UCLA Chancellor discusses budget crisis, plans, priorities

[Bay]

CA resident here, with a question. From another thread on this board, I learned that Cal Grants are $9,200 per year (please confirm the accuracy of this) and I was surprised because UC fees are $7-8K per year, and CSU fees are $3,400 per year. I know these fees do not include room and board, but with 23 CSU campuses, and 8 UC campuses, I imagine that there is a campus within driving distance of the homes of the majority of CA residents. (There are 3 within 25 miles of my home).

So obviously, without more than $9,200 (plus the Pell Grant amount, too), students still struggle to pay for the entire COA, but in this economy, wouldn't it make more sense for students to attend the college closest to their homes and commute if they are relying on government grants, rather than boost the grants to amounts that allow everyone to attend any college they want (including USC) and live on campus just because they want a certain college experience?

I know that Arnold talked about eliminating Cal Grants, and it seems to make sense that they at least be reduced to the minimum amount needed to attend the closest CA state u to your home.

I am interested in others' comments (and corrections to my understanding) about this.

[toodleooo]

"Tuition lawsuit. But California and other states are now under heavy pressure to repeal in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, represents a group of students who are suing California. Their suit alleges that California is violating a 1996 federal law that prohibits states from favoring illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens. California's tuition rate for out-of-state students is about four times the in-state tuition that undocumented students living there are eligible to receive. According to Kobach's calculations, California taxpayers spend $200 million every year to subsidize the in-state tuition of an estimated 25,000 undocumented students enrolled in the state's public colleges. A judgment in favor of Kobach and his clients might force California to reimburse out-of-state students and drop its in-state tuition policy for illegal immigrants. An appeals court is expected to issue an opinion on the matter soon."

since the reagan amnesty, i've been telling people we pay a higher price than we knew just to keep the price of lettuce at about a dollar a head. fortunately for california, there are plenty of other states out there that haven't yet shared the wealth of multi-culturalism. please feel free to let them all attend YOUR public universities at discounted tuition rates.

[dstark]

Legal Residence Information - Office Of The Registrar

Hmmmm.

"Who is a California Resident? If you are an adult who is not an alien present in the U.S. in a nonimmigrant status which precludes you from establishing domicile in the U.S. (e.g., a B, F, H2, H3, or J visa) and you want to be classified as a resident for tuition purposes, you must have established your continuous presence in California more than one year immediately preceding the residence determination date for the semester during which you propose to attend the University, and you must have given up any previous residence. You must also present objective evidence that you intend to make California your permanent home. Evidence of intent must be dated one year before the term for which you seek resident classification. If these steps are delayed, the one-year durational period will be extended until you have demonstrated both continuous presence and intent for one full year. Physical presence within the state solely for educational purposes does not constitute the establishment of California residence under state law, regardless of the length of your stay. Your residence cannot be derived from your spouse nor, since you are an adult, from your parents. Likewise, a registered domestic partner does not derive residence from the other registered domestic partner.



"Graduate of a California High School (AB540) You may be entitled to an exemption from nonresident tuition if you attended high school in California for three (3) or more years and graduated from a California high school (or attained the equivalent). You are not eligible for this exemption if you are a nonimmigrant alien."

"

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

CA resident here, with a question. From another thread on this board, I learned that Cal Grants are $9,200 per year (please confirm the accuracy of this) and I was surprised because UC fees are $7-8K per year, and CSU fees are $3,400 per year.

The provisional award letters I got said that CALA is estimated at $8,670 and CALB is $1,551. Fees and insurance for UCLA come to $8,970.

[Bay]

Re:#62,
Many illegal immigrants are likely to be enrolled at our community colleges, because they are not eligible for federal (and other) FA at many other u's. At $20 per credit hour (now going up to $26), CA ccs are a steal, and heavily subsidized by taxpayer $$. 2.7 million students are enrolled in CA's 110 ccs, and even at $20/hr, one third of those are eligible to pay no tuition at all. I am quite amazed by it all. Fees Could Rise by 30% at California Community*Colleges - Chronicle.com.

[dstark]

"Anti-immigrant activists celebrated September 15 when the Court of Appeal in Sacramento issued its ruling in a suit challenging a California law granting in-state tuition rates to students who are undocumented immigrants. Called AB540, the law was passed by the state legislature in 2001 to offer the lower tuition to students in all three state college and university systems. The difference in dollars is substantial: for the UC system, in-state tuition is about $18,000 less; for the state universities, it's $8,000 less, and community colleges charge over $100 less per credit for the in-state rate.

The ruling by a three-judge panel doesn't settle the lawsuit, though. It merely sends the matter back to the Yolo County Superior Court, where the suit was originally filed back in 2005, for further litigation. The core issue is whether AB540 conflicts with federal law that prohibits states from granting undocumented immigrants just such educational benefits, if those benefits are based on residency.

Supporters of AB540, including the state's university systems, say they believe that the law as written does not violate that federal dictate. To qualify for the in-state tuition rate, a student must spend at least three years in, and graduate from, a California high school. "The legislature tried to fashion a set of criteria that were not based on residency," said Chris Patti, the UC attorney involved in the litigation. "It thought it had done that, and this one court of appeal disagreed."

As defendants in the lawsuit, UC, CSU and CC are weighing their legal options. Patti says UC is considering two options. "One is to file a petition for rehearing, which means asking the Court of Appeal to reconsider, or in this case clarify, what a portion of its ruling was," Patti said. "The other is to file a petition of review with the California Supreme Court." And should those options fail to protect AB540, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible, he said.

There is more at stake here than California's law, too. Nine other states--Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington–have similar tuition policies at their public universities. Kansas was actually the first target for legal challenge back in 2004,when the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the virulently anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed suit on behalf of out-of-state student plaintiffs. The Institute's lead attorney, Kris W. Kobach, is also leading the challenge to California's law. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, has a prominent place in anti-immigrant litigation and policy. He represented Hazelton, Pennsylvania, which adopted ordinances designed by the mayor to make the town the most "hostile" place in America for undocumented immigrants.

Unfortunately for Kobach and his Hazelton clients, a federal court ruled the town's ordinances unconstitutional in 2007. That same year, Kobach also lost his challenge to Kansas' in-state tuition benefit for undocumented immigrants. But the California Court of Appeal ruling keeps this anti-immigrant effort alive.

The argument against AB540 and its analogues in other states is that U.S. citizens are cheated by having to subsidize the educations of undocumented immigrant students who are breaking the law by being here. And out-of-state students are cheated by not benefiting from the lower in-state tuition–even though they are citizens or legal residents. But as is often the case with anything related to immigrants, there is much heat and little light brought to the facts. The benefit of lower tuition under AB540 is not granted only, or even primarily, to undocumented immigrants.

Eligibility extends to students who may have moved out of California after graduating high school as well as to immigrants who have legal residency. The precise number of undocumented students receiving the in-state rate is not known but it isn't very high. In the UC system, 1,639 students were eligible for in-state tuition rates under AB540 in the 2006-2007 school year, according to UC spokesman Ricardo Vasquez. Of those, 1,200 students were permanent residents or citizens. The CSU system doesn't collect data on the legal status of students who are eligible for AB540, according to a spokeswoman, and doesn't know how many might be undocumented. But she said an "educated guess" would put the total at about twice what the UC system has.

Of course, for those who believe that undocumented immigrants don't contribute but only drain resources from this country, even one student benefiting from AB540 would be too many. It is ideology over rationality. If rationality prevailed, the clear advantages to society in making higher education as affordable as possible to anyone motivated to achieve would win the day. But for now, it will be up to the legal defenders of rational educational and immigrant policy to continue the fight in court."

[epiphany]

But California and other states are now under heavy pressure to repeal in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants.

Certainly is a lot more supportable than eliminating Pells to legal residents who are in fact lifelong CA residents, or in assuming that Pell grantees are underqualified vs. the competition, which has not been demonstrated.

Bay, the problem is the different programs and admissions standards at the various campuses, when the Cal grant recipients within traveling distance do not necessarily qualify for the most local campus -- or are better qualified for distant campuses than other applicants to those campuses. It's also looking strictly at economics and nothing else. Admissions is a mutual dynamic, with applicants seeking to maximize opportunities and institutions simultaneously seeking the best talent from the widest geographical area possible or desired.

[epiphany]

Post 63:
The page confirms a one-year residency requirement.

[dstark]

Are illegal immigrants aliens?

I'm finding the rules very confusing.

It looks to me like illegal immigrants are included in law AB540.

[menloparkmom]

"You are not eligible for this exemption if you are a nonimmigrant alien."
What the heck is a non immigrant alien?

[dstark]

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[epiphany]

Post 65:
I don't think they should be entitled even to enroll in cc's, let alone be funded for that. We've had this discussion on other threads on (big) CC over time. A reverse path to citizenship, with attendant privileges, is okay by me, provided that some remuneration is returned to the gov't for previous benefits received -- such as national service prior to enrollment & FA.

Legal resident Pell grantees who have qualified, and then some, for the reach UC campuses are hardly an appropriate target to blame for the massive CA budget problems. Several of my previous posts allude to quantifiable excessive spending in many categories on many levels, should anyone care to investigate, spending which has nothing to do with Pell grantees but much to do with social problems including those afforded to millions of in-state illegal immigrants, including also social welfare and legal redress (!) programs being conducted within public schools, during the school day, and unrelated to academics.

Those posts of mine don't even begin to touch other categories of administrative waste by the millions in CA agencies.

And while a Pell grantee may "on the books" get a supposed stand-alone tip, that technicality is about as meaningful in itself right now as an Ivy legacy. The reality is that qualified UC applicants far, far exceed the number of spots at campuses other than Merced. The committees can and will be selective, because they can and will find FA students of outstanding accomplishment. For the most part, those are not going to be from the same population that should be attending community colleges only, if that.

P.S. Pell grantees include those who have received Regents scholarships at Berkeley and UCLA. And if anyone thinks those are routinely given to losers "likely to drop out," you need to do some serious research. They are given to 1-2% of those students with an already unannounced admission to that campus. They are strictly merit. And typically (not surprisingly) these are additionally ELC admits, but not all ELC admits are offered the Regents.

[epiphany]

(Edited & expanded post #63):

The 3-years rule takes affect if you do not qualify for the one-year rule for some reason (such as, if your residency is not continuous, etc.) Readers here should not be misled into believing that you need to attend a CA high school for 3 years, or reside in CA for 3 years, to enjoy CA residency for admission & tuition. This is not the case.

[dstark]

I think that out-of-state residents only need to be here for 1 year.

"If you are an adult who is not an alien present in the U.S. in a nonimmigrant status"

I think illegal immigrants are aliens.

[menloparkmom]

re: post 70-
maybe the Calif-born[ or hatched] offspring of an alien from another planet?