<p>CA would still be left with multiples of the state schools most states have if these two are put on a different track.</p>
<p>If the choice is letting these flagship schools decline in the face of budget cuts do you really think Californians should sit back and let that happen? Something has to give and Californians seem to have a hard time getting that. They want low property tax and world class state schools, and we’re now seeing that’s not possible.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in my anecdotal experience, the upper middle class is avoiding UCs where they can. They are either paying for the privates or having their kids who could get into the top UCs take merit aid elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, letting these schools become private could help them a great deal and is something they would love. Taking less from the state has improved other ‘state’ schools dramatically. But the UC system doesn’t want to give up the jewels.</p>
<p>It’s only logical (and something I’ve recommended on cc for years). </p>
<p>Cal’s Chancellor just announced that they would accept more OOS kids next year bcos they pay higher fees. Instead of full pay, rich kids from OOS (which displace the middle classers), why not full pay rich kids from INstate? There is no difference – middle class kids will be displaced by full pay, rich kids. If that’s the case, might as well be full pay instaters. (Of course, since ~30% of Frosh matriculants are Pell Grantees, they will receive scholarships for the increased costs.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In essence, that is already happening by the Regents which continue to pump money into the other campuses at the expense of the big two. Law school in Irvine? Med school in Riverside? College campus in a cow pasture (Merced)?</p>
<p>^ blue, the regents set tuition prices. I doubt the regents will set full-freight in-state price equal to OOS full-freight tuition price. The campuses, as alleged by the Chancellor in his statements, have some autonomy in admitting more OOS students. It’ll be a quicker fix.</p>
<p>I think there is a benefit to having more geographic diversity.</p>
<p>^^Of course the Regent’s set prices, fees (and policy). But in reality, the Legislature reins supreme since they control the purse strings. The Gov is a Regent, (which I thought was the point of this thread: state policy).</p>
<p>Obviously, if the Regents disagreed with the Chancellor’s trial ballon they would tell him so. Admitting more OOS is a coward’s way (typical for the California politicos) to hide the fact that they are reducing the middle class instaters. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps a ‘nice-to-have’, but why? UCLA has never had 10% OOS and it’s never seem to hurt its “benefits”.</p>
<p>^ Chancellor is just looking at the levers he can pull to manage a difficult situation. It’s a stop-gap measure. As an upper-middle class alum of course I don’t want to see my upper middle class California native peers priced out of UC…but if UC is going to continue subsidizing the education of the third world, someone has to pay for it and I’d prefer that additional money not come out of my property taxes. I’ll make the donations where I see fit.</p>
<p>I having trouble understanding your distinction: if middle classers are to be displaced by full payors, why do you appear to prefer that those rich be OOS?</p>
<p>So many profs whine about teaching even 2 or 3 courses per semester, as if the time spent in the classroom is keeping them from solving the world’s problems (even if they are a professor of French or anthropology).</p>
<p>Private school and out-of-state costs have risen because they CAN stick it to the wealthy to pay ANY amount (is there any doubt the Ivies would be filled even if tuition was $100,000 per year?), while feeling politically correct by allowing financial aid to provide access to the downtrodden. Campbell is merely trying to transfer this model to in-state students, and if they do it right nobody will be hurt…the middle class and poor will continue to pay what they can, but the in-state rich will no longer get the bargain they’ve been getting.</p>
<p>Currently, OOS students pay higher tuition/fees, so right now having more OOS students attend boosts the revenue vs. in-state. This is something the individual campuses can control.</p>
<p>Your solution would require a change in the UC fee structure by the Regents. That may or may not occur and would take longer to implement.</p>
<p>The real question is whether the in state upper middle class would pay–kids of the rich are already at the privates. </p>
<p>I don’t think they will. They pick up the paper every morning and read about all of the deep problems. If they are not getting a deal vs. a private, I think their kids will pass on the UCs.</p>
<p>I think the Regents knows that which is why the current strategy is more OOS–or in reality–more internationals. It is internationals who seem happy to pay the $50K–Berkeley is a big name in Asia.</p>
<p>“as if the time spent in the classroom is keeping them from solving the world’s problems (even if they are a professor of French or anthropology).”</p>
<p>What’s funny about this statement is that Paul Farmer, clearly one of the leaders in the fight against global infectious disease and poverty, is a Professor of Anthropology.</p>
Keep in mind that private universities have much larger percentages of wealthy students than Berkeley does. </p>
<p>Stanford
Cost $53652
57% pay full freight
12% are Pell Grant recipients</p>
<p>Berkeley
Cost: $28312 IS, $50982 OOS
Average cost: $31486
53% of all students pay full freight
45% of in-state students pay full freight
30% are Pell Grant recipients</p>
<p>UCLA
Cost $26610 IS, $49278 OOS
Average cost $28308
53% of all students pay full freight
49% of in-state students pay full freight
34% are Pell Grant recipients </p>
<p>For reference, the majority of Pell Grant recipients make under $20K a year, and nearly all make under $30K.</p>
<p>That would be a heck of a lot of people to subsidize. With rising costs, Berkeley’s socioeconomic diversity would take a huge hit.</p>
<p>Well, that’s presuming that they can get into one of the top privates. What if they can’t? Let’s face it, for many students in California - including plenty of the rich - UC is the best school they can get into.</p>
<p>I would actually argue that the best thing to do is to reduce enrollment of all students, whether graduate or undergraduate. The truth is, Berkeley has been oversubscribed for decades. Berkeley loses money on every student that it enrolls, even OOS and grad students - or at least Berkeley so claims in its accounting statements. {If the problem is misleading accounting, then Berkeley should fix that as well.} But in any case, if it is really true that Berkeley loses money on each student, and Berkeley is faced with a budget crisis, then the answer is to simply enroll fewer students. I believe somebody once posted a planning document that indicated that Berkeley was never supposed to expand beyond 20k undergrads until a time far beyond the near future. We’re now at 25k and counting. </p>
<p>As I’ve always said, Berkeley could greatly improve its station by simply not admitting those students who are simply going to perform poorly, especially those who are likely to flunk out. By admitting those students, you’re wasting everybody’s resources, both the school’s cost of carrying those students, as well as those students’ time and money. As for how would one know which students will perform poorly, you could perform a data mining analysis upon the dataset of the performance of all past students, find the significant predictors of poor performance, and simply admit fewer future applicants that carry those predictors. (Some might argue that such a system would inevitably deny admission to some students who would have graduated, but that already happens now under the current admissions system.) </p>
<p>The other reform that Berkeley should make is to simply reduce the size of certain departments, especially those that have relatively few students. For example, I don’t know why Berkeley has a whopping 55 regular faculty members, and that doesn’t even count the visiting faculty or the emeritus faculty, when Berkeley graduates only ~75 math majors and another ~80 applied math majors per year. An even more striking example would be the German department that actually has more full-time faculty (12) than it has students graduating from the major (about 10) every year, all at a time when certain majors such as the engineering majors, business administration, and economics are all heavily oversubscribed. While I’m not advocating the abolition of entire departments, I think there are indeed plenty of slack resources that Berkeley could optimize. For example, instead of hiring more German professors when practically nobody is majoring in German, why not instead hire more business administration, engineering, or economics professors?</p>
<p>“That would be a heck of a lot of people to subsidize. With rising costs, Berkeley’s socioeconomic diversity would take a huge hit.”</p>
<p>Suppose you double the in-state and out-of-state tuition, but you also raise the financial aid for everybody who’s lower and middle class to neutralize the tuition hike…only the rich would actually be paying more to attend the school (that is, they are the only ones whose NET tuition actually rose).</p>
<p>Even if it were to hit the economic diversity hard, it’s not like those who can’t pay for Berkeley are out on the street with no hope…they simply move down the pecking order a bit and get a perfectly adequate degree from a lesser UC or San Jose State or Sacramento State, etc.</p>
<p>Also, it should come as no surprise that once the economy tanks and the whole %$?#ing state is out of money, some people’s utopian egalitarian dreams are going to have to yield to a little economic Darwinism.</p>
<p>“as if the time spent in the classroom is keeping them from solving the world’s problems (even if they are a professor of French or anthropology).”</p>
<p>What’s funny about this statement is that Paul Farmer, clearly one of the leaders in the fight against global infectious disease and poverty, is a Professor of Anthropology"</p>
<p>Ok, but you get my meaning, right? The professors at the state schools in California that would protest having to teach a little more are,(1) in 99% of the cases, way too impressed with the significance of their own research, and (2) reminiscent of the Wall Streeters who think they alone should be exempt from suffering during the economic crisis. In other words, the bubble has burst, the peasants are storming the Ivory Tower, people are tired of draining their own savings so trhat $150,000 professors can teach 1 or 2 courses per year, and the let-them-eat-cake approach isn’t going to work any more.</p>
<p>We did not live in CA, so did not have that option and my DS did not apply as an OOS student as DH had not enjoyed his undergrad years there.</p>
<p>That said, I do think many would choose CMU and lots of privates on it’s level to avoid the massive classes and bureaucracy if money was not a big issue.</p>
<p>Some yes, but not many with the stats. There just ain’t that many slots at highly selective colleges. There are plenty of rich instaters who attend a mid-tier UC who would be ecstatic to pay more to attend Cal or UCLA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, that IS the plan. The only question is whether the rich are instaters or OOS’ers.</p>
<p>If enrolling fewer students was the objective, why do the flagship schools in the UC system continue to admit so many transfer students? </p>
<p>Would the issue of attracting OOS with deeper purses and BETTER test scores not help Cal and UCLA to become more like Stanford? </p>
<p>It seems that this could offer a convenient compromise as students would not mind earning a Cal degree all the while avoiding the purgatory of “slightly” overpopulated and basic classes that represent the bane of the tenured faculty. The school, in turn, would benefit from a vast supply of students who learned what it means to attend a competitive college and had higher admission freshman credentials. </p>
<p>Of course, this would mean a departure from the mission of the UC system --or is it?</p>