Instate tuition just doesn't cut it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Our state legislature won't pay for it. Out of state tuition is needed because Virginia doesn't fund it's colleges the way California does.

the state could mandate it without increasing funding.

Hello, five years to graduate from UVA! Decreased funding means fewer faculty and classes.

The UC system and the students oppose this plan because the proposed plan will not fully compensate the system for the loss of tuition revenue. Far from a done deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Our state legislature won't pay for it. Out of state tuition is needed because Virginia doesn't fund it's colleges the way California does.

This was the case for a very long time, dating at least back to when I attended UVA as an OOS student in the early 90s. But Republicans also ran state politics for a long time and drove the huge reductions in higher ed spending; it’s just in the last few years that Democrats have fully taken over VA state government, so it will be interesting to see if they push in the other direction. I hope not, as I do think UVA’s geographic diversity distinguishes it from UNC, UT, and some other state flagships (and I live OOS and would love for my kids to have UVA as an option). But I wouldn’t be surprised if VA Democrats saw this as a winning political issue and good policy.

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.

Exactly. UVA isn’t going to drop in educational quality if more spots are reserved for the most capable in state students

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.

Cal Poly probably has the highest out of state demand and is about 16% OOS. Cal Poly Pomona, for example, is around 3% OOS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hopefully Virginia has to do the same

Our state legislature won't pay for it. Out of state tuition is needed because Virginia doesn't fund it's colleges the way California does.

the state could mandate it without increasing funding.

That would result in lower cashflow.

and?

NP. Point would be that the university may not be able to afford the lower cashflow.