Good. State universities are perversely incentivized to prefer higher paying students from out-of-state and international.
University of Washington, the state's top school, is now 1/3 non-state residents. It's a serious problem.
University of Washington, the state's top school, is now 1/3 non-state residents. It's a serious problem.
Out of state students pay about $50k/yr to attend a UC. In-state students pay about $12K, and the UC spends a bit over $30k per student. That means that each out-of-state student provides enough revenue to pay for an additional in-state student!
Absent additional state funding (lol), an enrollment cap would necessarily result in tuition increases. I really really hope it doesn't get passed.
Or, how about the UC system reduces spending per student?
Of course, waste should still be cut if it exists. Are there any specific programs that you think should have their funding reduced?
-Cuts in administration size and salaries.
-Cuts in facility expenditures; figure out a way to do more with less.
-An increase in the number of full time faculty.
-An increase in faculty and graduate instructor compensation.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/29/campus-spends-1-million-c...
The fence... not sure if that was a judicious use of UC money.
I don't know why the "lol" is there, as the enrollment cap is a condition of additional state funding.
So we're talking a 40m/yr deficit from just 3 schools. If they were serious about funding these schools they would have done these numbers and given them a commensurate funding, but they didn't.
[0] http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-regents-expect-to...
State funding can prevent the ratio from getting too far out of whack. Which is exactly what UC is doing.
The real problem is probably exploding tuition rates. But that's another conversation entirely...
Is it that clear that they do? For out-of-state students who leave after graduating, in-state students gained a broader network contact. For those who settle in California, the economy and tax base just grew.
So yeah. There's absolutely a conflict of interests. I'm surprised this is an unpopular opinion on HN. I expected lots of upvotes. It's a well known and widely discussed issue up here in Seattle.
There is a difference between less-qualified and under-qualified. The difference between a 3.7 and 3.8 high school GPA is negligible. Top state schools are so competitive that we're splitting hairs.
Thats not true. This number is not static.
Accepting more out of staters INCREASES the total number of slots for in-staters. Because now the university has more money to increase its total size.
Out of staters are a net money gain.