<p>Sorry to intrude on a UC site, since my son goes to USC, but I do think the problems facing California and its universities are shared. So many California HS students are rejected from the UCs and USC, and many people look to competition from out of state students, but the recruitment of foreign students, especially from China by USC is shameful IMO. Just look at the Human Rights Violations in China. We educate these kids and rather than staying in California and starting businesses here and improving our economy, most go back to their home countries well-educated, and in the case of the UCs, paid by California taxpayers. This is an article in the L.A. Times:</p>
<p>“For the eighth consecutive year, USC enrolled the highest number of foreign students of any U.S. university last year, a new report shows. USC, which recruits strongly in Asia, hosted 7,482 international students in the 2008-09 school year, according to the study by the Institute of International Education with support from the State Department.”</p>
<p>I have two kids in college now, and watched so many great local kids get rejected from our schools, despite excellent grades and ECs. We need to strengthen California, not China! India and China are expanding, we are contracting. It’s unwise IMO to discuss college admissions without responding to the influx of international students, and the recruiting of international students by California universities at the expense of our local kids. </p>
<p>Thanks for letting me vent a little here—very frustrating to me, as a native Californian.</p>
<p>Thanks, Dstark. I stumbled across your exchange here. Very informative! Very interesting what is happening in California. I read somewhere that only about 15% of California government is flexible. So much is set in stone based on referendums. that’s why we’re in a pickle!</p>
<p>BTW, I love my neighborhood, considered “upscale”, but if Proposition 13 was repealed, 90% of my elderly neighbors, all on social security, would have to move, and they worry about this. where would they move to?</p>
<p>You’re right about prop 13. I was watching older people worry about property taxes in the 70’s. I don’t think repealing prop 13 is the answer.</p>
<p>Controlling government spending would be nice. Maybe changing the referendum process. No more spending options for voters until Cal has a balanced budget.</p>
<p>While your point is still valid, just understand that the link you provided includes grad students. No UC has that many international undergrads. Cal has the most at 6%. UCLA is 3%. 'SC is 11% international at the undergrad level. Some of those at 'SC are long-time California “residents” on a visa, i.e., parents work in high-tech Silicon Valley, for example. (Three-year California residents on visaswho graduate from a California HS are considered in-state residents for tuition purposes at UC.)</p>
<p>For instance, suppose UC Berkeley raised its tuition by $20,000 per year and gave all but it’s richest students an extra $20,000 scholarship. With the extra money it got from its richest students, it could balance its budget. And, having done so, it would not need to burden students even from middle-class families.</p>
<p>I don’t see where he defines the income of the “richest students.” </p>
<p>The problem is that if the limit is set too high, there won’t be enough “rich students” to balance the budget as he proposes. </p>
<p>And, if the limit is set too low in order to capture more “full payers” you’ll find lots of people “gaming the financial system” to get under the limit - either by claiming to be separated to drop income or hiding income/assets.</p>
<p>Blue Bayou, thanks for the information. Grad student or undergrad still irks me. It’s the total of 23% at USC, the highest of any university. Steven Sample made it his stated priority 8 years ago to heavily recruit students from China. With the U.S. in such dire straights economically, I just don’t see the wisdom in this course of action. But my kids just went through the rather grueling college app process, and I saw so many good kids, and alumni kids rejected from USC.</p>
<p>“I don’t think repealing prop 13 is the answer.”</p>
<p>I think it is, but with more radical changes: Elimination of all property, sales and corporate taxes, replaced by one progressive personal income tax. Pretty wild.</p>
<p>I’ve thought for many years that UC should tie fees to family income, so that higher income families are paying more. Note how I’m not giving a specific level for “higher income family”, but let’s assume it covers families that would be full-pay at private schools. Post-increase, COA at a UC is going to be in the high $20k range. That’s around $20-25k a year less then a private, assuming no merit aid. This still leaves some wiggle room for the state to charge wealthier families more, but only to a point. Add on the possibility of taking five years to finish, consider the differences in services provided by a private versus a cash-strapped public, and a UC COA of $40k doesn’t look so great to full-pay families. Maybe for Cal and UCLA, but the other campuses would be a harder sell. And that’s with only an additional $10k being added on. Adding another $20k and putting UC COA up near $50k a year is going to scare many full-pay families away from the system.</p>
<p>^Exactly. Even at $30K per year, Cal is not a bargain for the full-payers if it takes 5 years to graduate. $30K x 5 = $150K plus one year’s lost income comes out just about the same as 4 years at Yale.</p>
<p>Good heavens UCLA and UC Riverside are not equal. You can’t possibly look at the acceptance rates and average them considering all the UC campuses.</p>
<p>coolw,
I would assume that the kid would select the same major whether he attends Cal or Yale, so his chances of getting a job right out of college would be the same. If he’s at Yale for 4 years rather than Cal for 5 years, he gets a job one year sooner and has one more year of income if he goes to Yale. Get it?</p>
<p>Your assumption does not bode well with reality.
There was a thread of some parent asking whether her kid should go to UCB or Harvard (full pay) earlier this year. Not everyone would agree with you.</p>
<p>Besides the assumption that every major at Yale is better than at UCB is not valid. And not all majors at the UC take 5 years to graduate.</p>
<p>For example, I want to major in nursing and get a job right after graduation. I may want to choose UC San Francisco, not Yale. I am afraid you don’t get it.</p>
<p>Bay is actually assuming that all things are equal between the two schools except for COA and time to finish. Not all majors at a UC take 5 years, but many freshmen don’t know what they want to major in, or end up changing majors, so assuming the 5th year isn’t unreasonable. </p>
<p>Also, UCSF is grad only. I get your point, but I like accuracy. </p>
<p>Bay, seems only fair to only count the undergrad costs, not lost salary, so UC is still $50k of (aftertax!) savings for the parents. Though we may provide a safe haven if the job market offers up nothing to a new grad, I’m not on the hook to pay them a starting salary.</p>
<p>Not everyone can get into HYPS. That’s the reality. So UCB/UCLA/UCSD still have plenty of customers. And the UC fee increase does not help CA kids have higher acceptance rate to HYPS.</p>
Maybe changing the referendum process. No more spending options for voters until Cal has a balanced budget.</p>