status of CA publics

drax12
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:35:33 +0000

…then increasing enrollment could reduce the burden on the state if the tuition and fee revenue from the additional students (even discounted for in-state and financial aid) is greater than the marginal cost of adding the additional students…



I don’t think you’re looking at it clearly. When have fees for state u’s ever been ‘revenue’?

UC is not a money-making venture. These students, their parents, are just covering their portion of cost, approximately 1/3 of fees, or cost reimbursement.

The state subsidizes the rest, so for every student the UC adds, the state has to subsdize > $20K more, assuming this is close to full cost ~ reflective of what full tuition is and what they charge non-residents, and even if there is a slight markup for non-residents who pay ‘full tuition.’

I’m sure this is total salaries of UC profs along with whatever portion of physical plant and other things attributed to educating undergrads. I’m sure this isn’t total cost that could go into the formula as the UC, being a state institution, can receive breaks from the state that other u’s, private ones, would be charged, even if privates receive some pretty hefty tax breaks themselves.

I agree that there is an optimum enrollment to take advantage of facilities and staff, but this isn’t what UC was trying to attain by bringing up ELC by 5%. Adding more students will just put more of a burden on the state as UC is busting at the seams already. The UC leadership just wasn’t thinking, and they do this all the time. There isn’t enough tax ‘revenue’ coming in from the residents to fund a maintaining of enrollment of the UC, much less undergrad expansion at current or decent fees as to what should be charged undergrads.



If a campus and its facilities and staff are underused…



Which campuses are under-utilized, let’s say underenrolled wrt present facilities and staff? Merced? Where else?

If the shortfall of state revenues were foreseen, perhaps Merced wouldn’t have been opened at least now. They can multiply the population growth by whatever way they wish to come up with a suitable size of what UC should be under their own madeup mandates – yeah it would be nice if all CA could receive a UC education, but if the revenue isn’t coming in because of the influx of mainly poor people, then they shouldn’t have expanded the frosh class parameters.

And the answer isn’t bringing up fees for some closer or at “full cost,” and charging nothing for others under Blue and Gold.