After paying California state taxes for the past 37 years, you bet I want the UC system to educate Californians first.
The reason state universities exist is that state governments prefer a more educated population that will generate more economic activity, resulting in a larger economy and more state tax revenue. Of course, this is based on longer term thinking; short term budget imbalances or short term oriented politicians can cause states to defund their state universities.
@JuicyMango, the problem is “at what cost” and who benefits? As an illustration of these costs, to shut out international / out-of-state students from my state schools (VA) entirely would cost a lot - an analysis of a proposal to limit OOS students to 25% in four schools (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?131+oth+HB1605F122+PDF ) would add 7,000 in-state students – and cost $51m in support costs, and a loss of $150m in tuition.
When I last looked at it, for one of our schools, each in-state student was having their own cost of attendance reduced by about $12,000 a year by the state and increased tuition paid by out of state students.
It’s always a question of priorities - my state has a goal of cost-sharing higher-ed; 67% of the cost born by the state, 33% by the student - this seems equitable. Of course, the surge in tuition costs in recent years, running at about 5%/year, has eroded that, with the share now being closer to 50-50.
So, if the state were to pick up 100% of the costs, and deny all out-of-state students admission, this would cost billions a year in lost revenue and direct expenditures.
And who would benefit?
A very small percentage of the population - college-age and college-ready students. And do we imagine that there are no other needs in our society where that money could be spent? Are all the hungry fed? All the homeless housed? All those that need medical care cared for? All the unemployed re-trained? All the roads and railroads built? And what of those who just don’t want to attend, or can’t get into those colleges? Why don’t they deserve those tens of thousands of dollars of benefits from the state?
I think colleges should partition its applicants equally - 33 percent in-state, 33 percent out-of-state, and 33 percent internationals.
It was four years ago, but I know a kid – one of my son’s closest friends – who was a NMF, and did NOT get in to Cal. He would have been the fourth generation in his family to attend. It was his first choice. Personally, I want my taxes to allow that type of student accommodated first, before the OOS/international students.
Actually, I think international students should pay much more than domestic students. In fact, if you think about it, why should a student from India or Austria or Japan get to pay the same for tuition at UVa as an out of state American from lets say New York, CT or CA? Actually, as there are many foreigner rich kids applying to the top public universities, an equitable notion would be for the tuition tiers to be $X for instate… 2X for out of state and 4X for international students. If they really want to come, let them pay for it and I do not think you would have that much of an impact on the actual numbers of international rich kids applying. Of course private universities are a different matter, they are not supported by tax dollars.
@Regulus7 some universities are doing that, more or less.
@OHMomof2 That is interesting. But a $125 per semester or even $1,000 add-on fee is peanuts. They should raise price to a clearing level. Certainly a top public university like UC Berkeley or UVa could charge $100k per year and they would still fill up their quota of international students - even more I bet those students would be just as high caliber and qualified as the current crop. The net benefit would be that they could then accept more US instate or out of state students or just make more $ in general. If the market will pay it, then they should take advantage of it. Moreover, there is no risk of political backlash.
The US is expected to spend $763 Billion dollars next year on its military.That is about $500 Billion more than second place China and far more than Russia. We spend $50 Billion a year on Foreign Aid. Our military spending makes up almost 40% of all military spending in the World. Despite all this, we are the only country in North or South America that has been attacked by terrorists. Perhaps if we cut those budgets in half we could still maintain a superpower military yet decrease the cost of education. I know that some people are going to mention what happened in Paris, but think about it, could our military prevent an attack where 5 guys get some guns and start shooting up our cities? Taxing the 1% out of existence will not solve anything. If college is to be free, it should only be for certain majors and only for enough units to get one degree, any courses that need to be repeated are not covered.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
^^Oops, wrong thread
California would have more money if they were not educating an estimated 725,000 illegals in K012 schools. At $8867/pupil direct expenditure, plus a guesstimate of $5000/pupil for capital expenditures, you are looking at $10 billion per year. California’s current support of the UC’s (13-14) is $2.6 billion. This is a crisis the California brought on itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Colombia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path
Also, much of the terrorism in the US (like in other countries) is internal conflict that is not really affected by foreign policy (e.g. KKK, McVeigh, Kaczynski).
@Squiddy: Very solid points made, bravo, you seem very knowledgeable about this topic. I think my previous statement was misinterpreted. I would love if the government could spend more money on public colleges, up to a point. As you said, the current situation (at least in your state) is a 50-50 pay between the government and the student. I disagree with this share of cost, but that doesn’t mean that I want the government to pay 100% of the tuition. It would (in your words) cost billions a year in lost revenue and direct expenditures.
And again, as you’ve already eloquently explained, a 67-33 share of cost (with government paying 67%) seems much more equitable. A lot of people agree that this is the more fair option when compared to the 100-0 gov. pay-all scenario.
I think international students are a great asset to school financially, but we want to limit the amount of international students because then the colleges in their home countries end up being neglected. Who is going to attend there?
I don’t see any reason for foreign kids having to pay more than domestic OOS students?
The US funds the schools through tax breaks. Taxpayers foot the bill. They should get the lower tuition if any.
I suppose if you believe access to US colleges should be limited to the sons of Qatari sheiks, Russian oligarchs, and other members of the global 2-3%, raising international tuition fourfold isn’t a problem.
If you believe (as I do) that many of the world’s best and brightest would be glad to attend US colleges, and it’s a bad thing for our society when the cost of doing so makes that an impossibility, it is something of a problem.
@Regulus7 's kids from NY, CT, or CA haven’t paid a cent more in taxes to fund UVA than international students. I’m not sure why the international kids should be charged exorbitant fees (more exorbitant fees than the going rate for a college education, anyway) while OOS students continue to pay normal OOS tuition.
Considering it is unlikely that any of these international students will get visas to remain in the US and use their degrees to contribute to the US economy, it is hard to understand the long term benefit of giving away 33% of seats at Berkeley or other elite public institutions that have more US students than they can accommodate. Maybe 20% makes sense in that colleges needs some international students (and out of state) to be of the global world and not just the local school and there are students who are just too good to turn down (and no, I don’t mean 2400 SAT due to coaching).
Would US students pay more to attend a prestigious institution that they cannot get into now ? I don’t know. I think UCs get a pretty poor yield even at UCB and UCLA of OOS students, so maybe 60K is a hard limit on what people will pay for a flagship public with high student to faculty ratios and less support services than cushy privates. But say the GaTech type schools in the mid-40s, they are bargains at OOS rates …
Private schools are really welcome to price their product and provide financial and merit aid as they please, to craft the type of student body they want. If their efforts are successful, the rest of the student body will come and pay full fare happily.
While I do not agree with the extravagant claims of taxpayer subsidies of say Harvard, the US absolutely does subsidize schools in all 50 states through research and funded programs, as well as federal financial aid programs that cut “need” down by 5,10 maybe more Ks. Since foreign countries subsidize their own universities, their students, unless they are truly elite, should take advantage of those opportunities or well … pay up.
Actually in the 2012-2013 most recent budget, approximately 32% of revenues were tuition and fees, 23% was research grants (FEDERAL - hence supported by ALL US TAXPAYERS) and only 10.2% from the State of Va. So Va residents are not really paying that much to support their flagship university versus all other sources of income. Foreign residents however, apart from Tuition… do not pay a cent. Not for UVa nor for any other school in the USA because they do not pay taxes. As a taxpayer I certainly feel that I am MORE ENTITLED than a foreigner to get a cost reduction in paying for OOS tuition. Afterall, foreigners do not have to sign up for selective service either… oh but @NotVerySmart wants to give the foreigners all the same benefits as all Americans…
If there are some exceptional foreign students who are very bright and merit full scholarship awards I would be happy to see some of our best public universities capture their fair share via merit aid… but for the vast majority of very rich foreigners, I think they should pay substantially more than taxpaying citizens who just happen to live in a different state. In this regard for the best public universities a fee discount seems like a fair deal for OOS students…
UVa revenues/expense data is here: http://www.virginia.edu/finance101/answers.html
My personal belief is that admitting foreign students isn’t the issue; the fact that they can’t remain in the US upon graduation is the issue. It baffles me that, with 3 million STEM positions expected to go unfilled by 2020, we have such an approach to international students (who are more likely to earn STEM degrees than US students).
It apparently baffles much of our Congress as well; this was one of the driving forces behind the Senate’s 2013 effort at immigration reform, though the final bill couldn’t win passage, as many Republican legislators were concerned about being primaried if they voted for it.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:@@@L&summ2=m&
In legalese, the bill’s effect on foreign students at US universities is to exempt holders of STEM degrees awarded by US colleges from the habitual caps on green cards, addressing the above problem.
However, that research spending isn’t going to be affected by the presence or absence of international students. If anything, we get more out of it if the students carrying out the research are more competent (which they tend to be - there are few who would claim that international applicants have an easier time gaining acceptance to major research universities).
As for federal financial aid programs, US residents may pay for those, but they’re the ones receiving all the benefits.
Exceptional foreign students are certainly an important contributor to American ingenuity and a boon to our economic well being. However, as a nation of immigrants we have done quite well historically by taking in among the poorest and least skilled of the world’s people who’s sons and daughters grow up to become great Americans. International students in STEM are a talking point today and over the past decade as the world economy has become increasingly digitized and information driven. However, looking at the great achievements in science and technology over the past century there are very few foreign born students who just merely came to the USA for higher education and stayed on to pass along to create great things. And those that have done so - take for instance Elon Musk - came from very privileged families who could have easily paid 2x to attend Upenn. So overall, while its true the USA has a deficit of STEM graduates, so too post the rocket-age and NASA greatness of the 1960s the USA had a glut of over educated PhD and chemists too, who could not find jobs. The rest of the world is so busy focusing on STEM that today getting a job in CS or EE is not really that much more of a ‘sure thing’ than having an art history degree…
However what is not in dispute is that foreign students are crowding out American students at many of the top universities in this country. This is not to say we should not allow in foreigners, but for those that can pay, they certainly should be expected to pay more than Americans who just happen to be from out of state… This debate is likely to become more pronounced as America becomes more xenophobic and isolationist…