Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Virginia ranks relatively low in funding higher education, so out of state enrollment is needed from a funding perspective. North Carolina, for instance, provides significantly higher funding for higher education.

This, UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. Most publics are at 100%

Above is true.

However, the percentage of budget that comes from the Commonwealth is a bit higher than 6% if one separates out the (large) UVA Health System and only considers the academic budget.

It’s actually not true at all for a flagship.

First, your point on the UVA budget is right but it’s not “a bit higher” than 6%. It’s almost 12%. And you should separate out the medical center, because UVA does as well in its budgeting and the medical center is self funded. The state provides almost 12% of the academic division (ie, the university) revenues, it does not fund the medical center. See here: https://uvafinance.virginia.edu/sites/uvafinance/files/2024-08/Pages%20from%20June%2024%20Finance%20Committee%20Slides%20Final.pdf

Now, is that 12% vs 100% at other large publics? Apples to apples comparisons are tough because everyone budgets differently, but no, it’s not even close. For example, UNC was mentioned. Even if you strip out revenue from patients (because they combine the hospital and academic parts) to make it more like UVA, state appropriations are about 18% of total revenues. At Michigan it is about 7%. And so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Virginia ranks relatively low in funding higher education, so out of state enrollment is needed from a funding perspective. North Carolina, for instance, provides significantly higher funding for higher education.

This, UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. Most publics are at 100%

Above is true.

However, the percentage of budget that comes from the Commonwealth is a bit higher than 6% if one separates out the (large) UVA Health System and only considers the academic budget.

Anonymous wrote:They can be “need blind” and still filter for economic status. For example, is it harder to get in from an expensive private than from a large city public that seves an underserved population?

Fine with me if it is. It’s a public school serving the state of Virginia, whose residents are overwhelmingly educated in public schools.

They can be “need blind” and still filter for economic status. For example, is it harder to get in from an expensive private than from a large city public that seves an underserved population?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Virginia ranks relatively low in funding higher education, so out of state enrollment is needed from a funding perspective. North Carolina, for instance, provides significantly higher funding for higher education.

This, UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. Most publics are at 100%

No publics universities get anywhere close to 100% from the state. Room and board is not state funded. Most sponsored research is not state funded. Athletics is mostly not state funded. Hospitals are funded by patient fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Virginia ranks relatively low in funding higher education, so out of state enrollment is needed from a funding perspective. North Carolina, for instance, provides significantly higher funding for higher education.

This, UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. Most publics are at 100%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Virginia ranks relatively low in funding higher education, so out of state enrollment is needed from a funding perspective. North Carolina, for instance, provides significantly higher funding for higher education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

1/3rd out of state is a very large contingent, larger than most of the examples you are citing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define “non-privileged.”

“non-privileged” = any kid who is other than white or Asian / Indian.

In other words: whites benefit from unearned privilege, just like Asians and Indians.

What unearned privilege do Asians and Indians have?

Seriously? You are seriously asking an answer to the obvious?

Asian households in the United States have the highest median household income, significantly surpassing white and other households.

In 2022-2023, Asian median household income was approximately $108,000 to $113,000, compared to the next highest group, which was white household income of only $81,000 to $89,000.


That level of disparity doesn’t simply happen, not is it earned. The discrepancy is obvious evidence of racial bias in society, favoring Asians.

Asian household income is decent but the bamboo ceiling is real. Asians are tolerated, but not promoted for leadership roles.

That is a ridiculous claim and not borne out by the disparity I posted. Only unearned privilege explains the disparity (which is even greater than white unearned privilege).

On average, Asians make better decisions

Or, the more likely explanation is that Asians benefit from unearned privilege.

How is a social bias in favor of asians over even whites a more likely explanation than better decisions?

In almost every statistic from teen pregnancy to auto accidents, we see better decision-making by asians (on average).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define “non-privileged.”

“non-privileged” = any kid who is other than white or Asian / Indian.

In other words: whites benefit from unearned privilege, just like Asians and Indians.

What unearned privilege do Asians and Indians have?

Seriously? You are seriously asking an answer to the obvious?

Asian households in the United States have the highest median household income, significantly surpassing white and other households.

In 2022-2023, Asian median household income was approximately $108,000 to $113,000, compared to the next highest group, which was white household income of only $81,000 to $89,000.


That level of disparity doesn’t simply happen, not is it earned. The discrepancy is obvious evidence of racial bias in society, favoring Asians.

Asian household income is decent but the bamboo ceiling is real. Asians are tolerated, but not promoted for leadership roles.

That is a ridiculous claim and not borne out by the disparity I posted. Only unearned privilege explains the disparity (which is even greater than white unearned privilege).

On average, Asians make better decisions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define “non-privileged.”

“non-privileged” = any kid who is other than white or Asian / Indian.

In other words: whites benefit from unearned privilege, just like Asians and Indians.

What unearned privilege do Asians and Indians have?

Seriously? You are seriously asking an answer to the obvious?

Asian households in the United States have the highest median household income, significantly surpassing white and other households.

In 2022-2023, Asian median household income was approximately $108,000 to $113,000, compared to the next highest group, which was white household income of only $81,000 to $89,000.


That level of disparity doesn’t simply happen, not is it earned. The discrepancy is obvious evidence of racial bias in society, favoring Asians.

Asian household income is decent but the bamboo ceiling is real. Asians are tolerated, but not promoted for leadership roles.

That is a ridiculous claim and not borne out by the disparity I posted. Only unearned privilege explains the disparity (which is even greater than white unearned privilege).

A lot of these immigrants post 2000 were only let into the country because of their technical skills. That is going to skew the average higher.

The income disparity was smaller but existed prior to that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

UVA goes for a relatively low percentage of in state, compared to most others (UNC requires 85% in state?). Isn’t that against the mission of large public state universities?

Compared to who?
UVA is about 1/3 out of state
Michigan is about 50/50
Berkeley and UCLA are about 15-20% out of state
UNC is about 18% out of state

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define “non-privileged.”

“non-privileged” = any kid who is other than white or Asian / Indian.

In other words: whites benefit from unearned privilege, just like Asians and Indians.

What unearned privilege do Asians and Indians have?

Seriously? You are seriously asking an answer to the obvious?

Asian households in the United States have the highest median household income, significantly surpassing white and other households.

In 2022-2023, Asian median household income was approximately $108,000 to $113,000, compared to the next highest group, which was white household income of only $81,000 to $89,000.


That level of disparity doesn’t simply happen, not is it earned. The discrepancy is obvious evidence of racial bias in society, favoring Asians.

Racial bias in society favoring asians?

If you said that asians benefit from growing up in a culture that they had no part in creating or something like that, I could sort of see some sort of convoluted rationalization that could be used to say that asians are benefitting from unearned privilege but it's a pretty wild claim to say that society has a bias in favor of asians

Asians simply make better decisions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define “non-privileged.”

“non-privileged” = any kid who is other than white or Asian / Indian.

In other words: whites benefit from unearned privilege, just like Asians and Indians.

What unearned privilege do Asians and Indians have?

Seriously? You are seriously asking an answer to the obvious?

Asian households in the United States have the highest median household income, significantly surpassing white and other households.

In 2022-2023, Asian median household income was approximately $108,000 to $113,000, compared to the next highest group, which was white household income of only $81,000 to $89,000.


That level of disparity doesn’t simply happen, not is it earned. The discrepancy is obvious evidence of racial bias in society, favoring Asians.

This is 100% bat$hit crazy.

Can you please give five examples of racial bias in society that favors Asians?

(Middle aged white man here, asking the question.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt it. The wealth of out-of-state kids in the first year class is absurd. My child went to a 55k private so is no stranger to being around money but has never seen wealth like there is at UVA among many OOS kids. They had a professor comment on it, unprovoked during office hours because the professor feels like it's really increased in recent years.

Hearing the same about private colleges. I think wealthy has just increased so much in the past few years. A nice, $2m house is now $3m or more. People feel poor making $500,000 a year.

500k feels poor?

No. But it doesn’t move the needle or qualify as “rich” in the eyes of colleges.

For those spots (which mirror the FGLI spots on the other side of things), top colleges are looking for wealth at least a few levels up from merely earning $500k of annual income. They’re looking for families with the ability to make seven-figure donations.