I may be in the minority, but I am fine with California not being quite as provincial as Texas when it comes to admitting out-of-state applicants. It may be part of the reason that the UC system has so many great schools even beyond the four you mentioned.
I’ve don’t recall ever seeing a breakdown, but my guess is that many or most of the fantastic out-of-state and international students who come to California to study at its great institutions end up becoming “naturalized Californians,” which I view as a win-win. I might feel differently if qualified Californians were without excellent options, but they have excellent options even beyond the four (!) UCs you mentioned, and especially if we consider the CS and CC options.
I hear you, and that’s why they won’t change. It still sticks in the craw especially of tax paying alumni that their kid who has better grades than they ever did doesn’t get follow in their footsteps. Just a reality which is why the schools are lower the out of state admissions. Just FYI – the Native Texan in me still takes pride in Texas being perceived as “provincial” because it is self-described “like a whole other country”
I’m of the opinion that the diversity from out of state and international is part of what makes UC campuses do so well academically. The trick is to find the right balance in maximizing number of CA residents while maintaining the academic excellence that comes from diversity of backgrounds.
My guess is that this is just as true if not more true in Texas.
To be blunt this whole dispute seems like a lot of sour grapes on the part of parents and students. Parents and students have convinced themselves that excellent schools to which they can gain admission aren’t good enough, so they want to change the rules.
I don’t see it as the proper mission of the UCs (or CSUs) to make sure everyone gets their first choice. I’ll start to worry more about the UC programs when excellent students have no excellent in-state and affordable options.
This is how I see it and I feel like every single student in California who wants it will have SOME good option post-high school. It may mean a UC, it may mean a CSU, it may mean a CCC followed by transfer, sometimes through the TAG program. Every single student has at least one option. Every single student has a path to a bachelor’s degree, if they want it. That to me is absolutely fantastic and makes me happy to pay my CA taxes to support this. Not a single Caliornian who wants to continue their education will be denied. (Even many of our CCCs are free and some are piloting stipend programs - they are really going above and beyond to ensure the goal of a higher education for anyone who wants it.)
Huh? The campus is 80 miles from Yosemite, nearly two hour drive in good weather. And UCM is comprised of 60% Pell Grantees which means few are gonna have a car or other means to traverse those mountain roads.
There is a shuttle that goes from Merced to Yosemite several times a day. It is very feasible to go in the morning, hike all day, and take the shuttle back in the evening.
Normalized by state population, is the number of Texas high schoolers applying to UCs notably higher than, say, Arizona and Washington or, if we try to control for distance and income, Illinois? (I understand there isn’t a Texas equivalent in the middle of the country; Illinois with Chicago in it is perhaps a not-so-far-fetched comparison.)
For Texas applicants who are not in the top 6%, but who want to attend a college which they consider to be “elite”, there are more places available in California colleges than at UT Austin.
The Texans from our high school attending UCs weren’t admitted to their own state flagship. College admissions is a crazy system, but it is what it is. Full pay OOS students with top academics seem to be welcolmed in UCs. The top 6% rule means they can’t always attend their own state flagship. Candidly, private high schools push the UCs as an elite more accessible alternative.
FWIW they all seemed quite happy at the various UC schools. Maybe 6-8 per year from our class of 100 attend. All good.
For California applicants who are not in the top 6% (if CA were to adopt that methodology), but who want to attend a college that they consider to be “elite”, are there more options in Texas than California?
I realize elite is subjective, so for the sake of calculation, I’m going to use USNWR’s numbers.
There are 129,882 undergraduates (as of Fall 2022) at the four UCs that USNWR ranks higher than UT Austin. In 2022, CA’s population was 38,965,193.
There are 41,309 undergraduates (as of Fall 2022) at UT Austin. In 2022, TX’s population was 30,8503,301
Texas has 1/3 of the undergraduate seats at their elite college compared to CA, yet their population is close to 80% of California’s. Texas is proud of it’s population growth, yet they don’t appear to be keeping up with being able to provide higher education to their residents.
I was trying to see if there was a metric for college age students by state. I found this website which has some interesting stats. I don’t know anything about the site or their method for data collecting.
Many Texans would rate Texas A&M as elite, particularly for engineering, business, and similar majors. It is a very large school and continues to grow due to vast amounts of unused land surrounding it. So that’s another 60k undergrads.
Thanks. I’m not familiar with TX guarantees, so was just using UT Austin since that was mentioned in this thread.
Edit to add:
If I add Texas A&M, that would add UCI and UCSB into the UC calculation (again, using USNWR for numbers). In that case CA offers 182,003 undergraduates seats and Texas offers 98,821 seats - closer to 50%. Still not as many seats in those colleges per capita compared to CA.
