status of CA publics

drax12
Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:46:11 +0000

I agreed that there is an optimum enrollment to take advantage of costs involved. But overenrolling isn’t a solution either.

How do your paragraphs 1,2,3 relate to the Regents changing the parameters to increase the pool of UC frosh? Do you really think the facilities and staff at the UC is underutilized, that the UC as a whole is underenrolled for them to be able to make these changes?

If there is a way for taking more students into the UC (wthout regard to increasing non-residents which I don’t see as helping the state grow economically for the most part as post degree workforce, and I don’t really see how foreign students can add to the u’s or the system’s coiffers other than a wash of tuitions ~ equaling costs), how would you justify the increasing tutitions for a state university based on the lack of state revenues to even maintain enrollments, much less increase them? I don’t see your having addressed this part yet at least.

What happens if no one whats to attend UC Merced? Then what? Do we use it as a very expensive two-year transfer institution?

Generally, I think instate fees for undergrads should be kept at a minimum. I don’t even see UCLA or Cal as being able to compete by charging 250% more, essentially privatizing, without reducing enrollment significantly. If they both privatize, then they have to become more like private inst wrt size.